Essay Abstract

In This essay I shall derive the laws of nature from a simple mathematical system from a postulate that reality is indeed a mathematical structure. The system can be simulated by a computer program to generate many results that agree with Quantum mechanics. Also I will show that the system can be put in regular more familiar mathematical formalism. The postulate lead to assume particles are made of random lines were one end originates in a small region representing the particle and it extends to all other points in space and some ending on other particles. The points are really nothing but random numbers, hence reality is nothing but some relation between random numbers. Moreover, the lines are responsible for the interaction by a process of crossing or not crossing or meeting.The start point and the end point of these lines define space and the length of the line is interpreted as energy, time is just a change of state. The system unifies space, time, matter, energy and interaction, all in one coherent picture, so particles and the laws of nature governing them appear naturally. The simulations generate some basic Quantum Mechanics results and the 1/r law as in quantum field Theory. There are other results such as the hydrogen 1s level where the universal constants like c, h, e and their relation that lead to Fine Structure constant automatically fall out of the simulation. Two simulations are done; one is Bohr like model and the other Schrodinger like equations solution and show the equivalency. Also, the mass of the electron appear naturally using a simulation which is an extension of the Bohr model which in turn leads to the predicting the size of the proton. The system displays the non-local behavior and explains the EPR in simple terms and shows spin. The coulomb potential is produced by line crossing, Gravity appears when lines meet.

Author Bio

Degrees: B.S. E.E. university of Wyoming 1979 MPHIL E.E. University of Sussex 1987

Download Essay PDF File

Hi,

Since the system depends on simulation, I will post some information that was hard to incorporate in the essay.

General notes

1. Javascript program notes

a. The javaScript program is using a random number generator that is not that great and it is also slow

for better system the programs can easily be converted to C++, the express edition is free.

b. Some programs take a long time to get accuracy, so you can run multiple windows or increase kj variable.

You can also decrease kj program so to get a quick feel for the results then increase kj

let it run and come back for it later. The screen might go white, but don't worry it will come back after

it finishes computation.

c. for the Bohr atom the program needs to run for a long time to get a reasonable expectation value,

However, the energy results don't need that much time because it is inherently additive.

I will post some more info a bit later.

    More notes

    VERY IMPORTANT! At the end of each section starting with Bohr Model a "program link" is written that will take you to the programs. Open them in a new tap or window.

    1. javascript programs must compute all points before displaying all results.

    2. The hydrogen 1s program has been modified to display the energy correctly without scaling. Caution must be used when changing kj to get the proper graph. Also now, the x axis has the correct scale then

    the Bohr radius is 690000-440000= 500000 almost 249601.34 (1/m_e*alpha)

    please reduce kj to 2000000000 to get the results in a reasonable amount of time

    3. You can get g-factor results in the spin section by reducing kj to get results a bit faster but with less accuracy.

    More notes.

    1. To see the proton size as was mentioned in the essay go to the electron mass program. In it change the first d0=d1=100 to d0=d1=2.33

    and run. you will see a green curve that start with almost 1 which is the mas of the proton(also look in the results window for the first line). You will not see the rest of the graphs because they are very small by comparison You can delete the results to run the program in case you want to modify and run the program again.

    2. For the classical electron radius that gives you the mc^2 energy=.2255256(c^2=411.108 from Bohr simulation, m_e=1/1822.8885) change the Bohr program d0=d1=1 and set var mp = 13.3-1, you can lower kj if you like.

    HAVE FUN!

    One more thing

    For the spin program

    1. to see the g-factor for the proton set d0=d1=3

    change d0=d0+10;

    d1=d1+10; to

    d0=d0+1;

    d1=d1+1;

    reduce kj by two zeros, kj=30000000 is ok, because the particles are small.

    Dear Adel Sadeq,

    Your idea of simulating points and lines hitting each other is new to me I hope you dont mind a question.

