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
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
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
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
