If it from bit, what does it mean ?(Puzzle of number 18) by Yuri Danoyan

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

Are pure waves, sin, cos, tan

[(Pi)/cos(18)]^2 x 4Pi - [1/In(mZ/me)]= 137.035999073=

Alpha^-1

mZ = mass Z boson

2) Fibonacci numbers dividers of 240, group

E8: 1,2,3,5,8

1^2

1^2

1^2 2^2

1^2 2^2 3^2

1^2 2^2 3^2 5^2

1^2 2^2 3^2 5^2 8^2

= 163

Phi = golden number ; [ {[2(Phi)^3 -7]^4/7 21}/6 -3 (163/6) ]^-1 137=

137.035999073

Hello Yuri,

Thanks for commenting on my essay earlier. I agree on the Ubiquitous nature of Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio. It is very interesting that you can relate 18 degrees to this and then onto several mass groups of empirical particles. There has to be more to this than coincidence. Nice discovery!

I related the mass of the Proton, Neutron and Electron to each other via Koide Formula using just Simplex geometry to get a 1/2 relationship to 0.4999999 - again geometry seems foundational. Also W and Z Boson to similar accuracy.

Best of luck & kind regards,

Antony

Dear Yuri Danoyan,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Yuri,

Very interesting approach to this topic of 'it from bit' using correlations of the number 18 found in equations. I don't ever recall anyone else doing the same. Kudos for being original. I would have liked to see more contextual association with your analogy and perhaps a deeper understanding of how such numbers were caused.

Nonetheless, I hope you will find my current essay which unifies the four forces into one of interest and worthy of your review. As far as the Higgs boson is concerned, you may find the omission error relating to this 'discovery' of importance to your findings:

Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right - See more at: http://temptdestiny.com/#sthash.LhS3jceI.dpuf

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Dear Yuri

Your essay is very interesting and innovative.

18 degrees is the twentieth part of a full circle. What do you think of 2o may play an important role. I, for one not know how many the basic structure of the universe (atoms, ... Galaxy ...)? I would be grateful to anyone who answers this question, even if incorrect.

Regards

Ziki

Yuri,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

The most interesting exceptional structures in physics such as the E8 group and octonions are associated with the symmetries of the dodecahedron and icosahedron where the 18 degree angles rule. Good to see an essay linking to some real experimental nymbers, good luck.

Yes, 20 vertices in the dodecahedron, a proposed model for the fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background (J. P. Luminet). I like Week's paper because it explains Klein's model of the platonic solids from the Riemann sphere

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0502566

The 10 vertices of half a dodecahedron corresponds to your number 18=180/10 and you have it at the end of my essay as a model of the pentagram (or its complement: the Petersen graph) on the real projective plane.

But be careful with the number-theoretical coincidences unless they follow from a solid physical model.

Michel

Dear Yuri Danoyan,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

I enjoy reading it and rate it accordingly

If it from bit, what does it mean ?

very good question!

so my answer is: it is the Lagrangian~ which is everything physic is about

my essay may interest you

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Copied from my essay blog:

It could be due to some aspect of the eigenvalues for gluons in a supergroup. The icosian has quaternions (roots) that have magnitude given by φ. The icosian is in a sense half of the roots space of the E8 group. The masses of hadrons is determined by the quark masses, which is induced by the Higgs field, and by the confinement properties of the QCD gauge field, called gluons. The differences in these fields in the Y-B plane is given by certain roots, and those roots in some cases have the magnitude of the φ = (1 sqrt{5})/2

That is about the best I can conjecture at this point. There might in some way be some semblance of reason for this.

LC

Hi Yuri,

I gave you good grade for all these mystical formulas. I hope you find some physics in them in the future. So what do you think of my formulas

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

adel

Dear Yuri,

After reading your essay I agree 18 is a very powerful number. How did you get this information. Very brilliant. I will rate you high.

I have two requests to make of you. Can you tell me whether Planck length have relationship with 18? Also take a look at my essay and let me know if 18 can be useful to improve it.

Many thanks,

Akinbo

Dear Sir,

This is with reference to your query to Dr.Weinberg.

Both space and time are emergent properties born out of the perception of sequence. While space is the interval between the ordered sequences of objects that also is the background structure, time is the interval between the ordered sequences of events, i.e., changes in structures by energy.

Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Dimension is used to determine the state of objects: if fixed, then solid, if fluid, then liquid and if loosely held, then gas, if not related to each other, then plasma radiation. Since time does not fit this description, it is not a dimension.

Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars: if there are no similars, it is one otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of individual perceptions. Infinity is like one: without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, i.e., discrete, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible: analog and not the same as any discrete number. Since mathematics is accumulation and reduction of similars and partly similars, it is limited to discrete numbers and not analog infinities. Yet, like two different quantities can coexist, two infinities can coexist. Hence space-time coexist and being infinite, coexist with everything else. Thus, everything happens in space-time and it cannot loose its sense. We have written this to weinberg@physics.utexas.edu.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Dear Sir,

We forgot to add: division of a number by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. We have written about it in many forums without contradiction. In case you want the proof, you can write to us.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Your essay brings out certain interesting facts, some of which may not be pure coincidence. 9 x 2 or 6 x 3 could be the reason, which needs to be investigated further.

The views of Wheeler have to be considered carefully in the light of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which does not enjoy its earlier status. Information must be about something. Hence that something and not information is more fundamental.

There is much confusion about what constitutes mass. Some wrongly claim that Higgs boson provides mass to the universe. If mass is provided by the Higgs boson as well as via strong interaction, then either the link between these two processes or the difference between the two types of masses has to be considered.

In any equation, the left hand side represents freewill, as we are free to choose or change the parameters. The right hand side represents determinism, because once we choose the parameters, the reaction is deterministic. The equality sign represents the special conditions (like temperature threshold in transition states of chemical reactions) necessary for the reaction to take place. Thus, both sides of the equation are not always interchangeable. In the case of mass-energy equation, since energy always moves or inflates mass and vice versa, the ratio is fixed (c^2 does not represent the dynamical velocity, but a fixed quantity). But this does not make mass and energy interchangeable. If we convert a gram of carbon or LPG to energy, it will be easily proved to violate the equation. Thus, the standard pattern of calculating mass by dividing the energy by c^2 is not correct.

We have a different theory according to which, the accepted value of the charge of the quarks contain an error element of 3%. In stead of -1/3 and +2/3, they should be -4/11 and +7/11 in units of electron charge of -1. This makes the charge of protons +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. From this we have theoretically derived the value of the fine structure constant alpha as 7/960 (~1/137) and 7/900 (~1/128 at 80GeV). There is a relationship between matter and energy. Similarly, there must be some relationship between mass and charge. In some experiments, the charge-to-mass ratio is the only quantity that can be measured directly. The 2006 CODATA recommended value is e/me= 1.758820150(44)ﾃ--10^11 C/Kg. CODATA refers to this as the electron charge-to-mass quotient. Applying the formula Mpr/Mel≈1836.15, you can calculate the charge-to-mass quotient of protons and compare with the known values.

We will soon vote for you,

basudeba