Essay Abstract

The original methodology has been presented for determining the relationships between the parameters of the Universe, the whole and its parts. Two basic mathematical constants (pi, e) and certain fundamental physical constants have been used for defining significant relations among physical properties. The obtained results are in accordance with the official CODATA values [1]. A simple mathematical representation here shows the power of prediction in physics.

Author Bio

Zivlak Branko is a meteorologist with 37 years of experience in applied meteorology, climatology, computer science and ecology, continuously devoted to the accuracy of meteorological data. He represented his country at the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC) and the "Global Climate Observing System" (GCOS). In the recent years, he became interested in the issues related to the functioning of the Universe.

Download Essay PDF File

You've guided various path streams touching different zones of moods encapsulated under thematic representation.

Best Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Zivlak Branko,

1. You have cited Scott Funkhouser's paper published in 2008, in The Proce. Roy. Soc. London. I had drawn attention of The Royal Society of Londan, that, what Funkhouser has tried to explain in 2008, was already explained by me in a paper titled: " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics", published in The Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy Part-A in the year 1997 ! You may find something useful from that paper, available free at the URL:

an explanation for the large numbers in astrophysics and ...

www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_2/20005975_469.pdf

2. The dimensionless expression of a cycle, in your essay is interesting.

cycle = e^(2 pi)

3. Actually the energy-ratio ( Hubble-constant H times Planck's constant h ) = [(G me mp)/ e^2] implies that cosmological red-shift is related to the strength of gravitational-force . So, radius of the universe, and total mass of the universe are related to the strength-ratio [(G me mp)/ e^2]. Therefore mass and radius of the universe are not physically real mass and radius of the universe; the universe may be spatially as well as temporally infinite.

4. The base 2 of logarithms is OK for computer. I am not sure whether it is OK in physics. When we calculate values of Planck-constant and gravitational constant differently, then the computer gives additional digits, you understand!

5. Still, I very much appreciate your attempt; and hope my comments will be found useful by you for your further works.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Dear Hasmukh K. Tank,

1. When I say Large number I mean 10^121, that may be reason that I cited Scott Funkhouser.In " An explanation for the 'Large Number Coincidence' 10^40 in astrophysics". In formula (18) you ingeniously re-write Newton Gravitational formula. So, I have same for Universal Gravitational constant as you in 1997 year, but with quite diferent approach. And, it is both quite good without mentioning Hubble.

2. The dimensionless expression of a cycle, in my essay give results similar to yours. The difference is that you are using pion parameters but I am using fundamental particle defined as you can see in my articles.

3. About: „How should we think of infinity?" I cited RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković [1, paragraph 391]. "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility". More you can see in paragraphs 391 to 396. Therefore I say: mass and radius of the universe are not physically real mass and radius of the universe; but the mass, radius and any other fenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite.

4. The base 2 of logarithms is usefull tool (see FQXi contests, 2013 year). For calculating values of gravitational constant you can use formula from [2] (You alsow know that h=c*mp*lambdap), so, the proton parameters are used for both, Planck-constant and gravitational constant.

5. Mentioned attempt gave results with accuracy of 12 significant digits for numerous phisical constants;

You do not mentioned anything about pion and Hubble parameters in your articles. Maybe you would think about that later.

Best Regards,

Branko Zivlak

[1] Boscovich J. R.: (a) "Theoria philosophia naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in naturaexistentium", first (Wien, 1758) and second (Venetiis, 1763) edition in Latin language; (b) "A Theory of Natural Philosophy", in English, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, first edition 1922, second edition 1966

[2] Branko Zivlak, Universal Gravitational Constant Via Proton, http://viXra.org/abs/1310.0018

Dear Joe Fisher,

Thanks for the note.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Branko,

Your essay has used a series of formulae to support the claim that the connection between physics and mathematics is true. I believe it is a worthwhile effort which you should continue to work on.

Thanks for your comment on my blog to which I have given a short reply.

All the best in the competition,

Akinbo

Dear Sir,

The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality. However, both modern physics and mathematics violate this principle. In one of the essays here, the equations appear all right till we put the values. Once we put the figures, the initial equation shows 1200 = -1250! Hence we should be careful about those tricks; which may be manipulated to show a final result that correspond to measured values. Kindly take it in the right spirit of quest for truth since you are in academics. Our intention is not to offend you.

