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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Luca Valeri**: *on* 4/19/15 at 22:32pm UTC, wrote Hi Branko, Thanks for your note in my forum. I knew about von Weizsäckers...

**Angel Doz**: *on* 4/19/15 at 20:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, his essay is a marvel of fresh and innovative ideas; all with...

**Philip Gibbs**: *on* 4/18/15 at 9:49am UTC, wrote Dear Brabko, Euler's identity was an early example of the surprising...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 4/15/15 at 9:53am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, My math is simple (7 mathematical operations from high...

**Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga**: *on* 4/15/15 at 8:26am UTC, wrote Dear Branko, thanks for reading my essay and for the comments. I thought...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 4/14/15 at 13:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, I found your essay to be of great insight and value, very...

**Branko Zivlak**: *on* 4/13/15 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote Thank you Christian, 1) I was not fascinated with e and pi, I just got...

**Christian Corda**: *on* 4/13/15 at 13:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Branko, Your Essay is intriguing. Here are my comments: 1) I am...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Stefan Weckbach**: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Mykel Waggoner**: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Marcel. I don't agree. There is an underlying assumption to what you say,..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Lorraine Ford**: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Robert McEachern**: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Max? Why?"
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Steve Agnew**: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..."
*in* Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM

September 21, 2021

CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]

TOPIC: Mathematical Connection Among the Structures of Universe by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

TOPIC: Mathematical Connection Among the Structures of Universe by Branko L Zivlak [refresh]

The original methodology has been presented for determining the relationships between the parameters of the Universe, the whole and its parts. Two basic mathematical constants (pi, e) and certain fundamental physical constants have been used for defining significant relations among physical properties. The obtained results are in accordance with the official CODATA values [1]. A simple mathematical representation here shows the power of prediction in physics.

Zivlak Branko is a meteorologist with 37 years of experience in applied meteorology, climatology, computer science and ecology, continuously devoted to the accuracy of meteorological data. He represented his country at the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) and the “Global Climate Observing System” (GCOS). In the recent years, he became interested in the issues related to the functioning of the Universe.

You've guided various path streams touching different zones of moods encapsulated under thematic representation.

Best Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Best Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Zivlak Branko,

1. You have cited Scott Funkhouser's paper published in 2008, in The Proce. Roy. Soc. London. I had drawn attention of The Royal Society of Londan, that, what Funkhouser has tried to explain in 2008, was already explained by me in a paper titled: " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics", published in The Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy Part-A in the year 1997 ! You may find something useful from that paper, available free at the URL:

an explanation for the large numbers in astrophysics and ...

www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_2/20005975_4

69.pdf

2. The dimensionless expression of a cycle, in your essay is interesting.

cycle = e^(2 pi)

3. Actually the energy-ratio ( Hubble-constant H times Planck's constant h ) = [(G me mp)/ e^2] implies that cosmological red-shift is related to the strength of gravitational-force . So, radius of the universe, and total mass of the universe are related to the strength-ratio [(G me mp)/ e^2]. Therefore mass and radius of the universe are not physically real mass and radius of the universe; the universe may be spatially as well as temporally infinite.

4. The base 2 of logarithms is OK for computer. I am not sure whether it is OK in physics. When we calculate values of Planck-constant and gravitational constant differently, then the computer gives additional digits, you understand!

5. Still, I very much appreciate your attempt; and hope my comments will be found useful by you for your further works.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

1. You have cited Scott Funkhouser's paper published in 2008, in The Proce. Roy. Soc. London. I had drawn attention of The Royal Society of Londan, that, what Funkhouser has tried to explain in 2008, was already explained by me in a paper titled: " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics", published in The Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy Part-A in the year 1997 ! You may find something useful from that paper, available free at the URL:

an explanation for the large numbers in astrophysics and ...

www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_2/20005975_4

69.pdf

2. The dimensionless expression of a cycle, in your essay is interesting.

cycle = e^(2 pi)

3. Actually the energy-ratio ( Hubble-constant H times Planck's constant h ) = [(G me mp)/ e^2] implies that cosmological red-shift is related to the strength of gravitational-force . So, radius of the universe, and total mass of the universe are related to the strength-ratio [(G me mp)/ e^2]. Therefore mass and radius of the universe are not physically real mass and radius of the universe; the universe may be spatially as well as temporally infinite.

4. The base 2 of logarithms is OK for computer. I am not sure whether it is OK in physics. When we calculate values of Planck-constant and gravitational constant differently, then the computer gives additional digits, you understand!

5. Still, I very much appreciate your attempt; and hope my comments will be found useful by you for your further works.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

report post as inappropriate

Dear Hasmukh K. Tank,

1. When I say Large number I mean 10^121, that may be reason that I cited Scott Funkhouser.In " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics". In formula (18) you ingeniously re-write Newton Gravitational formula. So, I have same for Universal Gravitational constant as you in 1997 year, but with quite diferent approach. And, it is both quite...

view entire post

1. When I say Large number I mean 10^121, that may be reason that I cited Scott Funkhouser.In " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics". In formula (18) you ingeniously re-write Newton Gravitational formula. So, I have same for Universal Gravitational constant as you in 1997 year, but with quite diferent approach. And, it is both quite...

view entire post

Dear Branko,

Your essay has used a series of formulae to support the claim that the connection between physics and mathematics is true. I believe it is a worthwhile effort which you should continue to work on.

Thanks for your comment on my blog to which I have given a short reply.

All the best in the competition,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Your essay has used a series of formulae to support the claim that the connection between physics and mathematics is true. I believe it is a worthwhile effort which you should continue to work on.

Thanks for your comment on my blog to which I have given a short reply.

