Bit, Cycle, Dimensionless, It by Branko L Zivlak

Hi Branko,

I am enjoyed reading your essay, and I see your position close to my own approach.

So, I definitely welcome your work and I intended to study it further (when we will finish this battle!) Then we can examine the details and change our opinions on more reasonable ground. I have rated your work on good score!

Best wishes,

George

Hi Branko,

Let's try this again, with the tables in LaTeX...

Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

First, here is the data I used:

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}

Year &mass_e &mass_p &mass_n \\

\hline

1969 &9.1095580(540)e-31 kg &1.6726140(110)e-27 kg &1.6749200(110)e-27 kg\\

1973 &9.1095340(470)e-31 kg &1.6726485(86)e-27 kg &1.6749543(86)e-27 kg \\

1986 &9.10938970(540)e-31 kg &1.67262310(100)e-27 kg &1.67492860(100)e-27 kg\\

1998 &9.109381880(720)e-31 kg&1.672621580(130)e-27 kg &1.674927160(130)e-27 kg \\

2002 &9.10938260(160)e-31 kg &1.67262171(29)e-27 kg &1.67492728(29)e-27 kg\\

2006 &9.109382150(450)e-31 kg&1.672621637(83)e-27 kg &1.674927211(84)e-27 kg\\

2010 &9.109382910(400)e-31 kg&1.672621777(74)e-27 kg &1.674927351(74)e-27 kg\\

\end{tabular}[/math]

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}

Year &1/alpha &mass_p/mass_e &mass_n/mass_p\\

\hline

1969 &137.03602(21) &1836.1090(110) &1.001379(13)\\

1973 &137.036040(110) &1836.15152(70) &1.001379(10)\\

1986 &137.0359895(61) &1836.152701(37) &1.0013784040(90)\\

1998 &137.03599976(50) &1836.1526675(39) &1.00137841887(58)\\

2002 &137.03599911(46) &1836.152667261(85) &1.00137841870(58)\\

2006 &137.035999679(94) &1836.152667247(80) &1.00137841918(46)\\

2010 &137.035999074(45) &1836.152667245(75) &1.00137841917(45)\\

\end{tabular}[/math]

In 1969 and 1973, the ratio mass_n/mass_p is not reported separately, so it is calculated from the two mass values given.

In the next table, the "CODATA gamma" is the value given in the particular year. The "Zivlak gamma" is the value obtained by using the experimental values known at the time in the Zivlak equation.

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l}

Year &CODATA \gamma &Zivlak \gamma \\

\hline

1969 &1.001379(13) &1.0013784178(53)\\

1973 &1.001379(10) &1.0013784162(23)\\

1986 &1.0013784040(90) &1.00137841927(13)\\

1998 &1.00137841887(58) &1.001378419181(10)\\

2002 &1.00137841870(58) &1.0013784191948(93)\\

2006 &1.00137841918(46) &1.0013784191907(19)\\

2010 &1.00137841917(45) &1.00137841920390(92)\\

\end{tabular}[/math]

We now look at the success of the Zivlak equation in predicting the current value (CODATA 2010) for gamma.

The "CODATA Error" is the difference between the value given at the time (i.e. in 1969 and so on) and the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

The "Zivlak error" similarily, is the difference between the value that could have been calculated at the time with the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

The C Error/Z Error column shows the ratio of the CODATA error to the Zivlak error.

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}

Year &CODATA error &Zivlak Error &C Error/Z Error\\

\hline

1969 &1.3144463E-5 &5.790777E-9 &2269.8962\\

1973 &1.0276465E-5 &2.7340497E-9 &3758.6973\\

1986 &1.5149118E-8 &5.758918E-10 &26.305494\\

1998 &1.0285822E-9 &4.5983836E-10 &2.2368343\\

2002 &1.0301803E-9 &4.586465E-10 &2.2461312\\

2006 &9.100147E-10 &4.5128046E-10 &2.016517\\

2010 &8.9876123E-10 &4.5029516E-10 &1.995938\\

\end{tabular}[/math]

There are several things of note.

(1) First, note that, for all years, the Zivlak gamma is significantly closer to the current known value than the value that was obtained at the time via the sophisticated methods of CODATA. For example, in 1973, it was 3758 times more accurate (this is partially due to the fact that the mn/mp ratio was not disclosed by CODATA).

