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

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/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

Previous Contests

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

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 2/24/18 at 14:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Adel, I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to...

**Steven Andresen**: *on* 2/22/18 at 6:47am UTC, wrote Dear Adel If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

**adel sadeq**: *on* 2/15/18 at 2:43am UTC, wrote Hi Juan, Thank you for readying and analyzing my essay. I have...

**Juan Ramón González Álvarez**: *on* 2/15/18 at 0:56am UTC, wrote In sciences we distinguish between reality and model. Feynman in his...

**Satyavarapu Gupta**: *on* 2/13/18 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr adel sadeq Real essence and Very nice words ... ".....I will...

**Dizhechko Semyonovich**: *on* 2/9/18 at 19:24pm UTC, wrote Adele, I have just read your essay and appreciated it for what you tried to...

**Kamal Rajpal**: *on* 2/9/18 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Adel, I read with interest your statement “what are space, time,...

**adel sadeq**: *on* 2/8/18 at 20:27pm UTC, wrote Hi Philip, Thank you very much for your comment. I agree with Tegmark that...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**George Musser**: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..."
*in* Will A.I. Take Over...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Robert McEachern**: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Steve Dufourny**: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..."
*in* Mass–Energy Equivalence...

**Steve Dufourny**: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?"
*in* Mass–Energy Equivalence...

**Georgina Woodward**: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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

October 17, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: All is relative random numbers, fundamental elements of reality by Adel hassan Sadeq [refresh]

TOPIC: All is relative random numbers, fundamental elements of reality by Adel hassan Sadeq [refresh]

In previous contest papers I have shown how reality arises from the existence of a simple mathematical structure among the infinite many structures. This conjecture that reality is fundamentally a mathematical structure was conceived by me independently of Tegmark’s, however I have shown the concept with concrete implementation. In this paper I will elaborate on the implantation which I have shown previously and report on the interesting results which I obtain when I simulate the system in two ways, one in continuum and the other in discrete which the system is capable of naturally.

Degrees: B.S. E.E. university of Wyoming 1979 MPHIL E.E. University of Sussex 1987

Dear All

This is just a short note.

I just thought that I could add some information to help the reader understand better why the said system seem to work. In ordinary physics and generally for that matter we always start with some given information and we are are asked to "solve" the problem or analyze and such. In physics particularly we have to describe the problem and identify the known and the relationships that exists, usually the Hamiltonian, then we are asked to solve the problem.

Now suppose I ask you to tell me what will happen to some "object", but I don't tell you anything about it (how fundamental can you get) !! like what mass it has or what it will do if another thing is present. Ok, I'll give it a try. First I will say I will "invent a coordinate and since I don't know where it exists I will restrict it to be in some range and eventually make that range variable. This lonely thing would have a meaningless existence. i.e. it needs a partner. If we add another one next to it with similar setup and at some distance that can also be varied. Now, we can calculate all relative information just like our original idea in the essay.

Kaboom! both situations reached the same conclusion with generalization leading to all of physics QM, QFT, Gravity like shown. In one instance we acted like GOD and decided to design a dynamic universe, in the other we are ignorant humans but figured out how things should work, and both match and are the FUNDAMENTAL building block.

This is just a short note.

I just thought that I could add some information to help the reader understand better why the said system seem to work. In ordinary physics and generally for that matter we always start with some given information and we are are asked to "solve" the problem or analyze and such. In physics particularly we have to describe the problem and identify the known and the relationships that exists, usually the Hamiltonian, then we are asked to solve the problem.

Now suppose I ask you to tell me what will happen to some "object", but I don't tell you anything about it (how fundamental can you get) !! like what mass it has or what it will do if another thing is present. Ok, I'll give it a try. First I will say I will "invent a coordinate and since I don't know where it exists I will restrict it to be in some range and eventually make that range variable. This lonely thing would have a meaningless existence. i.e. it needs a partner. If we add another one next to it with similar setup and at some distance that can also be varied. Now, we can calculate all relative information just like our original idea in the essay.

