If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 7/18/13 at 4:37am UTC, wrote Dear Adel Maybe my views and you about this contest also very different . ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Thomas Ray**: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...."
*in* 2015 in Review: New...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..."
*in* Physics of the Observer -...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..."
*in* Physics of the Observer -...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Thomas Ray**: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..."
*in* “Spookiness”...

**Thomas Ray**: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..."
*in* “Spookiness”...

**Joe Fisher**: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..."
*in* Inferring the Limits on...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Complexity Conundrum**

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

**Quantum Dream Time**

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

**Our Place in the Multiverse**

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

**Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena**

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

**Watching the Observers**

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

FQXi FORUM

February 22, 2018

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: Fundamental Theory of Reality, “Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally” by adel hassan sadeq [refresh]

TOPIC: Fundamental Theory of Reality, “Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally” by adel hassan sadeq [refresh]

In This essay I shall derive the laws of nature from a simple mathematical system. The system is derived from the postulate that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure which leads to a simple system that can be simulated to generate many results. The postulate lead to assume particles as made of lines were one end originates in a small region and it extends to all other point in space. The start point and the end point of these lines define space and the length of the line is interpreted as energy, time is just a change of state. So the system unifies space, time matter, energy all in one coherent picture, all emergent from random points and their relations. The simulations generate some basic Quantum Mechanics results and the 1/r law as in quantum field Theory. There are many other results such as the hydrogen 1s level where the universal constants like c, h, e and their relation that lead to Fine Structure constant automatically fall out of the simulation. Two such simulations are carried out; one is Bohr like model and the other Schrodinger like equations solution and show the equivalency. Also, the mass of the electron appear naturally using a simulation which is an extension of the Bohr model. The system automatically displays the non-local behavior and explains the EPR in simple terms and shows the origin of spin(tentative) . Many interesting formulas connecting electron mass, FSC and electron g-factor is produced. While it is shown that coulomb potential is produced by line crossing, Gravity appears(tentative) when lines meet at a region of Planck's length.

Degrees: · · B.S. E.E. university of Wyoming 1979 · · MPHIL E.E. University of Sussex 1987

Dear adel

Currently, Gravity is a concept caused much controversy, as "Fundamental Theory of Reality" of you - Gravity - What is it? how specifically defined ?

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate...

view entire post

Currently, Gravity is a concept caused much controversy, as "Fundamental Theory of Reality" of you - Gravity - What is it? how specifically defined ?

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hoang,

I agree with certain statements you make and disagree with others(If I understand you correctly). It is in both standard theory and my theory that particles change status by exchange of momentum,of course, my theory has a more fundamental picture.

The general picture is that "messages" exchanged will alter the status of both the sender and the receiver depending on...

view entire post

I agree with certain statements you make and disagree with others(If I understand you correctly). It is in both standard theory and my theory that particles change status by exchange of momentum,of course, my theory has a more fundamental picture.

The general picture is that "messages" exchanged will alter the status of both the sender and the receiver depending on...

view entire post

Dear Adel,

Thank you presenting a nice essay. Your postulate that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure is very good.

So you think some real Matter can be created mathematically from nothing?

And...

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I...

view entire post

Thank you presenting a nice essay. Your postulate that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure is very good.

So you think some real Matter can be created mathematically from nothing?

And...

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Gupta,

you say

"So you think some real Matter can be created mathematically from nothing?"

First, What I am saying is that matter, space,time and energy are all aspects of a mathematical structure, that is all. They were not created from nothing, I repeat they ARE aspects of a mathematical structure. This structure exists just like a circle or a triangle. As an analogy(don't take it seriously) we could say the circumference is energy, the area is matter(mass) and the distance between the points is space.

Second, I not only think this is the situation, but proved it by simulating the idea and showed that it leads to known results in physics.

Third, One of the main results of QM discovered about 100 years ago is that when we try to understand what MATTER actually is, we find that it constituents like electrons and protons and photons don't act in any way near the classical objects , they have a weird duality. So Matter itself is made of objects that behave in such a manner that throws the concept of classical objects out of the window. That is why more and more people started advocating the mathematical or the "BIT" as the basis. But each trying to prove that using different technique, hence the contest.

As to your essay, I can only sat that I agree with the response of Tejinder in your thread. But good Luck.

Adel

you say

"So you think some real Matter can be created mathematically from nothing?"

First, What I am saying is that matter, space,time and energy are all aspects of a mathematical structure, that is all. They were not created from nothing, I repeat they ARE aspects of a mathematical structure. This structure exists just like a circle or a triangle. As an analogy(don't take it seriously) we could say the circumference is energy, the area is matter(mass) and the distance between the points is space.

Second, I not only think this is the situation, but proved it by simulating the idea and showed that it leads to known results in physics.

Third, One of the main results of QM discovered about 100 years ago is that when we try to understand what MATTER actually is, we find that it constituents like electrons and protons and photons don't act in any way near the classical objects , they have a weird duality. So Matter itself is made of objects that behave in such a manner that throws the concept of classical objects out of the window. That is why more and more people started advocating the mathematical or the "BIT" as the basis. But each trying to prove that using different technique, hence the contest.

As to your essay, I can only sat that I agree with the response of Tejinder in your thread. But good Luck.

Adel

Dear Adel,

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. You also did not inform me.

If you are having any doubts in my calculations or my essay, we can discuss. No problem.

Still,

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

report post as inappropriate

I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. You also did not inform me.

If you are having any doubts in my calculations or my essay, we can discuss. No problem.

