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).

          8 days later

          Hi Patrick,

          I've just been reading about Maldacena's duality, which suggests that "spacetime is fundamentally different from what we perceive, more like a three-dimensional hologram projected from a more fundamental two-dimensional surface of a sphere". This sounds remarkably like your work, is it related?

          Cheers

          Rowan

          Hi Rowan,

          This sentence nicely describe my model although my theory has been created independently from Maldacena's work. But it is not clear to me how far the similarities go beyond that.

          Cheers,

          Patrick

          Dear all,

          Since I wrote this essay, I have released a paper showing the calculation of all the fundamental constants from just the speed of light, Phi (the golden ratio) and 8Pi-1, no fudge factors are used.

          Extra equations for the same constant are given to show that the numbers match exactly but also to show the self-similarity of the Universe on different size scales.

          These equations support the hypothesis that the Universe is purely mathematical and just pure information.

          You can dowload it on www.vixra.org/abs/1503.0184.

          Patrick

          Hi Adel,

          According to my model, whatever unit of time we use, the value of the Planck time will always be the same (ie: will always follow the same equation including Phi and 8Pi-1). So if we were counting time in Martian days, the value of the Planck unit would be 5.386 x 10xx Martian days. (nothing says that the Planck time has got a fixed value, it is only fixed in relation to the base unit we choose). The same thing with the Planck length, whatever unit of length we choose, it will always have the same value in relation to that unit of length and because the speed of light is the ratio between the Planck Length and the Planck Time, the speed of light will always be the same. The only thing that will change is the scale factor, this scale factor is changing with the age of the Universe, (it does not need to be exact, the precision of our instruments will never allow us to detect a change in a short period). The scale factor of 1020 in my equations is not a fudge, it is the cubic root of the age of the Universe in Planck units (see my model for exact explanation). Basically, by choosing a unit of time and a unit of length, we choose the scale of our reality.(in a certain way, the size of the pixels)

          One easy way to check that out would be to change our "meter" unit and our "second" unit and check the size of a proton again, I bet that it will have the same value.

          Cheers,

          Patrick

          Dear Patrick,

          Thanks a lot. I have your work in mind from the "It From Bit" contest. You can expect another good appreciation soon.

          All the best,

          Michel

          Dear Patrick,

          Very good work your approximations of the physical constants. The factor 8*pi-1 is well explained in your previous essay about the expansion of the universe. I think you had the idea to introduce the Golden ratio phi because, in the Planck length lP=1.6161 x 10^(-35) m, the first factor is close to phi, isn'it? I would not be surprised that the tricks contain a part of truth even if phi appears first in the dimensional constant lP. You work like a magician and the show has a price. Another (not very serious) trick phi-i=pi or for your next step pi+s=psi.

          All the best.

          Michel