All is relative random numbers, fundamental elements of reality by Adel hassan Sadeq

Dear Adel hassan Sadeq,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Adel,

Thank you for your comments and your invitation to comment your essay. I read it, and I agree with your statement "what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, interaction and most of all why the electron, the proton and 'photons' exist. They should be interrelated aspects of a fundamental system", and that this system has to be mathematical. You wrote "Then automatically the concept of particles AND their interactions automatically arise. The above IS THE FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM." Assuming that you have found that system, the way you present your arguments seem to me at best incomplete. You use mathematical ideas, but your inferences from one step to the next seem to me unusual, at least compared with the ordinary mathematical proofs. For example, you write "suppose you want to choose a number and see what relation it has with those two numbers. It is immediately clear that you must choose some number which is in between those two numbers otherwise the system would be ill defined." But I think it is easy to see that even if a is not between b and c, it still can be in various relations. For example, "a doesn't belong to [b,c]" is a relation, likewise "a is smaller than min(b,c)", "a is greater than max(b,c)", "a,b,c form an arithmetic progression" etc. Then you say "we have to choose a random number uniformly over the range of the two numbers. That will lead to automatically to the concept of a reality based on probability". Why? and even if we are forced somehow to chose randomly, why would the probability measure be linear instead of say logarithmic? Then, "if we thought of those two numbers spanning the universe, then the probability is associated with the photon exactly as in the standard QM theory, that is, the photon is everywhere with uniform probability". But the photon is everywhere with uniform probability only for plane monochromatic wavefunctions, which are idealizations we never meet or produce in real physics. I will stop here, I hope these comments may help you. Good luck in the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Hi Cristinel,

I really appreciate you commenting on my idea, after all you are the only customer so far:)

Quick points. The reason that I say ill defined is because the point can go to infinity and hence it becomes uncalculable (the story is just a bit more involved but I wanted to keep it simple). As a matter of fact the first "l" that you see defined in my programs is the reminiscent of the size of the "universe" and it is just there because of the historic development, it is not needed. Because if I throw the numbers to size of it, it will make the particle to particle interaction inconsistent as I change the size of the universe. Meaning, all interaction in this setup lead to FINITE results (only particle to particle interaction). Also, I have tried all kinds of random other than uniform they do not lead to the consistent easy to interpret results that I get with uniform.

Although I know it is hard for people who have more than hundred essays to read, to really delve in some detail in my system by running the programs. However, I think still some time "maybe 15 min" should be taken to appreciate the system. Of course since I have not explained everything clearly it is easy to misunderstand. BUT I was hoping that people concentrate on the big picture i.e. the RESULTS that I have obtained and concentrate on the finer details later, and a lot of them do exist. Also many other results I have not shown.

Thank you for picking up on the bolded statement in my essay because this system represents it automatically without any fudging and it became apparent only after some development which was doing just what any generalization I was allowed to do.

Thank you again, I could not have asked for more. Comments are worth a thousand points.

Hi Adel,

I forgot to tell you that I ran the programs and my browser froze. I think it will help if you add some pictures with the result of the calculations, and explanations of the algorithms. Also I think it will help you a lot if you build your theory mathematically as it is usually understood, and separate as much as possible metaphysical assumptions from the mathematical proof. You can do this by separating the model into a purely mathematical part, and a physical interpretation. You can still do them in parallel in the papers for clarity, but the mathematical proof should be mathematical proof alone. Inserting nonmathematical assumptions in mathematical proofs makes mathematical physicists return errors, just like when you write your code for the computer you try to explain the computer using words.

Good luck!

Cristi

Dear Adel hassan Sadeq, I agree with your statement "what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, interaction and most of all why the electron, the proton and 'photons' exist. They should be interrelated aspects of a fundamental system" This system is a physical space, which according to Descartes is matter and which is the foundation for constructing fundamental theories. Look at my page, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating after becoming acquainted with the Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, it is end of some questions.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Adel, I can only agree with the fact that a mathematical structure emerges from reality and further, beyond the mathematical structure, we can see reality.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

Adele, you imagined yourself above Descartes. He said: "Give me the matter, and I will build the whole world." You say: "Give numbers and for their relations see the world" Do you see the difference? According to Descartes, space is matter that can be in a state of physical vacuum that we do not see or in a state of tangible corpuscles. A field is a physical space, each point of which has its potential, defined by a mathematical formula. So, that physical space is the foundation on which fundamental theories are built. The world is the invention of God, and mathematics is the invention of man.

I wish you success, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Adel. I enjoyed your essay. Thanks for taking part.

You compare your picture with Tegmark because the universe is a mathematical structure. I think the idea of Tegmark is that the universe is the ensemble of all mathematical structures. You have picked one that you validate through its simplicity. Isn't there an important difference there?