Still,

I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

report post as inappropriate

Please note the following points

1. the website is at http://www.qsa.netne.net

2. The code is explained in section 3

3. You can run and modify the programs which are listed in section 11, more will be added later.

4.see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

Adel

1. the website is at http://www.qsa.netne.net

2. The code is explained in section 3

3. You can run and modify the programs which are listed in section 11, more will be added later.

4.see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

Adel

I have always liked the MUH and my own version of it the "Theory of Theories" so I find this essay spot-on. The idea of trying to create physics with a computer from maths principles is great but it is never going to be easy to get really convincing results.

I think you should build on your work so far by trying to get more detail and see if you can get even better numbers. It would be nice if you could use complex numbers as in quantum mechanics or show why complex numbers are already built in.

good luck

report post as inappropriate

I think you should build on your work so far by trying to get more detail and see if you can get even better numbers. It would be nice if you could use complex numbers as in quantum mechanics or show why complex numbers are already built in.

good luck

report post as inappropriate

Thanks philip, I have rated your essay fairly high. I will reply in detail after I have prepare some material to show more convincing simulations plus the link to your theory using the concepts of random matrices, random walks on necklace and such. As a matter of fact I think I am grabbing the first thread of string theory in my system by comparing it to yours. More later, and thanks again.

P.S. I still hope you look at those programs IF you get the time.

P.S. I still hope you look at those programs IF you get the time.

Hello Adel,

Neat idea! Says mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev: "Mathematics closes physics as physics chemistry has closed." Excellent conclusion: «You can do the usual tricks of differential equations and other mathematical techniques (coupled with experiment) to represent how reality behaves, but they cannot show the origin ...» ... »There is no ambiguity in this system; reality is just a mathematical structure which does not need an explanation as to its origin. Mathematics is just is. ». Only one "but": mathematics itself must have an ontological foundation. See my essay, we are close to you in spirit ...

With best regards, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Neat idea! Says mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev: "Mathematics closes physics as physics chemistry has closed." Excellent conclusion: «You can do the usual tricks of differential equations and other mathematical techniques (coupled with experiment) to represent how reality behaves, but they cannot show the origin ...» ... »There is no ambiguity in this system; reality is just a mathematical structure which does not need an explanation as to its origin. Mathematics is just is. ». Only one "but": mathematics itself must have an ontological foundation. See my essay, we are close to you in spirit ...

With best regards, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hello Adel,

Neat idea! Says mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev: "Mathematics closes physics as physics chemistry has closed." Excellent conclusion: «You can do the usual tricks of differential equations and other mathematical techniques (coupled with experiment) to represent how reality behaves, but they cannot show the origin ...» ... »There is no ambiguity in this system; reality is just a mathematical structure which does not need an explanation as to its origin. Mathematics is just is. ». Only one "but": mathematics itself must have an ontological foundation. See my essay, we are close to you in spirit ...

With best regards, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Neat idea! Says mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev: "Mathematics closes physics as physics chemistry has closed." Excellent conclusion: «You can do the usual tricks of differential equations and other mathematical techniques (coupled with experiment) to represent how reality behaves, but they cannot show the origin ...» ... »There is no ambiguity in this system; reality is just a mathematical structure which does not need an explanation as to its origin. Mathematics is just is. ». Only one "but": mathematics itself must have an ontological foundation. See my essay, we are close to you in spirit ...

With best regards, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my essay, I have left you a comment in your thread. As to Mathematics, the philosophers of the field have debated the issue of the foundation of math for a very long time. One of the main philosophers Putnam concluded that mathematics does not have foundation and does not need one. I think many modern ones are of the same mind. But ok, we can debate to all eternity as to what is math, but at least OUR reality is much better understood.

Adel

Thanks for reading my essay, I have left you a comment in your thread. As to Mathematics, the philosophers of the field have debated the issue of the foundation of math for a very long time. One of the main philosophers Putnam concluded that mathematics does not have foundation and does not need one. I think many modern ones are of the same mind. But ok, we can debate to all eternity as to what is math, but at least OUR reality is much better understood.

Adel

Hi Adel,

Thank you for your comment on my forum! I wrote a response to your comment ...

Refusing to address the foundations of mathematics - that means abandon the search for truth. Since then how "mathematics close physics" (mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev)?. You just have to go to the origin of geometry (see Edmund Husserl "Origin of Geometry"). We must look for the initial structure ("structure-mother" when it comes to the spirit N.Burbaki.) Such a structure, which Umberto Eco described as "missing." But it is there, it is present in front of our eyes! You just need to see it ... Otherwise there would be a nice sustainable peace, which we observe. A world that gives rise to all the time and gives birth to new - new information ... I hope for your righteous rating.

With best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comment on my forum! I wrote a response to your comment ...

Refusing to address the foundations of mathematics - that means abandon the search for truth. Since then how "mathematics close physics" (mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev)?. You just have to go to the origin of geometry (see Edmund Husserl "Origin of Geometry"). We must look for the initial structure ("structure-mother" when it comes to the spirit N.Burbaki.) Such a structure, which Umberto Eco described as "missing." But it is there, it is present in front of our eyes! You just need to see it ... Otherwise there would be a nice sustainable peace, which we observe. A world that gives rise to all the time and gives birth to new - new information ... I hope for your righteous rating.

With best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vladimir,

I will comment about your theory in your thread. But From my point of view there is not much to elaborate about mathematics. Even if we find out what mathematics is or its nature that will not do anything to the physics, if my theory is correct.

