Hello Sridattadev,

I've replied over on your thread. Great way to show the relationship applies at all scales. Very Quantum Gravity like, so especially nice that it fits, as I am working it around a Black Hole at the Foundation of the series.

Cheers,

Antony

Hello Angel,

More ways to exemplify the series in Nature. Thanks for these! I'll read through thoroughly later - I look forward to it!

Best wishes,

Antony

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for the kind comments. I'll take another look at your essay in this context. Thanks for answering my question over on your thread.

I do indeed have a way to show how the Universe produces this sequence!

Essentially it is 0 decaying to -1+1 (in the sequence) then asymmetry occurs forming particles of mass.

The action is a quantum fluctuation of nothingness which increases entropy.

The beauty is that we conserve symmetry overall, but create asymmetry too!

My theory away from the essay explains more, but this essay entry hints at many more answers that can arise from this approach.

I'd suggest that instead of thinking of it as an action, it is the Universe doing what comes naturally - increase in entropy- even when we consider nothingness or a zero entropy pre-Big Bang singularity.

Best wishes,

Antony

I'm glad you raised this, as it highlights the cosmogony aspect to my work. I'd suggest nothingness fluctuates in precisely this way towards the negative part of the Fibonacci sequence producing the asymmetries that can be explained by simplex geometries.

We can partly unify the four forces of nature and relate the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% against prediction. Furthermore, over the past 4 years as new data has emerged on these masses, the figure has improved more!

Also the theory is potentially testable if a suitable computer simulation can be ran.

Regards,

Antony

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

      Dear Helmut,

      Thank you very much for the kind comments and rating. Glad to see so many people share the view of Fibonacci's fundamental nature in reality. It is fitting that c, as you have found is connected too. This is also very interesting like your paper overall.

      Well done and best wishes too,

      Antony

      Dear Sridattadev,

      Thanks for the attachment. Good to see you applying your work to nature in every corner of science. This is what the contest wants to encourage. The more areas something so simple, yet elegant applies, the less it can be ignored as simply abstract. Interesting.

      Nice work,

      Antony

      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

        Dear Than Tin,

        Thanks for you comments and exemplifying that the nature of the Universe is often seen, even at the highest professional levels, as simple natural occurrences.

        I'll take a look at your paper very soon! Sounds intriguing!

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        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.)

          Hi Thomas,

          Thanks for your comments. Not at all - I don't take them as negative and thanks for kind comments.

          In fact I can easily answer all these points - which is what is nice about these discussion threads. Albeit I don't have time right now - in work after a 72 hour week, so I'll post another comprehensive reply early next week.

          Glad you raised them, as it gives me a chance to clarify.

          Best wishes and thanks again for reading!

          Antony

            Thomas,

            Also as in Christian's essay, both conclude spacetime-symmetry. See Christian's comments above, that the two essays compliment each other with similar conclusions too.

            I look forward to elaborating the very relevant points. Also thanks for your terrific essay.

            Thanks again - very much appreciated - have a ncie weekend!

            Antony

            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.

              Hello Amazigh,

              Thanks for your comments. However, I did not really say that information is the basis for reality that we observe. More that information and reality are equally fundamental with the Fibonacci sequence being shown as the way in which information can be exchanged when reality converges with a Black Hole.

              However, it does conclude that we get It from Bit AND Bit zzz from It in this sense. Certainly I'd agree that Bits are around and in us or I couldn't type this to you.

              I will read your essay early in the week. I've only a few left to read now.

              Best wishes,

              Antony

              Hello Jayakar,

              Interesting point. I actually considered the mathematical possibility that the recurrent -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 part of the sequence would result in string type properties within the Black Hole, or in a smaller Black Hole result in Hawking Radiation.

              Sounds like we may have some comment ground!

              I will certainly read your essay early in the week. Only a few more to finish reading.

              Best wishes & thanks for reading my essay,

              Antony

              Hi Anthony,

              I just skimmed your essay and will have a more detailed look, but this is a very interesting idea if I understand correctly -- that as one goes toward the central singularity the number of dimensions *reduces*. An earlier poster in your thread had mentioned the idea that as one goes to higher energy scales/shorter distance scales (i.e. as on falls toward the central singularity) the number if dimensions should increase rather than decrease. This is an idea from Kaluza-Klein theory or string theory that at our current energy scale the higher dimensions have curled up but if one went to larger energy scales these extra dimensions would "uncurl" or somehow manifest themselves. If the large extra dimension scenario in its simplest form had been correct we would have seen evidence of the extra dimensions already. Their non-appearance in this run of the LHC pushes the speculation a bit further "down the road".

              But in your essay you go the other route -- dimensional reduction (from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 at the singularity if I understand correctly). There is in fact some recent interesting work exactly in this direction called dimensional reduction. A nice paper on a possible observable/testable outcome of this dimensional reduction in cosmological space-times is the paper "Detecting Vanishing Dimensions Via Primordial Gravitational Wave Astronomy", Jonas R. Mureika and Dejan Stojkovic, Phys.Rev.Lett. 106 (2011) 101101, e-Print: arXiv:1102.3434 [gr-qc]. They use the dimensional reduction scenario which comes from "lattice gravity" (the first few references of the above paper give the original article where dimensional reduction was proposed). Anyway have a look since this appears closed related to the idea in your essay.

              Anyway thanks for an intriguing read.

              Best,

              Doug

                Hello Anthony,

                I have read your essay and I see that you suggest some applications of the Fibonacci sequence for fundamental physics. I have some questions, though.

                1) On page 2, you derive the array 3,2,1,1,0 representing how dimensionality of information exchange evolves as one descends towards a black hole. You then say that this matches the Fibonacci sequence. In itself, that is true. But now I define a second sequence; it probably already has a name in literature but I will very unethically call it the Cabbolet sequence:

                a0 = 0

                a1 = 1

                an+2 = an+1*an + 1

                This also yields the beginning 0,1,1,2,3. So the array of dimensionalities that you have derived also matches the Cabbolet sequence. Thus: aren't you using a too small part of the Fibonacci sequence to conclude that it is fundamental, as you do on page 6?

                2) In figure 2, the right margin has the numbers -1 and -3. What do these numbers denote? Dimensionality of information exchange? If so, how can that be negative?

                3) You have defined a simplex as a set, and as I see it, the corresponding Fibonacci number is then the dimensionality of the object that is represented by the set. Correct me if I'm wrong. However, on page 4 you start to talk about the Fibonacci number -1, so we would be talking about a set with dimensionality -1. No such object exists to my knowledge. Could you explain to me what an object with dimensionality -1 is? Or have I misunderstood something?

                I am interested in your comments.

                Best regards,

                Marcoen