Whole is not the linear sum of its parts. When we combine 2H O, we get water, whose property is totally different from the constituent parts. Further, we cannot simply add H and O. This requires a proper mechanism with a particular temperature threshold. For this reason, we want to understand the basic justification of your initial equation (1) because if the initial basis is correct; then only all subsequent derivatives will be correct.

How could you be so certain regarding total mass and radius of the universe, which you have used in your equations and table? CODATA is frequently updating its values and cosmology is infamous for the biggest mismatch in predicted and measured value. Though you have taken the measured value of the fine structure constant, till date there is no theory, just like there is no theory for deriving the velocity of light. In the absence of a theory, there is no reason to believe that the value is a universal constant. For example, velocity of light is known to change with the density of the medium. If the universe is expanding, it is possible that the density of space (the inter-stellar medium) is also changing. This implies that the velocity of light might have been different in the past than it is today. Same logic applies to other constants.

The physical world is not like a computer program. You do not have yes/no answers to everything. Hence your base 2 logarithm cannot explain physical phenomena, though it may be a useful tool. Regarding infinity, we have defined it in our essay.

Regarding the dimensionless cycle, you have used un-computable units like pi and e by taking not their precise values, but only values up to 15 decimal points. While pi is a physical unit, there are limitations of using e in physics. Contrary to popular belief, planets move in circular orbits around the star which appear elliptical because its center - the Sun in the solar system - is moving continuously. For this reason, the ellipses so traced are never closed, but spirals. Thus, like planetary orbits, your cycles must be spirals. Why do you assume that "the exponent p from (2) is close to the Half Cycle cy/2"? Further, how do you differentiate this cycle from the "Cycle of the Universe" with time dimension?

You have used the proton as the originator of matter creation in a narrower sense and ignored neutrons, though your table shows calculation for neutrons also. Then you have generalized such narrow data to cover all structures. How do you justify this so-called universality?

Numbers are a characteristic of everything by which we differentiate between similars. Depending upon the times of perception of similars, it can be very big. By definition numbers are dimensionless scalars. When assigned units to numbers; they reflects the dimension of the unit. Then why do you call the number of Planck's oscillators as the large dimensionless number?

You say, "the mass, radius and cycle of the Universe equal 1". Mass is related to the number of protons, neutrons and electrons. Radius is related to spread of the combine. Cycles are related to time evolution. You have combined these unrelated properties to describe the unit kg-m-sec. But since each of these can have infinite variations, which 'whole' you are talking about? How can you assign mass to cycles (as you have done in your table)?

Yet, your conclusions are correct.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba,

I am really very pleased that you carefully consider the formulas and values of physical quantities in my paper. That is the only right way to get with the arguments reach the truth.

Complete response you will get for maximum three days.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Basudeba,

I agree with you that: "The validity of a mathematical statement rests on its logical consistency and that of a physical statement on its correspondence to reality." Regarding your example that "1200 = -1250", I consider it a legitimate author's responsibility to show the formula derivation process and to accompany the result by official data or at least by the data from the literature that support the statement. For that reason, I have included the CODATA values right next to my results whenever possible.

I agree with your statement: "Whole is not the linear sum of its parts." Your stance is that: "Mass is related to the number of protons, neutrons and electrons." Let me point out that in my table the relation between the mass of the Universe and the proton mass is a dimensionless number showing the relation between those masses and not suggesting that that is the number of protons in the Universe. Nowhere did I sum up masses in order to obtain the mass of the Universe as a whole, since I am not familiar with the distribution of particles in the Universe according to their type.

Your sentence: "For this reason, we want to understand the basic justification of your initial equation (1) because if the initial basis is correct; then only all subsequent derivatives will be correct," can be rephrased to state: "Since it has been demonstrated that all the output data is correct, it can be concluded that the initial basis is correct." If you have an apple, you can divide it in whichever way you like, and I divided it in the manner (1). There are several more rational reasons, but it is not suitable for me to elaborate them here. What can be put under doubt and should be further examined are the assumptions expressed in formulas (7) and (11a).

