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]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 12:07 GMT
Essay AbstractIn 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.
Author Bio Degrees: · · B.S. E.E. university of Wyoming 1979 · · MPHIL E.E. University of Sussex 1987
Download Essay PDF File
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
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
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 questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
Add another problem, which is:
USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY
There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?
The reason is:
1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.
2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.
I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
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
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 HOW much got through or was blocked. With GRAVITY I conjecture that only when both particles send the exact message to each other then the particles will feel a very tiny force over all because the probability for that is very small, no such picture is obvious in standard physics. I will elaborate later.
What I disagree with is relative vs. absolute. these words are contextual in nature. If you had a million dollars you are very rich compared to me but very poor compared to Bill Gates, but never the less have one million. Also generally in physics all quantities are relative by nature since we are always relating multiple variables to each other, the numbers are not hanging in some great void. But other things like speed of light in vacuum we say it is fixed. So it depends on what and in what context.Particles have position relative to one another but not some flag post. If you look at nature from the smallest to the biggest everything is changing and in flux , nothing is standing still to be absolute.
As a consolation prize for you, my theory says that reality AS A WHOLE is unique and absolute because it is a mathematical structure, that has the property of being the only one that can generate reality. There seems to be no other design available to generate a mathematical structure that leads to another reality. It does not make sense to say there are infinite numbers of a unit circle out their. It suffice to say there is a unit circle.
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
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
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 failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 17:19 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 00:42 GMT
please note
when you run the programs(particle in infinite and finite potential) which are listed in section 11 in the website, only click once on the graph button in upper right and wait 60 sec for the computation.thanks
Adel
Philip Gibbs wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 15:44 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
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.
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 13:50 GMT
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
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 13:52 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 01:49 GMT
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
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 11:01 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 23:14 GMT
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
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:55 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 00:09 GMT
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
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT
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
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. The distinction makes itself most obviously known in the interference effects associated with quantum objects, but it can also have effects in other situations. If you can find it, the book "A modern approach to quantum mechanics" by Townsend has in its first chapter a demonstration based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment that shows that the quantum state must be considered a probability amplitude, not a probability. Can you show that your framework is based on probability amplitudes, and if it currently isn't can you modify it so that it will be? This is a major aspect that you need to address and discuss in your framework before other physicists will seriously consider it.
2. It was very difficult for me to follow section 4 in your paper, and I think because it would probably be true of anyone who tries to understand it, this is probably hurting you. Put yourself in the position of the physicists who do bother to read your entry here: Many of the terms or symbols are not explicitly defined, it is not clear what exactly is an experimental input and what is an output and what, if anything, is assumed, and then BAM, they see a claim that if true would be unquestionably be the greatest discovery of the century. Can you see that the incongruence between these could turn off a lot of physicists? My suggestion would be to list and label very clearly and completely all the inputs and outputs, identify all your assumptions (including those that went into creating your program), define all the terms and symbols, number the equations, use the dimensional units, and preferably use an equation editor so that the equations are easier to read. Because this is a key part of your argument you need to take extra special to care to present the quantitative argument as clearly as possible.
3. Is it possible that you could include a flow-diagram for the program? It is not absolutely essential, but it would make it easier to understand how it works. I looked at the program itself and was surprised to see the golden ratio, yet your text did not mention it anywhere. This is something that should be mentioned because otherwise it could be construed as a hidden assumption in your program.
Finally, I would like to mention that I am intrigued by your approach, I think it is great that you are making your program freely available (it speaks of your integrity) and think it could be promising. If you are willing to follow some of these suggestions please let me know and I will re-examine your work.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 05:49 GMT
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
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
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
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 08:20 GMT
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
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 if you respond to them.
Your essay starts with the statement “Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally”. That means you are identifying reality with a mathematical structure, but here you will have to define what ‘a mathematical structure’ means. Because if you go through my essay there I have treated mathematics as a tool used to derive from axioms the reality that they imply. So mathematical method, like logic, is, in itself, having no reality but it leads to the reality we are after and whose veracity depends on the very nature of the axiom you have framed. In other words, reality follows infallibly from the axiom framed and mathematics just helps in realizing it. That is, the mathematical structure depends on the axioms framed.
Moreover, in your essay when you are identifying reality with a mathematical structure, you are having in your mind reality described by physics only and no other types of realities, like, biological, psychological, social, etc. and realities in these fields, according to me, have no mathematical structure that they have in the field of physics.
Your attempt to derive fundamental constants of Nature and QM from the Bohr like model and the Schrodinger like equations, and the mass of the electron, is commendable.
