Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

John Wsol: on 4/23/15 at 4:41am UTC, wrote Patrick, Your cosmological model is similar to my Cosmic Onion Model...

Branko Zivlak: on 4/21/15 at 8:08am UTC, wrote Patrick, Please send me again your mail to bzivlak@gmail.com. I lost it in...

Patrick Tonin: on 4/19/15 at 13:08pm UTC, wrote Hi Gary, Thank you for reading my essay and thank you for your comments. ...

Gary Simpson: on 4/16/15 at 22:10pm UTC, wrote Patrick, Very interesting indeed. It is too easy to dismiss such things as...

Branko Zivlak: on 4/15/15 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote Sory Patrick, instead x=proton mass*alpha is x=proton/electron mass...

Branko Zivlak: on 4/15/15 at 6:43am UTC, wrote Dear Patrick, You asked: more about DeltaP. Here is more: If we define...

Branko Zivlak: on 4/9/15 at 21:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Patrick 8π-1 and 1-1 / 8π make sense in relation to relate...

Joe Fisher: on 4/3/15 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: 8Pi-1 and the golden ratio, trick or truth ? by Patrick Tonin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Patrick Tonin wrote on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 23:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

Just imagine the Universe as a growing sphere of layered information with only three dimensions: two space dimensions and one dimension which is both space and time. The information describing our "present" moment is contained in a 2D layer of that sphere and past/present/future co-exist as concurrent layers; each layer is scaling up with time. From this model, I have derived simple equations involving two ratios: Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1 (a ratio I have discovered). In this short essay, I will simply present some of these equations. These could be dismissed as simple numerology or pure coincidences but there is a slight chance that they might be correct. If that was the case, it would show that our Universe is a lot simpler than we might think and that it could be described with simple mathematics, no extra dimensions and no fudge factors.

Author Bio

BSc in Electronics and Computing - BA in Business Studies. Former Sales Director in computer networking industry, now owner of self-catering group accommodation with some spare time to develop Universe theories. I believe that the Universe is just pure information.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Feb. 20, 2015 @ 01:46 GMT
The number phi, is more important than what you can make the actual physics.

I enjoyed your essay

The E8 group is precisely the product of the first six numbers of the Fibonacci series. 1,1,2,3,5,8: 1 * 2 * 3 * 5 * 8 = 240

The sum of primes dividing the order of the Monster group: 377+1. 377 is the 14 th fibonacci number

377= 240+137

InIn(377)*(mp/me)-(sin...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 07:53 GMT
Hi Angel,

Thank you for your comment.

Patrick

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 17:56 GMT
Patrick,

Units are human construct(somewhat arbitrary) and are set in such a way that the equations of physics do not get affected by changing them. The units are selected for ease of use based on the situation.

Your equations will not be consistent under such change in units. That is an elementary physics.

Natural_units

Good luck anyway.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 18:59 GMT
Hi Adel,

Unless dimensions are fundamentally linked ... see my website for more details.

Please also note that the proton/electron mass ratio, the gravitational coupling constant and the fine structure constant are dimensionless.

Also, my equations for the proton's radius and the proton's mass in relation to the Planck length and the Planck mass are valid for whatever system...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


adel sadeq replied on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 20:16 GMT
You have to show what the consistent unit system that you are using.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Adel,

According to my model, whatever unit of time we use, the value of the Planck time will always be the same (ie: will always follow the same equation including Phi and 8Pi-1). So if we were counting time in Martian days, the value of the Planck unit would be 5.386 x 10xx Martian days. (nothing says that the Planck time has got a fixed value, it is only fixed in relation to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 17:27 GMT
You're walking straight with the tight rope in the Stratosphere with some gasps around!

No doubt, excluded portions!

Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 21:08 GMT
Dear Sujatha,

Humm... I am not sure I fully understand your message...

Regards,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 18:05 GMT
Hello Patrick,

I read a beautiful essay of yours in a competition I think two years ago and therefore your essay was not to be missed by me.

I see a number of wonderful coincidences of your derived values and the accepted value in your essay. The sheer number suggests that there must be something underlying this.

I however don't feel convinced that our universe is 2-D.

Welcome to read my 'strange' essay also.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 19:17 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Yes, I remember we had similar views on existence/non-existence monads !

Thank you for your comment.

I will read your essay and comment on your blog.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 09:18 GMT
Thanks for your gracious comments on my blog. I think I see someone who understands what I am trying to say, probably even better than myself.

