Hi Sreenath,

Thank you for reading the essay in a thoughtful manner. Sorry for the late reply, I was busy converting more C++ programs to JavaScript so that you and others can run it and see (also modify) the code and have a much better understanding. Since my system does not have equations as such or philosophical arguments, so the best way to learn it is by running the simulation.

I have always tinkered with ideas in math and engineering mostly, but I only read physics. Somehow, the idea of the relation of physics and math started brewing in my head for few years. One day sitting with my friends and everybody was complaining about the world and life, so to ease the discussion I just throw a one liner and said that reality was nothing but some math. So everybody laughed their head off and walked out shaking their head.

I was very surprised of the words that came out of my mouth, I said to myself, aha, this is what was in my head but I could not express till that moment. Having a bit of free time I started thinking what could this mathematical structure will look like and how could it arise. To be honest I was really only thinking of the possibility of creating a very crude universe like system just for my amusement.

After thinking about what could be happening on the line, it just seemed so natural to implement the idea using computer program. It is not like I said, here, I am going to write a program to simulate our reality using computer. I was so shocked (but deep down not surprised) when I saw the sin^2, I was expecting some kind fractal or some similar stuff, but never ever the actual physics of our reality.

I tell you this long story because I think it makes it much easier to understand my replies to your comments.

The words "mathematical structure" are used both in general sense and has more strict mathematical meaning. It is used loosely to refer to any mathematical like systems like a triangle or a circle. And in formal way as in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_structure

Of course I am using more in the general sense just like Dr. Tegmark's MUH.

I will have to read you essay more carefully to see the relation of math and physics in your idea. But I think already in mine the reason for the "effectiveness of math "is much clearer. You can see how classical physics and standard quantum physics have their origin in my system which is purely mathematical and so the classical theories are either effective theories (classical physics) or a "look alike" (quantum physics). There is a famous quote by Feynman in regards to Schrodinger Equation (which is known to be a fantastic guess by him) just popping out of Schrodinger's head, meaning there appears no basis to it other than it works. My system shows the origin of the equation, and it is clear how the math relate. Moreover, with my system I do not attempt to derive anything. The nature of the system from its inception has been to see what is possible to do on the line AND THEN see if I can interpret the results to match some known physics. I have not thought, ok, now I shall derive the natural constants, no. I just look at possible results and see if I can make any sense of them that is all.

As far as a system that solves all intellectual problems in one system, I think that is a very ambitious and unrealistic goal, but contemplating such issues does add to our knowledge . Many of the essays in the contest are misguided in my opinion because they tackle cosmological problems that have very scarce data, while we have these giant colliders and we are struggling with basic issues in particle physics. I believe we must solve the fundamental problems first before tackling more complicated ones. Anyway, the problem of existence is by far more mysterious, enigmatic and psychologically important that the issue of biology and consciousness. Because the later do have a very good chance being explained by the former but not the other way around.

As I said in my essay gravity is still under research. It is so difficult to simulate even for very short distances the numbers fluctuate so much it is very hard to make sense out of them, but I think there is hope. Maybe another two weeks or so I might be able to show more. The issue you raised about electron energy and the proton is interesting while the system does seem to follow standard physics but it seems that some surprises about the proton might be there. I am also working on that and it looks interestingly unconventional, but maybe the time is not right to disclose until further checks.

Hopefully by tomorrow I will read and rate your essay. Thanks again.

Adel

Dear Adel,

Thanks for your nice clarifications and I would like to give you a very high rating of over 8 on your logically consistent essay. So after rating my essay, please, inform me in my thread or e-mail me to bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in, and I will in turn rate your essay.

I must once again say that you have originality in your approach in solving problems pertaining to physics through computer programming and don't give it up until you succeed in your endeavor. If you need any clarifications on the contents of my essay, please, contact me.