In the fifth section of the essay, the second Para starts with the sentence ‘Simulating the electron wave having almost six times the Bohr model with a particle almost the proton size then I get very much the energy of the electron which the Bohr simulation –‘; here I want to make an interesting suggestion that in ‘my model of the QM, it is the proton that possesses the ground state energy of 13.6 eV in the hydrogen atom and this energy is carried by the electron when it is ejected from its ground state (whenever you find time, please, visit my website ‘www.sreenath.webs.com’ and there in the Interaction Table at the interaction range of 5.3*10^-9 cm you find this value of 13.6 eV possessed by the proton).
In your treatment of Gravity, you have said that “If an assumption is made the gravity is a result of only when the lines meet, then you will get an incredibly small force translated into a very tiny expectation value shift”, I want to know how small this shift is; could it be of the order of 10^-14? If you ever find this value, please, inform me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in
Thank you very much for writing such a thought provoking essay.
All the best in the essay contest,
Sreenath
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 06:44 GMT
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
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 simulation.
I have always tinkered with ideas in math and engineering mostly, but I only read physics. Somehow, the idea of the relation of physics and math started brewing in my head for few years. One day sitting with my friends and everybody was complaining about the world and life, so to ease the discussion I just throw a one liner and said that reality was nothing but some math. So everybody laughed their head off and walked out shaking their head.
I was very surprised of the words that came out of my mouth, I said to myself, aha, this is what was in my head but I could not express till that moment. Having a bit of free time I started thinking what could this mathematical structure will look like and how could it arise. To be honest I was really only thinking of the possibility of creating a very crude universe like system just for my amusement.
After thinking about what could be happening on the line, it just seemed so natural to implement the idea using computer program. It is not like I said, here, I am going to write a program to simulate our reality using computer. I was so shocked (but deep down not surprised) when I saw the sin^2, I was expecting some kind fractal or some similar stuff, but never ever the actual physics of our reality.
I tell you this long story because I think it makes it much easier to understand my replies to your comments.
The words “mathematical structure” are used both in general sense and has more strict mathematical meaning. It is used loosely to refer to any mathematical like systems like a triangle or a circle. And in formal way as in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure
https://e
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure
Of course I am using more in the general sense just like Dr. Tegmark’s MUH.
I will have to read you essay more carefully to see the relation of math and physics in your idea. But I think already in mine the reason for the “effectiveness of math “is much clearer. You can see how classical physics and standard quantum physics have their origin in my system which is purely mathematical and so the classical theories are either effective theories (classical physics) or a “look alike” (quantum physics). There is a famous quote by Feynman in regards to Schrodinger Equation (which is known to be a fantastic guess by him) just popping out of Schrodinger’s head, meaning there appears no basis to it other than it works. My system shows the origin of the equation, and it is clear how the math relate. Moreover, with my system I do not attempt to derive anything. The nature of the system from its inception has been to see what is possible to do on the line AND THEN see if I can interpret the results to match some known physics. I have not thought, ok, now I shall derive the natural constants, no. I just look at possible results and see if I can make any sense of them that is all.
As far as a system that solves all intellectual problems in one system, I think that is a very ambitious and unrealistic goal, but contemplating such issues does add to our knowledge . Many of the essays in the contest are misguided in my opinion because they tackle cosmological problems that have very scarce data, while we have these giant colliders and we are struggling with basic issues in particle physics. I believe we must solve the fundamental problems first before tackling more complicated ones. Anyway, the problem of existence is by far more mysterious, enigmatic and psychologically important that the issue of biology and consciousness. Because the later do have a very good chance being explained by the former but not the other way around.
As I said in my essay gravity is still under research. It is so difficult to simulate even for very short distances the numbers fluctuate so much it is very hard to make sense out of them, but I think there is hope. Maybe another two weeks or so I might be able to show more. The issue you raised about electron energy and the proton is interesting while the system does seem to follow standard physics but it seems that some surprises about the proton might be there. I am also working on that and it looks interestingly unconventional, but maybe the time is not right to disclose until further checks.
Hopefully by tomorrow I will read and rate your essay. Thanks again.
Adel
view post as summary
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 08:27 GMT
Dear Adel,
Thanks for your nice clarifications and I would like to give you a very high rating of over 8 on your logically consistent essay. So after rating my essay, please, inform me in my thread or e-mail me to bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in, and I will in turn rate your essay.
I must once again say that you have originality in your approach in solving problems pertaining to physics through computer programming and don't give it up until you succeed in your endeavor. If you need any clarifications on the contents of my essay, please, contact me.
Wish you all the best in the essay contest.
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sergio Miguel wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 00:11 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 05:13 GMT
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
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:50 GMT
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
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 04:37 GMT
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
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 04:44 GMT
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
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 "in university and beyond we learn to only understand words in the context of the problem at hand." and of course should not ask other people as "I don't know what is the the level of your education" and also do not taught to who is "So don't get hung up on words and look to the content.".