All the best in the competition,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality. However, both modern physics and mathematics violate this principle. In one of the essays here, the equations appear all right till we put the values. Once we put the figures, the initial equation shows 1200 = -1250! Hence we should be...

view entire post

The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality. However, both modern physics and mathematics violate this principle. In one of the essays here, the equations appear all right till we put the values. Once we put the figures, the initial equation shows 1200 = -1250! Hence we should be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

I am really very pleased that you carefully consider the formulas and values of physical quantities in my paper. That is the only right way to get with the arguments reach the truth.

Complete response you will get for maximum three days.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

I am really very pleased that you carefully consider the formulas and values of physical quantities in my paper. That is the only right way to get with the arguments reach the truth.

Complete response you will get for maximum three days.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Basudeba,

I agree with you that: "The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality." Regarding your example that "1200 = -1250", I consider it a legitimate author’s responsibility to show the formula derivation process and to accompany the result by official data or at least by the data from...

view entire post

I agree with you that: "The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality." Regarding your example that "1200 = -1250", I consider it a legitimate author’s responsibility to show the formula derivation process and to accompany the result by official data or at least by the data from...

view entire post

Dear Branko,

My impression is that you are trying to connect mathematical and physical constants, isn'it? I don't really understand what is the main point of your argument and how the physics of masses arise. Can you help?

Also you say "the connection of mathematics and physics is true", what do you mean with this sentence? Details would be welcome. My own view is that the universe is not mathematical but since we are part of it whe have no other choice that describing it with some mathematical formulas. Connecting mathematical and physical constants or understanding their mathematical difference would be a good step, for example pi and e are transcendental, what about the fine structure constant, or the ratio between particle masses, and so.

Best wishes.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

My impression is that you are trying to connect mathematical and physical constants, isn'it? I don't really understand what is the main point of your argument and how the physics of masses arise. Can you help?

Also you say "the connection of mathematics and physics is true", what do you mean with this sentence? Details would be welcome. My own view is that the universe is not mathematical but since we are part of it whe have no other choice that describing it with some mathematical formulas. Connecting mathematical and physical constants or understanding their mathematical difference would be a good step, for example pi and e are transcendental, what about the fine structure constant, or the ratio between particle masses, and so.

Best wishes.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michel,

I find your comment instructive and useful. I hope I will provide mutually-beneficial responses, answering your questions one by one.

"My impression is that you are trying to connect mathematical and physical constants, isn'it?"

It seems so, but in reality I only wanted to connect fundamental and widely-accepted physical formulas in a rational way, while...

view entire post

I find your comment instructive and useful. I hope I will provide mutually-beneficial responses, answering your questions one by one.

"My impression is that you are trying to connect mathematical and physical constants, isn'it?"

It seems so, but in reality I only wanted to connect fundamental and widely-accepted physical formulas in a rational way, while...

view entire post

Dear Branko,

No objection, I just try to understand the meaning of what you are doing.

I am also puzzled by the fact that the order of magnitude of the Monster group M (see my essay) is in Kg about the mass of the universe. Similar big or small number coincidences occur in the structure of the Monster but for constants with dimensions, I would have expected for dimensioness constants.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

No objection, I just try to understand the meaning of what you are doing.

I am also puzzled by the fact that the order of magnitude of the Monster group M (see my essay) is in Kg about the mass of the universe. Similar big or small number coincidences occur in the structure of the Monster but for constants with dimensions, I would have expected for dimensioness constants.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I totally agree with you: the fundamental constants is the key to the "grasping" (understanding) primordial structure of the Universum, single ontological basis of fundamental knowledge.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I totally agree with you: the fundamental constants is the key to the "grasping" (understanding) primordial structure of the Universum, single ontological basis of fundamental knowledge.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Yes Vladimir,

but you're on the way of Hegel. Many in this competition are on Hubble way, if you "grasp" what I'm saying.

I think it's just a simple question put by Tim Moudlin: „Which mathematical concepts seem naturally suited to describe features of the physical world, and what does their suitability Imply about the physical world?“

I suggest three main candidates for the mathematical concept:

bit (it was the subject of the competition FQXi 2013);

exp(x) (If you know the unique features of this function);

Euler's identity.

There are other useful functions, but less importance.

Suitable use of pervious can to describe features of the physical World.

What are your main candidates? I Asked three person including Tim Maudlin, and nobody answer me.

As a philosopher, you can have or do not have your candidates for the mathematical concept, but that is expected of physicists to have attitude on this issue. What do you think?

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

but you're on the way of Hegel. Many in this competition are on Hubble way, if you "grasp" what I'm saying.

I think it's just a simple question put by Tim Moudlin: „Which mathematical concepts seem naturally suited to describe features of the physical world, and what does their suitability Imply about the physical world?“

I suggest three main candidates for the mathematical concept:

bit (it was the subject of the competition FQXi 2013);

exp(x) (If you know the unique features of this function);

Euler's identity.

There are other useful functions, but less importance.

Suitable use of pervious can to describe features of the physical World.

What are your main candidates? I Asked three person including Tim Maudlin, and nobody answer me.

As a philosopher, you can have or do not have your candidates for the mathematical concept, but that is expected of physicists to have attitude on this issue. What do you think?

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Triunity absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute, unconditional, limit states): absolute rest + absolute motion + absolute becoming. Plus "point with the germ of the vector." That is the modern ontological concretization of Heraclitus → Plato → Hegel. First I have to "grasp" the primordial structure (in the times before the beginning of times), then "grasp" the nature of information and time.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

I fully agree with your conclusion that the world is fundamentally mathematical and that the whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other. I would appreciate if you take a look at my essay to find my proposition to answer the question why is that and evaluate it.

