It’s Fibonacci’s Bit - Seeding the Universe with 0 and 1 by Antony Ryan

Hello Antony

Well written, and very readable. I think it would be nice to be able to show how the universe might have an action that produces this sequence as a model of a physical reality. In some ways, a universe that adds aspects of its history to evolve is what we find in our own universe. How this occurs is considered in my Armchair Universe.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Dear Antony and All,

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Antony,

you have visited my FQXI-site. Here is my comment to your paper: I agree with you that the Fibonacci number is of fundamental physical importance. My approach to it may help you to understand your approach more deeply.

The foundation of my approach or view is the Fibonacci Spiral: It is built up - as you know - by a series of squares that are including a corresponding series of circular arcs. I could identify the first geometrical element of this series (i.e. the biggest one) as a physical blueprint of space, time and the velocity of light (c = 1).

In my paper "The Hidden Face of c, or The True Meaning of the Kennedy Thorndike Experiment" I've sketched this idea. You can google it easily...

I wish you good luck for your very interesting paper.

Regards

Helmut

P.S. I've rated your paper - of course - high.

Dear Antony All,

I am attaching the iSeries that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

Its interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the structure. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states are interconnected and are the source of life.

Love,

Sridattadev.Attachment #1: 1_iDNASeries.bmp

Hello Antony

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck,

Than Tin

Hi Antony,

Intriguing essay. (And thanks for kindly commenting on my site.)

There are a couple of things I don't understand. Bekenstein and Mayo demonstrated that the black hole is a 1-dimensional information channel, not 2.* The surface -- the event horizon -- is 2-dimensional, because to the observer at a sufficient distance from the horizon, all information on the horizon appears flat. That is, by the rules of relativity, a hypothetical "spaceman" falling into a black hole would to the outside observer appear as a flat picture growing dimmer and dimmer over a long period of time.

You seem to be saying that the black hole exchanges information with the observer; however, the physical interaction is 1-way, i.e., gravity at the event horizon returns information as a continuous wave to the outside observer, while the hapless spaceman is broken into discontinuous bits. Whether he can be reassembled into his healthy coherent self is the black hole information paradox. If a black hole is 1-dimensional, and no information is lost, then all those bits are ordered in a specific way when they radiate away from the horizon; they come out in the reverse direction they entered in. This accounts both for classical time reversibility and quantum-mechanical least action -- and it's why I like Christian Corda's model so much. Professor Corda accounts for pure states of quantum evolution, such that the wave image of the observer at a distance matches the quantum state of the object on the other side of the horizon, all spacetime-symmetric.

Another thing beyond my understanding is how to have a negatively-valued vertex. I grasp that you are avoiding the disappearance of information by avoiding the naked singularity; however, negative spacetime would seem to result in a white hole, not a back-reaction. What I mean, is that if the positive dimensionality is continuous, and if one must deal with a naked singlularity at all, what's on the other side of it must either be continuous as well, or one had better supply a precise limit, and a good physical reason for it.

Don't take this as negative criticism -- you get a good score from me for an innovative and stimulating approach.

All best in the competition!

Tom

*[1] Bekenstein, J. & Mayo, A. "Black Holes are One-Dimensional." General Relativity and Gravitation 33;12, December (2001). (Second-prize winning essay, Gravity Research Foundation, 2001.)

Dear Antony,

As 0 is recursive with Fibonacci sequence, 0 to 1 is the quantum unit of length for one-dimensional string-matter continuum and seeds the emergence of other dimensions.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Dear Antony,

I liked your essay and agree with you that the information is the basis of the reality that we observe.

But in detail, I think the bits are the same that things : they are similar, abstract and physical.

Also, the bits are around us and in us ?

What do you think about ?

I will rate your essay after.

Please visit My essay.