So from my theory, physics is just a result of a particular mathematical structure which implies that mathematics is platonic. In another word math has the proof of the existence of reality and reality is the proof of the platonic existence of math. Now that is profound.

Adel

I will comment about your theory in your thread. But From my point of view there is not much to elaborate about mathematics. Even if we find out what mathematics is or its nature that will not do anything to the physics, if my theory is correct.

So from my theory, physics is just a result of a particular mathematical structure which implies that mathematics is platonic. In another word math has the proof of the existence of reality and reality is the proof of the platonic existence of math. Now that is profound.

Adel

Many thanks for your comments , Adel

You're right "nothing is standing still to be absolute." but perhaps the wording in the English language of me did for you do not understand the problem that i want to address .

That is: with all of every activities is also always only one the absolute nature and it does not depend on any observation or evaluation of any position or the personal views.

For example, if I have $ 1 million, the absolute essence of what that means: I have 1 million dollars, I have more money than you, and less than Bill Gates - regardless of the time of previous or later - so why can it be considered a relative?

Hope so to be more discussion with you.

report post as inappropriate

You're right "nothing is standing still to be absolute." but perhaps the wording in the English language of me did for you do not understand the problem that i want to address .

That is: with all of every activities is also always only one the absolute nature and it does not depend on any observation or evaluation of any position or the personal views.

For example, if I have $ 1 million, the absolute essence of what that means: I have 1 million dollars, I have more money than you, and less than Bill Gates - regardless of the time of previous or later - so why can it be considered a relative?

Hope so to be more discussion with you.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Hoang,

I don't know what is the the level of your education, but in university and beyond we learn to only understand words in the context of the problem at hand. the words themselves don't have absolute meaning, it depends how you use them. And in science we use language just like other cultures, they have their own way of saying things and people usually engaged in science sort of know how to decode others words. It is like if you joke in your home country and gets translated it might actually sound dumb to me.

Also, that is why we hold mathematics in high regards, we don't use words so much just symbols and people allover the world can understand it (what we actually mean by them). On the other hand you see in philosophy people use very heavy loaded words trying to be concise in the thought transmission because of the requirement of clear arguments and it is very hard to do with ordinary words. But for someone who has no experience in philosophy it does sound "GREEK".

In short, it is the content of the subject and how we understand that is important in science.However you want to say it the content is important. So don't get hung up on words and look to the content.

Adel

I don't know what is the the level of your education, but in university and beyond we learn to only understand words in the context of the problem at hand. the words themselves don't have absolute meaning, it depends how you use them. And in science we use language just like other cultures, they have their own way of saying things and people usually engaged in science sort of know how to decode others words. It is like if you joke in your home country and gets translated it might actually sound dumb to me.

Also, that is why we hold mathematics in high regards, we don't use words so much just symbols and people allover the world can understand it (what we actually mean by them). On the other hand you see in philosophy people use very heavy loaded words trying to be concise in the thought transmission because of the requirement of clear arguments and it is very hard to do with ordinary words. But for someone who has no experience in philosophy it does sound "GREEK".

In short, it is the content of the subject and how we understand that is important in science.However you want to say it the content is important. So don't get hung up on words and look to the content.

Adel

Dear Adel,

I read both your paper, went to your website and also downloaded the program. Unfortunately I only have very rudimentary programming skills but this could be an opportunity to brush them up a bit. I have some comments and questions

1. The best I can tell, it seems that your framework is based on probability whereas the wave function is considered a probability amplitude....

view entire post

I read both your paper, went to your website and also downloaded the program. Unfortunately I only have very rudimentary programming skills but this could be an opportunity to brush them up a bit. I have some comments and questions

1. The best I can tell, it seems that your framework is based on probability whereas the wave function is considered a probability amplitude....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel

It is true that I am very different from you about "education" - I am a "self-learning" and "self-assessment" - perhaps that makes us have the "way of seeing to every things" is also different.

So we only have concrete answers from the fact that only.

report post as inappropriate

It is true that I am very different from you about "education" - I am a "self-learning" and "self-assessment" - perhaps that makes us have the "way of seeing to every things" is also different.

So we only have concrete answers from the fact that only.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Hoang,

All the people who submitted their essays are the kind of people who like to think " out of the box", naturally some will be more successful than others. Also, I think you have the wrong impression about higher education. I think in all fields and especially in science and particularly engineering(which is my field) we're always taught to think for ourselves and when we go to do Masters or PHD you are on your own basically, so you have to be innovative and original. Again, some will be very good and some will be less.

Being innovative is synonymous with engineering, it is what the field is about. All the good things you see in life in modern age is done by such people.

Sure standard scientific methods work and work well, that's what brought about modern life(you can also make good amount of money using such methods,tried and true as they say). But there is room for more adventurous people especially when they are equipped properly.

It is good that you want to know, but also it is not enough just to believe in something strongly ,you have to have the way to convince people. Either by arguments or math or whatever that makes sense to as much people as possible. My theory "reality is nothing but ...." may be correct 1000% but if I said that and stopped , what good is that statement? You do seem to have good ideas but your language and the way your framing them is making it hard for you to get them across.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

Adel

All the people who submitted their essays are the kind of people who like to think " out of the box", naturally some will be more successful than others. Also, I think you have the wrong impression about higher education. I think in all fields and especially in science and particularly engineering(which is my field) we're always taught to think for ourselves and when we go to do Masters or PHD you are on your own basically, so you have to be innovative and original. Again, some will be very good and some will be less.

Being innovative is synonymous with engineering, it is what the field is about. All the good things you see in life in modern age is done by such people.