CODATA does not publish the data for the total mass and radius of the Universe. I obtained that data using the assumption that the formulas (7) and (11a) are true. I have not presented those values from the literature, but you can easily find them and compare them to mine. Those values are not even important, as they depend on the system of units of measurement used. The only thing that is vital are the relations that rule among the physical quantities and it is important that everyone agrees that those values are finite. The fine-structure constant will long remain a mystery. The speed of light is by definition in vacuum, but there really is confusion with the use of that term. The basis of that speed has been known for a long time and there is no need for me to add anything on that topic. Parts of cosmos are expanding, but not starting from the singularity, which is mathematically and physically impossible. That is proven in my table.

As you say: "Your base 2 logarithm [...] may be a useful tool." You can assure yourself that that is exactly the case in my paper.

Regarding infinity you state: "No mathematics is possible with infinity, as all operations involving it will have undefined dimensions - thus indistinguishable from each other." That is fine. I have no problem with infinity in my concept as you can see in my table.

As for the 15 decimal points, that is the limit of all commercial spreadsheet software such as Excel and I did note that in my paper. However, that only implies that the accuracy achieved would only be greater if we used some more precise software allowing more decimal points. Feel free to check a formula of your choice in the Wolfram Alpha software, for example.

Concerning e and pi, you can see that I have used both more frequently than it is the case in contemporary science. I consider it justifiable, since the results show it as well. I have no prejudices regarding the use of e and pi.

When it comes to circular orbits, I could agree with you. Exactly by using the relations among physical constants I avoided having to consider that difficult issue of the orbit shape.

As for the exponent p, I did not make an assumption, I presented a fact which can be easily checked through comparison of the available data about the number of protons and the proton mass in relation to the approximate mass of the Universe. The assumption is in the formula (7). Maybe a better term instead of the "Cycle of the Universe" would be "Time Cycle of the Universe" or only "Time Cycle", in order to avoid confusion. My key motivation was to avoid using the term "Age of the Universe", which I consider inappropriate.

Regarding your statement "proton as the originator of matter creation in a narrower sense", I will point out just one fact here. Hydrogen is the most common element, with just one proton in the nucleus. Of course, you can start determining the relations from any particle, but the easiest route is by starting from the proton. The only way to justify the universality is through results and the power of prediction of a certain concept. That is how there are considerations that Newton's gravitation equation is approximation. That formula persists owing to countless confirmations, although we should admit that the value of the universal gravitational constant is known with a small number of significant digits.

For the number of Planck's oscillators, just make a small dimensional analysis in the formula (16) and you will see that it is a dimensionless number just as in (17), where it is obvious.

The mass, radius and Cycle of the Universe are finite, which means that it is possible to define the system of natural units of measurement in such a way that the maximum value of each of the mentioned properties is 1. Therefore, I am talking about the whole mass, whole length and whole Cycle: the mass does not refer solely to the sum of protons, neutrons and electrons. You said yourself that mere addition is not possible. I clearly defined the Cycle of the Universe as Tu=Ru/c, and not as you suggest through the time evolution. Yes, I assigned a mass to each level, just as you can for example assign a total mass to a system consisting of two solid bodies in the center of mass, even though there is nothing in the center of mass.

And finally, I do not expect any new concept to be easily understandable after the first reading. Just ask yourself whether one of the following utterances is true for my concept:

Derived values are different or rough approximations of the observed values (which of the two);

Derived values have been adjusted to match the experimentally obtained values;

This concept and/or the accepted concepts of contemporary science produce paradoxes (which of them);

The derived values in my concept are pure coincidence;

Or you simply prefer some other concept?

Regards,

Branko

Dear Branko,

My impression is that you are trying to connect mathematical and physical constants, isn'it? I don't really understand what is the main point of your argument and how the physics of masses arise. Can you help?

Also you say "the connection of mathematics and physics is true", what do you mean with this sentence? Details would be welcome. My own view is that the universe is not mathematical but since we are part of it whe have no other choice that describing it with some mathematical formulas. Connecting mathematical and physical constants or understanding their mathematical difference would be a good step, for example pi and e are transcendental, what about the fine structure constant, or the ratio between particle masses, and so.

