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
Dear Jacek,
Just to say, as a reply to your post, that I red your response above. If I have further ideas I will write you again. You are doing well in this contest. It is good.
Michel
Dear Branko,
your essay contains many astonishing numerical relations having very precise values.
I was always intrigued by Dirac's numerology and I think your's is still more far-reaching.
I have a question: When you calculate the Universe Cycle with order 1E17 s, which is the Hubble time, do you imply the correctness of the Big Bang?
And what does the Universe Radius mean? Is it in the General Relativity sence?
I wish you further success
Best
Lutz
Dear Lutz,
Often, the Giants of Science have plenty of great ideas. Some brought to an end, and some never to return due to lack of time. So Dirac, modest and temporary LNH characterized as a coincidence. Pursuing his other great achievements could not fully dedicate himself to this issue. It is high time that the word coincidence and numerology abolish regarding the LNH.
I do not use the term Hubble time since, the geeks that gave some inappropriate connotations. I am very pleased to have in an essay here; I found that even Hubble was not satisfied with inappropriate interpretations of his discoveries.
Many misunderstandings related to the parameters of the universe arise because the used units of measure. The fact that the universe is finite is known long before Einstein. Thus, the radius of the universe is finite and we can define it as one whole length, or in natural units of measurement "1". Then, part cannot be greater than the whole. Then it is in every sense. The radius of the universe can still be understood as the limit value, but not as the radius of the spherical universe. Spherical universe for me is greater mistake than to say that the Earth is flat.
I am very glad that someone is thinking so lucid as you are in your essay, has relevant comments on my essay.
Regards,
Branko
Dear Branko,
I think there is both truth and mystery in your essay.
You start with the notion of a part and the Whole which can be expressed as a ratio. This idea is fundamental to Mach's principle, as you mentioned in another article. You choose a logarithmic expression for the ratio. This is needed to see the Planck scale as a centre for logarithmic symmetry through the geometric mean.
Next you take three well-known physical constants - the mass of the proton, and the product of two related dimensionless quantities: the fine structure constant and the proton to electron mass ratio. From this pair of highly accurate physical data, some reasoning and some basic physical and mathematical formulas, you produce highly accurate estimates of unrelated physical constants, perhaps even better than observation - the gravitation constant being one possible example.
Dimensional analysis can sometimes make significant predictions, but there would not seem much to start with here. Interesting.
I was wondering about the accuracy of any physical constant. Depending on the type of measurement, I wonder if the result of a measurement performed on Earth might be influenced by Earth's gravitational field. A first order effect would be about 10^(-9), which could possibly limit the accuracy of some physical constants to nine significant digits. This should not be a problem with your dimensionless constants.
I was really impressed by the correspondence between our quantum harmonic oscillators.
If this is a trick, it is a good one.
Best regards,
Colin
Dear Colin,
There is no mystery in my metodology.
What can be more rational than Mach's principle. You grasp the main idea in my essay.
In fact, the same results can be reached in different ways. The actual way that I've come to the results took two years. Partly as described in my essay FQXi of 2013.
I do not need the mass of the proton. But if I want to express the results in any system unit of measures I have to define the system with mass, length and time.
Your thoughts on the accuracy of measurements of the Earth are very interesting. Maybe you have article about that?
About trick:
The essence of every trick of a magician is long and precise practice and preparation. That seems to us as a trick, but in fact it is a science.
If you want to understand half of a single theory of modern physics, you need more than one year of hard learning.
You understand more than half of my methodology for several days. This means that it is very simple.
Or you can refuse to understand, as Professor Hestenes (see in his space). His response is indicative how the majority thinks.
Fortunately, you do not belong to that majority. Therefore, you deserve at least two times greater than the current evaluation (4.1).
Perhaps the best answer to the question what is my theory? It is a Mach Principle.
Instead of quantum oscillators I wrote about the quantum of mass. For this you can see an article with Professor Stoiljkovic on viXra or Reaserch Gate.
Best regards,
Branko
Dear Branko,
Thanks for clarifying part of the trick. I want to write a program to explore your findings in more detail.
I was unaware of the work of Roger Boscovich in the 1700s on which some of your work is based. Newton's philosophy put experimentation first while Boscovich went the other way, trying to reach conclusions from pure reason which might then be tested by experiment. This distinction continues to some extent today as physicists are divided into experimentalists and theorists.
A shortcoming with your essay is that there is no explanation of how you arrived at the extraordinary results. It may be that some of Boscovich's unfamiliar method of reasoning would be unconvincing to modern readers. I am especially motivated to investigate because of the interesting connection between our essays which you noticed and which I had overlooked.
To assess the gravitational effect of a body like the Earth on measurement, please refer to Table 1 of my unpublished paper of 2010, ref [13] in my essay. This table shows how the fundamental dimensions of mass, length and time are supposed to vary with gravitational field according to Bowler's dimensional analysis of general relativity. Bowler warns against indiscriminate use of these relationships, so just consider radial variation.
For Earth mass M, and radius R, let phi = -GM/(Rc^2) be the field strength (phi is negative). To first order, length L_0 in a gravitational field contracts to (1+phi)L_0 but time T_0 dilates to (1-phi)T_0. This sort of variation is confirmed in Pound-Rebka experiment measuring energy of photon, E=(1+ph)E_0. All I am suggesting (without a specific example) is that some determinations of physical constants could possibly be affected in this way by the gravitational field of the Earth.
By the way, look at the peculiar way G varies with field strength. This may help to explain why G is hard to estimate!
