Essay Abstract
I have always wondered how the Universe started and what was its basic underlying structure. I was convinced that it must have started with something very simple so I just imagined what that simple thing could be and bit by bit, it all became clear.
Author Bio
BSc in Electronics and Computing - BA in Business Studies. Former Sales Director in computer networking industry, now owner of self-catering group accommodation with lots of spare time to develop universe theories.
Dear Patrick,
Congratulations with your #D interpetation of the universe.
I myself are in the same rocking boat and looking for ontologic and 3D solutions.
Keep up!
Leo.
Patrick, You proposal to observe the universe from outside raises the paradox that if you can observe the universe then you are part of it. How do you intend to solve this paradox?
Hi Anton,
Thank you for your comment.
The « external observer » is an hypothetical observer, he does not really exist in our Universe and he is not part of it. It is not possible to describe the Universe just from an internal observer's point of view because we would be limited to only what we perceive as our reality, and what we perceive as our reality is not the complete picture. I had to create this "external observer" so I could describe the real underlying structure of the Universe.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick,
As I have carefully explained in my essay BITTERS, the real Universe could not have had a commencement. There is certainly no way that the Universe could ever conform in any way with humanly devised unrealistic abstract information.
One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.
Joe,
I am not sure I understand your point. What has this got to do with my essay ?
Patrick
Patrick,
You start your essay by guessing that an abstract Universe started from nothing. I merely pointed out that the real Universe is eternal.
Hi Leo,
Thank you for your comment.
If you like what I have written then you can find out more about my 3D Universe Theory on this website www.3d-universe-theory.com.
Cheers,
Patrick
Hi Joe,
OK, thank you for sharing your point of view.
Patrick, but you are working and thinking from within the universe so by your own argumentation you observation and subsequent reasoning to describe a "real underlying structure" cannot be possible, and any attempt to do so is not verifiable, which according to Popper is not scientific.
Patrick, I can see a lot of work has gone into this essay. The idea of building up in layers from one bit is like the multiple quantisation procedure that I mention in my essay, except that you use classical bits rather than quantum bits.
I the basic unit of time and space is increasing will this at some point affect the structure of matter, or is everything scaling up with it?
Hi Philip,
Thank you for your comments.
This essay is part of a theory I have been working on for more than a year now. As I mention in my abstract, I have started from the simplest thing I could imagine and built everything from there. Then everything started to fit nicely together, the Basic Unit of Time and Space appeared simply by following the simple "coherent world" rule that I mention in my essay, it gave a simple explanation for the emergence of time itself. Then came the 8Pi-1 and that was the major finding, it gave a simple explanation for the emergence of "real" information/existence and explains the 4% of baryonic matter in the Universe. I believe that this simple 8Pi-1 is the foundation of everything, it appears in the proton/electron mass ratio but also in the gravitational constant, the Planck constant, the Boltzman constant, the electron mass etc. and it also gives a simple explanation for the proton radius measurement problem (all explained in my theory www.3d-universe-theory.com).
Now that I have advertised my theory (I wish that someone would comment on it), I will answer your question ;-)
The information describing our surrounding world is contained in a single layer (our "present" layer), this layer is like a 2D image of our world and the image is made by the Coherent Basic Units (CBUs), like pixels. A proton is a disruption in the alternating pattern of CBUs (it is like a single bit of "existence"), so even though a CBU increases in size it won't affect the structure of matter, everything scales up. To the internal observer, a CBU will always remain a "coherent" bit of information (as opposed to the Universal Bit (UB) that is just a simple bit of information). In my theory, I show with a simple equation that a proton is just a scaled up version of the Planck Length !
Cheers,
Patrick
Anton, I don't really agree with Popper's ideas on what is scientific and what is not.
Quote from James A.Putnam
"Your essay uses planck length and time. Your cubit uses length only. Your layers are traversed one at a time every Planck unit of time. You do mention that your dimension in the radial direction represents space-time. Your layers consist of length only and they are your present one after the other. I assume that your statement that we only need length is based upon your idea that the present only has dimensions of length. There is though the matter of change. All empirical evidence of physics occurs as patterns in changes of velocity. How do you account for change in equations. Calculus equations are equations of change. Physics need extensive use of calculus in order to express its ideas. You may answer this message in your own forum. I will look for it there."
Hi James,
Thank you for your comments. You have nicely summarized the underlying structure of my theory. I will try to explain simply how I represent change. Change is represented by the relative position of the two consecutive CBUs in the "present" layer. If the second CBU is slightly off line, then there is speed. When that position changes from layer to layer, then there is acceleration. That way every movement is expressed in percentage of the speed of light (the speed of light is represented by one CBU ie: if we move by one CBU in one layer, then we move at the speed of light). Also, when the two consecutive CBUs are off line, the resulting "time" CBU will be shorter (time slows down with movement).
