Essay Abstract

In This essay I shall derive the laws of nature from a simple mathematical system. The system is derived from the postulate that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure which leads to a simple system that can be simulated to generate many results. The postulate lead to assume particles as made of lines were one end originates in a small region and it extends to all other point in space. The start point and the end point of these lines define space and the length of the line is interpreted as energy, time is just a change of state. So the system unifies space, time matter, energy all in one coherent picture, all emergent from random points and their relations. The simulations generate some basic Quantum Mechanics results and the 1/r law as in quantum field Theory. There are many other results such as the hydrogen 1s level where the universal constants like c, h, e and their relation that lead to Fine Structure constant automatically fall out of the simulation. Two such simulations are carried out; one is Bohr like model and the other Schrodinger like equations solution and show the equivalency. Also, the mass of the electron appear naturally using a simulation which is an extension of the Bohr model. The system automatically displays the non-local behavior and explains the EPR in simple terms and shows the origin of spin(tentative) . Many interesting formulas connecting electron mass, FSC and electron g-factor is produced. While it is shown that coulomb potential is produced by line crossing, Gravity appears(tentative) when lines meet at a region of Planck's length.

Author Bio

Degrees: · · B.S. E.E. university of Wyoming 1979 · · MPHIL E.E. University of Sussex 1987

Download Essay PDF File

James,

I see that you have submitted this post to a lot of people without any comment from you on customers essay. I don't know about you but I do read all the essays with an amount of depth that allows me to understand the important ideas in them. I do that because my theory is serious enough that I look for any ideas that could be helpful to solidify my findings.

Of course I read (and reread) your essay and I remember its catchy title, but I am not a big fan of philosophical discussions. I am an engineer and I am used to deciphering systems make up with mathematics, I believe that is the only way to understand physical systems.

But I wish you good luck.

Adel

Hoang,

I agree with certain statements you make and disagree with others(If I understand you correctly). It is in both standard theory and my theory that particles change status by exchange of momentum,of course, my theory has a more fundamental picture.

The general picture is that "messages" exchanged will alter the status of both the sender and the receiver depending on HOW much got through or was blocked. With GRAVITY I conjecture that only when both particles send the exact message to each other then the particles will feel a very tiny force over all because the probability for that is very small, no such picture is obvious in standard physics. I will elaborate later.

What I disagree with is relative vs. absolute. these words are contextual in nature. If you had a million dollars you are very rich compared to me but very poor compared to Bill Gates, but never the less have one million. Also generally in physics all quantities are relative by nature since we are always relating multiple variables to each other, the numbers are not hanging in some great void. But other things like speed of light in vacuum we say it is fixed. So it depends on what and in what context.Particles have position relative to one another but not some flag post. If you look at nature from the smallest to the biggest everything is changing and in flux , nothing is standing still to be absolute.

As a consolation prize for you, my theory says that reality AS A WHOLE is unique and absolute because it is a mathematical structure, that has the property of being the only one that can generate reality. There seems to be no other design available to generate a mathematical structure that leads to another reality. It does not make sense to say there are infinite numbers of a unit circle out their. It suffice to say there is a unit circle.

Dear Adel,

Thank you presenting a nice essay. Your postulate that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure is very good.

So you think some real Matter can be created mathematically from nothing?

And...

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.

Gupta,

you say

"So you think some real Matter can be created mathematically from nothing?"

First, What I am saying is that matter, space,time and energy are all aspects of a mathematical structure, that is all. They were not created from nothing, I repeat they ARE aspects of a mathematical structure. This structure exists just like a circle or a triangle. As an analogy(don't take it seriously) we could say the circumference is energy, the area is matter(mass) and the distance between the points is space.

Second, I not only think this is the situation, but proved it by simulating the idea and showed that it leads to known results in physics.

Third, One of the main results of QM discovered about 100 years ago is that when we try to understand what MATTER actually is, we find that it constituents like electrons and protons and photons don't act in any way near the classical objects , they have a weird duality. So Matter itself is made of objects that behave in such a manner that throws the concept of classical objects out of the window. That is why more and more people started advocating the mathematical or the "BIT" as the basis. But each trying to prove that using different technique, hence the contest.

