From Unpredictability to Predictability by Branko L Zivlak

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Branco

While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

I agree fully with the fact that we will NEVER be able to understand the WHOLE shebang. (universe).

Making forecasts for two or three days is I think already a very good result. You say that the subjectivity of the forecaster is also a factor, indeed the forecaster can choose if some depression has more or less influence. This reveals already the chaos-like essence of the evolution of the weather.

As you say "data" are the most important to make a decision in the forecast. But ALL data is information from the past.

Your three points on page 2 are exactly what I am calling the missing of the reference of reference. The same with the term UNIVERSE, it is an easily used terminology to express that there is a lot we are not aware of. Because "everything that exists" is also a vague expression, exists where, when and how and especially WHY?

I fully agree with your acceptation of the Planck units, they are also in my perception the borders of our emerged phenomenon called reality.

In my opinion, a singularity is a dimensionless point, not having a value in our reality but having essence in Total Simultaneity. 5you will see it when you read my essay). Knowledge is dependent on dimensions, therefore...

Eliminate infinities: Okay agreed because our reality is an illusion that is limited by dimensions and the velocity of light c.

Quote : "Moreover, it is clear that the universe has no beginning and no end, as Planck's time is just one invariable link in the chain of the universe's existence and in no way the beginning of the universe. Is the universe then infinite or finite?" unquote. Here you are touching my own interpretation, only you use different wording. The Planck length can be reached (but is unreachable) at EVERY point of our reality. So every dimension is a restriction inside the emergent pehenomenon.

Could the age of the universe be just a data collection of our memory? Just a status of our knowledge that may differ already the next moment? A good indication is the table of "known" units on page 5.

Thank you for an inspirational essay, that is valued high by me.

I hope that maybe these remarks will give you enough reason to read and discuss my essay .

Best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello Branko,

And what is the justification that these constants are basic, principal? Is it possible to build a scientific picture of the world on the basis of these three constants?

Vladimir

Branko Zivlak

Dear Vladimir

These three are basic physical constants. Of course there are Primordial, mathematical constants before them: 2, 2pi, e, exp(i*pi) which you can often see in physical formulas. Also important are: exp (2 * pi) and log2 (2pi) which you can see only in my FQX essays and papers on: https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/1451/Branko,%20Zivlak

I also ask you to check the results obtained with these two mathematical constants in the table of this year's essay.

The three mentioned Planck constants are considered physical because we do not know the mathematical expression for obtaining them, although they are probably mathematical. In short, justification that these constants are basic, you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

It can be seen that all values can be expressed by G, c, h. Since G, c, h = f (mpl, lpl, tpl)

It means that everything can be expressed as a function of these three basic units.

Regards Branko

Branko Zivlak

Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your reasonable comments.

I would not say that I accepted the Planck units, but rather that I used them and received outstanding results. In my table at the end of the essay, only the first four rows are known constants. The last five rows are correct relations resulting, among other things thanks to the understanding Plank. Please check those relationships. The predictions in that table are the goal, and avoiding all obstacles, and even the three mentioned, made that possible.

I can agree that "everything that exists" is also a vague expression. I emphasized that the terminology should be harmonized and that the word universe could not be used at the same time for part and for the whole.

"Exists when and where" - at one point in time in spatialy finite universe,

"And especially WHY?" - because it is mathematically inevitable.

Regards Branko

Wilhelmus de Wilde

I answered to your comment on my essay Branko

quote

Thank you, dear Branco, for reading my participation,

You ask to make "forecasts".(eventually with formula's

I cannot. Why? First of all my maths is not sufficiently developed, and secondly making predictions in an emergent phenomenon (illusion) is a very difficult thing. Expectations yes because they are based on the past events, that are fluctuations inside our memories.

I can try to make a prediction: IF we would be able to come closer to the Planck units of space and time, we would also approach our Point Zero (where our free will resides), and so be closer to the future of our life-lines. ot a bad future.