    I think I understand the generation of figure.3 and it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense to me given your definitions and simulations. I was confused on how you generate the energies based on the simulation. You seem to be generating hits vs no hits over a period of time, but is there some type of calculation used to generate the energy of the "hit"? Is there somewhere you could point that perhaps I should read more carefully to understand the calculation of potential energy or perhaps expand the idea a bit in a comment.

    Regards and best of luck.

    Ed Unverricht

      Hi Ed,

      Thanks for going through my essay. I describe in the essay how the energy is obtained by interpreting the added lengths of the lines that are retained by

      the following code

      Add all lines : en = en +li

      then normalize by the non cross hits f: frf= f/en (sometimes I am lazy en=f/en)

      The energy is just like normal physics it is the inverse of distance, the shorter the higher. It is remarkable that my system follows standard system very naturally.

      Also the energy can be calculated albeit not directly from the expectation values which represent Kinetic energy and thus show relation to potential energy. So my system is world's first to show exact ontological mechanical relation between PE and KE.

      Actually in the one run i.e. going through the kj loops no time is lapsed, but once kj is finished that means an instant has passed, it is like state machine.

      explanation is in section 3 Description of two particles interacting

      and in the website in http://www.reality-theory.net/description.htm

      Of course I have seen your work, I will comment later.

      Thanks

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      Let me elaborate by what I meant by the ontological mechanism between PE and KE. When lines cross we do not register them, meaning the the are removed from the system so that effects the PE obviously . Now as You remove a line another effect takes place is that its start position gets to accumulate less count and hence that will affect the expectation value calculation which is related to KE. That is a clear mechanism that links both KE and PE.

      Addition to third post about proton size and mass

      change (in the graph section at the end)

      myChart.setIntervalEndY(.0016);

      to

      myChart.setIntervalEndY(1.2);

      So that you could see the proton mass

      Thanks

      Hi Adel,

      This is amazing that I could use the title of your essay to name mine. Really in very general view our concepts have a lot in common. You claim "The system unifies space, time, matter, energy and interaction, all in one coherent picture". That unification is necessary if one wants to remove evident contradictions between quantum physics and general relativity.

      We disagree in structures that we use. However, if we assumed, the set of your lines is a kind of geometry? What do you think?

      You probably know my essay. I would appreciate your different view and comments. Many people, also participants of the contest, do not have respect to other points of view. But this can be inspiring. What would be the value of such event if all shared the same view?

      Thank you.

      Jacek

      Dear Sadeq,

      Congratulations on your well-thought of essay. It is a really nice idea to use points and lines to simulate nature.

      Good luck in the contest,

      Mohammed

      Dear Adel H. Sadeq,

      As I promised in my Essay page, I have read your nice Essay. I have two comments:

      1) Concerning you Bohr like model, you could be interested that I recently developed a Bohr like model for black holes in a series of recent papers, also together with collaborators. A complete review of this model can be found here.

      2) While I am not sure that the main claims of your Essay are correct, I think that your work is interesting and important within the debate of this Essay Contest. More, the reading of your Essay gave me fun. Thus, I am going to give you you a high rate.

      I wish you best luck in the Contest.

      Cheers, Ch.

      Hi thank you for your comment on my page, which was mainly about your own essay, so I will reproduce most of my answer here:

      Thank you Adel Sadeq

      ...

      I read your interesting essay and find you have gone quite a distance in developing an amazing system whereby you derive basic constants of nature and the Bohr atom from billions two line segments on a straight line! The segments are given random lengths and are at a random distance from each other. Somehow you extract the physics from information about where the lines overlap (not intersect, which implies lines meeting at a point). This is fascinating and I congratulate you.

      Unfortunately I have zero experience with C++ or Java script. If I did I would try to see if somehow a similar logic can emerge from my model of spinning nodes in a lattice, rather than in a line segment. In my lattice quantum probability does emerge as I have explained, while the model itself is linear and causal Beautiful Universe Theory . In my model gravity works because the 'hardware' allows chirality, which I cannot see in your line segments. I strongly feel your amazing simulations work not by magic as you joke, but because there is a still deeper physical reality that implements that logic, not merely our computers. I have dealt with this aspect of reality in last year's essay whereby nature acts like a 3D abacus to give the results it does.