Best wishes,
Colin
Dear Colin,
You write:
„I want to write a program to explore your findings in more detail."
Google translation
I think my simple table in Excel, it is quite a good program.
I suggest you use it the way that you add new levels. For example, You can add the level with mass responsible for the quantum mechanical oscillator (that is very easy). Then, you add levels that would explain the red shift (that is not easy). Your great contribution can be to prove / disprove my formula (7). In my original table I got over 100 levels, all of which give accurate results.
„I was unaware of the work of Roger Boscovich in the 1700s on which some of your work is based."
Actually, I'm on Boskovic paid attention when I've finished my original concept.
„Newton's philosophy put experimentation first while Boscovich went the other way, trying to reach conclusions from pure reason which might then be tested by experiment."
It is very well your sighting.
„A shortcoming with your essay is that there is no explanation of how you arrived at the extraordinary results."
For this there are several reasons:
-Lack of time, because I do everything myself, and only after his 58 years of life.
-Nobody wants to publish views on fundamental issues of the unknown authors, and even without a PhD and belonging, according to them, the appropriate research institution.
-I prefer to use my time to determine a correct relationship with my concept, than to try to convince reviewers that I am right.
-That's why I decided to take a third way (also accepted in science), that from my concept, produce and publish a large number of accurate predictions. I would be grateful if you could help in this way.
„It may be that some of Boscovich's unfamiliar method of reasoning would be unconvincing to modern readers. „
Galileo, Newton Boskovic used the method of geometry that is for their time probably was familiar to them. I also did not understand more than 5% of Boscovich's theory but I realized it was clear reasoning came to the results that were later proven closer Bohr, Planck, Thomson.
„To assess the gravitational effect of a body like the Earth on measurement, please refer to Table 1 of my unpublished paper of 2010, ref [13] in my essay."
At [13], there is no Table.
I think it was Einstein's GR was remarkable attempt in the 20th century. He himself had worked the last 20 years of his life on more accurate and integrative theory. It's not right, as geeks appropriated GR and from their misunderstanding made dogma. The problem arose when geeks began to produce small geeks who are in this competition dominantly influential.
I think that G should be constant by definition, as it is in natural units of measure, G=1.
Regards,
Branko
Sorry Branko, that should have been ref [8] in my essay at the same website - file name is shells2010dec29.pdf. Here is a link to the website - I can't seem to point at the document itself. What I also show is that classical Newtonian methods can duplicate some simple results of "curved space" methods if the gravitational potential energy function is exponential.
Take the dimensions of mass, length and time to be M, L and T. Then G would be dimensionless if mass M = (L^3)/(T^2), but I have not done that in the table. This is discussed in the Wikipedia article on "Dimensional Analysis" in the section on Planck units.
I think it is appropriate to use natural units when working with cosmology. Outside of cosmology, I am not so sure.
Best to you,
Colin
Dear Colin,
I think your article [8] is remarkable.
Perhaps, in the text it should be noted that the mathematical n tends to infinity, is a natural n tends to a finite number of large N.
You need to be very careful with the use of the word infinity in physics. The role of the exponent in your formulas and in general is essential.
Using the system unit rate is according to agreement. If at the same time comparing the size of the cosmology and particle physics have to decide on one system.
Best regards,
Branko
Dear Branko,
I have still in mind your work that I will rate positively but I still have a question: how do you relate Euler's identity to your calculations? I consider Euler's identity related to the Bloch sphere for qubits (my comment on Hoover's talk). The Bloch sphere and the Riemann sphere (used by Felix Klein) are two equivalent representations as I remind here
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1005.1997.pdf
I suspect that what you are doing makes sense having in mind these building blocks of maths.
Best,
Michel
Dear Michel,
I have not used Euler's identity. I am sure that Euler's identity somehow complementary to my cycle. That's why I sent a letter to the three professors from Maudlin's the subquestion about it. They do not answer; perhaps you have an answer (the question was repeated on your site). I even think it would be Euler's identity could lead to the prediction of protons, like me using the Cycle.
In fact, I'm the same as you believe in a letter to Hoover. "May be we already have enough maths that can be used in physics and biology to interpret some paradoxes and mysteries. „
I did not want to ask you, on your site. What is the point when Math declares: Monster group M ... this would correspond to the mass in Kg of the Known Universe. This is pure numerology in kg-m-sec system, or is it just a literal term.
Regards,
Branko
Dear Branko,
I do not have the answer but it seems that your calculations have to do with Euler's identity and its embedding in higher maths. At the moment, my attention is on two-generator free groups that may be used to represent most of the subparts of the Monster group M and also many finite classical groups.
The big numbers occuring in M may be ultimately used for an approach of physical constants. I don't have the ability that you, Patrick Tonin, Angel Doz, Mark Thomas and others have on what is called numerology although I am considered as an expert in number theory. I can share with you by email one observation I did about how to approximate quite well the Planck's constant. But this is dimensional, like the mass in Kg of the universe, so that it is probably pure numerology.
I am now giving you the tenth rate that should give more visibility to your effort.
Best,
Michel
Dear Branko Zivlak,
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 Joe Fisher,
If you read my essay, you would see that at me, „THE REAL UNIVERSE IS MATHEMATICAL" Then, we welcome your feedback, in which logically refute my formulas one by one.
Best Regards,
Branko Zivlak
Dear Branko,
Your equations are very impressive but maybe you should clarify how you got your delta-p otherwise it just looks like a fudge factor.
Otherwise, I agree with you that the whole and parts are dependent on each other and I also think that Dirac was on the right track with his LNH.
All the best,
Patrick