Sure standard scientific methods work and work well, that's what brought about modern life(you can also make good amount of money using such methods,tried and true as they say). But there is room for more adventurous people especially when they are equipped properly.

It is good that you want to know, but also it is not enough just to believe in something strongly ,you have to have the way to convince people. Either by arguments or math or whatever that makes sense to as much people as possible. My theory "reality is nothing but ...." may be correct 1000% but if I said that and stopped , what good is that statement? You do seem to have good ideas but your language and the way your framing them is making it hard for you to get them across.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.

Adel

Dear Adel,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sreenath,

I have already read a lot of the posts in your thread, I will read your essay more thoroughly and comment shortly. Thanks

Adel

I have already read a lot of the posts in your thread, I will read your essay more thoroughly and comment shortly. Thanks

Adel

Dear Adel,

I read your intriguing essay with care and appreciate your attempt to derive the whole of physics from computer based simulation of simple geometric figures and this reflects originality of your thought and its application. I am also interested in knowing how far you succeed in your endeavor you have set forth yourself. But, however, I have some comments to make and would be glad...

view entire post

I read your intriguing essay with care and appreciate your attempt to derive the whole of physics from computer based simulation of simple geometric figures and this reflects originality of your thought and its application. I am also interested in knowing how far you succeed in your endeavor you have set forth yourself. But, however, I have some comments to make and would be glad...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sreenath,

Thank you for reading the essay in a thoughtful manner. Sorry for the late reply, I was busy converting more C++ programs to JavaScript so that you and others can run it and see (also modify) the code and have a much better understanding. Since my system does not have equations as such or philosophical arguments, so the best way to learn it is by running the...

view entire post

Thank you for reading the essay in a thoughtful manner. Sorry for the late reply, I was busy converting more C++ programs to JavaScript so that you and others can run it and see (also modify) the code and have a much better understanding. Since my system does not have equations as such or philosophical arguments, so the best way to learn it is by running the...

view entire post

Dear Adel,

an interesting article and I rated good, although no all is clear. I am trying to understand it and I need some extra information before I'll be able a deep opinion.

You say :

1. Limit li maximum length to L, and

A. Put a constraint so that li does not go out of l on either side.

B. Let li cross the line on either side.

2. Let li go to any distance outside of the line.

What is the difference between 1B and 2?

What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?

report post as inappropriate

an interesting article and I rated good, although no all is clear. I am trying to understand it and I need some extra information before I'll be able a deep opinion.

You say :

1. Limit li maximum length to L, and

A. Put a constraint so that li does not go out of l on either side.

B. Let li cross the line on either side.

2. Let li go to any distance outside of the line.

What is the difference between 1B and 2?

What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sergio,

Thank you for coming back, and the good rating.

"What is the difference between 1B and 2?"

Maybe I was not clear enough, in case 1B the random lines li are constrained by the length L of the main line, so they can go outside but not far. In the case of 2 the lines can go to the other particles which are even at the end of the universe.

So the theory inherently is an "action at distance",but that does not happen by choice for me it is automatic in the system. I only do what is possible on the line. That is why I have mentioned that EPR paradox is trivial in my theory, which does reproduce a lot of QM. Moreover, the system also respects causality just like in standard physics. I will elaborate more once the system becomes more familiar to you and others.

Also, if you noticed I have not mentioned what happens in case of 1B, I am working on the interpretation of the results by doing a lot of simulations. Maybe you can discover it! the program is very easy to run. Tomorrow I will be adding more programs in my website, I will post the details.

"What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?"

Please for this question refer to fig.6 in section 3 in the essay and detailed program description in my website also in section 3. d0 and d1 are basically the representation of the two interacting particles. Their length is really nothing but the Compton wavelength (= h_bar/mc, since h_bar=c like in natural units, the Compton wavelength for electron= 1/m=1/.0005465799=1822.8885 in u units approximately). I will talk more in detail later in my upcoming reply to Armin Shirazi)

http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

I will be happy to answer more questions.Thanks again

Adel

Thank you for coming back, and the good rating.

"What is the difference between 1B and 2?"

Maybe I was not clear enough, in case 1B the random lines li are constrained by the length L of the main line, so they can go outside but not far. In the case of 2 the lines can go to the other particles which are even at the end of the universe.

So the theory inherently is an "action at distance",but that does not happen by choice for me it is automatic in the system. I only do what is possible on the line. That is why I have mentioned that EPR paradox is trivial in my theory, which does reproduce a lot of QM. Moreover, the system also respects causality just like in standard physics. I will elaborate more once the system becomes more familiar to you and others.

Also, if you noticed I have not mentioned what happens in case of 1B, I am working on the interpretation of the results by doing a lot of simulations. Maybe you can discover it! the program is very easy to run. Tomorrow I will be adding more programs in my website, I will post the details.

"What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?"

Please for this question refer to fig.6 in section 3 in the essay and detailed program description in my website also in section 3. d0 and d1 are basically the representation of the two interacting particles. Their length is really nothing but the Compton wavelength (= h_bar/mc, since h_bar=c like in natural units, the Compton wavelength for electron= 1/m=1/.0005465799=1822.8885 in u units approximately). I will talk more in detail later in my upcoming reply to Armin Shirazi)

http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

I will be happy to answer more questions.Thanks again

Adel

Dear Adel,

I too have rated your essay more favorably for its originality in its approach and wishing you best of luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I too have rated your essay more favorably for its originality in its approach and wishing you best of luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel

Maybe my views and you about this contest also very different .