(2) By 1986, the Zivlak equation had produced a value that is more accurate than the value we have from CODATA even today.

(3) Perhaps most surprisingly, even when we compare the 2010 CODATA value against itself as the gold standard, the Zivlak value is superior. This is because it predicts a (slightly different but very precise) value with very little uncertainty. The larger uncertainty in the 2010 CODATA value means its average error is higher.

These results suggest that the Zivlak formula for the ratio of neutron to proton mass has real predictive power. Please accept my congratulations for your work on this!

Hugh

Hi Branko,

Once again...

Using NIST website CODATA values for 2010 and previous years, I have been looking at the accuracy of your formula. I wondered, using older experimental values, how well the formula could predict the currently best known value of mn/mp (i.e. from CODATA 2010).

First, here is the data I used:

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}\\ Year &mass_e &mass_p &mass_n \\ \hline\\ 1969 &9.1095580(540)e-31 kg &1.6726140(110)e-27 kg&1.6749200(110)e-27 kg\\ 1973 &9.1095340(470)e-31 kg &1.6726485(86)e-27 kg &1.6749543(86)e-27 kg \\ 1986 &9.10938970(540)e-31 kg &1.67262310(100)e-27 kg &1.67492860(100)e-27 kg\\ 1998 &9.109381880(720)e-31 kg&1.672621580(130)e-27 kg &1.674927160(130)e-27 kg\\ 2002 &9.10938260(160)e-31 kg &1.67262171(29)e-27 kg &1.67492728(29)e-27 kg\\ 2006 &9.109382150(450)e-31 kg&1.672621637(83)e-27 kg &1.674927211(84)e-27 kg\\ 2010 &9.109382910(400)e-31 kg&1.672621777(74)e-27 kg &1.674927351(74)e-27 kg\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}\\Year &1/alpha &mass_p/mass_e &mass_n/mass_p\\ \hline \\1969 &137.03602(21) &1836.1090(110) &1.001379(13)\\ 1973 &137.036040(110) &1836.15152(70) &1.001379(10)\\ 1986 &137.0359895(61)&1836.152701(37) &1.0013784040(90)\\ 1998 &137.03599976(50) &1836.1526675(39) &1.00137841887(58)\\ 2002 &137.03599911(46)&1836.152667261(85) &1.00137841870(58)\\ 2006 &137.035999679(94) &1836.152667247(80) &1.00137841918(46)\\ 2010 &137.035999074(45) &1836.152667245(75) &1.00137841917(45)\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

In 1969 and 1973, the ratio mass_n/mass_p is not reported separately, so it is calculated from the two mass values given.

In the next table, the "CODATA gamma" is the value given in the particular year. The "Zivlak gamma" is the value obtained by using the experimental values known at the time in the Zivlak equation.

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l} \\ Year &CODATA \gamma &Zivlak \gamma \\ \hline \\1969 &1.001379(13) &1.0013784178(53)\\ 1973&1.001379(10) &1.0013784162(23)\\ 1986 &1.0013784040(90) &1.00137841927(13)\\ 1998 &1.00137841887(58) &1.001378419181(10)\\ 2002 &1.00137841870(58) &1.0013784191948(93)\\ 2006 &1.00137841918(46) &1.0013784191907(19)\\ 2010 &1.00137841917(45) &1.00137841920390(92)\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

We now look at the success of the Zivlak equation in predicting the current value (CODATA 2010) for gamma.

The "CODATA Error" is the difference between the value given at the time (i.e. in 1969 and so on) and the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

The "Zivlak error" similarily, is the difference between the value that could have been calculated at the time with the current 2010 value, as a proportion of the 2010 value.

The C Error/Z Error column shows the ratio of the CODATA error to the Zivlak error.

[math]\begin{tabular}{l l l l}\\ Year &CODATA error &Zivlak Error &C Error/Z Error\\ \hline \\ 1969 &1.3144463E-5 &5.790777E-9 &2269.8962\\ 1973 &1.0276465E-5 &2.7340497E-9 &3758.6973\\1986 &1.5149118E-8&5.758918E-10 &26.305494\\ 1998 &1.0285822E-9 &4.5983836E-10&2.2368343\\ 2002 &1.0301803E-9 &4.586465E-10 &2.2461312\\ 2006 &9.100147E-10 &4.5128046E-10 &2.016517\\ 2010 &8.9876123E-10 &4.5029516E-10 &1.995938\\ \end{tabular}[/math]

There are several things of note.

