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

      9 days later

      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

      4 days later

      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 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

        Dear Patrick

        The value of delta p in the formula (7) is the assumption. Everyone is invited to rebut the presumption. In the process of refutations can find better value for delta p or confirm my. In any case, there is a delta p and it is necessary to discuss about this value. I also think that specialists who really are familiar with elementary particles can logically determine this parameter. It is commendable for you that you just pointed in the right place in my essay, but you (BSc in Electronics and Computing) and I (meteorologist) do not have to do it the necessary experience.

        I gave a general picture which is consistent with the Mach principle and not violent towards anything widely accepted in physics. Whatever the results obtained, my essay shows that LNH is not a coincidence, that is in itself an achievement.

        Regards,

        Branko

          Dear Branko,

          Your Essay is intriguing. Here are my comments:

          1) I am fascinated by the numbers e and pi, in particular by the Eulero identity. I recently found a connection between e and p in my research on black holes. I was thinking to write my Essay on this issue, but, at the end, I preferred to wrote my Essay on Mossbauer experiment as new proof of general relativity.

          2) I think the issue that your results are in accordance with the official CODATA values cannot be a coincidence.

          3) Can you kindly give more details concerning the derivation of your eq. (7)?

          4) Your results (12) and (13) are consistent with a model of oscillating universe that I proposed some years ago, see here and here.

          5) Your number of Planck's oscillators in eqs. (16) and (17) is of order of the number of the vacuum catastrophe. Think about this issue. It is indeed one of the greatest mysteries in the whole history of science.

          6) In general, your beautiful Essay is a strong endorsement of your statement that "the connection between physics and mathematics is true".

          As your Essay enjoyed me a lot, I will give you a deserved highest score.

          I wish you best luck in the Contest.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

          Thank you Christian,

          1) I was not fascinated with e and pi, I just got them. Euler's identity I ignored because I do not have time for that. The fact is that my cycle exp (2pi) and Euler exp (i * pi) can complement each other. Think about this issue.

          2) See paper http://vixra.org/abs/1312.0081

          3) Here's the point. Perform this formula was a cognitive process that I described partly in the previous FQXi essay. There are no previous accepted mathematical formulas from which I could have done (7). Is immodest when a scientist without a reputation writes about the ways of his knowledge. In this contest there are those who ascribe themselves a reputation so exposing their views, beliefs, intentions, impressions and agreeing with others the same as they are. Often, without any prediction and formulas. Currently I'm writing an extension of my essay in which I will explain in more detail some formulas and so (7). If you would like to be a reviewer, I'd appreciate it.

          4) For me, the universe has no shape. The shape is formed as a result of immanent relations that are in the universe. The shape of the sphere (Planets) is a consequence, see http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0087.

          5) Using Table from my essay does not produce problem of vacuum catastrophe.

          6) Only lack of knowledge can justify the opposite stance.

          Cheers,

          Branko

          Dear Branko,

          I found your essay to be of great insight and value, very well and clearly written. I can't comment on the correctness of the maths but see in your structures am excellent resolution to the problem of 'number of dimensions'. Are you familiar with Hamed's 'amplituhedron' as an attempt at the same?

          Thanks for your kind comments on my essay. I hope you may also closely study this new video, redefining hierarchical 'scales' in a similar way, from Euler and fundamental energy as OAM at all scales, with apparent rationalising effects throughout physics and cosmology.

          VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

          I hope and think in some way that your mathematical structure might be consistent with the physical mechanisms I describe, of spin within spin within spin. (Of course weather gives us strong hints!). The fine structure constant is certainly a key part. Do please comment and stay in touch. In the meantime me a well earned top score coming.

          Very well done and thanks for the insights.

          Peter