As I understand : this is a forum of theoretical science - which means: the place to discuss about any issue still not yet unclear of humanity, even with the great man or the outstanding genius - and of course be it is located outside the limits of the kind of "education", so will not care at all about the kind of educational qualifications, more precisely it be have not worth anything at here .

So would be to known as self-respect than when that we do not mention the type as "..." and of course should not ask other people as "..." and also do not taught to who is "...".

Because if based on such things - as the type of degree or educational qualification - to be would solve the question is posed, then make sure you also are "not old enough" to join , because even your teacher is also not yet in turn.

My specialisation also is technical, and I also learned to higher of university degree - the Russian system - My specialized is testing of quality and standards for the measurement device.

Thank for your comments about the English language and presentation - even though I also knew that.

And as incidentally : the calculation on the essay you are related to gravity, so please be said that : do you understand how gravity ? do you define what is gravity? How does it interactions? why is it such interactions?

Because if you can not do that, then your calculations will not have any value.

I enjoyed the discussions like this. Thank you again and good luck .

Hải.Caohoàng

post approved

Maybe my views and you about this contest also very different .

As I understand : this is a forum of theoretical science - which means: the place to discuss about any issue still not yet unclear of humanity, even with the great man or the outstanding genius - and of course be it is located outside the limits of the kind of "education", so will not care at all about the kind of educational qualifications, more precisely it be have not worth anything at here .

So would be to known as self-respect than when that we do not mention the type as "..." and of course should not ask other people as "..." and also do not taught to who is "...".

Because if based on such things - as the type of degree or educational qualification - to be would solve the question is posed, then make sure you also are "not old enough" to join , because even your teacher is also not yet in turn.

My specialisation also is technical, and I also learned to higher of university degree - the Russian system - My specialized is testing of quality and standards for the measurement device.

Thank for your comments about the English language and presentation - even though I also knew that.

And as incidentally : the calculation on the essay you are related to gravity, so please be said that : do you understand how gravity ? do you define what is gravity? How does it interactions? why is it such interactions?

Because if you can not do that, then your calculations will not have any value.

I enjoyed the discussions like this. Thank you again and good luck .

Hải.Caohoàng

post approved

Dear Adel

Maybe my views and you about this contest also very different .

As I understand : this is a forum of theoretical science - which means: the place to discuss about any issue still not yet unclear of humanity, even with the great man or the outstanding genius - and of course be it is located outside the limits of the kind of "education", so will not care at all about the kind...

view entire post

Maybe my views and you about this contest also very different .

As I understand : this is a forum of theoretical science - which means: the place to discuss about any issue still not yet unclear of humanity, even with the great man or the outstanding genius - and of course be it is located outside the limits of the kind of "education", so will not care at all about the kind...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Hoang,

First I want to apologize if I had offended you in any way. I certainly did not mean any disrespect. There is nothing personal between us and you have not insulted me, so I have no reason to insult you. I think you misunderstood my statements. I just meant when we learn complicated subjects in higher education we do have to say things properly to express the problems in...

view entire post

First I want to apologize if I had offended you in any way. I certainly did not mean any disrespect. There is nothing personal between us and you have not insulted me, so I have no reason to insult you. I think you misunderstood my statements. I just meant when we learn complicated subjects in higher education we do have to say things properly to express the problems in...

view entire post

Dear Adel

How about variation of mass proton and electron?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v3.pdf

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

How about variation of mass proton and electron?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v3.pdf

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

I just read your essay. Your essay contains a lot of material for fruitful research and I commend you on this.

We also have like mind because you say that, "...if nature has something to do with mathematics,then why not start with these basic concepts...". If you have not read my essay, please read and rate if you think we both share this idea.

Then on the issue of two particles interacting, e.g. a positive and negative charged body or between earth and moon, how is this interaction conducted?

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I just read your essay. Your essay contains a lot of material for fruitful research and I commend you on this.

We also have like mind because you say that, "...if nature has something to do with mathematics,then why not start with these basic concepts...". If you have not read my essay, please read and rate if you think we both share this idea.

Then on the issue of two particles interacting, e.g. a positive and negative charged body or between earth and moon, how is this interaction conducted?

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for reading my essay. While it is hard to tell what you precisely have in mind( I have read yours many times), there seems to be some similarity between our theories in a specific area which is particle propagation. My theory follows standard QM which does not have easy interpretation in that regard. However, I am researching this issue in my system which...

view entire post

Thank you for reading my essay. While it is hard to tell what you precisely have in mind( I have read yours many times), there seems to be some similarity between our theories in a specific area which is particle propagation. My theory follows standard QM which does not have easy interpretation in that regard. However, I am researching this issue in my system which...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

Thanks for your comments on my blog and the referral to Feynman's checkerboard model which I just googled. It appears to be a way to quantize spacetime. From what I read on Wikipedia I even wonder whether points and monads are antiparticle of each other moving backwards or forwards in time.

Then I think your idea that charge is derived from interaction and not the other way round is fundamental! That suggests that charge is a derived/acquired property and not a fundamental one.

I will be re-reading your essay as I am curious whether I can guess your thinking on Lp.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comments on my blog and the referral to Feynman's checkerboard model which I just googled. It appears to be a way to quantize spacetime. From what I read on Wikipedia I even wonder whether points and monads are antiparticle of each other moving backwards or forwards in time.

Then I think your idea that charge is derived from interaction and not the other way round is fundamental! That suggests that charge is a derived/acquired property and not a fundamental one.

I will be re-reading your essay as I am curious whether I can guess your thinking on Lp.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Adel,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your perspicacious essay. If you really were uncertain what reality was, why did you not consult a knowledgeable realist such as myself?