Kaboom! both situations reached the same conclusion with generalization leading to all of physics QM, QFT, Gravity like shown. In one instance we acted like GOD and decided to design a dynamic universe, in the other we are ignorant humans but figured out how things should work, and both match and are the FUNDAMENTAL building block.

This is extra information that is missing from the last section which is the weakness of gravity.

the attached files show the probabilities of the particles after interaction. one for EM where you can see clearly how the curves a large gradient which will lead to high expectation value due to the strength of the EM interaction. In the case of gravity you can see the curves even after curve fitting that they are exceedingly flat.i.e. the expectation value is so low and swamped by the statistical calculation showing how gravity unbelievably is so weak.

attachments: emexp.jpg, gravityexp.jpg

the attached files show the probabilities of the particles after interaction. one for EM where you can see clearly how the curves a large gradient which will lead to high expectation value due to the strength of the EM interaction. In the case of gravity you can see the curves even after curve fitting that they are exceedingly flat.i.e. the expectation value is so low and swamped by the statistical calculation showing how gravity unbelievably is so weak.

attachments: emexp.jpg, gravityexp.jpg

Dear Adel,

Thank you for your comments and your invitation to comment your essay. I read it, and I agree with your statement "what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, interaction and most of all why the electron, the proton and 'photons' exist. They should be interrelated aspects of a fundamental system", and that this system has to be mathematical. You wrote "Then automatically the...

view entire post

Thank you for your comments and your invitation to comment your essay. I read it, and I agree with your statement "what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, interaction and most of all why the electron, the proton and 'photons' exist. They should be interrelated aspects of a fundamental system", and that this system has to be mathematical. You wrote "Then automatically the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristinel,

I really appreciate you commenting on my idea, after all you are the only customer so far:)

Quick points. The reason that I say ill defined is because the point can go to infinity and hence it becomes uncalculable (the story is just a bit more involved but I wanted to keep it simple). As a matter of fact the first "l" that you see defined in my programs is the reminiscent of the size of the "universe" and it is just there because of the historic development, it is not needed. Because if I throw the numbers to size of it, it will make the particle to particle interaction inconsistent as I change the size of the universe. Meaning, all interaction in this setup lead to FINITE results (only particle to particle interaction). Also, I have tried all kinds of random other than uniform they do not lead to the consistent easy to interpret results that I get with uniform.

Although I know it is hard for people who have more than hundred essays to read, to really delve in some detail in my system by running the programs. However, I think still some time "maybe 15 min" should be taken to appreciate the system. Of course since I have not explained everything clearly it is easy to misunderstand. BUT I was hoping that people concentrate on the big picture i.e. the RESULTS that I have obtained and concentrate on the finer details later, and a lot of them do exist. Also many other results I have not shown.

Thank you for picking up on the bolded statement in my essay because this system represents it automatically without any fudging and it became apparent only after some development which was doing just what any generalization I was allowed to do.

Thank you again, I could not have asked for more. Comments are worth a thousand points.

report post as inappropriate

I really appreciate you commenting on my idea, after all you are the only customer so far:)

Quick points. The reason that I say ill defined is because the point can go to infinity and hence it becomes uncalculable (the story is just a bit more involved but I wanted to keep it simple). As a matter of fact the first "l" that you see defined in my programs is the reminiscent of the size of the "universe" and it is just there because of the historic development, it is not needed. Because if I throw the numbers to size of it, it will make the particle to particle interaction inconsistent as I change the size of the universe. Meaning, all interaction in this setup lead to FINITE results (only particle to particle interaction). Also, I have tried all kinds of random other than uniform they do not lead to the consistent easy to interpret results that I get with uniform.

Although I know it is hard for people who have more than hundred essays to read, to really delve in some detail in my system by running the programs. However, I think still some time "maybe 15 min" should be taken to appreciate the system. Of course since I have not explained everything clearly it is easy to misunderstand. BUT I was hoping that people concentrate on the big picture i.e. the RESULTS that I have obtained and concentrate on the finer details later, and a lot of them do exist. Also many other results I have not shown.