Our concepts have really a lot in common (this invites to read) however in details there are important differences (that in turn may be inspiring).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452

Thanks.

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

I fully agree with your conclusion that the world is fundamentally mathematical and that the whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other. I would appreciate if you take a look at my essay to find my proposition to answer the question why is that and evaluate it.

Our concepts have really a lot in common (this invites to read) however in details there are important differences (that in turn may be inspiring).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452

Thanks.

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jacek,

You fully agree with my conclusion that the world is fundamentally mathematical and that the whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other. I do not see which calculations you, or the person at the beginning and at the end of your essay that you cite, came to this conclusion. I think it's useful for all to find our point of disagreement instead of just kind of agreement. The main differences are:

Graviton, you need to me unnecessary,

3 + 1 dimension, in my opinion unnecessary.

References, opposite of you I'm referring to Boskovic, Newton, Planck, which I think modern science is not yet sufficiently understood and applied.

I do agree with you that:

„[E] ...theories have two components: mathematical equations and “baggage”, words that explain how they are connected to what we humans observe and intuitively understand.“

So I would prefer that, in my over 30 quations you find any mistake, rather than agreement in one conclusion (“baggage”).

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

You fully agree with my conclusion that the world is fundamentally mathematical and that the whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other. I do not see which calculations you, or the person at the beginning and at the end of your essay that you cite, came to this conclusion. I think it's useful for all to find our point of disagreement instead of just kind of agreement. The main differences are:

Graviton, you need to me unnecessary,

3 + 1 dimension, in my opinion unnecessary.

References, opposite of you I'm referring to Boskovic, Newton, Planck, which I think modern science is not yet sufficiently understood and applied.

I do agree with you that:

„[E] ...theories have two components: mathematical equations and “baggage”, words that explain how they are connected to what we humans observe and intuitively understand.“

So I would prefer that, in my over 30 quations you find any mistake, rather than agreement in one conclusion (“baggage”).

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Branko,

I have pointed out where we agree to support this fundamental approach that is, in my opinion, underestimated in modern physics. That is why, in my essay, I cite, first of all, Max Tegmark.

You ask me about calculations that lead to my conclusion. For the mathematical structure - everything you can find in Perelman proof of the geometrization conjecture. There is a lot of calculus. For the correspondence rule the base is General Relativity. However important in GR is the geometric paradigm and not the equations as these have distance limit and fail outside it.

For Graviton I have put a question mark and Notice 1: gravity possibly can be an emerging interaction - a superposition of other geometries with S3 being the outcome. Then S3 could be decomposed into the other 8 geometries. I personally do not believe the graviton or other “mediating particles” exist. But I have to refer to modern physics and its language.

I respect Newton, Planck and many other physicists and do not know Boskovic. I will try to catch up.

I think that the only method to get rid out of the baggage is the universal language of geometry. This language, very generally speaking, means shape or a future visual language. Syntax and semantics are the observer’s baggage. We need it to communicate between humans but it would be probably incomprehensible for aliens or future supercomputers. That is also the reason that I do not look for mistakes in your equations. My approach is fully geometrical and logical. Calculus is the kind of language. I do not expect that you would find mistakes in Perelman proof but if you could find it in logic of my correspondence rule I would be grateful.

I am sorry I do not meet your expectations. I am sure that if you have been meticulous, your equations are correct. Best regards!

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

I have pointed out where we agree to support this fundamental approach that is, in my opinion, underestimated in modern physics. That is why, in my essay, I cite, first of all, Max Tegmark.

You ask me about calculations that lead to my conclusion. For the mathematical structure - everything you can find in Perelman proof of the geometrization conjecture. There is a lot of calculus. For the correspondence rule the base is General Relativity. However important in GR is the geometric paradigm and not the equations as these have distance limit and fail outside it.

For Graviton I have put a question mark and Notice 1: gravity possibly can be an emerging interaction - a superposition of other geometries with S3 being the outcome. Then S3 could be decomposed into the other 8 geometries. I personally do not believe the graviton or other “mediating particles” exist. But I have to refer to modern physics and its language.

I respect Newton, Planck and many other physicists and do not know Boskovic. I will try to catch up.

I think that the only method to get rid out of the baggage is the universal language of geometry. This language, very generally speaking, means shape or a future visual language. Syntax and semantics are the observer’s baggage. We need it to communicate between humans but it would be probably incomprehensible for aliens or future supercomputers. That is also the reason that I do not look for mistakes in your equations. My approach is fully geometrical and logical. Calculus is the kind of language. I do not expect that you would find mistakes in Perelman proof but if you could find it in logic of my correspondence rule I would be grateful.

I am sorry I do not meet your expectations. I am sure that if you have been meticulous, your equations are correct. Best regards!

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jacek,

Thanks for the clarifications,

Preleman is not in your reference list. But its okay, I'm sure that his calculations were valuable of the respect. Geometry is the main tool of scientists of the 18th century, and their achievements are now usefull. Boscovich's theory of forces is obtained with the geometry, and is the first theory of everything (see Borrow).

I will continue on your site.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Thanks for the clarifications,

Preleman is not in your reference list. But its okay, I'm sure that his calculations were valuable of the respect. Geometry is the main tool of scientists of the 18th century, and their achievements are now usefull. Boscovich's theory of forces is obtained with the geometry, and is the first theory of everything (see Borrow).

I will continue on your site.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Jacek,

Just to say, as a reply to your post, that I red your response above. If I have further ideas I will write you again. You are doing well in this contest. It is good.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Just to say, as a reply to your post, that I red your response above. If I have further ideas I will write you again. You are doing well in this contest. It is good.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

your essay contains many astonishing numerical relations having very precise values.