As I have explained in my essay BITTERS, reality is unique, once.

You might also have Wheeler methodology the question.

Is reality simple? Yes?

Is reality akin to a circle? No

Is unique, once simple? Yes

Is true mathematical structure simple? No

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

report post as inappropriate

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your perspicacious essay. If you really were uncertain what reality was, why did you not consult a knowledgeable realist such as myself?

As I have explained in my essay BITTERS, reality is unique, once.

You might also have Wheeler methodology the question.

Is reality simple? Yes?

Is reality akin to a circle? No

Is unique, once simple? Yes

Is true mathematical structure simple? No

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joe,

To tell you the truth I came up with this theory only by chance(luck), so I don't know about "perspicacious". However my many years of solving tough problems in engineering, computer and business does help to sharpen ones problem solving ability.

In some sense my theory does say that reality is only once, because it is a mathematical structure. It is not useful to enumerate all triangles(their leg lengths). It suffice to say there is such a thing as a triangle.

Also, If you are implying there is no multi-verse, my theory tends to support your position. However, it is too early to be sure.

I gave you good grade for your spirit of discovery.

Adel

To tell you the truth I came up with this theory only by chance(luck), so I don't know about "perspicacious". However my many years of solving tough problems in engineering, computer and business does help to sharpen ones problem solving ability.

In some sense my theory does say that reality is only once, because it is a mathematical structure. It is not useful to enumerate all triangles(their leg lengths). It suffice to say there is such a thing as a triangle.

Also, If you are implying there is no multi-verse, my theory tends to support your position. However, it is too early to be sure.

I gave you good grade for your spirit of discovery.

Adel

Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear All,

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Hello Adel,

I enjoyed your essay greatly and rated fairly high. It is my opinion that your theory is not yet robust or mature, but you derive some impressive results from what is at this point a toy model. I heartily endorse the stream of influences from which you derive your idea, including Wigner, Wheeler, Wolfram, and Tegmark, because like yourself I believe the universe is here because it computes.

At one point; in imitation of Descartes; I coined the phrase "It Computes, therefore It Is." If you take the original form of Descartes' quote in the Latin 'Cogito Ergo Sum' can also be translated into "Thinking therefore Being" which is almost identical to what Wheeler proposed in "It from Bit."

I will be creating a page of links to work like yours on the website:

www.itcomputes.info

So we should keep in touch after the contest.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay greatly and rated fairly high. It is my opinion that your theory is not yet robust or mature, but you derive some impressive results from what is at this point a toy model. I heartily endorse the stream of influences from which you derive your idea, including Wigner, Wheeler, Wolfram, and Tegmark, because like yourself I believe the universe is here because it computes.

At one point; in imitation of Descartes; I coined the phrase "It Computes, therefore It Is." If you take the original form of Descartes' quote in the Latin 'Cogito Ergo Sum' can also be translated into "Thinking therefore Being" which is almost identical to what Wheeler proposed in "It from Bit."

I will be creating a page of links to work like yours on the website:

www.itcomputes.info

So we should keep in touch after the contest.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

In addition;

You might find my essay to be of interest.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

You might find my essay to be of interest.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. It is baffling for me somewhat (but understandable to a degree) that no professional physicists has contacted me, but only astute readers like you. I am always sad when people who should know better choose to ignore good things, but it is best not to go into details.

Anyway, I have explained some...

view entire post

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. It is baffling for me somewhat (but understandable to a degree) that no professional physicists has contacted me, but only astute readers like you. I am always sad when people who should know better choose to ignore good things, but it is best not to go into details.

Anyway, I have explained some...

view entire post

Dear Adel,

I think you have a very clever theory here. Genius! It reminds me of my theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. I like the way the lengths of lines are so quantitative in your case!

My theory uses simplex geometry to relate the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of expected value - improving with newer data from the likes of Cern. My essay however simply deals with Black Holes, entropy and information exchange with the Fibonacci sequence popping up. I hope you like it, if you get chance to take a look.

I note you say above there may be no multiverse - I agree.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

I think you have a very clever theory here. Genius! It reminds me of my theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. I like the way the lengths of lines are so quantitative in your case!

My theory uses simplex geometry to relate the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of expected value - improving with newer data from the likes of Cern. My essay however simply deals with Black Holes, entropy and information exchange with the Fibonacci sequence popping up. I hope you like it, if you get chance to take a look.

I note you say above there may be no multiverse - I agree.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel

I enjoyed reading your report of your research. I felt like I was watching an ingenious magician on a stage amusing the audience with galagala producing a rabbit out of a hat or a great number of colorful handkerchiefs from his sleeves. Only in your case the magic revealed some basic truths in physics. Amazing. Besides its effectiveness, mathematics is also very malleable - it can model the same physical situation (Reality) in many different ways. So while I would disagree with your neo-Pythagorian concept that mathematics is the only basis of Reality, I could appreciate the value of your approach, and could see why it works as you described it.

In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I described how quantum probability (along with the rest of physics) may emerge from universal tessellation transferring angular momentum. My approach is qualitative (unlike your impressive computational approach).

I too have programmed in Basic and produced an approach to understanding the Strong Force based on my theory.Now I will try to learn Python to simulate aspects of my theory such as particle creation E=mc^c, gravity eyc. I would appreciate your reading these papers and commenting on them, also on reading and rating my current fqxi essay.