Cheers,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 12:47 GMT
Dear Patrick

I'm always intrigued by the list of (coincidental?) physical values that you recover with your model. I even checked some of your formulas. Soon or later I will have the time to really try to understand how it works, and how you get so many good values. I'm currently in Japan, I presented a talk in Kyoto and I am now in Nagoya for another one. I've never been so busy, but I will come to your paper again soon.

My best regards

mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Patrick,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your nice Essay. Here are my comments:

1) Does you idea of the Universe as a growing sphere of layered information arise from holographic principle? At the end of the Essay you indeed claim that the Universe is fundamentally holographic. Can you add some detail?

2) A Universe with no extra dimensions and no fudge factors is my dream as researcher.

3) I do not understand how your ratio (8π-1) enters in your final formula for the Value of Dark Energy Density. Can you clarify?

OK, your Essay enjoyed me. I will give you an high score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 19:11 GMT
Hi Christian,

Here are my replies to your questions:

1) Does you idea of the Universe as a growing sphere of layered information arise from holographic principle? At the end of the Essay you indeed claim that the Universe is fundamentally holographic. Can you add some detail?

Yes, all the information describing our “present” moment (us included) is contained in the “present” layer. We (and our surrounding world) are moving up the layers at the speed of light. Past/present/future co-exist as concurrent layers.

2) A Universe with no extra dimensions and no fudge factors is my dream as researcher.

There you have it !

3) I do not understand how your ratio (8π-1) enters in your final formula for the Value of Dark Energy Density. Can you clarify?

Well, it doesn’t. I added that formula because it is so simple and it shows that the number of Universal Bits (UB’s) on our “present” layer represent what we call the Dark Energy Density. In fact there is no need for dark energy to explain the Universe expansion with my model.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share



Rowan Grigg wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 11:46 GMT
Hi Patrick,

I found your essay very interesting. If I have understood you correctly, the information representing our perceived world of three spatial dimensions is mapped onto the (2D) surface of a sphere, whose radius is increasing in time. Is it possible that the exact history of the universe persists on earlier (smaller) surfaces of this sphere? Is it accessible? You mention that you have 'discovered' the ratio 1:(8pi-1) but can you show any geometric derivation of this ratio like that which exists for phi? In my essay I note that the classical radius of the proton is 20 orders of magnitude removed from the Planck scale, but you seem to use 1020 as if it were a pure value. Do your equations independently establish the Planck scale?

Cheers

Rowan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 15:35 GMT
Hi Rowan,

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, the history of the Universe can persist on earlier (smaller) surfaces of the sphere but only for a certain time. Over “Universe” time, these inner surfaces could change bit by bit creating a slightly different history (remember that each one of these earlier surfaces are themselves someone’s “present” layer). The same principal applies for the outer layers, they all are someone’s present layer, so although they represent our future, it is only a “possible” future. It might change or it might not change by the time we get to it. I believe that this information (likely past and possible future) is accessible to us somehow (probably by some sort of frequency synchronisation), this could explain quite a lot of paranormal phenomena. But from a Universe point of view, all this information (making up the different layers) is linked (a change in one bit has an impact on the rest) but past/present/future will always remain coherent. (what I call the coherent spacetime continuum).

For the 8Pi-1, you take the derivative of the surface area of a sphere (which gives 8PiR) and which represents the increase in size for each layer, then you do 8Pi(R+1) – (8PiR + 1) = 8Pi-1. You can also think of it like the Universe is 8Pi and we are 1 (1/8Pi is in line with the percentage of matter in the Universe).

The 1020 represents the present scale factor. The proton’s diameter is just a scaled up version of the Planck length. My equations do not independently establish the Planck scale but the above scale factor is established from the age of the Universe in Planck units (the size of the Universe information sphere if you want), it is the cubic root of 1060.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share


Author Patrick Tonin replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 15:57 GMT
the above should read 1020 (not 1020) and 1060 (not 1060).

Bookmark and Share


Rowan Grigg replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 13:03 GMT
Hi Patrick,

I've just been reading about Maldacena's duality, which suggests that "spacetime is fundamentally different from what we perceive, more like a three-dimensional hologram projected from a more fundamental two-dimensional surface of a sphere". This sounds remarkably like your work, is it related?