Best wishes.

Michel

    Dear Michel,

    thank you

    The answer will follow soon after translation.

    Regards,

    Branko

    Dear Branko,

    I totally agree with you: the fundamental constants is the key to the "grasping" (understanding) primordial structure of the Universum, single ontological basis of fundamental knowledge.

    Kind regards,

    Vladimir

      Yes Vladimir,

      but you're on the way of Hegel. Many in this competition are on Hubble way, if you "grasp" what I'm saying.

      I think it's just a simple question put by Tim Moudlin: „Which mathematical concepts seem naturally suited to describe features of the physical world, and what does their suitability Imply about the physical world?"

      I suggest three main candidates for the mathematical concept:

      bit (it was the subject of the competition FQXi 2013);

      exp(x) (If you know the unique features of this function);

      Euler's identity.

      There are other useful functions, but less importance.

      Suitable use of pervious can to describe features of the physical World.

      What are your main candidates? I Asked three person including Tim Maudlin, and nobody answer me.

      As a philosopher, you can have or do not have your candidates for the mathematical concept, but that is expected of physicists to have attitude on this issue. What do you think?

      Best Regards,

      Branko Zivlak

      Triunity absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute, unconditional, limit states): absolute rest + absolute motion + absolute becoming. Plus "point with the germ of the vector." That is the modern ontological concretization of Heraclitus 竊' Plato 竊' Hegel. First I have to "grasp" the primordial structure (in the times before the beginning of times), then "grasp" the nature of information and time.

      Dear Michel,

      I find your comment instructive and useful. I hope I will provide mutually-beneficial responses, answering your questions one by one.

      "My impression is that you are trying to connect mathematical and physical constants, isn'it?"

      It seems so, but in reality I only wanted to connect fundamental and widely-accepted physical formulas in a rational way, while mathematical constants appeared by themselves in that process.

      "I don't really understand what is the main point of your argument and how the physics of masses arise. Can you help?"

      It's hard to mention all the arguments in a short answer. My main stance is that: "The whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other". I think that I could characterize this statement as Mach's universe. The main principles of the paper can be found in my essay from 2013, while the very process I explained step by step in this year's essay. The Cycle, as the main assumption, originated after years of work and thinking. Fellow commenter Baseduba expressed an interesting and significant statement in his comment, although incorrect: "While pi is a physical unit, there are limitations of using e in physics." It is the same as saying that the basis of a natural logarithm is not natural. Poor usage of the constant e hence is the indicator of the reach of contemporary physics. As a mathematician you must understand very well the role of the constant e in the rise of any system, even if that system were the Universe as a whole. Therefore, everything is finite except for the number of combinations.

      "Also you say Л€the connection of mathematics and physics is trueЛ€, what do you mean with this sentence?"

      That is my answer to the topic of this contest "Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection between Physics and Mathematics". I think I have proven that, as I used mathematics to obtain certain formulas which have predictive power in physics.

      "My own view is that the universe is not mathematical but since we are part of it we have no other choice that describing it with some mathematical formulas. "

      It is the choice of the person using mathematics to use the right part of it. For example, as a meteorologist I often encountered works using correlations and distribution without any previous checks whether they could be used for that purpose, even though those conditions are in theory clearly established. I wouldn't discuss the topic of whether the Universe is mathematical or not, I will just express my opinion that one formula is worth a thousand words.

      "Connecting mathematical and physical constants or understanding their mathematical difference would be a good step, for example pi and e are transcendental, what about the fine structure constant, or the ratio between particle masses, and so."

      In this essay the accuracy cannot be better than 15 digits. That is the limit of all commercial spreadsheet software such as Excel and I did note that in my paper. However, that only implies that the accuracy achieved would only be greater if we used some more precise software allowing more decimal points. Feel free to check a formula of your choice in the Wolfram Alpha software, for example. Therefore, the topic of transcendentality is a big problem of its own. I can only speculate what would have happened had it not been that way. I think that then at one moment everything would fit into each other and become still, there would be no more cyclicity. In a way we would obtain singularity, which is a mathematical nonsense.