      May I recommend that you highlight words in your essays that are links. Also on the website display the program themselves not just the panels showing the results. Also put links on these pages back to the homepage. Finally on the website stackoverflow.com you can find programmers who will volunteer advice about your programs. Good luck!

      Vladimir

      5 days later

      Hi Adel,

      I looked at your essay, but I have to say, I had a hard time understanding the initial foundations you were laying out in your point and line model. Although I would like to understand it more, I am not familiar enough with Java or C++ to look at the code... nor I am familiar with some of the atomic measurements you have derived. I wish I was able to give you more feedback and thoughts.

      Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's causal networks? Do you see any relation in your work to his work?

      Jon

      15 days later

      Dear Adel,

      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 Adel,

      Do you really think that "Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure"? Do you consider yourself a part of reality? Then you should consider yourself as nothing but a mathematical structure, shouldn't you? If it is so, I would encourage you to to search for a mistake.

      All the best,

      Alexey.

      Dear Adel,

      I had read your essay a while back but had difficulty following your arguments, so I decided to wait and hopefully let some of the "sink in" before reviewing them again. Unfortunately, I still do not understand how you get QM out of your simulations. Note, I do understand that, since your model is built up from random events iterated many times, you get a probabilistic model, but it is not clear to me yet that this probabilistic model is in fact QM.

      Perhaps it will help if I give some suggestions to help make it easier for me (and possibly for others) to follow your arguments:

      1. It is hard to follow what you mean with some of your assertions. Take as an example the first sentence of section 2: "Reality exists hence we say it is true." What is true? Reality? But the kinds of things which can be true or false are propositions. Are you saying that reality is a proposition? Or did you mean to say it is true that reality exists? But then your sentence is schematically just: "p, therefore it is true that p", which is logically equivalent to "p, therefore p" which is just a tautology (i.e. it can never be false). Do you see how this one simple sentence can be confusing? And it is not the only example.

      2. I think you spend too little time explaining how some specific aspects of your model map to specific aspects of QM. For example, in section 2, just saying "The lines d0,d1 are interpreted as a particle which can be any number as the Compton wave length" does not help the reader follow how this relates to the Compton wavelength because your model from the outset seems too dissimilar. It would help if you said a little more about how you see your model as representing the Compton wavelength. Remember you have invested far more thought in your model than anyone else, so just because the resemblance is obvious to you, it does not necessarily imply that it will be obvious to anyone else.

      3. I think you take on too much at once in your essay. Instead of covering all of QM, some aspects of QFT and Gravity, it would have been in my opinion more effective to cover just one or two QM examples in detail. By that I mean really describing how every single little aspect of that simulation relates to the QM situation it is supposed to model. If a person is able to follow that, most likely it will "click" how your simulation relates to other parts of QM as well. When people can really understand those first couple examples, they will be both more motivated to try to understand your other examples and more likely to actually do when they attempt it.

      I can tell you from personal experience that there is a paradoxical psychological effect here at work which you may not be aware of but should be: The more you try to show that your model encompasses broad areas of physics, the less likely you are going to convince anyone that what you are doing merits attention. That is because the more sweeping your claims, the greater the skepticisim on the part of the readers, and the greater the likelihood that they will fail to be able to understand what you are doing because they do not see the big picture that you see. My suggestion would be to start small: Try to really get a person to understand just one or two examples well, then you can go on with the other parts. Just as an idea, you could perhaps make a short youtube video in which you show both what you are doing and in which the simulation runs, and then while it is running, you explain what is going on.

      I will ask specific questions about your simulations at my post, since you posted there.

      I hope you found my suggestions useful

      Best wishes,

      Armin

      I still intend to read your essay before the contest closes in another week.

      Cheers LC

      Write a Reply...