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.
Hi Akinbo,
Thank you for your constructive comments. It is great to get some feedback.
I will try to answer your "dislikes" and maybe try to convince you otherwise.
1) I agree, I crammed too much in the essay, in fact I basically cut and pasted the beginning of my 3D Universe Theory as it seemed to fit nicely with the contest subject.
2) First, it is important that you really understand the difference between a UB and a CBU. (I can only ask you to re-read the paragraph slowly, sorry)
Second, space is made of "flicking" CBU's. Nothing separates them, they all "touch" each other, and where there is no matter, they form a perfect checkerboard like pattern of alternating states (existence/non-existence). A proton (basic constituent of matter) is not a CBU as such, it is a disruption in the alternating pattern of CBU's (this disruption is caused by the geometric properties of a growing sphere, see 8Pi-1).
If you are not convinced with my explanation, just take a look at the proton radius formula, I show that the diameter of the proton is just a scaled up version of the Planck Length. If you take the Planck Length and multiply it by 1020 (the scale factor) and divide it by 1-1/8Pi, you get the exact value of the proton's diameter measured with a muon. If you divide that SAME value again by the SAME 1-1/8Pi, you get the exact value of the proton's diameter measured with an electron. This 1-1/8Pi is explained in my theory (it is (8Pi-1)/8Pi).
If you are still not convinced, I also show that the proton's mass is a scaled down version of the Planck Mass. If you take the Planck Mass and multiply it by 10-20 (the scale down factor) and multiply it by 8-1/Pi, you get the exact value of the proton's mass. Again, 8-1/Pi is explained in my theory (it is (8Pi-1)/Pi).
3) I know it is boring but you must re-read the bit about the formation of CBU's, you will see that time and space are emergent just by the fact that the UB's are following the "coherent" world rule (if they were not, then the world would not be coherent and we would not exist).
The 2D/3D part takes a bit of time to get used to. It is not easy to explain, I have tried my best in my theory so, again, I can only ask you to re-read it slowly and try to picture the whole thing in your head. The 3D world is virtual (only the 2D part is real) but remember that each virtual 3D world is moving "forward" at the speed of light and expanding at the same time. Also, there are as many virtual 3D worlds as there are "present" layers. (here again, it is important to really understand the two ways to represent a "present" layer)
The units to measure space-time, depends if you are looking at it from an "internal" observer's point of view (living in a coherent world) or from an external observer's point of view (a "godlike" figure if you want). The internal observer sees space and the external observer sees time.
I hope you won't give up in trying to come to graps with my theory, it would be great to find someone that can understand what I am talking about !
Cheers,
Patrick
Hi Antony,
Thank you for your comments, I will look at your essay and leave a comment on your blog.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick,
If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.
Jim
Hi Patrick,
While I don't agree with everything you say, but some issues I see you are close to my system. But I am mainly contacting you because you know programming and you have plenty of time to explore the origin of reality. It might be interesting to you. I have rated your essay good.
Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website
http://www.qsa.netne.net
please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.
you can find my essay at this link
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877
see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one
alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass
M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654
BTW, our backgrounds are very similar. Thank you
Adel
Hi Adel,
Thank you for your comments and your rating.
I definetely agree with your "Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally". Our approaches are different but we seem to come to similar results ie: we can produce fundamental constants with just simple maths.
Good luck with the contest !
Patrick
Hi Adel,
My answer is just below. I did not click on the right link !
Patrick
Dear Patrick -
The UB as you present it is an interesting way to consider any given entity.
The universe began from nothing, and I would add that this nothing is energy that had not yet formed itself into a positive-negative entity (a proton and an electron) at this location which was to eventually become a universe.
I describe something similar in my essay - a Pulse, that continually enters and exits a dimensional system such as our Cosmos.
I am interested by the way your system accounts for the observer in the configuration of perceived reality; I do the same, but my approach is less technical and considers the observer as an evolving creature - one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.
I wonder if your system could be adapted to such a Species Cosmos?
Hopefully, you'll look at my essay and let me know. I rated your essay, and wish you the best of luck in the competition.
John
Patrick,
Great essay! completely fundamental and original, and also well structured, explained and illustrated.
I completely agree the external observers viewpoint. (I've analogised this in my own work as very similar to the two views of our galaxy -my last two essays, end notes and links refer).
The expanding spheres are analogous to Huygens construction. I like and agree the concept and have also used it, viewed it in a slightly different way, discussed in my essay.
But I was most interested in your explanation that;
"An internal observer on the present layer will always be at the centre of his own virtual 3D world. That world is constantly growing around him. ..., the successive virtual 3D worlds are like Russian dolls, they envelope one another."
This hierarchical 'space within a space within a space' model is something I've explored in my last 3 essays, finding an ontological 'discrete field' model (DFM) which proves to contain high empirical truth value. I test some important implications in my essay which I hope you'll read and comment on. Many of your points have analogies.
I also agree with most of your conclusions but not entirely with some. My own most bold proposition is that the 'Law of the excluded middle' applicable to maths needs modification to account for the uncertainty of nature! Perhaps best to discuss 'hidden likenesses' once you've also read mine.
A very good essay, using very free thinking and making an enjoyable read. Thank you. Certainly worth a better score I think, which I'll apply now. I note you felt you "crammed too much in", you just wait till you read mine!! I hope I did it as well as you, ...but perhaps don't try to 'speed read' it!
Very well done and best of luck in the impending melee
Peter
Mr. Patrick,
Your ideas impressed Me. Really new and fresh elements.
I ask now the permission for future exchanges.
I visited Your site. I do not understand why people should laugh !
My Best Regards.
Dear Patrick,
I've read (even studied) your proposal.
I agree with you that the most fundamental level of reality is built up by opposites. By relating to opposites - as far as they are explicitly defined as limiting states - reality makes use of all possibilities that logic in general allows. In this view the logical contradiction created by the (two) opposites are excluded as unreachable physical states.
Though this view looks very similiar to yours there is a fundamental difference: The logical values of 0 and 1 are not related in a logically classical way as being either 0 or 1, they are both valid, at least if they are considered as being limiting cases.
By the philosophy of Nicholas Cusa (i.e. the doctrince of coincidence of the opposites) I could identify the Smallest (R = 0) and the Largest (R = oo) as spatial limiting cases of a metaphysical universe. From a logical point of view the Smallest and the Largest are logically contradictions: The Smallest is included in all things, whereas the Largest is included in nothing.
In my 2009-FQXI-paper "Taming of the ONE" I've sketched this view.
As you know by German philosophy, in particular by Immanuel Kant, existence was critized as being not a real predicate. Existence and non-Existence might be highly problematic categories.
I think you are in touch with a specific feature of reality, but you are describing it in a way that does not fit to it.
However, I wish you good luck for your interesting paper.
Helmut