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT
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
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 a clear way, but also we don't spend all our time to choose the right words, The concepts are more important. I went to school in the west and my English was not that good(still it isn't) but I did good. Anyway, you took some statements personally but they were meant as an advice only. However, it is natural sometimes to state our opinions in strong terms in forums, that is part of the process.
Also, I said "All the people who submitted their essays are the kind of people who like to think out of the box". This is the highest compliment that you can give to people's intellect and that goes to you as a participant. As a non professional physicist I do rate self learning highly, as a matter of fact I have criticised some people with PHDs here in FQXI and elsewhere a lot for being "boring" with no imagination.
As to the issue of gravity, I understand its fundamentals as it is taught in school. I know what is known and what is unknown, as in Newton's theory, GR, Verlinde's gravity , QG and so on. In my essay I have not calculated anything related to gravity, all calculations are for Quantum Mechanical systems. I only talked briefly about it(last section), but I hope I will have some calculation soon.
Thank you again.
Adel
view post as summary
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 01:34 GMT
Dear Adel
How about variation of mass proton and electron?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v3.pdf
Regards
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 04:01 GMT
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
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 seems to somehow include a concept that is called Feynman checkerboard, which has a sophisticated version of your idea.
just google " feynman checkerboard model", you will find loads of information, but you have to read a lot to see the similarity to your system.
My essay is all about how this interaction arises, please read carefully the first 3 sections. Of course, my essay was written for an academic person with extensive experience in QM in mind, so I have not spelled out everything clearly. Now, in classical physics the charge e is just a numbers assigned to a particle that enters the equation where 1/r is postulated via experiments. In QFT a similar but more sophisticated in the sense that now 1/r law is not postulated but derived (through the notorious virtual particles concept). Zee in his QFT in a nutshell book called that the greatest discovery in physics. Other theories like String and others describe charge as again a sort of abstract math like windings and such.
In my theory charge is a dynamic quantity that arises from the interaction and not the other way around. There is no positive and negative particles as such, it was forced upon standard physics because of the experiment and model strategy. It is all about the line intersection concept which is the basis of interaction and hence the rise of charge and the associated expectation value change corresponding to force.
Gravity is a bit harder because the weak force it produces making the numbers fluctuate highly. However I state my conjecture in the essay, which is when the lines meet head on at Lp. But why Lp? I leave that for the second season episode!!
Finally I have rated your essay very good for your nice try and good active participation.
P.S. a copy will appear in your thread.
Adel
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:14 GMT
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
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 13:47 GMT
Dear Adel
i rated 18 july your essyy 5 grade
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:40 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
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
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
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
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 series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.
As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
I have put forth the absolute truth in the
Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.
I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of
zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.
All this started with a simple question, who am I?
I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.
I super positioned my self or I to be me.
I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.
I am Fibonacci series in iSeries
I am phi in zero = I = infinity
I am 3Sphere in iSphere
I am pi in zero = I = infinity
I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 11:48 GMT
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
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.infoSo we should keep in touch after the contest.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
In addition;
You might find
my essay to be of interest.
Have Fun!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:23 GMT
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
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 background of my work in past posts, but I will add few things. I started out long ago after college to read all the popular books and magazines about physics, but I found myself very confused. So I started reading proper textbooks, and being the academic type with fairly good skills in math, things started to make much more sense. I concentrated more on the subject and did not care for the people( their details and philosophy) who invented them.
It was only by luck that I came up with the theory since I had the habit of fooling around with math. So when I stumbled on the system I thought I had gone mad, then I googled "universe mathematics". And guess what it came up with, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis by mad Max(Dr. Tegmark). I communicated with him and I was surprised of his favourable reply. Then later I found about Wolfram, Conway and the rest, relieved that I was not thinking rubbish.
Early on I did think that the system was some simplified version of physics, but the more I worked on it, I was just getting more and more results in line with standard physics. Thanks to this contest I concentrated on the system again, and now I feel that the system could be the real thing. Just see(programs in the website) how Fine Structure Constants fall out of the simulation from more than one perspective. There are many other results I have not shown yet. and many others are work in progress, like N dimensional.
As to your work, I read it many times before and have followed on the FQXI discussions. But somehow I did not got the impression that you were arguing for a mathematical universe hypothesis type theory until you supplied the link. I have rated you and will be asking you more questions later.
Thanks again for your interest.
Adel
view post as summary
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 04:28 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:24 GMT
Hi Antony,
Thanks for your compliment; I have always been like you the fiddling guy. I will reply in detail, I am trying to dig up some interesting material for you.
