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

Malcolm Macleod: on 3/5/18 at 13:07pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, I watched the video, is the presentator you? ... I need more...

Peter Jackson: on 2/26/18 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote Malcolm, Quite brilliant ..I think! My skills are focussed elsewhere than...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 9:11am UTC, wrote Dear Malcolm If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

Malcolm Macleod: on 2/4/18 at 9:00am UTC, wrote Hi Adel, Your article did not give details on how your model can be used...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/2/18 at 22:55pm UTC, wrote Hi Malcolm Macleod Very interesting essay on “Mass, Space and Time in a...

adel sadeq: on 2/2/18 at 22:32pm UTC, wrote Hi Malcolm I think looking for something fundamental in...

Malcolm Macleod: on 1/29/18 at 1:09am UTC, wrote Hi Stephen, I see we do have significant overlap. I set the geometry of...

Malcolm Macleod: on 1/29/18 at 0:41am UTC, wrote Hi Diogenes, Thanks for the comments. I see there is some confusion, you...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "It is interesting that you bring up change in the context of free..." in Cosmological Koans

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

david john: "https://www.google.com google.com/ google.com/" in Black Hole Photographed...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Lorraine Ford: "Physics has failed to explain change: physics tries to claim that change is..." in Cosmological Koans


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.


FQXi FORUM
July 17, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Mass, Space and Time in a Virtual Universe (Simulation Hypothesis) by Malcolm Macleod [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Malcolm Macleod wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT
Essay Abstract

In the “Trialogue on the number of fundamental physical constants” was debated the number, from 1 to 3, of fundamental dimensionful units required, noting that “It is necessary and sufficient to have three basic units in order to reproduce in an experimentally meaningful way the dimensions of all physical quantities”. This implies that units such as mass, space, time, charge… ‘are’ in some physical sense, the Trialogue debating which, if any, are ‘the fundamental units’ from which the other units may then be derived. In a general mathematical universe hypothesis these units do not exist in any material sense, nevertheless there is no compelling reason why the mathematics for time-ness should relate to or depend upon the mathematics for mass-ness or space-ness, thus even a mathematical universe may be said to have a ‘form’ or ‘structure’ which can be referred to. The virtual universe which I shall discuss here is a special case of the mathematical universe in which these units must sum to unity, units = 1, the analogy being a computer game. I will argue that a virtual Descartes has no fundamental reference to which he may point and then state; ergo sum (therefore I am).

Author Bio

While working as a software radio engineer I became interested in the relationship between charge mass space and time, both philosophically and mathematically.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 07:48 GMT
Hello Malcolm

I found aspects of this essay interesting, but couldn't find where you argued about Descartes's inability to say 'ergo sum' which was an area of interest. I think there may be something in your work, in that my own work provides a graph theoretic universal model, and an equivalent 1-space model, and has higher dimensional intepretations, so structures develop from the geometry, as you suggest. The simulation aspects seem to connect, but I couldn't make sense of parts. Because of this, while I am an essay author, I won't be rating your essay. That is, I can't tell how good it is, though I recognise that explaining such abstractions can be very challenging. My essay is at https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041 so you might be able to build your simulation model using the elements of my Harmony Set. If so, you may come up with something very surprising next time, if that helps.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 01:09 GMT
Hi Stephen,

I see we do have significant overlap. I set the geometry of the fundamental unit of mass M = 1, in SI terms M = Planck mass. I also hypothesis that this unit represents a Planck size black-hole. Where we differ is that I use the particle frequency to dictate the frequency of units of Planck mass, in other words, for 1 unit of Planck time the electron has mass M = 1, then for 10^23 unts of Planck time the electron is in a magnetic monopole electric state (it has no mass), the monopoles and time cancel each other, the black hole is exposed, the oscillation cycle continues, the electron mass becoming the average frequency of units of Planck mass per second. Thus in my model there is only integral units of Planck mass.