With best wishes and salaams

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your report of your research. I felt like I was watching an ingenious magician on a stage amusing the audience with galagala producing a rabbit out of a hat or a great number of colorful handkerchiefs from his sleeves. Only in your case the magic revealed some basic truths in physics. Amazing. Besides its effectiveness, mathematics is also very malleable - it can model the same physical situation (Reality) in many different ways. So while I would disagree with your neo-Pythagorian concept that mathematics is the only basis of Reality, I could appreciate the value of your approach, and could see why it works as you described it.

In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I described how quantum probability (along with the rest of physics) may emerge from universal tessellation transferring angular momentum. My approach is qualitative (unlike your impressive computational approach).

I too have programmed in Basic and produced an approach to understanding the Strong Force based on my theory.Now I will try to learn Python to simulate aspects of my theory such as particle creation E=mc^c, gravity eyc. I would appreciate your reading these papers and commenting on them, also on reading and rating my current fqxi essay.

With best wishes and salaams

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for your comments, you do have a way with words, you cracked me up! Honestly, when I saw the first results of the simulations it was like magic and then when I got the 1/r law it was like seeing that great magic trick were the tiger disappears and re-appears in its cage.

I have added new programs that shows how alpha(Fine Structure Constant)...

view entire post

Thanks for your comments, you do have a way with words, you cracked me up! Honestly, when I saw the first results of the simulations it was like magic and then when I got the 1/r law it was like seeing that great magic trick were the tiger disappears and re-appears in its cage.

I have added new programs that shows how alpha(Fine Structure Constant)...

view entire post

Hi Adel

I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding due to the language barrier.

Best regards.

Hải.Caohoàng

report post as inappropriate

I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding due to the language barrier.

Best regards.

Hải.Caohoàng

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

you asked for a comment of your essay: it was interesting. But I have some comments/questions:

- you do not explain where the random force (or choice?) comes from.

- secondly I would expect that you do not really get the Schrödinger equation directly. You will get the equation for the probability distribution for your random process. The ground state of this equation agrees with the Schrödinger equation but not the higher modes. The reason is simple: the Schrödinger equation can be obtained by using a random process with an imaginary amplitude for the noise. In particular the square of the wave function is the probability....

But maybe I misundertood something?

Best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

you asked for a comment of your essay: it was interesting. But I have some comments/questions:

- you do not explain where the random force (or choice?) comes from.

- secondly I would expect that you do not really get the Schrödinger equation directly. You will get the equation for the probability distribution for your random process. The ground state of this equation agrees with the Schrödinger equation but not the higher modes. The reason is simple: the Schrödinger equation can be obtained by using a random process with an imaginary amplitude for the noise. In particular the square of the wave function is the probability....

But maybe I misundertood something?

Best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Hi Torsten,

Thank you for evaluating my essay, we have had some exchange in physicsforums about your theory before. You asked very good questions.

The answer to the higher modes is easy, yes it can be done (and I have actually done it). It is an automatic consequence of schrodinger equation result. As a matter of fact I get the 1/r law precisely because of the inclusion...

view entire post

Thank you for evaluating my essay, we have had some exchange in physicsforums about your theory before. You asked very good questions.

The answer to the higher modes is easy, yes it can be done (and I have actually done it). It is an automatic consequence of schrodinger equation result. As a matter of fact I get the 1/r law precisely because of the inclusion...

view entire post

Posted from my discussion area:

Adel,

you have to choose uncountable real random numbers uniformly. Every real number has the probability zero to choose.

But you are right, it sounds impossible to do.

Now to my further questions:

There are gaps in the explaination. So, I tried to fill these gaps by thinking about. But your answer showed me, I was wrong.

My main problem is on page 3, the red part. Up to this place everything is clear to me. But how did you get the Schrödinger equation and more importantly what is the wave function. Before you spoke about random lines etc. (and I assumed you have a probability distribution for these random lines, then the dynamics is given by a Fokker-Planck equation etc. etc.)

Interestingly, your simulation results (Fig 3, 4 and 5) support my assumption: you simulate the probability distribution of a Fokker-Planck equation (with constraints, i.e. you put it in the box). This Fokker-Planck equation has the same ground state then the Schrödinger equation (but a probability distribution has to be positive everywhere).

I wrote my PhD thesis about this connection (using it in the evolutionary algorithms). The correct name is Fisher-Eigen equation (a reaction diffusion equation)

Show me where I'm stupid to follow you.

Best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Adel,

you have to choose uncountable real random numbers uniformly. Every real number has the probability zero to choose.

But you are right, it sounds impossible to do.

Now to my further questions:

There are gaps in the explaination. So, I tried to fill these gaps by thinking about. But your answer showed me, I was wrong.

My main problem is on page 3, the red part. Up to this place everything is clear to me. But how did you get the Schrödinger equation and more importantly what is the wave function. Before you spoke about random lines etc. (and I assumed you have a probability distribution for these random lines, then the dynamics is given by a Fokker-Planck equation etc. etc.)

Interestingly, your simulation results (Fig 3, 4 and 5) support my assumption: you simulate the probability distribution of a Fokker-Planck equation (with constraints, i.e. you put it in the box). This Fokker-Planck equation has the same ground state then the Schrödinger equation (but a probability distribution has to be positive everywhere).

I wrote my PhD thesis about this connection (using it in the evolutionary algorithms). The correct name is Fisher-Eigen equation (a reaction diffusion equation)

Show me where I'm stupid to follow you.

Best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Hi Torsten,

Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my theory, it was the most pleasant surprise and the real reason for joining the contest.

In short, Probability density is what I get from my system. I get the SOLUTION of SE for a particular setup translated into probability density, but not SE per se. Sorry for the sloppy use of the word wave instead of "the probability density".