Cheers

Rowan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Patrick Tonin wrote on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 07:37 GMT
Dear all,

Since I wrote this essay, I have released a paper showing the calculation of all the fundamental constants from just the speed of light, Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1, no fudge factors are used.

Extra equations for the same constant are given to show that the numbers match exactly but also to show the self-similarity of the Universe on different size scales.

These equations support the hypothesis that the Universe is purely mathematical and just pure information.

You can dowload it on www.vixra.org/abs/1503.0184.

Patrick

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Thanks a lot. I have your work in mind from the "It From Bit" contest. You can expect another good appreciation soon.

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Patrick,

Very good work your approximations of the physical constants. The factor 8*pi-1 is well explained in your previous essay about the expansion of the universe. I think you had the idea to introduce the Golden ratio phi because, in the Planck length lP=1.6161 x 10^(-35) m, the first factor is close to phi, isn'it? I would not be surprised that the tricks contain a part of truth even if phi appears first in the dimensional constant lP. You work like a magician and the show has a price. Another (not very serious) trick phi-i=pi or for your next step pi+s=psi.

All the best.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you for your comment.

Yes, I believe that the Planck length is linked to the Golden ratio, for the simple reason that it is the only solution to this equation: x-(1/x)=1 and that everything is scaling up with time but we can't see it. Now, why does this relationship (Planck length/Golden ratio) work with our arbitrary chosen unit of length the “meter” ?

One possible reason could be because the meter was defined as a quarter of 10-7 the circumference of the earth and because there is a self-similarity of the Universe on different size scales (as is suggested by some of my equations). The other reason could be that whatever the scale of our unit of length, the numerical value of the Planck length will always turn out to be the same, only the scale factor will change. The fact that we have chosen our Kg to be the mass of a cubic decimeter of water could also have something to do with it (by affecting the value of G).

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 3, 2015 @ 16:25 GMT
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 21:39 GMT
Dear Patrick

8π-1 and 1-1 / 8π make sense in relation to relate fundamental physical constants. Clearer is written as 4 * (2π) -1 and 1-1 / 4 * (2π) because there are then linked the two key mathematical constants bit and 2π. My intuition tells me that the golden ratio has much greater significance in more complex structures but not with protons and electrons.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Patrick,

You asked: more about DeltaP. Here is more:

If we define x=2pi*classical electron radius / proton Compton wavelength. The same is x=proton mass*alpha. Then, we can define the following dimensionless value DeltaP =2-1 / (x + 2) =1.935060944. Or perhaps a simpler: DeltaP =1+(x+1)/(x+2) =1.935060944. One and two are the level of matter organization (maybe). Maybe, this would help to understand the possible physical significance of DeltaP. If you want to be in touch, you have my email in the essay.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 16:25 GMT
Sory Patrick, instead

x=proton mass*alpha

is

x=proton/electron mass ratio*alpha

Regards

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 22:10 GMT
Patrick,

Very interesting indeed. It is too easy to dismiss such things as coincidence or numerology.

Here is another one for you ... Mp/Me = 6*(pi)^5. That was first observed by Freidrick Lentz in 1951.

I was confused by one thing though ... How can phi be dimensionless in one group of equations but have dimensions of time in another? It seems more likely to me that the (10)^-20 coefficient has the dimensions associated with it.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patrick Tonin replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 13:08 GMT
Hi Gary,

Thank you for reading my essay and thank you for your comments.

I don't have an easy answer to your question, but the only time Phi is dimensionless is when it is squared.

Best regards,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 08:08 GMT
Patrick,

Please send me again your mail to bzivlak@gmail.com. I lost it in spams. So I congretulate you birthday with late. Be in touch.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Philip Wsol wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 04:41 GMT
Patrick,

Your cosmological model is similar to my Cosmic Onion Model except I believe in a 4D Space~Time context. Check out my paper and website -- I think you'll find some interesting parallels and important differences.

As for pattern searching here is one I found back on 28-Jan-2013: (This has an uncertainty of less than 4.6x10-8)

[equation]{\underline{22.99859}034 = \frac{27}{\sqrt[3]\phi} \approx \alpha^7 \left( \frac {m_p}{m_e}\right)^5

= \begin{cases}

& \text{\underline{22.99859}141 :: CODATA-2007 } \\

& \text{\underline{22.99859}213 :: CODATA-2010 }

\end{cases}[/equation]

-- Cosmologically yours,

-- John Wsol

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.