I was always intrigued by Dirac's numerology and I think your's is still more far-reaching.

I have a question: When you calculate the Universe Cycle with order 1E17 s, which is the Hubble time, do you imply the correctness of the Big Bang?

And what does the Universe Radius mean? Is it in the General Relativity sence?

I wish you further success

Best

Lutz

report post as inappropriate

your essay contains many astonishing numerical relations having very precise values.

I was always intrigued by Dirac's numerology and I think your's is still more far-reaching.

I have a question: When you calculate the Universe Cycle with order 1E17 s, which is the Hubble time, do you imply the correctness of the Big Bang?

And what does the Universe Radius mean? Is it in the General Relativity sence?

I wish you further success

Best

Lutz

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lutz,

Often, the Giants of Science have plenty of great ideas. Some brought to an end, and some never to return due to lack of time. So Dirac, modest and temporary LNH characterized as a coincidence. Pursuing his other great achievements could not fully dedicate himself to this issue. It is high time that the word coincidence and numerology abolish regarding the LNH.

I do not use the term Hubble time since, the geeks that gave some inappropriate connotations. I am very pleased to have in an essay here; I found that even Hubble was not satisfied with inappropriate interpretations of his discoveries.

Many misunderstandings related to the parameters of the universe arise because the used units of measure. The fact that the universe is finite is known long before Einstein. Thus, the radius of the universe is finite and we can define it as one whole length, or in natural units of measurement "1". Then, part cannot be greater than the whole. Then it is in every sense. The radius of the universe can still be understood as the limit value, but not as the radius of the spherical universe. Spherical universe for me is greater mistake than to say that the Earth is flat.

I am very glad that someone is thinking so lucid as you are in your essay, has relevant comments on my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Often, the Giants of Science have plenty of great ideas. Some brought to an end, and some never to return due to lack of time. So Dirac, modest and temporary LNH characterized as a coincidence. Pursuing his other great achievements could not fully dedicate himself to this issue. It is high time that the word coincidence and numerology abolish regarding the LNH.

I do not use the term Hubble time since, the geeks that gave some inappropriate connotations. I am very pleased to have in an essay here; I found that even Hubble was not satisfied with inappropriate interpretations of his discoveries.

Many misunderstandings related to the parameters of the universe arise because the used units of measure. The fact that the universe is finite is known long before Einstein. Thus, the radius of the universe is finite and we can define it as one whole length, or in natural units of measurement "1". Then, part cannot be greater than the whole. Then it is in every sense. The radius of the universe can still be understood as the limit value, but not as the radius of the spherical universe. Spherical universe for me is greater mistake than to say that the Earth is flat.

I am very glad that someone is thinking so lucid as you are in your essay, has relevant comments on my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

I think there is both truth and mystery in your essay.

You start with the notion of a part and the Whole which can be expressed as a ratio. This idea is fundamental to Mach's principle, as you mentioned in another article. You choose a logarithmic expression for the ratio. This is needed to see the Planck scale as a centre for logarithmic symmetry through the geometric mean.

Next you take three well-known physical constants - the mass of the proton, and the product of two related dimensionless quantities: the fine structure constant and the proton to electron mass ratio. From this pair of highly accurate physical data, some reasoning and some basic physical and mathematical formulas, you produce highly accurate estimates of unrelated physical constants, perhaps even better than observation - the gravitation constant being one possible example.

Dimensional analysis can sometimes make significant predictions, but there would not seem much to start with here. Interesting.

I was wondering about the accuracy of any physical constant. Depending on the type of measurement, I wonder if the result of a measurement performed on Earth might be influenced by Earth's gravitational field. A first order effect would be about 10^(-9), which could possibly limit the accuracy of some physical constants to nine significant digits. This should not be a problem with your dimensionless constants.

I was really impressed by the correspondence between our quantum harmonic oscillators.

If this is a trick, it is a good one.

Best regards,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

I think there is both truth and mystery in your essay.

You start with the notion of a part and the Whole which can be expressed as a ratio. This idea is fundamental to Mach's principle, as you mentioned in another article. You choose a logarithmic expression for the ratio. This is needed to see the Planck scale as a centre for logarithmic symmetry through the geometric mean.

Next you take three well-known physical constants - the mass of the proton, and the product of two related dimensionless quantities: the fine structure constant and the proton to electron mass ratio. From this pair of highly accurate physical data, some reasoning and some basic physical and mathematical formulas, you produce highly accurate estimates of unrelated physical constants, perhaps even better than observation - the gravitation constant being one possible example.

Dimensional analysis can sometimes make significant predictions, but there would not seem much to start with here. Interesting.

I was wondering about the accuracy of any physical constant. Depending on the type of measurement, I wonder if the result of a measurement performed on Earth might be influenced by Earth's gravitational field. A first order effect would be about 10^(-9), which could possibly limit the accuracy of some physical constants to nine significant digits. This should not be a problem with your dimensionless constants.

I was really impressed by the correspondence between our quantum harmonic oscillators.

If this is a trick, it is a good one.

Best regards,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Colin,

There is no mystery in my metodology.

What can be more rational than Mach's principle. You grasp the main idea in my essay.

In fact, the same results can be reached in different ways. The actual way that I've come to the results took two years. Partly as described in my essay FQXi of 2013.

I do not need the mass of the proton. But if I want to express the results in any system unit of measures I have to define the system with mass, length and time.

Your thoughts on the accuracy of measurements of the Earth are very interesting. Maybe you have article about that?

About trick:

The essence of every trick of a magician is long and precise practice and preparation. That seems to us as a trick, but in fact it is a science.