Thanks
Adel
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 01:27 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 07:21 GMT
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
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) appears as the ratio of the probability hits on the electron Compton wave to the total number of throws. I think the programs(section 11) are simple enough and can be understood by anybody who knows some basic programming. This and many other results do force me to seriously contemplate the mathematical universe even if it sounded like unhappy ending to a wonderful movie.
http://www.qsa.netne.net
maybe you should redesign my T shirt in the web!
I have been following FQXI for the past four years and I saw your theory in the last contest. As a matter of fact I thought it was one of the better ones among all the unconventional ones, because it was the closest to my theory. I think you are wondering how that can be possible. Well, you said it, like Feynman, physics can be represented in many different ways, but some are more fundamental, more encompassing and useful among many other traits. That is why many theories mainstream and unconventional seem to overlap in certain areas.
Your theory is similar to mine in the sense that if you enlarge your sphere (but also keeping a Compton size sphere in its heart) and get you vector instead of rotating regularly let it jump randomly all over the enlarged sphere (while keeping the base at the smaller sphere) and every time these vectors hit other vectors from other spheres you get interaction, probabilities updated. That is all there is to reality basically, believe it or not!
Another way to look at your theory, think about the string versus LQG war, I hope you saw the very funny cartoon made by Philips Gibbs at his vixra blog. My theory connects both and also your idea and CDT and similar stuff. My theory shows the clear connection between space, particle and energy (see abstract). So in LQG the interactions are interpreted as spaces being changed while string it says the particles interacted. But in My theory (I have not shown how specifically, I will sometimes) I show both happening at the same time because they are all derived from the same objects which are the random numbers. While my theory is non-local with these lines going all over the universe, but you will see that the probabilities in the space between them will also change representing local interaction as in standard theory corresponding to the non-local. Yours (string,LQG, ….) is the local interaction.
You are interpreting your theory to fit the current essay theme, that’s fine. I did not get the chance to elaborate on the bit side in my theory, it is straight forward dE= Tds, for the random lines representing energy. I will rate your essay. Also see my reply to Jonathan above for more info.
Thank you.
Adel
view post as summary
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 01:35 GMT
Hi Adel
I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding due to the language barrier.
Best regards.
Hải.Caohoàng
report post as inappropriate
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 08:33 GMT
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
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 of higher modes automatically.
To answer your question what forced choice I have to reiterate some background. After considering some choices that could be the entities where some relation could give a rise to reality I end up with the simplest of systems ,which is a line segment. So I ask what entities exist on this line, answer is point and smaller line segments. So the how to choose the points or the line segments so that I may find what possible relations might exist and see if these relations lead to any useful outcome.
Since there is NO particular reason to choose any specific one so I choose randomly. Without this randomness which is the heart of the system any possible universe that you create by particular choice will lead to either a static or semi-static universe (as in fractals and regular automata). A similar principle is very nicely explained in Sundance Bilson
essay which he calls "the principle of minimal arbitrariness ". Also a similar idea is mentioned in the essay of Armin Shirazi which you must have seen.
Also, may I remind you that the Born rule in standard physics has caused so much controversy as to its origin, well my system shows clearing why that must be so. And generally you can see the whole results of the system from it inception to advanced results like the electron mass all showing up in one coherent system with no tweaking or fancy stunts, by doing just what I am allowed to do on the line.
Of course I am familiar with almost 95 %(or more) of all the ways people have tried to generate QM from "first principles". But I believe mine is the most fundamental one because as you can see I claim some powerful results. Now, if people want to declare that is too good to be true, that is their choice. However, as an unfamiliar concept I think it will take some time to sink in and I also need to do a better job making the presentation.
Finally, you might be surprised that our theories share the most important concept of physics and that is the SAMENESS of matter and space. in my system matter is made of many lines (which is nothing but a distance between two points) where their end points are space. it is as simple as that.
The problems in your system and all others has been the problem of time. Even if as Barbour has done(and some other foliation systems and such) to remove time, still that leads to complication. In my system time naturally does not appear, again, that shows the system is fundamental from its inception.
I have rated your essay highly, you do not have to do that for me. Your response and reading this long boring response is good enough for me!
P.S. gravity is also included, I will show some details later.
Many thanks.
Adel
view post as summary
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 09:15 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:28 GMT
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
Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 04:48 GMT
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
Anonymous replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:40 GMT
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
Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
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
Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 07:16 GMT
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
Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 13:07 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:46 GMT
Hi Antony,
Yes, I have rated yours highly. I am on vacation now, I will comment later. Thanks
Adel
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 20:47 GMT
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
Author adel sadeq replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Hi Peter,
Thanks for reading my essay, I have read yours many times. I am on vacation now, I will comment later. I have rated your essay. Thanks
Adel
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
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
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT
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
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.