Wish you all the best in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Dear Adel,

I too have rated your essay more favorably for its originality in its approach and wishing you best of luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

Hi Hoang,

First I want to apologize if I had offended you in any way. I certainly did not mean any disrespect. There is nothing personal between us and you have not insulted me, so I have no reason to insult you. I think you misunderstood my statements. I just meant when we learn complicated subjects in higher education we do have to say things properly to express the problems in a clear way, but also we don't spend all our time to choose the right words, The concepts are more important. I went to school in the west and my English was not that good(still it isn't) but I did good. Anyway, you took some statements personally but they were meant as an advice only. However, it is natural sometimes to state our opinions in strong terms in forums, that is part of the process.

Also, I said "All the people who submitted their essays are the kind of people who like to think out of the box". This is the highest compliment that you can give to people's intellect and that goes to you as a participant. As a non professional physicist I do rate self learning highly, as a matter of fact I have criticised some people with PHDs here in FQXI and elsewhere a lot for being "boring" with no imagination.

As to the issue of gravity, I understand its fundamentals as it is taught in school. I know what is known and what is unknown, as in Newton's theory, GR, Verlinde's gravity , QG and so on. In my essay I have not calculated anything related to gravity, all calculations are for Quantum Mechanical systems. I only talked briefly about it(last section), but I hope I will have some calculation soon.

Thank you again.

Adel

Dear Adel

How about variation of mass proton and electron?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v3.pdf

Regards

Yuri

Dear Adel,

I just read your essay. Your essay contains a lot of material for fruitful research and I commend you on this.

We also have like mind because you say that, "...if nature has something to do with mathematics,then why not start with these basic concepts...". If you have not read my essay, please read and rate if you think we both share this idea.

Then on the issue of two particles interacting, e.g. a positive and negative charged body or between earth and moon, how is this interaction conducted?

Best regards,

Akinbo

    Adel,

    I thoroughly enjoyed reading your perspicacious essay. If you really were uncertain what reality was, why did you not consult a knowledgeable realist such as myself?

    As I have explained in my essay BITTERS, reality is unique, once.

    You might also have Wheeler methodology the question.

    Is reality simple? Yes?

    Is reality akin to a circle? No

    Is unique, once simple? Yes

    Is true mathematical structure simple? No

    Good luck in the contest,

    Joe

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Hi Akinbo,

      Thank you for reading my essay. While it is hard to tell what you precisely have in mind( I have read yours many times), there seems to be some similarity between our theories in a specific area which is particle propagation. My theory follows standard QM which does not have easy interpretation in that regard. However, I am researching this issue in my system which seems to somehow include a concept that is called Feynman checkerboard, which has a sophisticated version of your idea.

      just google " feynman checkerboard model", you will find loads of information, but you have to read a lot to see the similarity to your system.

      My essay is all about how this interaction arises, please read carefully the first 3 sections. Of course, my essay was written for an academic person with extensive experience in QM in mind, so I have not spelled out everything clearly. Now, in classical physics the charge e is just a numbers assigned to a particle that enters the equation where 1/r is postulated via experiments. In QFT a similar but more sophisticated in the sense that now 1/r law is not postulated but derived (through the notorious virtual particles concept). Zee in his QFT in a nutshell book called that the greatest discovery in physics. Other theories like String and others describe charge as again a sort of abstract math like windings and such.

      In my theory charge is a dynamic quantity that arises from the interaction and not the other way around. There is no positive and negative particles as such, it was forced upon standard physics because of the experiment and model strategy. It is all about the line intersection concept which is the basis of interaction and hence the rise of charge and the associated expectation value change corresponding to force.

      Gravity is a bit harder because the weak force it produces making the numbers fluctuate highly. However I state my conjecture in the essay, which is when the lines meet head on at Lp. But why Lp? I leave that for the second season episode!!

      Finally I have rated your essay very good for your nice try and good active participation.

      P.S. a copy will appear in your thread.

