An Acataleptic Universe by Philip Gibbs

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I also had many misconceptions when I was young and naïve. I have an MPHIL in EE from Sussex, but since I have had many careers like in engineering, applied scientific research, business and many other activities.

I spent a year dealing with products from Silicon Graphics and Texas Instrument (speech), I was appalled in the end at what I found about the people. Only very (and I mean very) few people knew what was going on, even then I was not happy with the span of their knowledge and techniques. Before that I had a God like image of the people in these ultra-high tech companies. The same happened when I got involved in business.

I have always loved math and physics and read as much as I could which was limited considering my responsibilities. Then few years back when I got to a semi-retirement situation, I decided to give my real love much more attention. And surprisingly it wasn't long before I had a hit with my theory. I did not know Tegmark, Wolfram or Conway or many others. I knew the older ones like Wheeler and Guth. I had again this super god image of physicists. I thought to myself now here are the smart with high integrity people that I belong to. After some experience, I had to come down to earth and face realities, again for the last time.

We are all humans display all the negatives like inaptitude, jealousy, laziness, treachery and so on plus all the circumstances that control us. But we do have the good parts also which some people like to display like compassion and honesty, we do exist in a superposition!

As for my theory I will try not to say much until I have written the paper. The reason that I am late is that I have not put in all the other important results in my website and I have just came up with a method to do interactions in higher than 1D and hoping I can get new or more accurate results.

As for these formulas, you could say they might very well be a fluke if it wasn't that these fall out of simulation and there is more than one as you saw. And here I add another one all from the same system.

electron g-factor=(4m_e/3eh)*(2/(3*m_e*alpha) - 2*e^2 -1)

=2.00231934...

.. e=3(charge square),h actually h_bar=(e/alpha)^.5=20.2758.. m_e=.00054858

Of course, I know the standard theory of proton, but my system seems to only show the STABLE particles only as simple formulas.

But you are right I need to show the whole thing in one coherent system, and the onus is on me. The problem is that my system is based on simulation, although simple, but most people don't find the time to verify. I hope I can make much better presentation soon to ease all these difficulties.

More about your theory later. Reading that long book of yours.

In your book

http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

You say this (notice the Highlighted third line)

"I imagined what might happen if the fixed linkage structure of the lattice was discarded. It could be made dynamic allowing any site to link to any other nearby site at random.

** Why not even allowing linkage to any site no matter how far away?**

For maximum simplicity each site should have no preferences for which other sites it likes to link to. When doing lattice gauge theory calculations, the path integral of quantum mechanics becomes a sum over different configurations of the field variables weighted by a factor related to the action. Dynamic links changing at random fit into the sum quite naturally. It now includes a sum over all the ways of linking up the lattice sites as well as a sum over the values of the field variables. You can even look for interesting physics in models where there are no field variables, just random links between events. This paints a rather strange image of the universe. Events and links between events would be fundamental objects but there would be no built in structure to space-time, no continuity, no dimension. The dynamics would be determined by the form chosen for the action as a function of the way the events were linked up. It might take into account the number of links meeting at each event, the number of triangles which form and other similar quantities which depend on the network of connections. For the right choice of action, lattices with a four-dimensional structure might be favoured and the structure of space-time could be determined dynamically. In some appropriate limit a continuum might emerge. If it could be done it would show how the laws of physics, including the nature of space-time, could be derived from much simpler equations than those normally used to specify them. Such speculations are often naive and unlikely to work out right, which is why Wheeler likened such models to a bucket of dust. Nevertheless you have to try these things out because if you do not make a few mistakes you never learn anything. The attractive thing about the idea for me was that you could simulate such systems on a computer and watch what happened. The results I got were not overly encouraging. There is no simple and natural way to specify the dynamics of the lattice so that it tends to form structures like space-time, unless you build in some preference for which sites want to join up. To go further it would be necessary to think more carefully about how space-time is expected to behave."

In my theory this is exactly what I do. Do that and you are basically done !!

That forth line and coupled with a rotational invariance scheme are the reason for nonlocality( which leads to spin just like Dirac discovered it by integrating relativity). But don't worry you also get the usual reason for causality.

A side note, I get the feeling that nobody is reading, do you?

More later.

That quote is from page 167-168. I forgot to mention that.

Even before reading that last passage I had a strong gut feeling that your idea seems to somehow translate to mine but I could not pinpoint.

Here is just a quick explanation for my system as compared to yours.

In mine the links are random, their start(naturally random) defines some general particle position area (generally Compton length) and their end goes to other particles and randomly to all positions in-between. I interpret the sum of the line lengths as energy (after normalization). These lines only go from particle to particle and space is where the lines cross (i.e. created from particles). No space is defined outside the area directly of the opposing particles, otherwise the system becomes rotationally not invariant.

So in my system the particle positions can only be defined relative to others. So, I think the major difference is that my starting points are random themselves (and directly part of the link) unlike yours which seem to have been fixed and the links artificially attached to them.

As a matter of fact I have seen few systems similar to the random graphs that we are taking about. The main reason why I think all the others "appeared" as non-workable is that time in space-time picture really complicated the issue, and rendered it difficult.

Example one:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Shing_Connectivity_1.pdf

Example two:

In LQG paradigm, Smolin has a paper

The Plebanski action extended to a unification of gravity and Yang-Mills theory

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0977

says this

"The proposal of matter as the ends of long distance links needs more development."

The reason why my system works (I think), is that I started by saying what elementary elements I can have (for designing the universe) and after identifying them and possible operations using them and on them then I will map them to the physics. And it turned out that only lines constituting particles and their crossing naturally constituted space and time became clear that it is unphysical but represented the change of state. Empty coordinates have no meaning.

My advice is to get rid of time if you want your system to work at a fundamental level.

I will continue on to matrix and necklace later. And Knots.

Thanks for the good advice. If I make it in time good, if not I will be just as happy if you win.

For the sake of completeness. I must say that time as a fantom as it is, might have some treacherous role under certain conditions. Like Big Bang or the "start" of the universe. But I am not exactly sure at this time.

Hi Philip,

Now that I'm here and am looking at your essay, I have the following two questions.

1."Acatalepsy . . . in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing." (Wiki)

Why do you want to emphasize the present messy state of affairs in physics, when the role of science is to seek transparency and insight? (I do remember what Einstein said about "simplicity".)

2. I found the following summary you give at the end of introduction.

"From layers of quantum uncertainty built upon fundamental information there is hope that spacetime and matter emerge in a natural way."

In my essay I stressed the "unacceptable ambiguity" of the term "information". So how does one understand your one-sentence summary (without going into the technical details), if its first half is quite ambiguous? ;-)

Yes, good old GEON. I have looked at it before but I have not had the time to analyze it and match it to my construction. What I have shown were just examples. There is another interesting one that may also be of an interest to you. Notice fig.5.

The Dirac - Kerr-Newman electron.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507109v4.pdf

The author has even a recent paper that revolves around the same idea but adds superstring theory to it. And Twisters.

Complex Structure of the Four-Dimensional Kerr

Geometry: Stringy System, Kerr Theorem, and Calabi-Yau Twofold

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.6021.pdf

He even revives GEON in this paper (section 4)

Gravity vs. Quantum theory: Is electron really

pointlike?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.0225.pdf

As a matter of fact my theory is nothing but a generalization of Buffon's needle which connects to other main concepts used in physics, but I am not exactly sure of what the connection exactly is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_geometry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_transform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon_transform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_transform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory

In your matrix construction couldn't you assume that there are only two particles and see what happens then. Maybe you have to do some other simplifying assumptions.