You conclude by saying that the structure is so simple that it could not have been otherwise. It is good that you have been able to do so much from such simplicity, but suppose someone said that they think the world is something else like a cellular automata for example. How would you justify the claim that your version is simpler?

I look forward to your response.

Dear Adel,

I read with interest your statement "what are space, time, mass, charge, spin, ... ". Please read my essay What is Electron Spin? by Kamal L Rajpal and give your views.

Thanks,

Adele, I have just read your essay and appreciated it for what you tried to draw the concept of mathematical structure to search for fundamental physics and concluded that this concept is fundamental. I understand that it is very difficult to get people to see the world through the prism of mathematical structures. But this is harder for me to convince them that physical space is matter that moves.

I wish you success! Boris.

Dear Dr adel sadeq

Real essence and Very nice words ... ".....I will elaborate on the implantation which I have shown previously and report on the interesting results which I obtain when I simulate the system in two ways, one in continuum and the other in discrete which the system is capable of naturally." Best wishes for your essay sir.

By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay hope you will reciprocate.......You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

In sciences we distinguish between reality and model. Feynman in his lectures describes the difference between a light ray and a geometrical description of the ray. There is no objective reason to confound reality and model. Moreover the conjecture that reality "is" a mathematical structure does not answer "the big philosophical and practical question, why something rather than nothing". Not even close!

Physics "has been developed was dependent on experiment to both model reality and to confirm it" because physics is a natural science. This experimental basis behind physics and other sciences is not "very slow to get to the bottom of what the nature of reality is". At contrary, it is very fast compared to non-scientific disciplines as philosophy, which are asking the same ancient questions after thousands years of useless debates.

"that led physics to be content with describing how reality works rather than explaining the complete ontology of the actual entities and the mechanisms involved". Descriptive science describes reality. Fundamental science does not. As Weinberg correctly mentions fundamental physics is about asking "why".

"because the system was more geared toward application of physics rather than deeper philosophical question". Applied physics is totally different from fundamental physics and physics has solved, or at least clarified, more "deeper philosophical questions" than philosophy itself.

"classical physics at its heart was very simple Newtonian formulas we are

familiar with". Since when classical physics is reduced to mean only Newtonian formulas? What happens with thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics or relativity?

"That led me to think that reality and mathematics (a particular structure) must be one and the same." As mentioned above, there is no reason to confound reality with a model of it. Mathematics is a branch of knowledge developed by humans. Reality is not.

"So, what is the simplest system in mathematics? Two numbers I thought, which would also represent a line (the numbers could be Real or integer, but more on that later). Now, suppose you want to choose a number and see what relation it has with those two numbers. It is immediately clear that you must choose some number which is in between those two numbers otherwise the system would be ill defined." There is no reason why the chosen number has to between the other two.

"And since we have the choice to use ANY number, that means we have to choose a random number uniformly over the range of the two numbers. That will lead to automatically to the concept of a reality based on probability". This is also false. In fact, one can formulate a deterministic model of reality in which the choice of the number was determined and so reality is not based on probability. I do not claim that reality is deterministic, simply mentioning how your claim is incorrect. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

"As a matter of fact, if we thought of those two numbers spanning the universe, then the probability is associated with the photon exactly as in the standard QM theory, that is, the photon is everywhere with uniform probability. Now we can generalize the system a bit more by choosing another two numbers, then the system allows more possibilities. If we visualize the two original numbers and

the two new numbers as line segments then we can define few relations". This is also all wrong. The conclusions do not follow from the premises. There is absolutely no relation between imagining a probability of choosing a numbers between two preselected numbers and QM of photons. Not only that, but photons are not localizable particles, there is no consistent position wavefunction for photons and one cannot talks about the probability one photon is here or there.

"System one" and "system two" are two vaguely defined trivial geometric models that do not lead to any physical model of reality. It is also worth mentioning that Barbour ideas about time are incorrect. Barbour has not eliminated time from physics, but simply hidden it from equations he writes. I also can write F=ma as F=a by choosing a system ogf units where m=1. It doesn't mean that I have eliminated mass from physics, neither it means that Universe is massless.

"Then automatically the concept of particles AND their interactions automatically arise. The above IS THE FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM." Nothing has arised from the system. I have also checked the suggested weblinks and there is nothing except lots of numerology and graphs of some things that are visually associated to some things that look similar.

Example of numerology is running a js program to obtain different values as 1823,1822,1821, of a variable that can mean anything then at 1820 one 'interprets' that there is a relation such as 1820+3(charge square)=1823 "which is almost electron mass". But this do not provide any derivation of electron mass, neither any "deeper" understanding about electrons.

Note: is it so difficult to format superscripts as superscripts in pdf archives? Any decent word editor has support for superscripts. Moreover one can always describe superscripts in plain text using "**" or "^". It is much simpler to read something as L T-1 or L T^{-1} than "LT-1(-1 is exponent)".

Dear Adel

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Dear Adel,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080