As to your essay, I can only sat that I agree with the response of Tejinder in your thread. But good Luck.

Adel

    Please note the following points

    1. the website is at http://www.qsa.netne.net

    2. The code is explained in section 3

    3. You can run and modify the programs which are listed in section 11, more will be added later.

    4.see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

    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

      I have always liked the MUH and my own version of it the "Theory of Theories" so I find this essay spot-on. The idea of trying to create physics with a computer from maths principles is great but it is never going to be easy to get really convincing results.

      I think you should build on your work so far by trying to get more detail and see if you can get even better numbers. It would be nice if you could use complex numbers as in quantum mechanics or show why complex numbers are already built in.

      good luck

        Thanks philip, I have rated your essay fairly high. I will reply in detail after I have prepare some material to show more convincing simulations plus the link to your theory using the concepts of random matrices, random walks on necklace and such. As a matter of fact I think I am grabbing the first thread of string theory in my system by comparing it to yours. More later, and thanks again.

        P.S. I still hope you look at those programs IF you get the time.

        Hello Adel,

        Neat idea! Says mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev: "Mathematics closes physics as physics chemistry has closed." Excellent conclusion: «You can do the usual tricks of differential equations and other mathematical techniques (coupled with experiment) to represent how reality behaves, but they cannot show the origin ...» ... »There is no ambiguity in this system; reality is just a mathematical structure which does not need an explanation as to its origin. Mathematics is just is. ». Only one "but": mathematics itself must have an ontological foundation. See my essay, we are close to you in spirit ...

        With best regards, Vladimir

        Hello Adel,

        Neat idea! Says mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev: "Mathematics closes physics as physics chemistry has closed." Excellent conclusion: «You can do the usual tricks of differential equations and other mathematical techniques (coupled with experiment) to represent how reality behaves, but they cannot show the origin ...» ... »There is no ambiguity in this system; reality is just a mathematical structure which does not need an explanation as to its origin. Mathematics is just is. ». Only one "but": mathematics itself must have an ontological foundation. See my essay, we are close to you in spirit ...

        With best regards, Vladimir

          Hi Vladimir,

          Thanks for reading my essay, I have left you a comment in your thread. As to Mathematics, the philosophers of the field have debated the issue of the foundation of math for a very long time. One of the main philosophers Putnam concluded that mathematics does not have foundation and does not need one. I think many modern ones are of the same mind. But ok, we can debate to all eternity as to what is math, but at least OUR reality is much better understood.

          Adel

          Hi Adel,

          Thank you for your comment on my forum! I wrote a response to your comment ...

          Refusing to address the foundations of mathematics - that means abandon the search for truth. Since then how "mathematics close physics" (mathematician and physicist Ludwig Faddeev)?. You just have to go to the origin of geometry (see Edmund Husserl "Origin of Geometry"). We must look for the initial structure ("structure-mother" when it comes to the spirit N.Burbaki.) Such a structure, which Umberto Eco described as "missing." But it is there, it is present in front of our eyes! You just need to see it ... Otherwise there would be a nice sustainable peace, which we observe. A world that gives rise to all the time and gives birth to new - new information ... I hope for your righteous rating.

          With best regards,

          Vladimir

            Hi Vladimir,

            I will comment about your theory in your thread. But From my point of view there is not much to elaborate about mathematics. Even if we find out what mathematics is or its nature that will not do anything to the physics, if my theory is correct.

            So from my theory, physics is just a result of a particular mathematical structure which implies that mathematics is platonic. In another word math has the proof of the existence of reality and reality is the proof of the platonic existence of math. Now that is profound.

            Adel

            Hi Hoang,

            I don't know what is the the level of your education, but in university and beyond we learn to only understand words in the context of the problem at hand. the words themselves don't have absolute meaning, it depends how you use them. And in science we use language just like other cultures, they have their own way of saying things and people usually engaged in science sort of know how to decode others words. It is like if you joke in your home country and gets translated it might actually sound dumb to me.

            Also, that is why we hold mathematics in high regards, we don't use words so much just symbols and people allover the world can understand it (what we actually mean by them). On the other hand you see in philosophy people use very heavy loaded words trying to be concise in the thought transmission because of the requirement of clear arguments and it is very hard to do with ordinary words. But for someone who has no experience in philosophy it does sound "GREEK".