      The fine-structure constant and the proton-to-electron mass ratio are the only two physical constants that were my starting points. There is mathematics that claims that not everything in physics can be calculated. My Table can suggest that the Cycle generates the appearance of the fine-structure constant. There are a large number of occurrences where the fine-structure constant appears in relation to two and three other physical constants, many of which are still undiscovered. The Table in my paper can help with this. In my other articles I showed that the usage of the Table gives calculated values of some physical constants, through the use of input values from the 1969 CODATA reports which equal these from the 2010 report.

      The one way to justify the formula is through results and the power of prediction of a certain concept. That is how there are considerations that Newton's gravitation equation is approximation. That formula persists owing to countless confirmations, although we should admit that the value of the universal gravitational constant is known with a small number of significant digits. The situation is similar for Einstein's theories.

      Do you have any objections on a concrete formula or some derived result in my paper?

      Kind regards,

      Branko Zivlak

      Dear Branko,

      No objection, I just try to understand the meaning of what you are doing.

      I am also puzzled by the fact that the order of magnitude of the Monster group M (see my essay) is in Kg about the mass of the universe. Similar big or small number coincidences occur in the structure of the Monster but for constants with dimensions, I would have expected for dimensioness constants.

      Best,

      Michel

      Dear Branko,

      I fully agree with your conclusion that the world is fundamentally mathematical and that the whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other. I would appreciate if you take a look at my essay to find my proposition to answer the question why is that and evaluate it.

      Our concepts have really a lot in common (this invites to read) however in details there are important differences (that in turn may be inspiring).

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452

      Thanks.

      Jacek

      Dear Jacek,

      You fully agree with my conclusion that the world is fundamentally mathematical and that the whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other. I do not see which calculations you, or the person at the beginning and at the end of your essay that you cite, came to this conclusion. I think it's useful for all to find our point of disagreement instead of just kind of agreement. The main differences are:

      Graviton, you need to me unnecessary,

      3 + 1 dimension, in my opinion unnecessary.

      References, opposite of you I'm referring to Boskovic, Newton, Planck, which I think modern science is not yet sufficiently understood and applied.

      I do agree with you that:

      „[E] ...theories have two components: mathematical equations and "baggage", words that explain how they are connected to what we humans observe and intuitively understand."

      So I would prefer that, in my over 30 quations you find any mistake, rather than agreement in one conclusion ("baggage").

      Best Regards,

      Branko Zivlak

        Dear Branko,

        I have pointed out where we agree to support this fundamental approach that is, in my opinion, underestimated in modern physics. That is why, in my essay, I cite, first of all, Max Tegmark.

        You ask me about calculations that lead to my conclusion. For the mathematical structure - everything you can find in Perelman proof of the geometrization conjecture. There is a lot of calculus. For the correspondence rule the base is General Relativity. However important in GR is the geometric paradigm and not the equations as these have distance limit and fail outside it.

        For Graviton I have put a question mark and Notice 1: gravity possibly can be an emerging interaction - a superposition of other geometries with S3 being the outcome. Then S3 could be decomposed into the other 8 geometries. I personally do not believe the graviton or other "mediating particles" exist. But I have to refer to modern physics and its language.

        I respect Newton, Planck and many other physicists and do not know Boskovic. I will try to catch up.

        I think that the only method to get rid out of the baggage is the universal language of geometry. This language, very generally speaking, means shape or a future visual language. Syntax and semantics are the observer's baggage. We need it to communicate between humans but it would be probably incomprehensible for aliens or future supercomputers. That is also the reason that I do not look for mistakes in your equations. My approach is fully geometrical and logical. Calculus is the kind of language. I do not expect that you would find mistakes in Perelman proof but if you could find it in logic of my correspondence rule I would be grateful.

        I am sorry I do not meet your expectations. I am sure that if you have been meticulous, your equations are correct. Best regards!

        Jacek

        Dear Jacek,

        Thanks for the clarifications,

        Preleman is not in your reference list. But its okay, I'm sure that his calculations were valuable of the respect. Geometry is the main tool of scientists of the 18th century, and their achievements are now usefull. Boscovich's theory of forces is obtained with the geometry, and is the first theory of everything (see Borrow).

        I will continue on your site.

        Best Regards,

        Branko Zivlak