8Pi-1 and the golden ratio, trick or truth ? by Patrick Tonin

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

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 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).

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 Michel,

Thank you for your comment.

Yes, I believe that the Planck length is linked to the Golden ratio, for the simple reason that it is the only solution to this equation: x-(1/x)=1 and that everything is scaling up with time but we can't see it. Now, why does this relationship (Planck length/Golden ratio) work with our arbitrary chosen unit of length the "meter" ?

One possible reason could be because the meter was defined as a quarter of 10-7 the circumference of the earth and because there is a self-similarity of the Universe on different size scales (as is suggested by some of my equations). The other reason could be that whatever the scale of our unit of length, the numerical value of the Planck length will always turn out to be the same, only the scale factor will change. The fact that we have chosen our Kg to be the mass of a cubic decimeter of water could also have something to do with it (by affecting the value of G).

Cheers,

Patrick