            In short, it is the content of the subject and how we understand that is important in science.However you want to say it the content is important. So don't get hung up on words and look to the content.

            Adel

            Dear Adel,

            I read both your paper, went to your website and also downloaded the program. Unfortunately I only have very rudimentary programming skills but this could be an opportunity to brush them up a bit. I have some comments and questions

            1. The best I can tell, it seems that your framework is based on probability whereas the wave function is considered a probability amplitude. The distinction makes itself most obviously known in the interference effects associated with quantum objects, but it can also have effects in other situations. If you can find it, the book "A modern approach to quantum mechanics" by Townsend has in its first chapter a demonstration based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment that shows that the quantum state must be considered a probability amplitude, not a probability. Can you show that your framework is based on probability amplitudes, and if it currently isn't can you modify it so that it will be? This is a major aspect that you need to address and discuss in your framework before other physicists will seriously consider it.

            2. It was very difficult for me to follow section 4 in your paper, and I think because it would probably be true of anyone who tries to understand it, this is probably hurting you. Put yourself in the position of the physicists who do bother to read your entry here: Many of the terms or symbols are not explicitly defined, it is not clear what exactly is an experimental input and what is an output and what, if anything, is assumed, and then BAM, they see a claim that if true would be unquestionably be the greatest discovery of the century. Can you see that the incongruence between these could turn off a lot of physicists? My suggestion would be to list and label very clearly and completely all the inputs and outputs, identify all your assumptions (including those that went into creating your program), define all the terms and symbols, number the equations, use the dimensional units, and preferably use an equation editor so that the equations are easier to read. Because this is a key part of your argument you need to take extra special to care to present the quantitative argument as clearly as possible.

            3. Is it possible that you could include a flow-diagram for the program? It is not absolutely essential, but it would make it easier to understand how it works. I looked at the program itself and was surprised to see the golden ratio, yet your text did not mention it anywhere. This is something that should be mentioned because otherwise it could be construed as a hidden assumption in your program.

            Finally, I would like to mention that I am intrigued by your approach, I think it is great that you are making your program freely available (it speaks of your integrity) and think it could be promising. If you are willing to follow some of these suggestions please let me know and I will re-examine your work.

            All the best,

            Armin

            Dear Adel,

            an interesting article and I rated good, although no all is clear. I am trying to understand it and I need some extra information before I'll be able a deep opinion.

            You say :

            1. Limit li maximum length to L, and

            A. Put a constraint so that li does not go out of l on either side.

            B. Let li cross the line on either side.

            2. Let li go to any distance outside of the line.

            What is the difference between 1B and 2?

            What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?

              Hi Sergio,

              Thank you for coming back, and the good rating.

              "What is the difference between 1B and 2?"

              Maybe I was not clear enough, in case 1B the random lines li are constrained by the length L of the main line, so they can go outside but not far. In the case of 2 the lines can go to the other particles which are even at the end of the universe.

              So the theory inherently is an "action at distance",but that does not happen by choice for me it is automatic in the system. I only do what is possible on the line. That is why I have mentioned that EPR paradox is trivial in my theory, which does reproduce a lot of QM. Moreover, the system also respects causality just like in standard physics. I will elaborate more once the system becomes more familiar to you and others.

              Also, if you noticed I have not mentioned what happens in case of 1B, I am working on the interpretation of the results by doing a lot of simulations. Maybe you can discover it! the program is very easy to run. Tomorrow I will be adding more programs in my website, I will post the details.

              "What do you mean with the notation "d0/d1"? is it the difference between sets?"

              Please for this question refer to fig.6 in section 3 in the essay and detailed program description in my website also in section 3. d0 and d1 are basically the representation of the two interacting particles. Their length is really nothing but the Compton wavelength (= h_bar/mc, since h_bar=c like in natural units, the Compton wavelength for electron= 1/m=1/.0005465799=1822.8885 in u units approximately). I will talk more in detail later in my upcoming reply to Armin Shirazi)

              http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

              I will be happy to answer more questions.Thanks again

              Adel