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

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

Thanks for your response Antony. Yes now I do see your point about the possible connection between quantum superposition and the black hole. It is interesting undoubtedly.

What I had in mind is also the situation where there is no black hole, say in the laboratory - where too we see breakdown of superposition during measurement. Could you think of a way to relate the sequence and superposition, in this context?

My best wishes for your success in the contest,

Tejinder

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

Dear Antony,

As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your Essay. I find it is intriguing and complementary to my one. In fact, the conclusion is the same for both the Essays: black holes are information preserving. I have been always fascinated by Fibonacci sequence and Golden ratio. Thus, I do not think that the link between Fibonacci and Wheeler is to much speculative. Instead, it has been a stroke of genius constructing a beautiful Essay on such a link. On the other hand, conjectures have been always fundamental in developing science. I enjoyed a lot in reading your work, thus, I am going to give you a high score.

Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Antony,

I am also pleased to "meet" you in this beautiful Essay Contest. I am happy that my comments have made your day.

Yes, I think that the Universe requests that Black Holes must conserve information. Concerning the issue that conjectures are fundamental in developing science, a great aphorism by Einstein claims that "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Antony,

I think it is time to rate our essays and I have decided to rate your essay and I want to know whether you have rated mine. Please, contact me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Antony,

I just read your essay. You write well, and the idea that fibonacci numbers might play an even more fundamental role in nature than we thought does not seem so implausible. Also, the notion that instead of going from 3 dimensions to 0 dimensions we must go sequentially to lower dimensions by increments of one dimension is at the core of the framework that I work on.

Unfortunately, I was not able to understand your black hole argument. I failed to see how the Fibonacci sequence is related to the dimensionality of a region inside the black hole, and, as a result, I can unfortunately not comment on that aspect of your paper. Perhaps there is more that could be said about the relation between the two. Assuming the Schwarzschild metric correctly also describes the interior of an event horizon (a big assumption, btw) the transition from the horizon to the singularity is smooth. There are no regions where the dimensionality is reduced. Perhaps you meant to refer to some infinitesimal region outside the singularity that is "too small" to be captured in the metric?

Also, the connection between entropy and the n-simplexes seems unmotivated to me. Can you think of a real world example of entropy closer to our immediate experience where your model might help understand entropy more deeply? In fact, I would advise you to focus on such situations over the situations pertaining to black holes because if you arrive at an as yet untested physical prediction that differs from standard physics, there is a fighting chance to do an experiment.

You deserve kudos for some original ideas, hopefully you can develop these further and particularly in empirically testable regimes.

All the best,

Armin