If you want to understand half of a single theory of modern physics, you need more than one year of hard learning.

You understand more than half of my methodology for several days. This means that it is very simple.

Or you can refuse to understand, as Professor Hestenes (see in his space). His response is indicative how the majority thinks.

Fortunately, you do not belong to that majority. Therefore, you deserve at least two times greater than the current evaluation (4.1).

Perhaps the best answer to the question what is my theory? It is a Mach Principle.

Instead of quantum oscillators I wrote about the quantum of mass. For this you can see an article with Professor Stoiljkovic on viXra or Reaserch Gate.

Best regards,

Branko

There is no mystery in my metodology.

What can be more rational than Mach's principle. You grasp the main idea in my essay.

In fact, the same results can be reached in different ways. The actual way that I've come to the results took two years. Partly as described in my essay FQXi of 2013.

I do not need the mass of the proton. But if I want to express the results in any system unit of measures I have to define the system with mass, length and time.

Your thoughts on the accuracy of measurements of the Earth are very interesting. Maybe you have article about that?

About trick:

The essence of every trick of a magician is long and precise practice and preparation. That seems to us as a trick, but in fact it is a science.

If you want to understand half of a single theory of modern physics, you need more than one year of hard learning.

You understand more than half of my methodology for several days. This means that it is very simple.

Or you can refuse to understand, as Professor Hestenes (see in his space). His response is indicative how the majority thinks.

Fortunately, you do not belong to that majority. Therefore, you deserve at least two times greater than the current evaluation (4.1).

Perhaps the best answer to the question what is my theory? It is a Mach Principle.

Instead of quantum oscillators I wrote about the quantum of mass. For this you can see an article with Professor Stoiljkovic on viXra or Reaserch Gate.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

Thanks for clarifying part of the trick. I want to write a program to explore your findings in more detail.

I was unaware of the work of Roger Boscovich in the 1700s on which some of your work is based. Newton's philosophy put experimentation first while Boscovich went the other way, trying to reach conclusions from pure reason which might then be tested by experiment. This distinction continues to some extent today as physicists are divided into experimentalists and theorists.

A shortcoming with your essay is that there is no explanation of how you arrived at the extraordinary results. It may be that some of Boscovich's unfamiliar method of reasoning would be unconvincing to modern readers. I am especially motivated to investigate because of the interesting connection between our essays which you noticed and which I had overlooked.

To assess the gravitational effect of a body like the Earth on measurement, please refer to Table 1 of my unpublished paper of 2010, ref [13] in my essay. This table shows how the fundamental dimensions of mass, length and time are supposed to vary with gravitational field according to Bowler's dimensional analysis of general relativity. Bowler warns against indiscriminate use of these relationships, so just consider radial variation.

For Earth mass M, and radius R, let phi = -GM/(Rc^2) be the field strength (phi is negative). To first order, length L_0 in a gravitational field contracts to (1+phi)L_0 but time T_0 dilates to (1-phi)T_0. This sort of variation is confirmed in Pound-Rebka experiment measuring energy of photon, E=(1+ph)E_0. All I am suggesting (without a specific example) is that some determinations of physical constants could possibly be affected in this way by the gravitational field of the Earth.

By the way, look at the peculiar way G varies with field strength. This may help to explain why G is hard to estimate!

Best wishes,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for clarifying part of the trick. I want to write a program to explore your findings in more detail.

I was unaware of the work of Roger Boscovich in the 1700s on which some of your work is based. Newton's philosophy put experimentation first while Boscovich went the other way, trying to reach conclusions from pure reason which might then be tested by experiment. This distinction continues to some extent today as physicists are divided into experimentalists and theorists.

A shortcoming with your essay is that there is no explanation of how you arrived at the extraordinary results. It may be that some of Boscovich's unfamiliar method of reasoning would be unconvincing to modern readers. I am especially motivated to investigate because of the interesting connection between our essays which you noticed and which I had overlooked.

To assess the gravitational effect of a body like the Earth on measurement, please refer to Table 1 of my unpublished paper of 2010, ref [13] in my essay. This table shows how the fundamental dimensions of mass, length and time are supposed to vary with gravitational field according to Bowler's dimensional analysis of general relativity. Bowler warns against indiscriminate use of these relationships, so just consider radial variation.

For Earth mass M, and radius R, let phi = -GM/(Rc^2) be the field strength (phi is negative). To first order, length L_0 in a gravitational field contracts to (1+phi)L_0 but time T_0 dilates to (1-phi)T_0. This sort of variation is confirmed in Pound-Rebka experiment measuring energy of photon, E=(1+ph)E_0. All I am suggesting (without a specific example) is that some determinations of physical constants could possibly be affected in this way by the gravitational field of the Earth.

By the way, look at the peculiar way G varies with field strength. This may help to explain why G is hard to estimate!

Best wishes,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Colin,

You write:

„I want to write a program to explore your findings in more detail.“

Google translation

I think my simple table in Excel, it is quite a good program.

I suggest you use it the way that you add new levels. For example, You can add the level with mass responsible for the quantum mechanical oscillator (that is very easy). Then, you add...

view entire post

You write:

„I want to write a program to explore your findings in more detail.“

Google translation

I think my simple table in Excel, it is quite a good program.

I suggest you use it the way that you add new levels. For example, You can add the level with mass responsible for the quantum mechanical oscillator (that is very easy). Then, you add...

view entire post

Sorry Branko, that should have been ref [8] in my essay at the same website - file name is shells2010dec29.pdf. Here is a link to the website - I can't seem to point at the document itself. What I also show is that classical Newtonian methods can duplicate some simple results of "curved space" methods if the gravitational potential energy function is exponential.