(1) First, note that, for all years, the Zivlak gamma is significantly closer to the current known value than the value that was obtained at the time via the sophisticated methods of CODATA. For example, in 1973, it was 3758 times more accurate (this is partially due to the fact that the mn/mp ratio was not disclosed by CODATA).

(2) By 1986, the Zivlak equation had produced a value that is more accurate than the value we have from CODATA even today.

(3) Perhaps most surprisingly, even when we compare the 2010 CODATA value against itself as the gold standard, the Zivlak value is superior. This is because it predicts a (slightly different but very precise) value with very little uncertainty. The larger uncertainty in the 2010 CODATA value means its average error is higher.

These results suggest that the Zivlak formula for the ratio of neutron to proton mass has real predictive power. Please accept my congratulations for your work on this!

Hugh

Dear Branko,

I have a long standing interest in the physics of time measurements in its connection to arithmetic. You can have a look when you have time

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0304101

Your present essay is very interesting and your formulas are impressive although they seem to arise from nowhere. I will be interested to understand more in the future. From my experience in the physics of low frequency fluctuations in arbitrary natural systems, I have the feeling that your approach with cycles is different from others that presuppose a stationary universe. On the other hand they are at least two alternative views for deriving constants in this FQXI contest (Patrick Tonin and Angel Doz). I wonder if any bridge can be obtained with their approach.

If you still have time you may have a look at my present essay which is on a different taste.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Best wishes,

Michel

Zivlak,

As a farmer and horseman for my 53 years of life, I have great appreciation for meteorology and the advances it has made in the last forty+ years. I have approached this contest, as well as the habit of trying to comprehend nature, from a naturalistic and non-academic position. I started reading texts on physics out of a very basic desire to make sense of the natural and civil world in which I existed. For some reason, I seemed to sense it was misguided by the late 80's.

The specific point of departure was in reading books on cosmology, the point was made that the expansion of the universe was nearly, if not completely balanced by the force of gravity. Omega+1, was how it was described. It immediately occurred to me this would be far more easily and efficiently explained by a cosmic convection cycle, that the whole expanding universe/inflationary cosmology idea.

Simply put, the space between galaxies expands and it is matched by the fact these galaxies are gravity wells, that pull in this expanding space.

Now I have spent the last two and a half decades filling in the many gaps in this initial insight, so I won't bother you with the whole model, but just some of the highlights

For one thing, the idea of an expanding universe is based on the assumption of spacetime as a causal property; That there is this underlaying geometry of space that warps and weaves.

In my journey, it occurred to me the problem with our understanding of time is that we experience it as a sequence of events and in its reductionistic philosophy, physics treats it as a measure of duration. The problem is our perception is only a reflection of what is actually happening. It is not a vector from past events to succeeding ones, but the dynamic process by which potential is distilled into actual, ie. the future becoming present and then past. For example, the earth is not traveling some metadimension from yesterday to tomorrow, rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an effect of action, like temperature, rather then some foundational basis for it, like space. It was the topic of my last yearsentry, so I won't go into it here.

Another point I make about the expanding universe theory is that it contains a very basic internal contradiction 1) Space is what you measure with a ruler. 2) Space expands. 3) Eventually distant galaxies will become invisible, as their light takes ever longer to reach us. The fallacy here is that our ruler of intergalactic space is the speed of light, as in how far it travels in a year. So if the distance between galaxies is increasing in term of lightyears, that is not expanding space, but increasing distance, in the otherwise stable units of lightyears. Daryl Janzen and I had a rather long debate(Jul. 8, 2013 @ 02:39) over this issue, if you want an example of the response it elicits.

So I think that eventually it will be decided that photons do not travel as point particles, but expand when released from mass and are absorbed within atomic structure at points and as quanta. There have been a number of essays at FQXI discussing aspects of this.(1,2)

So what we have is light and radiation expanding out from galaxies, eventually to cool off/coalesce and fall back in as increasingly dense forms of mass. Gravity then, it not so much a separate force or particle, but the vacuum effect thus created. Much as releasing energy from mass creates significant pressure. Both can be modeled geometrically. So it is just the varied effects of this energy expanding and contracting in a cosmic convection cycle; The same process defining activity on this planet, atmospherically and geologically, as well as all other cosmic bodies. Why wouldn't it apply to galaxies as well?