I have noticed in your theory that you are talking about a changing speed of light, this is exactly what is happening here also, a CBU increases in size by one UB every Basic Unit of Time.
I agree with you that the unit of mass could just be expressed in units of length and time. In fact, I believe that mass should be L2/T and time should be T=L2, this means that mass becomes dimensionless in formulae, this is why my formulae are so simple. Also, the fact that we (our information) are moving at the speed of light through the information layers gets rid of the concept of fields.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick,
Communication may move slowly.
"I believe that mass should be L2/T and time should be T=L2, this means that mass becomes dimensionless in formulae,..."
Are those Ls equal? Is L a variable? Even if it is a variable it seems that no matter what L's value is, mass remains one constant value of unity, meaning the number one. How do you explain your statement?
What are your units for force? Or, what is your explanation of force?
James Putnam
Hi James,
L is the dimension of Length
T is the dimension of Time
I believe that Length and Time are fundamentally linked (in my theory, a CBU is both a basic unit of time and a basic unit of length, and the Time dimension is linked to the Length dimension). That basic unit of time and length increases with time but an internal observer can't notice it as everything scales up.
So in the same way that you say that mass is the inverse of acceleration, I am saying that Time is the square of Length and mass is the square of Length divided by Time, therefore mass is dimensionless.
Speed is 1/L, Energy is 1/L2, Acceleration is 1/L3, Force is 1/L3, G is 1/L and h is dimensionless.
Patrick
Dear Patrick
Definitely It from Bit ! - so, where are bit come from?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
Hi Hoang,
In my theory, the bit is either existence or non-existence. So, it does not come from anywhere, it is just there. There are two opposite worlds, the existence world and the non-existence world. What is defined as existence in one world is defined as non-existence in the other world, and vice versa.
Cheers,
Patrick
Dear Patrick,
I agree that the Universe had to come from complete nothing. I have a similar theory away from the contest. In this contest, my essay also hints at this as a starting point. The 0-dimensional singularity of Black Holes. I hope you have time to look at mine, as we may have aspects in common. Cosmogony is always an excellent starting point for a good theory.
Nicely illustrated and well written.
All the best,
Antony
Hello Patrick,
Thanks for your comments on my blog. I have read your essay. Yes I think I have found a like-mind! To improve things both encouragements and criticism must go hand-in-hand forming bits, 1 ans 0!
So for the likes (1):
- two states: one existence and one non-existence
- UBs are the most basic constituents of the Universe sphere...
- Basic constituents are the smallest of everything and cannot be subdivided. A UB is just a bit of potential information. A UB is not material and does not have a shape as such, but its apparent size, in any directions, is one Planck Length and it FLICKS between existence and non-existence every Planck Time. FANTASTIC.
Compare this with Leibniz statements in his Monadology and you see why this is so:- "1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple
substance. By calling it 'simple' I mean that it has no parts,
though it can be a part of something composite.
2. There must be simple substances, because there are composites.
A composite thing is just a collection of simple ones
that happen to have come together.
3. Something that has no parts can't be extended, can't have
a shape, and can't be split up. So monads are the true atoms
of Nature--the elements out of which everything is made.
4. We don't have to fear that a monad might fall to pieces;
there is no conceivable way it could •go out of existence
naturally." Then concerning your FLICKS above, Liebniz says, "there is no way for a simple substance to •come into existence naturally, for that would involve its being put together, assembled, composed, and a simple substance couldn't be formed in that way because it has no parts...
So we can say that the only way for monads to begin or end--to come into existence or go out of existence--is •instantaneously, being created or annihilated all at once" [Only the initial 8 paragraphs or so are on physics, the rest are somewhat spiritual).
Then for the dislikes (0), unless I can be convinced otherwise:
1. I think you crammed too much into the essay, by describing how the universe expands and including energy. Although, I agree "No energy is actually created anywhere; it is just the result of an opposition of two worlds".
2. ...we assume that the number of "existence" and "non-existence" CBUs is equal and that they are equally spaced out
- If something can spatially separate existence CBUs then certainly that thing is not non-existent. My take is that nothing spatial or extended (res extensa according to Rene Descartes) can separate the most fundamental UBs which from comparison with Leibniz and the Pythagoreans are monads. This presents a continuous space picture. That brings the puzzle how then a discrete nature of space can be expressed.In my opinion, not by making non-existence CBUs to have dimension but by resorting to the FLICKS which you have identified!
3. Our Universe has only got 3 dimensions: two space dimensions and one dimension which is both space and time.
- I would rather stick with the 3-dimensions for space and maybe add one dimension for time, making 4. We can measure space in metres, in what you units do you measure space-time?
This reply is detailed because we seem to have similar thoughts. Others with similar essays are Roger (advocates a spherical shape) and Manuel (who advocates that existence is not caused by another IT).
All the best in the contest.
Akinbo
*I am yet to go the link you added on 3-D.
