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

    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

      Hi Torsten,

      Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my theory, it was the most pleasant surprise and the real reason for joining the contest.

      In short, Probability density is what I get from my system. I get the SOLUTION of SE for a particular setup translated into probability density, but not SE per se. Sorry for the sloppy use of the word wave instead of "the probability density".

      Since I will be travelling in the next few weeks for my vacation with my family I cannot elaborate too much now. But it is interesting that I had looked at Wiener process early on as a possible link. The nice/strange thing about my theory it links to so many established ideas in physics that is too difficult to pursue a particular one. But I think I am going to give your hint much more time.

      Also one important link that I found is that my system seems to be a generalization of Buffon's needle in the sense that both the needle and the lines become random in size. And that leads a series of connections to :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

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

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

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

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

      Thanks again for your generous help, and hopefully elaborate more in the future.

      Adel

      Hi Sadeq,

      Thank you for a fascinating look at the power of a simple computational model.

      You might enjoy the computational model that I develop in my essay Software Cosmos. I take more of a top-down view, exploring the consequences of looking at the cosmos as a software simulation. I hope you get a chance to read it to see if your model might be compatible with it.

      Hugh

      Hi Adel,

      Thanks for the reply above! I look forward to the material you find, as I think it is good that we are both people who like to explore the Universe in a detailed way fundamental way.

      I will rate your essay now top marks. Please have a read of mine and rate if you get chance. I'd appreciate any comments you have for me too.

      Very best wishes,

      Antony

        Adel,

        I first passed over your abstract, but am new very glad I read your essay. An excellent presentation of an intriguing model. I'm not a mathematician (though I studied it decades ago) and expected little commonality with my geometrical approach but found unexpected potential and a new insight, so a high scorer if only for that!

        I was interested in your resolution of the correspondence between cardinalised maths and curvature, or the line and the circle. I derive uncertainty from the change in that relation with theta and/or the line position, but in 3D+t with the torus and helix. I would be most grateful if you would read and comment on my proposals.

        I most anticipated your comments on spin and EPR. I hope my own addressing of this may shed some light on your 'very strange results'. This leads direct to the EPR case where as far as I can tell you suggest the same particle orbital topology that I describe to resolve the case and unify the SR and QM view without FTL. Thopugh very different I think our essays are then equally radical and 'groundbreaking!' (as someone referred in my blog). I hope you agree mine worth a equally high score.

        With regard to maths I find that fractal recursive gauges or 'sample spaces' can decode the 'noise' of uncertainty stage by stage, but a distinction at observable scales between the uncertainty of nature and precision of mathematics is required to rationalise the requited approach.

        An excellent job, well done. I hope you make the final cut and look forward to your views.

        Very best wishes

        Peter

          Dear Adel Hassen,

          We are at the end of this essay contest.

          In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

          Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

          eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

          And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

          Good luck to the winners,

          And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

          Amazigh H.

          I rated your essay.

          Please visit My essay.