Take the dimensions of mass, length and time to be M, L and T. Then G would be dimensionless if mass M = (L^3)/(T^2), but I have not done that in the table. This is discussed in the Wikipedia article on "Dimensional Analysis" in the section on Planck units.

I think it is appropriate to use natural units when working with cosmology. Outside of cosmology, I am not so sure.

Best to you,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Take the dimensions of mass, length and time to be M, L and T. Then G would be dimensionless if mass M = (L^3)/(T^2), but I have not done that in the table. This is discussed in the Wikipedia article on "Dimensional Analysis" in the section on Planck units.

I think it is appropriate to use natural units when working with cosmology. Outside of cosmology, I am not so sure.

Best to you,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Colin,

I think your article [8] is remarkable.

Perhaps, in the text it should be noted that the mathematical n tends to infinity, is a natural n tends to a finite number of large N.

You need to be very careful with the use of the word infinity in physics. The role of the exponent in your formulas and in general is essential.

Using the system unit rate is according to agreement. If at the same time comparing the size of the cosmology and particle physics have to decide on one system.

Best regards,

Branko

I think your article [8] is remarkable.

Perhaps, in the text it should be noted that the mathematical n tends to infinity, is a natural n tends to a finite number of large N.

You need to be very careful with the use of the word infinity in physics. The role of the exponent in your formulas and in general is essential.

Using the system unit rate is according to agreement. If at the same time comparing the size of the cosmology and particle physics have to decide on one system.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

I have still in mind your work that I will rate positively but I still have a question: how do you relate Euler's identity to your calculations? I consider Euler's identity related to the Bloch sphere for qubits (my comment on Hoover's talk). The Bloch sphere and the Riemann sphere (used by Felix Klein) are two equivalent representations as I remind here

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1005.1997.pdf

I suspect that what you are doing makes sense having in mind these building blocks of maths.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

I have still in mind your work that I will rate positively but I still have a question: how do you relate Euler's identity to your calculations? I consider Euler's identity related to the Bloch sphere for qubits (my comment on Hoover's talk). The Bloch sphere and the Riemann sphere (used by Felix Klein) are two equivalent representations as I remind here

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1005.1997.pdf

I suspect that what you are doing makes sense having in mind these building blocks of maths.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Michel,

I have not used Euler's identity. I am sure that Euler's identity somehow complementary to my cycle. That's why I sent a letter to the three professors from Maudlin's the subquestion about it. They do not answer; perhaps you have an answer (the question was repeated on your site). I even think it would be Euler's identity could lead to the prediction of protons, like me using the Cycle.

In fact, I'm the same as you believe in a letter to Hoover. “May be we already have enough maths that can be used in physics and biology to interpret some paradoxes and mysteries. „

I did not want to ask you, on your site. What is the point when Math declares: Monster group M ... this would correspond to the mass in Kg of the Known Universe. This is pure numerology in kg-m-sec system, or is it just a literal term.

Regards,

Branko

I have not used Euler's identity. I am sure that Euler's identity somehow complementary to my cycle. That's why I sent a letter to the three professors from Maudlin's the subquestion about it. They do not answer; perhaps you have an answer (the question was repeated on your site). I even think it would be Euler's identity could lead to the prediction of protons, like me using the Cycle.

In fact, I'm the same as you believe in a letter to Hoover. “May be we already have enough maths that can be used in physics and biology to interpret some paradoxes and mysteries. „

I did not want to ask you, on your site. What is the point when Math declares: Monster group M ... this would correspond to the mass in Kg of the Known Universe. This is pure numerology in kg-m-sec system, or is it just a literal term.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

I do not have the answer but it seems that your calculations have to do with Euler's identity and its embedding in higher maths. At the moment, my attention is on two-generator free groups that may be used to represent most of the subparts of the Monster group M and also many finite classical groups.

The big numbers occuring in M may be ultimately used for an approach of physical constants. I don't have the ability that you, Patrick Tonin, Angel Doz, Mark Thomas and others have on what is called numerology although I am considered as an expert in number theory. I can share with you by email one observation I did about how to approximate quite well the Planck's constant. But this is dimensional, like the mass in Kg of the universe, so that it is probably pure numerology.

I am now giving you the tenth rate that should give more visibility to your effort.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

I do not have the answer but it seems that your calculations have to do with Euler's identity and its embedding in higher maths. At the moment, my attention is on two-generator free groups that may be used to represent most of the subparts of the Monster group M and also many finite classical groups.

The big numbers occuring in M may be ultimately used for an approach of physical constants. I don't have the ability that you, Patrick Tonin, Angel Doz, Mark Thomas and others have on what is called numerology although I am considered as an expert in number theory. I can share with you by email one observation I did about how to approximate quite well the Planck's constant. But this is dimensional, like the mass in Kg of the universe, so that it is probably pure numerology.

I am now giving you the tenth rate that should give more visibility to your effort.

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko Zivlak,

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

Your equations are very impressive but maybe you should clarify how you got your delta-p otherwise it just looks like a fudge factor.

Otherwise, I agree with you that the whole and parts are dependent on each other and I also think that Dirac was on the right track with his LNH.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Your equations are very impressive but maybe you should clarify how you got your delta-p otherwise it just looks like a fudge factor.

Otherwise, I agree with you that the whole and parts are dependent on each other and I also think that Dirac was on the right track with his LNH.

All the best,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Dear Patrick

The value of delta p in the formula (7) is the assumption. Everyone is invited to rebut the presumption. In the process of refutations can find better value for delta p or confirm my. In any case, there is a delta p and it is necessary to discuss about this value. I also think that specialists who really are familiar with elementary particles can logically determine this parameter. It is commendable for you that you just pointed in the right place in my essay, but you (BSc in Electronics and Computing) and I (meteorologist) do not have to do it the necessary experience.