I will leave it at this for the moment, but just consider some of the patches currently required to keep the current model on life support, from inflation to dark energy.

Regards,

John Merryman

Omega=1

than the whole expanding universe/inflationary cosmology idea.

Excellent - I'd like to read that!

Dear Branko,

I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. i think your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes to rate you very highly, so will do so now, in case of further bugs. Hope it helps!

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

Hi Branko,

> Could you please send me your email so I can give you the formulas in the right form?

Yes, I will write you.

> But I avoid using the term the number of protons in the universe, because I think that this is not the same as the ratio of masses of the Universe / proton. Not all masses of the Universe are in the proton.

Yes, of course, my mistake.

> My approach is very similar to hyperspherical structure that you discuss in Software Cosmos essay. I think I found a simpler approach, but it is essentially the same idea.

I would like to discuss this further, perhaps after the contest.

> I did not finde Nassim Haramein's geometric derivation of the proton mass and of the gravitational coupling constant.

Sorry, I will try again: try here.

> Thanks to your sugestions I think that relation (2) can be written more simple and acurate as: ...

Yes, this is very nice. My only suggestion is that we should write tau = 2pi. (See the Tau Manifesto by Michael Hartl.) Then the mathematical constants are simply tau, log_2(tau), and e^tau.

> It is most obvious in bits.

Yes, it suggests we are talking about information here. Thank you for this work, I hope I can understand what it means for the Software Cosmos.

Hugh

Hi Branko,

One more thing... I used your formula to determine the error bounds on gamma, and compared them to the CODATA 2010 error bounds. You can see the errors in parentheses here:

gamma = 1.001378419187(17) should equal

mn/mp = 1.001378419(89) the CODATA value.

Notice first that the calculation for gamma is within the error bounds of the CODATA determination, (which has an uncertainty for mass_n and mass_p of 7.4E-35 kg).

But notice also that the gamma calculation is much more precise than the ratio determined by CODATA.

Errors ratio in gamma = 1.73E-11 (calculated)

Error ratio in mn/mp = 8.85E-8 (CODATA)

In fact, the calculation is 5106 times as precise, so this value of gamma is a prediction for future determinations by CODATA. When I get some time, I will use your formula with older values for the CODATA constants and see how well it would have predicted the current values.

Hugh

Dear Dr. Branko,

In this very last episode of contest and being a very slow reader I have manage to read your essay. Thanks for the context of the essay. What you wrote "Of great importance in this article is, I hope the widely-accepted view, that parts are dependent on the whole (Universe) and are also an integral part of the whole, therefore, the whole is also dependent on the parts!" That is both are inseparable to each others. What I also basically wrote in concluding part of my essay: "Therefore, 'it' and 'bit' are never separable from each other within the range of the digital observation of nature". So I invite you to have at least a quick look on my essay.

I like to express there a new common definition for both macro and micro levels of particle systems in nature. If few possible why not we think to give the good honors for both the essays?

With regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

Dear Branko,

I have read your enjoyable Essay, as I promised in my Essay page. Here are my comments:

1) I like your and Marian Cadez's positive approach on Science.

2) Your idea on cycles for the Universe as a whole could be connected with some paper of mine concerning an oscillating Universe, see here and here.

3) Your relation (2) is extremely interesting and I agree with you that it cannot be a coincidence. Congrats for this.

5) Thanks for emphasizing the rule of Boscovich's theory in your ideas. It is a correct tribute to a great scientist who should deserve a better attention from the Scientific Community.

4) Do you think that your statement "It from bit via the cycles" could be conciliated with my statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

In any case, I find your Essay very intriguing, thus, I will give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Branko,

I found your derivations quite fascinating.

Myself I did a lot in the past about the measurement of time couple to number theory.

Here are a few pointers

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0812.2170

I see that much has still to be done about cycles.

Congratulations. I intend to give you a high rate.

My essay here is quite different and you may wish to have a look.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Michel

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com