Thank you for picking up on the bolded statement in my essay because this system represents it automatically without any fudging and it became apparent only after some development which was doing just what any generalization I was allowed to do.

Thank you again, I could not have asked for more. Comments are worth a thousand points.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Adel,

I forgot to tell you that I ran the programs and my browser froze. I think it will help if you add some pictures with the result of the calculations, and explanations of the algorithms. Also I think it will help you a lot if you build your theory mathematically as it is usually understood, and separate as much as possible metaphysical assumptions from the mathematical proof. You can do this by separating the model into a purely mathematical part, and a physical interpretation. You can still do them in parallel in the papers for clarity, but the mathematical proof should be mathematical proof alone. Inserting nonmathematical assumptions in mathematical proofs makes mathematical physicists return errors, just like when you write your code for the computer you try to explain the computer using words.

Good luck!

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

I forgot to tell you that I ran the programs and my browser froze. I think it will help if you add some pictures with the result of the calculations, and explanations of the algorithms. Also I think it will help you a lot if you build your theory mathematically as it is usually understood, and separate as much as possible metaphysical assumptions from the mathematical proof. You can do this by separating the model into a purely mathematical part, and a physical interpretation. You can still do them in parallel in the papers for clarity, but the mathematical proof should be mathematical proof alone. Inserting nonmathematical assumptions in mathematical proofs makes mathematical physicists return errors, just like when you write your code for the computer you try to explain the computer using words.

Good luck!

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel hassan Sadeq, I agree with your statement "what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, interaction and most of all why the electron, the proton and 'photons' exist. They should be interrelated aspects of a fundamental system" This system is a physical space, which according to Descartes is matter and which is the foundation for constructing fundamental theories. Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, it is end of some questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

Adel, I can only agree with the fact that a mathematical structure emerges from reality and further, beyond the mathematical structure, we can see reality.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Adele, you imagined yourself above Descartes. He said: "Give me the matter, and I will build the whole world." You say: "Give numbers and for their relations see the world" Do you see the difference? According to Descartes, space is matter that can be in a state of physical vacuum that we do not see or in a state of tangible corpuscles. A field is a physical space, each point of which has its potential, defined by a mathematical formula. So, that physical space is the foundation on which fundamental theories are built. The world is the invention of God, and mathematics is the invention of man.

I wish you success, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

I wish you success, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

Adel. I enjoyed your essay. Thanks for taking part.

You compare your picture with Tegmark because the universe is a mathematical structure. I think the idea of Tegmark is that the universe is the ensemble of all mathematical structures. You have picked one that you validate through its simplicity. Isn't there an important difference there?

You conclude by saying that the structure is so simple that it could not have been otherwise. It is good that you have been able to do so much from such simplicity, but suppose someone said that they think the world is something else like a cellular automata for example. How would you justify the claim that your version is simpler?

I look forward to your response.

report post as inappropriate

You compare your picture with Tegmark because the universe is a mathematical structure. I think the idea of Tegmark is that the universe is the ensemble of all mathematical structures. You have picked one that you validate through its simplicity. Isn't there an important difference there?

You conclude by saying that the structure is so simple that it could not have been otherwise. It is good that you have been able to do so much from such simplicity, but suppose someone said that they think the world is something else like a cellular automata for example. How would you justify the claim that your version is simpler?

I look forward to your response.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip, Thank you very much for your comment. I agree with Tegmark that All mathematical structures exist in what is dubbed as PLATONIC. However I think we must find the *correct structure* that represents our reality with all of its details (like I have proposed) before dabbling in Multiverse types( his four levels) which are connected to premature interpretation and cosmology (which should be based on the newly found theory). My idea leads to possible proof that reality is a mathematical structure and reality is a proof that mathematical structures are Platonic i.e. they exist(actually the only thing that exist).

