Essay Abstract

Just imagine the Universe as a growing sphere of layered information with only three dimensions: two space dimensions and one dimension which is both space and time. The information describing our "present" moment is contained in a 2D layer of that sphere and past/present/future co-exist as concurrent layers; each layer is scaling up with time. From this model, I have derived simple equations involving two ratios: Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1 (a ratio I have discovered). In this short essay, I will simply present some of these equations. These could be dismissed as simple numerology or pure coincidences but there is a slight chance that they might be correct. If that was the case, it would show that our Universe is a lot simpler than we might think and that it could be described with simple mathematics, no extra dimensions and no fudge factors.

Author Bio

BSc in Electronics and Computing - BA in Business Studies. Former Sales Director in computer networking industry, now owner of self-catering group accommodation with some spare time to develop Universe theories. I believe that the Universe is just pure information.

Download Essay PDF File

The number phi, is more important than what you can make the actual physics.

I enjoyed your essay

The E8 group is precisely the product of the first six numbers of the Fibonacci series. 1,1,2,3,5,8: 1 * 2 * 3 * 5 * 8 = 240

The sum of primes dividing the order of the Monster group: 377+1. 377 is the 14 th fibonacci number

377= 240+137

InIn(377)*(mp/me)-(sin (weinberg angle))/Phi = (mtau-mmuon-melectron)/melectron

Good luck on the essay¡

    Patrick,

    Units are human construct(somewhat arbitrary) and are set in such a way that the equations of physics do not get affected by changing them. The units are selected for ease of use based on the situation.

    Your equations will not be consistent under such change in units. That is an elementary physics.

    Natural_units

    Good luck anyway.

      Hi Adel,

      Unless dimensions are fundamentally linked ... see my website for more details.

      Please also note that the proton/electron mass ratio, the gravitational coupling constant and the fine structure constant are dimensionless.

      Also, my equations for the proton's radius and the proton's mass in relation to the Planck length and the Planck mass are valid for whatever system of units you use.

      Thank you for your feedback.

      Patrick

      You have to show what the consistent unit system that you are using.

      Dear Mr Fisher,

      Although you have been writing the same real message to every real person in this real contest, I will try to understand the real idea you are trying so hard to convey.

      From what I understand, you are saying that only what we actually see, at the precise moment we see it, is real. If I understand you correctly, you are effectively saying that the real world is 2D (it is like a patchwork of joined surfaces moving at the same speed). So if we see each real surface only once, are you saying that the real world we live in is a timely succession of surfaces ?

      Let's say there is a real large cardboard box with a real person inside it shooting "let me out of this box !". If you look at the real box, you see the real surface of the box and you also hear the real voice of the real person inside the real box but you don't see the real surface of the real person. Would you therefore say that the real person inside the real box is actually not real ?

      Regards,

      Patrick

      Dear Patrick,

      I am indeed stating that what one sees at the time it is seen is real. What I am not saying is that reality is like any abstraction. Only an abstract world could have two or more abstract dimensions.

      Real people spend considerable amounts of their time inside of real motor cars and real houses communicating with other real people in all manner of real ways.

      I can state quite certainly that an abstract person in an abstract cardboard box would be incapable of making a real sound either vocally or with an abstract firearm.

      Glad to have set you straight,

      Joe Fisher

      Dear Joe,

      Thank you for setting me straight.

      I still can't help feeling a bit sorry for the abstract guy in the box though !

      Cheers,

      Patrick

      You're walking straight with the tight rope in the Stratosphere with some gasps around!

      No doubt, excluded portions!

      Regards,

      Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

        Hello Patrick,

        I read a beautiful essay of yours in a competition I think two years ago and therefore your essay was not to be missed by me.

        I see a number of wonderful coincidences of your derived values and the accepted value in your essay. The sheer number suggests that there must be something underlying this.

        I however don't feel convinced that our universe is 2-D.

        Welcome to read my 'strange' essay also.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

          Hi Akinbo,

          Yes, I remember we had similar views on existence/non-existence monads !

          Thank you for your comment.

          I will read your essay and comment on your blog.

          Cheers,

          Patrick

          Dear Sujatha,

          Humm... I am not sure I fully understand your message...

