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

Dear Antony,

Thanks and congratulations for your essay. I like to inform you that, apart from the conventional approaches, we may have also a set of new other rules and unknown constants which are remain hiding ourselves in the world of quanta; and that will reveal if we can restart again from the foundations of de Broglie's universal wave-corpuscular relationship as an inverse information sharing process among quanta. Even we can able to condense all the information in digital nature or "It" in merely two sets (you may say it as 0 & 1 as well). Characteristically, even if one likes to voyage after event horizon to a black hole, the information can be remain intact with the help of those constants. Although this process is not not yet applied in non-inertial conditions.

Thank you once again. I also invite you in my essay.

Regards

Dipak

Antony,

thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I just read your work and found your making Fibonacci sequence going backwards past 0 intriguing. I've never thought of it and only now realized that it continues in the opposite direction with the same values except that every other one is now negative.

In your application of the sequence to black holes you interpret the numbers as dimensions. Couple of years ago I spent some time learning how to visualize 4D and maybe even higher (not a chance lol) and must say that it's hard for me to imagine a negative dimension, even if it is just -1 or -2. I guess I am too attached to the view that +/- mean direction. Thus in my mind the negative numbers in the Fibonacci sequence going backwards appear as mirror reflections. And so I find it fascinating that perhaps also in our view of the picture of reality the real 'its' are intertwined with 'bits' of mere reflections, like in a kaleidoscope, where only some of the pieces of glass are 'real' and the rest are only reflections, but the beauty of the patterns shines in symmetries.

I too love fractals and all things cellular automata to which Fibonacci, in my mind, belongs. It is instructive that Nature conforms its infinite variety to such simple rules. And if so, why not black holes too? I wish I knew more about them to be of use to you. My practical take on them is more in line with Peter's above.

Having read your essay, I am intrigued by possibility that Fibonacci sequence where 'bits' are interchanged with 'its' every other step is how things may be in the world of quantum, and that this may explain some of its mysteries. LOL the idea is so novel to me -- I must sound incoherent.

Thank you again for commenting on my essay and good luck with the competition :)

Antony,

lol I'm NOT a Dr. but I've seen one on TV.

Re negative dimensions, I decided after posting in your thread that it is indeed a reflection, exactly like in a mirror. The information is there, but no substance.

As far as black holes go, I tend to think that the number of dimensions actually increase in them. This is because I consider space to be sort of made of 'space stuff' and when you start squeezing this stuff it responds by increasing the number of dimensions. Sort of like you crumble a sheet of paper -- well, not exactly of course, but you can squeeze a large sheet into a small ball, this sort of thing. I think the opposite process is unfolding a.k.a. expansion of space. Say, in the beginning, the universe fit into a point with infinite number of dimensions. As it cooled off, it unfolded and expanded into 4D. Sort of like a crumbled sheet of paper. Makes sense no? :)

Very interesting essay. Perhaps this formula is interesting for your researchs

s= spin

Phi = Golden number

(Phi)^3 = factral dimension of space-time

mpk = Planck mass

Gn = Newton constant = 6.67428 x 10^-11

+-e = electric charge

Im(Zeta1(s)=0)= imaginary part of the first zero of riemann zeta function

s= 0.5 +14.134725141734693i; Re(Im) = 14.134725141734693

[math]Re[Im(\zeta_{1}(s)=0)]-{\displaystyle (\sum_{s}\sqrt{(s+1)s}-\varphi^{3}-2)/2}=\ln(m_{Pk}/\sqrt{(\pm e)^{2}/G_{N}})

[/math]

Regards

Antony,

I have to say I generally avoid most arguments which take current cosmology as a given, because I find it completely out to lunch. For one thing I see time as an effect of action, the only problem is we try to build our perception of it as a sequence from past to future into the model, rather than the actual cause of the change which turns future potential into past circumstance. For example, it is not the earth traveling a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth rotates. Hence caused by the action. This means that spacetime is a correlation of measures of duration and distance, not some physically real "fabric" which can be expanded, bent, bound, etc. It is similar as the giant cosmic gear wheels to explain the efficacy of epicycles.

Duration is not some dimension external to the point of the present, but is the state of the present between the occurrence of events.

Rather than residue from the big bang, cosmic background radiation could well be the solution to Olber's paradox, the light over ever more distant sources redshifted completely off the visible spectrum.

Black holes and gravity are treated as vacuums for everything falling into them, but not only do most gravitational sources about black holes radiate enormous amounts of light and other radiation, but the black holes shoot enormous jets of cosmic rays across the universe and binary stars eventually explode. That seems to me the Hawking radiation.