      Adel

      Hi Joe,

      To tell you the truth I came up with this theory only by chance(luck), so I don't know about "perspicacious". However my many years of solving tough problems in engineering, computer and business does help to sharpen ones problem solving ability.

      In some sense my theory does say that reality is only once, because it is a mathematical structure. It is not useful to enumerate all triangles(their leg lengths). It suffice to say there is such a thing as a triangle.

      Also, If you are implying there is no multi-verse, my theory tends to support your position. However, it is too early to be sure.

      I gave you good grade for your spirit of discovery.

      Adel

      Dear Adel,

      Thanks for your comments on my blog and the referral to Feynman's checkerboard model which I just googled. It appears to be a way to quantize spacetime. From what I read on Wikipedia I even wonder whether points and monads are antiparticle of each other moving backwards or forwards in time.

      Then I think your idea that charge is derived from interaction and not the other way round is fundamental! That suggests that charge is a derived/acquired property and not a fundamental one.

      I will be re-reading your essay as I am curious whether I can guess your thinking on Lp.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

      Dear All,

      It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

      iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

      One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

      Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

      the second sub series is always defined by the equation

      Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

      Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

      Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

      Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

      Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

      Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

      Examples

      starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

      where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

      -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

      Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

      Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

      where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

      Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

      0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

      The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

      As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

      d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

      d-super.pdf)

      Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

      I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

      I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

      All this started with a simple question, who am I?

      I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

      I super positioned my self or I to be me.

      I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

      I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

      I am phi in zero = I = infinity

      I am 3Sphere in iSphere

      I am pi in zero = I = infinity

      I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

      Love,

      Sridattadev.

      Hello Adel,

      I enjoyed your essay greatly and rated fairly high. It is my opinion that your theory is not yet robust or mature, but you derive some impressive results from what is at this point a toy model. I heartily endorse the stream of influences from which you derive your idea, including Wigner, Wheeler, Wolfram, and Tegmark, because like yourself I believe the universe is here because it computes.

      At one point; in imitation of Descartes; I coined the phrase "It Computes, therefore It Is." If you take the original form of Descartes' quote in the Latin 'Cogito Ergo Sum' can also be translated into "Thinking therefore Being" which is almost identical to what Wheeler proposed in "It from Bit."

      I will be creating a page of links to work like yours on the website:

      www.itcomputes.info

      So we should keep in touch after the contest.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

        Dear Adel,

        I think you have a very clever theory here. Genius! It reminds me of my theory that partly unifies the four forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. I like the way the lengths of lines are so quantitative in your case!

        My theory uses simplex geometry to relate the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of expected value - improving with newer data from the likes of Cern. My essay however simply deals with Black Holes, entropy and information exchange with the Fibonacci sequence popping up. I hope you like it, if you get chance to take a look.

        I note you say above there may be no multiverse - I agree.

        Best wishes for the contest,

        Antony

          Dear Adel

          I enjoyed reading your report of your research. I felt like I was watching an ingenious magician on a stage amusing the audience with galagala producing a rabbit out of a hat or a great number of colorful handkerchiefs from his sleeves. Only in your case the magic revealed some basic truths in physics. Amazing. Besides its effectiveness, mathematics is also very malleable - it can model the same physical situation (Reality) in many different ways. So while I would disagree with your neo-Pythagorian concept that mathematics is the only basis of Reality, I could appreciate the value of your approach, and could see why it works as you described it.

          In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I described how quantum probability (along with the rest of physics) may emerge from universal tessellation transferring angular momentum. My approach is qualitative (unlike your impressive computational approach).

          I too have programmed in Basic and produced an approach to understanding the Strong Force based on my theory.Now I will try to learn Python to simulate aspects of my theory such as particle creation E=mc^c, gravity eyc. I would appreciate your reading these papers and commenting on them, also on reading and rating my current fqxi essay.

          With best wishes and salaams

          Vladimir

          Hi Jonathan,

          Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. It is baffling for me somewhat (but understandable to a degree) that no professional physicists has contacted me, but only astute readers like you. I am always sad when people who should know better choose to ignore good things, but it is best not to go into details.

