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

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

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

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

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

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