I gave a general picture which is consistent with the Mach principle and not violent towards anything widely accepted in physics. Whatever the results obtained, my essay shows that LNH is not a coincidence, that is in itself an achievement.

Regards,

Branko

The value of delta p in the formula (7) is the assumption. Everyone is invited to rebut the presumption. In the process of refutations can find better value for delta p or confirm my. In any case, there is a delta p and it is necessary to discuss about this value. I also think that specialists who really are familiar with elementary particles can logically determine this parameter. It is commendable for you that you just pointed in the right place in my essay, but you (BSc in Electronics and Computing) and I (meteorologist) do not have to do it the necessary experience.

I gave a general picture which is consistent with the Mach principle and not violent towards anything widely accepted in physics. Whatever the results obtained, my essay shows that LNH is not a coincidence, that is in itself an achievement.

Regards,

Branko

Hi Branko,

Yes, LNH is definetely not a coincidence.

I hope that more people will take notice of that in the future.

I have rated your essay.

Cheers,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Yes, LNH is definetely not a coincidence.

I hope that more people will take notice of that in the future.

I have rated your essay.

Cheers,

Patrick

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

Your Essay is intriguing. Here are my comments:

1) I am fascinated by the numbers e and pi, in particular by the Eulero identity. I recently found a connection between e and p in my research on black holes. I was thinking to write my Essay on this issue, but, at the end, I preferred to wrote my Essay on Mossbauer experiment as new proof of general relativity.

2) I think the issue that your results are in accordance with the official CODATA values cannot be a coincidence.

3) Can you kindly give more details concerning the derivation of your eq. (7)?

4) Your results (12) and (13) are consistent with a model of oscillating universe that I proposed some years ago, see here and here.

5) Your number of Planck’s oscillators in eqs. (16) and (17) is of order of the number of the vacuum catastrophe. Think about this issue. It is indeed one of the greatest mysteries in the whole history of science.

6) In general, your beautiful Essay is a strong endorsement of your statement that "the connection between physics and mathematics is true".

As your Essay enjoyed me a lot, I will give you a deserved highest score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Your Essay is intriguing. Here are my comments:

1) I am fascinated by the numbers e and pi, in particular by the Eulero identity. I recently found a connection between e and p in my research on black holes. I was thinking to write my Essay on this issue, but, at the end, I preferred to wrote my Essay on Mossbauer experiment as new proof of general relativity.

2) I think the issue that your results are in accordance with the official CODATA values cannot be a coincidence.

3) Can you kindly give more details concerning the derivation of your eq. (7)?

4) Your results (12) and (13) are consistent with a model of oscillating universe that I proposed some years ago, see here and here.

5) Your number of Planck’s oscillators in eqs. (16) and (17) is of order of the number of the vacuum catastrophe. Think about this issue. It is indeed one of the greatest mysteries in the whole history of science.

6) In general, your beautiful Essay is a strong endorsement of your statement that "the connection between physics and mathematics is true".

As your Essay enjoyed me a lot, I will give you a deserved highest score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Christian,

1) I was not fascinated with e and pi, I just got them. Euler's identity I ignored because I do not have time for that. The fact is that my cycle exp (2pi) and Euler exp (i * pi) can complement each other. Think about this issue.

2) See paper http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0081

3) Here's the point. Perform this formula was a cognitive process that I described partly in the previous FQXi essay. There are no previous accepted mathematical formulas from which I could have done (7). Is immodest when a scientist without a reputation writes about the ways of his knowledge. In this contest there are those who ascribe themselves a reputation so exposing their views, beliefs, intentions, impressions and agreeing with others the same as they are. Often, without any prediction and formulas. Currently I'm writing an extension of my essay in which I will explain in more detail some formulas and so (7). If you would like to be a reviewer, I'd appreciate it.

4) For me, the universe has no shape. The shape is formed as a result of immanent relations that are in the universe. The shape of the sphere (Planets) is a consequence, see http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0087.

5) Using Table from my essay does not produce problem of vacuum catastrophe.

6) Only lack of knowledge can justify the opposite stance.

Cheers,

Branko

1) I was not fascinated with e and pi, I just got them. Euler's identity I ignored because I do not have time for that. The fact is that my cycle exp (2pi) and Euler exp (i * pi) can complement each other. Think about this issue.

2) See paper http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0081

3) Here's the point. Perform this formula was a cognitive process that I described partly in the previous FQXi essay. There are no previous accepted mathematical formulas from which I could have done (7). Is immodest when a scientist without a reputation writes about the ways of his knowledge. In this contest there are those who ascribe themselves a reputation so exposing their views, beliefs, intentions, impressions and agreeing with others the same as they are. Often, without any prediction and formulas. Currently I'm writing an extension of my essay in which I will explain in more detail some formulas and so (7). If you would like to be a reviewer, I'd appreciate it.

4) For me, the universe has no shape. The shape is formed as a result of immanent relations that are in the universe. The shape of the sphere (Planets) is a consequence, see http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0087.

5) Using Table from my essay does not produce problem of vacuum catastrophe.

6) Only lack of knowledge can justify the opposite stance.

Cheers,

Branko

Dear Branko,

I found your essay to be of great insight and value, very well and clearly written. I can't comment on the correctness of the maths but see in your structures am excellent resolution to the problem of 'number of dimensions'. Are you familiar with Hamed's 'amplituhedron' as an attempt at the same?

