Hello Daryl or should I say Thumper's pal - ha ha.

Firstly congratulations on making the finals!

I think it is good to examine reality from an objective point of view. So any view should not be considered unpopular. That's what I do in my research, I think why something shouldn't work and only if it overcomes those obstacles do I continue.

Tha essay is about more than just Black Holes, in fact in some respects it suggests that singularities might exist mathematically, but information doesn't remain within Black Holes. Also the essay came about from a broader theory about simplex type geometry resolving Baryon Asymmetry and producing an arrow of time.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Antony,

Thanks for the reply. I realised that while I mentioned that I could say something nice about your essay, I didn't say what that was. I found your idea both neat and intriguing. I personally think both mathematically and physically, anything beyond a black hole's event horizon is a dead end, because I think the solution simply doesn't exist there--i.e., I don't think r goes from being "space-like" to "time-like", but from being "space-like" to invalid at the coordinate singularity--but as I said, that's not an opinion that anyone else shares, so don't lose any sleep over it.

So, while I could honestly have just posted that I find your idea neat and intriguing, I didn't do that because I thought it would have looked superficial, like I didn't really bother to read through your essay. Since I'd have had a difficult time showing an appreciation for the details of your essay, due to my own personal issues, I just didn't post, because I feared that a brief comment like that would have appeared dishonest, and I like to avoid that.

Finally, I thought I'd add a point that you may like to ponder, since you read and liked my essay: if time objectively passes in the way that I've described, as opposed to not passing at all (in the case of a real block universe), then the usual justification for the collapse scenario is invalid, because it takes reality to be synchronous in general reference frames.

Cheers,

Daryl

Hello Lorraine,

Many thanks. It was touch and go, as there seemed to be plenty of low votes late on. But I expected the rough with the smooth so to speak. There is talk of collusion to group vote, which is a shame. I'm furious that somebody else thought I was part of one such group. I think there is an element of human nature that if you're nice about somebody, they may be inclined to be nice to you, but that's just how some people lead their lives.

Anyway getting back to science ;)

I'm suggesting that numbers correspond to information exchange in different dimensionalities with regard to the Fibonacci sequence in the first instance.

But I then explored the concept further, so that the simplest geometries in n-dimensionality are the simplexes, which of course are self-dual Platonics in their respective n-dimension.

So I proposed that the information content at n-dimensionality in its simplest form is the simplex, going on to use this to represent entropy, where we get the interesting results in the table as we drop downwards along the sequence.

The coming out of nothingness is because the 0-simplex is an infinitesimally small point, which the sequence passes through. However, I have other research which similarly suggests equivalency between 0-simplex and higher simplexes - they all conserve the central point for instance.

So the Fibonacci numbers I'd say are linked to geometry. However, curiously as shown in the table the +1 pattern remains only up to 3 spatial dimensions.

I could go on for hours about my symmetry breaking system that considers 3-dimensions a limit. I'll just summarise here that we condsider the 1 and 2-simplexes in 3-dimensional space and Electromagnetism, Mass, Weak interaction and Residual Strong are all shown. Further, a mass relationship between the Proton, Neutron and Electron to 99.999988% of prediction is obtained.

Great questions!

Cheers,

Antony

Hello Daryl,

I've just seen your reply - sorry. I'll ponder the question and re-read your essay in that context, then get back to you on your thread. As I said above, it's a great approach to consider time's role in reality!

Regards,

Antony

Hi Antony,

Thanks for getting back to me about numbers. I am still trying to digest your concept of a number i.e. in what sense it really exists, and how physical reality might apprehend particular numbers as opposed to all other numbers that exist. Also how would you characterize the numbers that we obtain from measurement of fundamental reality e.g. mass or momentum or relative position?

Cheers,

Lorraine

    8 days later

    Hi Lorraine,

    Sorry for late reply!

    Great way to think about this! In this respect I'd suggest physical reality apprehends numbers as dimensions. So a singularity is zero with regard to spatial dimensionality. 1-dimension could exist as equivalent if we look at simplexes as fundamental geometry.

    The two vertices of a line segment are equidistant to their average position - a point - 0-dimensional simplex. So creating 1-dimension from 0-D conserves 0-D point.

    We can indeed then do this equivalency for any n-dimension simplex. However, starting at 0 and moving to the next dimension 1 allows us to then follow Fibonacci.

    As you rightly say - why this rather than all numbers?

    To answer this I'd point to the negative part of the sequence. The -1, 1, 0. Without this we would be saying that 0D can fluctuate to higher dimensions, but always must fluctuate back down to nothingness again.

    If 0D however fluctuates of "decays" to -1 +1 we have two 1-dimensionalities. One positive and one negative (whatever that means).

    I'd suggest this is the real approach to solving Baryon Asymmetry.

    With -1 AND +1 existing, we could of cause have a type of annihilation. BUT a further "decay" of each dimensionality would do this:

    -1 -> -3 +2 AND (+1 -> 0 +1 then +1 -> +2 -1)

    Giving us -3, 2, AND 2, -1.

    We'd have an asymmetry with two distinct spaces. One made of -3+2 dimensionality and another of +2-1 dimensionality.

    I.e. one overall -1 the other overall +1. But geometrically unable to annihilate.

    Not getting sidetracked from your question, but this highlights why the sequence might be foundational and special.

    The other point re- numbers obtained from measurement. I'd say they are cumulative just as we know them.

    For example, the geometries arising from my theory are quantised yet real numbers, as angles such as the dihedral angle of the tetrahedron and Pi apply.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    11 days later

    DEAR READER,

    I have a prediction based on the essay's simplex geometry. A ratio 0.996822341 ought to be seen somewhere in nature. I'm also working on a test to rediscover this exact figure with regard to Baryons.

    This figure has already been used to relate the Electron, Proton and Neutron masses to 99.999988% of expected. It is easily derived from simplex geometry and Pi.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    16 days later

    Shame the conversations have stopped. Enjoyable process. If there are any further questions on my essay, please do post and I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible!

    Best wishes,

    Antony

      3 months later

      Hi Antony,

      In case you are interested, just posted an update in my thread or go here

      Cheers,

      Hon Jia

      Write a Reply...