Since gravity is considered a collapse of space because mass points contract, I suspect the expansion between galaxies is a function of the expansion of radiation, creating a convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. It's just we can only observe the light crossing these intergalactic spaces. Light is Einstein's cosmological constant. Universal, but also balancing gravity.

I would also point out there is an inherent contradiction in the theory; 1) Space is what we measure with a ruler. 2) Intergalactic space expands. 3) The result is that it will take ever longer for light to cross the space between galaxies. Based on 1, 3 contradicts 2, since our most basic measure of intergalactic isn't being stretched, since it requires more to measure the stretched distance. This makes it an expansion IN space, as measured by C, not an expansion OF space. This would necessarily make us the center of the universe, unless redshift is a form of optical effect, due to distance, then it would create a similar effect for every point in space.

Given all the major patches to keep it working, from inflation to dark energy, not to mention everything from time traveling wormholes to multiverses springing out of it, it is all bizarre beyond belief.

I do think as part of this cycle, that gravity is not so much a property of mass, as an effect of energy condensing into mass and mass condensing into ever more dense matter. Remember when mass is converted to energy, it creates pressure, so the opposite of this would be a vacuum.

Not trying to start an argument, since it seems quite futile to fight city hall on this, but just offering up my own position.

Regards,

John

Antony,

I have read your essay and commend you on what appear to be original ideas about information and black holes. You have read my essay so you probably realize that I focus on nonlinear gravity at the particle level, (where few other researchers spend much time) and I really have no expertise in black holes. Your linking dimensionality to the Fibonacci numbers is unique, as far as I can tell. You seem to have struck a chord with a number of others! I am agnostic on the black hole information problem.

One of the comments above questioned the applicability of the binary base to the real universe. My approach to information is based on a transfer of energy from a source to a detector, where the energy either triggers a threshold (changing or 'informing' the local structure, thereby registering information) or not. This provides the two possibilities represented by 0 and 1 and therefore establishes a binary basis fundamental to a physically real (energy-based) universe.

You have a number of interesting comments on this page. I'm pleased that, per Gupta's essay, you've concluded that, "at the very least, I would not say that information is likely more fundamental than reality itself." I concur.

I also agree that Eckhard Blumschein's essay is excellent and it is good to be consistently aligned with his points.

And you say (per Kyle Miller's page): "I too feel that nature ought to have one singularity [...] although the possibility that there are no singularities works well too." I agree with you here. I've been reading papers recently that claim no black hole singularities. They are somewhat convincing. On the other hand, I'm not bothered by a possible singularity at the 'point' of creation of the universe.

Patrick Tonin, above, says: "I also think that numbers in nature are linked." As I develop in my essay, based on the existence of energy thresholds and local structures, it's easy to create logic circuitry (in silicon or in neurons) that leads to counters and hence, Peano-like, to all integers, and, per Kronecker, to all math. Thus I view numbers as emerging from physical reality, but they are clearly our best language to describe reality and to reveal new features of reality.

Finally, I think the best measure of the quality of your essay is all the thoughtful comments by the other essayists above.

Congratulations,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Antony,

I realize it isn't a clear response to your quite intelligent piece, but I don't come at physics from a mathematical or even particularly scientific perspective, but rather after studying history, politics, culture, etc, I came to the realization how much of it arises from physical principles. So in studying physics, I then came to realize how much cultural and social influences dominate in it and the tendencies toward bubble and herd type thinking. Foolishly thinking there would be interest in such different perspective, I have come to realize that is not so.

I should examine your entry on its own terms, but as I am stuck in my own rut to some extent and am trying to find some connection to my own positions.

Antony,

Thank you for a very thought provoking essay; I like intelligent pieces like yours that can relate number theory to physical systems. Quantum theory does this in several contexts, but I haven't seen the Fibonacci sequence utilized in black hole analysis like you showed here - this is very original and interesting. I also liked the earlier post from Angel Doz, and I too am fascinated in the connection between Riemann's zeta function and the Fibonacci sequence, especially in regard to physical phenomena. Seeing that the golden ratio is directly related to the Fibonacci sequence, I was wondering if you've seen its connection in other physical phenomena as well? I'm very curious about the connection between geometry and statistics as relates to physical phenomena, and I discuss this connection briefly in my essay. Finally, your derivation of entropy in particular with the negative dimensionality, to then explain why the universe tends toward wanting information to go into a black hole, is very intriguing. This is a great topic, and I hope you have a chance to see my essay as well.

Thanks again, and best wishes :)

Steve Sax