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

          Dear Adel,

          you asked for a comment of your essay: it was interesting. But I have some comments/questions:

          - you do not explain where the random force (or choice?) comes from.

          - secondly I would expect that you do not really get the Schrödinger equation directly. You will get the equation for the probability distribution for your random process. The ground state of this equation agrees with the Schrödinger equation but not the higher modes. The reason is simple: the Schrödinger equation can be obtained by using a random process with an imaginary amplitude for the noise. In particular the square of the wave function is the probability....

          But maybe I misundertood something?

          Best

          Torsten

          Dear Adel,

          I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. You also did not inform me.

          If you are having any doubts in my calculations or my essay, we can discuss. No problem.

          Still,

          I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

          Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

          You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

          Best

          =snp

          snp.gupta@gmail.com

          Hi Torsten,

          Thank you for evaluating my essay, we have had some exchange in physicsforums about your theory before. You asked very good questions.

          The answer to the higher modes is easy, yes it can be done (and I have actually done it). It is an automatic consequence of schrodinger equation result. As a matter of fact I get the 1/r law precisely because of the inclusion of higher modes automatically.

          To answer your question what forced choice I have to reiterate some background. After considering some choices that could be the entities where some relation could give a rise to reality I end up with the simplest of systems ,which is a line segment. So I ask what entities exist on this line, answer is point and smaller line segments. So the how to choose the points or the line segments so that I may find what possible relations might exist and see if these relations lead to any useful outcome.

          Since there is NO particular reason to choose any specific one so I choose randomly. Without this randomness which is the heart of the system any possible universe that you create by particular choice will lead to either a static or semi-static universe (as in fractals and regular automata). A similar principle is very nicely explained in Sundance Bilson essay which he calls "the principle of minimal arbitrariness ". Also a similar idea is mentioned in the essay of Armin Shirazi which you must have seen.

          Also, may I remind you that the Born rule in standard physics has caused so much controversy as to its origin, well my system shows clearing why that must be so. And generally you can see the whole results of the system from it inception to advanced results like the electron mass all showing up in one coherent system with no tweaking or fancy stunts, by doing just what I am allowed to do on the line.

          Of course I am familiar with almost 95 %(or more) of all the ways people have tried to generate QM from "first principles". But I believe mine is the most fundamental one because as you can see I claim some powerful results. Now, if people want to declare that is too good to be true, that is their choice. However, as an unfamiliar concept I think it will take some time to sink in and I also need to do a better job making the presentation.

          Finally, you might be surprised that our theories share the most important concept of physics and that is the SAMENESS of matter and space. in my system matter is made of many lines (which is nothing but a distance between two points) where their end points are space. it is as simple as that.

          The problems in your system and all others has been the problem of time. Even if as Barbour has done(and some other foliation systems and such) to remove time, still that leads to complication. In my system time naturally does not appear, again, that shows the system is fundamental from its inception.

          I have rated your essay highly, you do not have to do that for me. Your response and reading this long boring response is good enough for me!

          P.S. gravity is also included, I will show some details later.

          Many thanks.

          Adel

          Posted from my discussion area:

          Adel,

          you have to choose uncountable real random numbers uniformly. Every real number has the probability zero to choose.

          But you are right, it sounds impossible to do.

          Now to my further questions:

          There are gaps in the explaination. So, I tried to fill these gaps by thinking about. But your answer showed me, I was wrong.

          My main problem is on page 3, the red part. Up to this place everything is clear to me. But how did you get the Schrödinger equation and more importantly what is the wave function. Before you spoke about random lines etc. (and I assumed you have a probability distribution for these random lines, then the dynamics is given by a Fokker-Planck equation etc. etc.)

          Interestingly, your simulation results (Fig 3, 4 and 5) support my assumption: you simulate the probability distribution of a Fokker-Planck equation (with constraints, i.e. you put it in the box). This Fokker-Planck equation has the same ground state then the Schrödinger equation (but a probability distribution has to be positive everywhere).

          I wrote my PhD thesis about this connection (using it in the evolutionary algorithms). The correct name is Fisher-Eigen equation (a reaction diffusion equation)

          Show me where I'm stupid to follow you.

          Best

          Torsten