As for the cellular automata, as you know many have been proposed but no direct results that connect to physics have been shown. Also 't Hooft idea for example does not use CA to derive any physics as such only to use it as general argument for the interpretation part. My system is not strictly an automata only some resemblance because I started as a design of a simple mathematical structure which is based on relations between numbers (two of them interpreted as lines). As I added some relations which lead to the concept of interaction, only then the system seem to resemble a CA, however with one major difference, that is the cells could be faraway anywhere. And so the big result in my system is that QM arises precisely because of these non local relations, so that is why EPR in my idea is so trivial and automatic(see spin). That is Entanglement (in my theory the relations between all point in space which themselves were created imperatively by the structure) is the basis of QM and hence reality. Of course, all these nonlocal effects also lead to local effects( as in standard theory) which I have not shown explicitly, also particles cannot have higher speed than light. You could see modern theories (entanglement ideas) are like rats in a maze, they can smell the cheese and get close to it but haven't fount the right road. I have.

As for the cellular automata, as you know many have been proposed but no direct results that connect to physics have been shown. Also 't Hooft idea for example does not use CA to derive any physics as such only to use it as general argument for the interpretation part. My system is not strictly an automata only some resemblance because I started as a design of a simple mathematical structure which is based on relations between numbers (two of them interpreted as lines). As I added some relations which lead to the concept of interaction, only then the system seem to resemble a CA, however with one major difference, that is the cells could be faraway anywhere. And so the big result in my system is that QM arises precisely because of these non local relations, so that is why EPR in my idea is so trivial and automatic(see spin). That is Entanglement (in my theory the relations between all point in space which themselves were created imperatively by the structure) is the basis of QM and hence reality. Of course, all these nonlocal effects also lead to local effects( as in standard theory) which I have not shown explicitly, also particles cannot have higher speed than light. You could see modern theories (entanglement ideas) are like rats in a maze, they can smell the cheese and get close to it but haven't fount the right road. I have.

Dear Adel,

I read with interest your statement “what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, … “. Please read my essay What is Electron Spin? by Kamal L Rajpal and give your views.

Thanks,

report post as inappropriate

I read with interest your statement “what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, … “. Please read my essay What is Electron Spin? by Kamal L Rajpal and give your views.

Thanks,

report post as inappropriate

Adele, I have just read your essay and appreciated it for what you tried to draw the concept of mathematical structure to search for fundamental physics and concluded that this concept is fundamental. I understand that it is very difficult to get people to see the world through the prism of mathematical structures. But this is harder for me to convince them that physical space is matter that moves.

I wish you success! Boris.

report post as inappropriate

I wish you success! Boris.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr adel sadeq

Real essence and Very nice words ... ".....I will elaborate on the implantation which I have shown previously and report on the interesting results which I obtain when I simulate the system in two ways, one in continuum and the other in discrete which the system is capable of naturally." Best wishes for your essay sir.

By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass...

view entire post

Real essence and Very nice words ... ".....I will elaborate on the implantation which I have shown previously and report on the interesting results which I obtain when I simulate the system in two ways, one in continuum and the other in discrete which the system is capable of naturally." Best wishes for your essay sir.

By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

In sciences we distinguish between reality and model. Feynman in his lectures describes the difference between a light ray and a geometrical description of the ray. There is no objective reason to confound reality and model. Moreover the conjecture that reality "is" a mathematical structure does not answer "the big philosophical and practical question, why something rather than nothing". Not even...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Juan,

Thank you for readying and analyzing my essay. I have always said That I look forward to any criticism, the more harsh the better, it usually tells me what I have not been clear about.

""the big philosophical and practical question, why something rather than nothing". Not even close!". My system is a possible proof and at worst hints at that *reality is a...

view entire post

Thank you for readying and analyzing my essay. I have always said That I look forward to any criticism, the more harsh the better, it usually tells me what I have not been clear about.

""the big philosophical and practical question, why something rather than nothing". Not even close!". My system is a possible proof and at worst hints at that *reality is a...

view entire post

Dear Adel

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Adel,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.