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

      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

      5 days later

      I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

      All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

      Joe Fisher

      6 days later

      Dear Patrick

      8π-1 and 1-1 / 8π make sense in relation to relate fundamental physical constants. Clearer is written as 4 * (2π) -1 and 1-1 / 4 * (2π) because there are then linked the two key mathematical constants bit and 2π. My intuition tells me that the golden ratio has much greater significance in more complex structures but not with protons and electrons.

      Regards,

      Branko

      5 days later

      Dear Patrick,

      You asked: more about DeltaP. Here is more:

      If we define x=2pi*classical electron radius / proton Compton wavelength. The same is x=proton mass*alpha. Then, we can define the following dimensionless value DeltaP =2-1 / (x + 2) =1.935060944. Or perhaps a simpler: DeltaP =1+(x+1)/(x+2) =1.935060944. One and two are the level of matter organization (maybe). Maybe, this would help to understand the possible physical significance of DeltaP. If you want to be in touch, you have my email in the essay.

      Regards,

      Branko

      Sory Patrick, instead

      x=proton mass*alpha

      is

      x=proton/electron mass ratio*alpha

      Regards

      Branko

      Patrick,

      Very interesting indeed. It is too easy to dismiss such things as coincidence or numerology.

      Here is another one for you ... Mp/Me = 6*(pi)^5. That was first observed by Freidrick Lentz in 1951.

      I was confused by one thing though ... How can phi be dimensionless in one group of equations but have dimensions of time in another? It seems more likely to me that the (10)^-20 coefficient has the dimensions associated with it.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Hi Gary,

        Thank you for reading my essay and thank you for your comments.

        I don't have an easy answer to your question, but the only time Phi is dimensionless is when it is squared.

        Best regards,

        Patrick

        Patrick,

        Please send me again your mail to bzivlak@gmail.com. I lost it in spams. So I congretulate you birthday with late. Be in touch.

        Regards,

        Branko

        Patrick,

        Your cosmological model is similar to my Cosmic Onion Model except I believe in a 4D Space~Time context. Check out my paper and website -- I think you'll find some interesting parallels and important differences.

        As for pattern searching here is one I found back on 28-Jan-2013: (This has an uncertainty of less than 4.6x10-8)

        [math]{\underline{22.99859}034 = \frac{27}{\sqrt[3]\phi} \approx \alpha^7 \left( \frac {m_p}{m_e}\right)^5

        = \begin{cases}

        & \text{\underline{22.99859}141 :: CODATA-2007 } \\

        & \text{\underline{22.99859}213 :: CODATA-2010 }

        \end{cases}[/math]

        -- Cosmologically yours,

        -- John Wsol

        Write a Reply...