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay. I hope you may also closely study this new video, redefining hierarchical 'scales' in a similar way, from Euler and fundamental energy as OAM at all scales, with apparent rationalising effects throughout physics and cosmology.

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

I hope and think in some way that your mathematical structure might be consistent with the physical mechanisms I describe, of spin within spin within spin. (Of course weather gives us strong hints!). The fine structure constant is certainly a key part. Do please comment and stay in touch. In the meantime me a well earned top score coming.

Very well done and thanks for the insights.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I found your essay to be of great insight and value, very well and clearly written. I can't comment on the correctness of the maths but see in your structures am excellent resolution to the problem of 'number of dimensions'. Are you familiar with Hamed's 'amplituhedron' as an attempt at the same?

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay. I hope you may also closely study this new video, redefining hierarchical 'scales' in a similar way, from Euler and fundamental energy as OAM at all scales, with apparent rationalising effects throughout physics and cosmology.

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

I hope and think in some way that your mathematical structure might be consistent with the physical mechanisms I describe, of spin within spin within spin. (Of course weather gives us strong hints!). The fine structure constant is certainly a key part. Do please comment and stay in touch. In the meantime me a well earned top score coming.

Very well done and thanks for the insights.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko,

thanks for reading my essay and for the comments. I thought long what I can cite. Of course I'm influenced by many other thinkers (Hegel, Russel, Gödel, Einstein, Planck, Helmholtz etc.) but I don't find direct places to cite them. I'm sure that my thoughts were also thought by others but I had no time to find the places in the literature.

BTW, I'm a researcher and it is not only a hobby....

With your essay I have some problems. You try to relate numbers to observables like mass relations or the fine structure constant. I see your conclusion but I have problems with these numbers: Maybe your right but what did we learn from this numbers? What is a charge? If you calculate the fine structure constant then I would expect that you know it but I don't found any explanation.

Best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

thanks for reading my essay and for the comments. I thought long what I can cite. Of course I'm influenced by many other thinkers (Hegel, Russel, Gödel, Einstein, Planck, Helmholtz etc.) but I don't find direct places to cite them. I'm sure that my thoughts were also thought by others but I had no time to find the places in the literature.

BTW, I'm a researcher and it is not only a hobby....

With your essay I have some problems. You try to relate numbers to observables like mass relations or the fine structure constant. I see your conclusion but I have problems with these numbers: Maybe your right but what did we learn from this numbers? What is a charge? If you calculate the fine structure constant then I would expect that you know it but I don't found any explanation.

Best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

My math is simple (7 mathematical operations from high school).

Did I understand you correctly? You agree with me that the dimensions are not necessary.

I think the graphics in your video, very instructive and it agrees with my concept. I'm going to have me take a look, a couple of times. I did not understand everything because of my poor English. In the Table of my essays can be classified all structures, including galaxies. See articles:

The Characteristic Planet http://vixra.org/author/branko_zivlak

Two Significant Cosmological Masses http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/1451/Bra

nko,%20Zivlak

Of course it is consistent: of spin within spin within spin.

The fine structure constant is certainly a key part. But, according to the Godel, we cannot calculate all. But we can be closer and closer.

I do not know what is OAM. Yes, I want to be in touch. My email is in my essay.

Regards,

Branko

My math is simple (7 mathematical operations from high school).

Did I understand you correctly? You agree with me that the dimensions are not necessary.

I think the graphics in your video, very instructive and it agrees with my concept. I'm going to have me take a look, a couple of times. I did not understand everything because of my poor English. In the Table of my essays can be classified all structures, including galaxies. See articles:

The Characteristic Planet http://vixra.org/author/branko_zivlak

Two Significant Cosmological Masses http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/1451/Bra

nko,%20Zivlak

Of course it is consistent: of spin within spin within spin.

The fine structure constant is certainly a key part. But, according to the Godel, we cannot calculate all. But we can be closer and closer.

I do not know what is OAM. Yes, I want to be in touch. My email is in my essay.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Brabko,

Euler's identity was an early example of the surprising connectedness of ideas in mathematics and physics. It linked and in a surprisingly direct way where previously they seemed unconnected. Now we take it for granted because it is part of complex analysis that is common place in maths and physics, for example it is used in Fourier analysis. However it is a good idea to use it in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Euler's identity was an early example of the surprising connectedness of ideas in mathematics and physics. It linked and in a surprisingly direct way where previously they seemed unconnected. Now we take it for granted because it is part of complex analysis that is common place in maths and physics, for example it is used in Fourier analysis. However it is a good idea to use it in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Branko, his essay is a marvel of fresh and innovative ideas; all with a solid internal logic. I'll have to check all your equations. I was particularly struck by the notion of the concept of cycle based on the exponential product of Pi. Without going into technical details I can comment that this concept is important. For example; baryon density of the universe can be expressed by: exp (-Pi) + sqr (2) × exp (-2Pi) = 0.045854881 = omega (b). An excellent essay which demonstrates the inseparable interconnection between physics and mathematics. congratulations !!!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Branko,

Thanks for your note in my forum. I knew about von Weizsäckers large number hypothesis. When I red it many years ago I thought of it:*incredible*. I cannot imagine a mutual dependence of the size of the universe and the masses/size of the elementary particles. I can imagine, that one could derive the masses of elementary particles (instead of thinking them as given), but these would be from purely 'local' reasoning. Although there might be a connection between the size of the universe, the number of bits (or qbits, ure) in it and the localizabilty of elementary particle.

The precision you got is*incredible*. I will have some more thoughts on these relations, when the contest is over.

Best regards

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your note in my forum. I knew about von Weizsäckers large number hypothesis. When I red it many years ago I thought of it:

The precision you got is

Best regards

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.