Can your model also use frequencies? I inserted my virtual electron inside a universe virtual hypersphere and the role of Planck mass in this co-ordinate system may interest you. The Lorentz formulas reduce to the mathematics of perspective (just as we project a 3-D view into a 2-D image, relativity projects onto our 3-D 'screen'). The perspective paper needs flash to run.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



DIOGENES AYBAR wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 13:55 GMT
Dear Malcolm;

You propose a very interesting model for establishing a universal Unit System. Besides that you have made a point that most scientists overlook: “Measurement requires a contrast”. All measurements in physics refer to the value of a parameter against the background or compared to an arbitrary reference. Normally they confuse those parameters with the reality. And you pointed it out very well when you stated “If these are base units then in a physical universe there should be an attribute of mass-ness, of time-ness, of space-ness etc from which a definition of ‘physical’ may then be constructed. I commend you for that.

But I have to admit, probably because I do not have a computer science background, I did not understand your virtual universe model. Even though I think it is a very good idea to computer simulate model of the universe based in new concepts of the basic reality to see which of them predict observable conditions that actually occur. Something like Wolfram’s “A new Kind of science”.

I encourage you to move in that direction.

Yours;

Diogenes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 00:41 GMT
Hi Diogenes,

Thanks for the comments. I see there is some confusion, you wrote ... to computer simulate model of the universe ... please note I was not describing a method to simulate the universe on our computers but rather showing how our universe itself could be simulated on a 'celestial' computer.

Beginning with a virtual electron (virtual particles) the model can solve the dimensioned physical constants G, h, c, e, me, kB (along with the SI units kg, m, s, A, k) yet it uses only dimensionless mathematical forms (from 2 constants), a sort of Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe meets Elon Musk's simulated universe.

As such a universe does not exist in any material sense, there is no fundamental 'substance' to which Descartes may point and say; 'this is'. If you have time, I have a paper on this simulated universe hypothesis that lists the formulas and derivations.

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:32 GMT
Hi Malcolm

I think looking for something fundamental in physics like the unit system is important. However, in my system which you can think of as simulation, the units and their relations appear automatically and they follow pretty much the standard known physics. Please check my essay to see if it makes any sense. Thanks

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

P.S. the link you have given for the simulation appear to be broken.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 09:00 GMT
Hi Adel,

Your article did not give details on how your model can be used to solve practical problems, instead it relied on external links to your website which I am having trouble to access, maybe the server is temporarily down, I will try again later. So I cannot really comment at present, I will get back to you.

I have to re-check my links also, the paper on which my article is based can be found here Programming Planck units via a virtual (black-hole) electron; a Simulation

Hypothesis
, and I have a 'popular' ebook on the philisophical aspects of such a model here God the Mathematician which might interest you.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Malcolm

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT
Malcolm,

Quite brilliant ..I think! My skills are focussed elsewhere than maths but I understood and loved your original approach and 'out of the box the boxes came in' thinking.

Have you been involved in antenna design, and the near/far field TZ position at any lambda? I don't deal with it here but previous essays have derived a rationale similarly beyond constricted doctrinal thinking. (this years was a test which the model passed, but also beyond entrenched belief this time in in weirdness!).

I agree your central thesis; "a virtual Descartes has no fundamental reference to which he may point and then state; ergo sum". which is a plague on understanding including SR. I've gone so far as suggesting and rationalised a sequence of local background inertial systems which overcomes that and other problems, identifying them as bounded by near/far field transition '2-plasma fernmion 'shocks' and 'surface charge'. Rule 1. All electron re-emissiona are at local centre of mass c. Crazy? As Bohr said; valid for us both "Yes, but is it crazy enough to be true?"

Well done for yours, penciled in for a good boost. I do hope you get to mine.

Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Malcolm Macleod replied on Mar. 5, 2018 @ 13:07 GMT
Hi Peter,

I watched the video, is the presentator you? ... I need more time to study your essay but we seem to have overlap, my model uses 'classical geometry' based on a formula for a symmetrical 3-axis virtual black-hole electron (section 4, 5), I haven't yet given any discussion to how spin might work so may I link your video to my website?

Incidentally, in the previous essay contest you made a note regarding how my virtual electron travels, I did not reply then but I was describing motion in virtual space. I use the Lorentz equations to translate from virtual space to our 3-D space, these equations are essentially the mathematics of perspective, just as we may project 3-D into a 2-D image (a photo).

Also feel free to email me any-time after the contest to continue this discussion.

Cheers,

Malcolm

Bookmark and Share



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.