          Anyway, I have explained some background of my work in past posts, but I will add few things. I started out long ago after college to read all the popular books and magazines about physics, but I found myself very confused. So I started reading proper textbooks, and being the academic type with fairly good skills in math, things started to make much more sense. I concentrated more on the subject and did not care for the people( their details and philosophy) who invented them.

          It was only by luck that I came up with the theory since I had the habit of fooling around with math. So when I stumbled on the system I thought I had gone mad, then I googled "universe mathematics". And guess what it came up with, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis by mad Max(Dr. Tegmark). I communicated with him and I was surprised of his favourable reply. Then later I found about Wolfram, Conway and the rest, relieved that I was not thinking rubbish.

          Early on I did think that the system was some simplified version of physics, but the more I worked on it, I was just getting more and more results in line with standard physics. Thanks to this contest I concentrated on the system again, and now I feel that the system could be the real thing. Just see(programs in the website) how Fine Structure Constants fall out of the simulation from more than one perspective. There are many other results I have not shown yet. and many others are work in progress, like N dimensional.

          As to your work, I read it many times before and have followed on the FQXI discussions. But somehow I did not got the impression that you were arguing for a mathematical universe hypothesis type theory until you supplied the link. I have rated you and will be asking you more questions later.

          Thanks again for your interest.

          Adel

          Hi Vladimir,

          Thanks for your comments, you do have a way with words, you cracked me up! Honestly, when I saw the first results of the simulations it was like magic and then when I got the 1/r law it was like seeing that great magic trick were the tiger disappears and re-appears in its cage.

          I have added new programs that shows how alpha(Fine Structure Constant) appears as the ratio of the probability hits on the electron Compton wave to the total number of throws. I think the programs(section 11) are simple enough and can be understood by anybody who knows some basic programming. This and many other results do force me to seriously contemplate the mathematical universe even if it sounded like unhappy ending to a wonderful movie.

          http://www.qsa.netne.net

          maybe you should redesign my T shirt in the web!

          I have been following FQXI for the past four years and I saw your theory in the last contest. As a matter of fact I thought it was one of the better ones among all the unconventional ones, because it was the closest to my theory. I think you are wondering how that can be possible. Well, you said it, like Feynman, physics can be represented in many different ways, but some are more fundamental, more encompassing and useful among many other traits. That is why many theories mainstream and unconventional seem to overlap in certain areas.

          Your theory is similar to mine in the sense that if you enlarge your sphere (but also keeping a Compton size sphere in its heart) and get you vector instead of rotating regularly let it jump randomly all over the enlarged sphere (while keeping the base at the smaller sphere) and every time these vectors hit other vectors from other spheres you get interaction, probabilities updated. That is all there is to reality basically, believe it or not!

          Another way to look at your theory, think about the string versus LQG war, I hope you saw the very funny cartoon made by Philips Gibbs at his vixra blog. My theory connects both and also your idea and CDT and similar stuff. My theory shows the clear connection between space, particle and energy (see abstract). So in LQG the interactions are interpreted as spaces being changed while string it says the particles interacted. But in My theory (I have not shown how specifically, I will sometimes) I show both happening at the same time because they are all derived from the same objects which are the random numbers. While my theory is non-local with these lines going all over the universe, but you will see that the probabilities in the space between them will also change representing local interaction as in standard theory corresponding to the non-local. Yours (string,LQG, ....) is the local interaction.

          You are interpreting your theory to fit the current essay theme, that's fine. I did not get the chance to elaborate on the bit side in my theory, it is straight forward dE= Tds, for the random lines representing energy. I will rate your essay. Also see my reply to Jonathan above for more info.

          Thank you.

          Adel

          Hi Antony,

          Thanks for your compliment; I have always been like you the fiddling guy. I will reply in detail, I am trying to dig up some interesting material for you.

          Thanks

          Adel