Since I will be travelling in the next few weeks for my vacation with my family I cannot elaborate too much now. But it is interesting that I had looked at Wiener process early on as a possible link. The nice/strange thing about my theory it links to so many established ideas in physics that is too difficult to pursue a particular one. But I think I am going to give your hint much more time.

Also one important link that I found is that my system seems to be a generalization of Buffon's needle in the sense that both the needle and the lines become random in size. And that leads a series of connections to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

http://en.wikip

edia.org/wiki/Integral_geometry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Radon_transform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_transfor

m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory

Thanks again for your generous help, and hopefully elaborate more in the future.

Adel

Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my theory, it was the most pleasant surprise and the real reason for joining the contest.

In short, Probability density is what I get from my system. I get the SOLUTION of SE for a particular setup translated into probability density, but not SE per se. Sorry for the sloppy use of the word wave instead of "the probability density".

Since I will be travelling in the next few weeks for my vacation with my family I cannot elaborate too much now. But it is interesting that I had looked at Wiener process early on as a possible link. The nice/strange thing about my theory it links to so many established ideas in physics that is too difficult to pursue a particular one. But I think I am going to give your hint much more time.

Also one important link that I found is that my system seems to be a generalization of Buffon's needle in the sense that both the needle and the lines become random in size. And that leads a series of connections to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

http://en.wikip

edia.org/wiki/Integral_geometry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Radon_transform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_transfor

m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory

Thanks again for your generous help, and hopefully elaborate more in the future.

Adel

Adel,

I found your approach to the topic at hand intriguing and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

I found your approach to the topic at hand intriguing and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Hi Manuel,

Thanks for reading my essay, I have read yours and rated it good long time ago. I am on vacation with family with little time to spare.

Thanks

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for reading my essay, I have read yours and rated it good long time ago. I am on vacation with family with little time to spare.

Thanks

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Hello, QSA, thanks for your comments on my essay.

Now they've ive gotten to read yours I like the algorithms.

report post as inappropriate

Now they've ive gotten to read yours I like the algorithms.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sadeq,

Thank you for a fascinating look at the power of a simple computational model.

You might enjoy the computational model that I develop in my essay Software Cosmos. I take more of a top-down view, exploring the consequences of looking at the cosmos as a software simulation. I hope you get a chance to read it to see if your model might be compatible with it.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for a fascinating look at the power of a simple computational model.

You might enjoy the computational model that I develop in my essay Software Cosmos. I take more of a top-down view, exploring the consequences of looking at the cosmos as a software simulation. I hope you get a chance to read it to see if your model might be compatible with it.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Hi Adel,

Thanks for the reply above! I look forward to the material you find, as I think it is good that we are both people who like to explore the Universe in a detailed way fundamental way.

I will rate your essay now top marks. Please have a read of mine and rate if you get chance. I'd appreciate any comments you have for me too.

Very best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the reply above! I look forward to the material you find, as I think it is good that we are both people who like to explore the Universe in a detailed way fundamental way.

I will rate your essay now top marks. Please have a read of mine and rate if you get chance. I'd appreciate any comments you have for me too.

Very best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Adel,

I first passed over your abstract, but am new very glad I read your essay. An excellent presentation of an intriguing model. I'm not a mathematician (though I studied it decades ago) and expected little commonality with my geometrical approach but found unexpected potential and a new insight, so a high scorer if only for that!

I was interested in your resolution of the correspondence between cardinalised maths and curvature, or the line and the circle. I derive uncertainty from the change in that relation with theta and/or the line position, but in 3D+t with the torus and helix. I would be most grateful if you would read and comment on my proposals.

I most anticipated your comments on spin and EPR. I hope my own addressing of this may shed some light on your 'very strange results'. This leads direct to the EPR case where as far as I can tell you suggest the same particle orbital topology that I describe to resolve the case and unify the SR and QM view without FTL. Thopugh very different I think our essays are then equally radical and 'groundbreaking!' (as someone referred in my blog). I hope you agree mine worth a equally high score.

With regard to maths I find that fractal recursive gauges or 'sample spaces' can decode the 'noise' of uncertainty stage by stage, but a distinction at observable scales between the uncertainty of nature and precision of mathematics is required to rationalise the requited approach.

An excellent job, well done. I hope you make the final cut and look forward to your views.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I first passed over your abstract, but am new very glad I read your essay. An excellent presentation of an intriguing model. I'm not a mathematician (though I studied it decades ago) and expected little commonality with my geometrical approach but found unexpected potential and a new insight, so a high scorer if only for that!

I was interested in your resolution of the correspondence between cardinalised maths and curvature, or the line and the circle. I derive uncertainty from the change in that relation with theta and/or the line position, but in 3D+t with the torus and helix. I would be most grateful if you would read and comment on my proposals.

I most anticipated your comments on spin and EPR. I hope my own addressing of this may shed some light on your 'very strange results'. This leads direct to the EPR case where as far as I can tell you suggest the same particle orbital topology that I describe to resolve the case and unify the SR and QM view without FTL. Thopugh very different I think our essays are then equally radical and 'groundbreaking!' (as someone referred in my blog). I hope you agree mine worth a equally high score.

With regard to maths I find that fractal recursive gauges or 'sample spaces' can decode the 'noise' of uncertainty stage by stage, but a distinction at observable scales between the uncertainty of nature and precision of mathematics is required to rationalise the requited approach.

An excellent job, well done. I hope you make the final cut and look forward to your views.

Very best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel Hassen,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-

V1.1a.pdf

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-

V1.1a.pdf

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.