          Regards,

          Patrick

          Thanks for your gracious comments on my blog. I think I see someone who understands what I am trying to say, probably even better than myself.

          Cheers,

          Akinbo

          11 days later

          Dear Patrick

          I'm always intrigued by the list of (coincidental?) physical values that you recover with your model. I even checked some of your formulas. Soon or later I will have the time to really try to understand how it works, and how you get so many good values. I'm currently in Japan, I presented a talk in Kyoto and I am now in Nagoya for another one. I've never been so busy, but I will come to your paper again soon.

          My best regards

          mauro

          Dear Patrick,

          As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your nice Essay. Here are my comments:

          1) Does you idea of the Universe as a growing sphere of layered information arise from holographic principle? At the end of the Essay you indeed claim that the Universe is fundamentally holographic. Can you add some detail?

          2) A Universe with no extra dimensions and no fudge factors is my dream as researcher.

          3) I do not understand how your ratio (8π-1) enters in your final formula for the Value of Dark Energy Density. Can you clarify?

          OK, your Essay enjoyed me. I will give you an high score.

          I wish you best luck in the Contest.

          Cheers, Ch.

            Hi Christian,

            Here are my replies to your questions:

            1) Does you idea of the Universe as a growing sphere of layered information arise from holographic principle? At the end of the Essay you indeed claim that the Universe is fundamentally holographic. Can you add some detail?

            Yes, all the information describing our "present" moment (us included) is contained in the "present" layer. We (and our surrounding world) are moving up the layers at the speed of light. Past/present/future co-exist as concurrent layers.

            2) A Universe with no extra dimensions and no fudge factors is my dream as researcher.

            There you have it !

            3) I do not understand how your ratio (8π-1) enters in your final formula for the Value of Dark Energy Density. Can you clarify?

            Well, it doesn't. I added that formula because it is so simple and it shows that the number of Universal Bits (UB's) on our "present" layer represent what we call the Dark Energy Density. In fact there is no need for dark energy to explain the Universe expansion with my model.

            Cheers,

            Patrick

            Hi Patrick,

            I found your essay very interesting. If I have understood you correctly, the information representing our perceived world of three spatial dimensions is mapped onto the (2D) surface of a sphere, whose radius is increasing in time. Is it possible that the exact history of the universe persists on earlier (smaller) surfaces of this sphere? Is it accessible? You mention that you have 'discovered' the ratio 1:(8pi-1) but can you show any geometric derivation of this ratio like that which exists for phi? In my essay I note that the classical radius of the proton is 20 orders of magnitude removed from the Planck scale, but you seem to use 1020 as if it were a pure value. Do your equations independently establish the Planck scale?

            Cheers

            Rowan

              Hi Rowan,

              Thank you for your comments.

              Yes, the history of the Universe can persist on earlier (smaller) surfaces of the sphere but only for a certain time. Over "Universe" time, these inner surfaces could change bit by bit creating a slightly different history (remember that each one of these earlier surfaces are themselves someone's "present" layer). The same principal applies for the outer layers, they all are someone's present layer, so although they represent our future, it is only a "possible" future. It might change or it might not change by the time we get to it. I believe that this information (likely past and possible future) is accessible to us somehow (probably by some sort of frequency synchronisation), this could explain quite a lot of paranormal phenomena. But from a Universe point of view, all this information (making up the different layers) is linked (a change in one bit has an impact on the rest) but past/present/future will always remain coherent. (what I call the coherent spacetime continuum).

              For the 8Pi-1, you take the derivative of the surface area of a sphere (which gives 8PiR) and which represents the increase in size for each layer, then you do 8Pi(R+1) - (8PiR + 1) = 8Pi-1. You can also think of it like the Universe is 8Pi and we are 1 (1/8Pi is in line with the percentage of matter in the Universe).

              The 1020 represents the present scale factor. The proton's diameter is just a scaled up version of the Planck length. My equations do not independently establish the Planck scale but the above scale factor is established from the age of the Universe in Planck units (the size of the Universe information sphere if you want), it is the cubic root of 1060.

              Cheers,

              Patrick

              the above should read 1020 (not 1020) and 1060 (not 1060).