Thanks

Wilhelmus

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello Branko,

Thanks so much for the links!

The Wikipedia article "Planck units", the link to which you gave is written:

"At the Planck scale, current models are not expected to be a useful guide to the cosmos, and physicists have no scientific model to suggest how the physical universe behaves. The best known example is represented by the conditions in the first 10в€'43 seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago."...

In an interview with mathematician and mathematical physicist Ludwig Faddeev ( in the journal "EXPERT" (2007), entitled "The equation of the evil spirit" it is written: В«Academician Ludwig Faddeev believes that today mathematical rigor is more important than physical intuition and it is thanks to mathematics that a "unified theory of everything" will be built.

The long-standing debate of scientists about what is more important - mathematical rigor or physical meaning, a correctly solved equation or an intuitive understanding of a natural phenomenon, continued throughout the 20th century, but at some time physicists seemed to win in it: Einstein as the creator of a special and general theory of relativity is better known to the average man than Poincare or Hilbert, SchrГ¶dinger is more popular than Weil, and Landau is more popular than Bogolyubov. But in recent decades, the situation began to change: it turned out that successful mathematical techniques have not just technical significance, but deep physical meaning. Mathematical intuition in solving increasingly complex physical problems may be more important than physical. And this caused a noticeable irritation of many great physicists. In the second half of the 20th century, a new generation of scientists appeared who could no longer be called pure physicists or mathematicians. Ludwig Faddeev is one of them. After graduating from the Physics Department of Leningrad University, he gained worldwide fame as a man who, together with his student Viktor Popov, solved the most complicated mathematical problems of the Yang - Mills theory, which later formed the basis of the theory of superstrings. The effects that were discovered were called "Faddeev-Popov spirits" and under this name entered all modern textbooks of theoretical physics. Faddeev is convinced that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics. Faddeev is convinced that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics. The view is quite radical, but authoritative."

Dear Branco,

1. Do you agree with such a radical conclusion of Ludwig Faddeev?

2. Are mathematical or physical constants more fundamental?

3. Do you support the Big Bang hypothesis?

Regards, Vladimir

Branko Zivlak

Dear Vladimir

"At the Planck scale, current models are not expected to be a useful guide to the cosmos...

You need to look at what the data or formulas provide. Previously is written by those who say: If I do not understand the data, the worse for the data.

1. Not only do I agree with Fadeyev, but at the end of my essay it is part of a mathematical solution.

2. Mathematical constants are more fundamental.

3. This hypothesis is ambiguous. Some say there was one Big Bang, others say there are countless big bangs. In any case, Fadeev and everyone who supports that stupid B(b)ig bang can't be right at the same time. Of course, there are big explosions happening in the universe because mathematics does not allow singularities.

Regards Branko

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Branko,

"Mathematical constants are more fundamental."

And which mathematical constants are more fundamental?

And what do they tell us about the structure of the Universe? What is the ontological status of these SUPER CONSTANT (their nature?)?

And how many are there?

There are only three of them in my system so far. But I don't know what CONSTANTS are these?

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Dear Branko, it is nice to read your essay, since it does not contain mathematical formulas in the text, which are summarized in one table. The questions you raised are important for a universal understanding of nature by humanity. However, I think that this competition will not allow all participants to pay attention to them because of its transience. Here, everyone has his own questions in his head and everyone strives to go around all the participants and earn a high mark. Your questions deserve a separate contest. So now I have no opportunity to enter into a deep discussion of these topics. The main thing for me is that the contestants pay attention to the identity of Descartes's space and matter, according to which physical space moves, since it is matter. I'm not asking for myself, but for Descartes. And I give you the highest rating for your excellent essay, despite the fact that you said: "Promoting your essay here is counterproductive."

Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich

Robert Wilson

Dear Branko,

I would like to ask you a few questions about your modified version of the Koide formula.

First, as I understand it, the point of the Koide formula is that it predicts the mass of the tau particle, and moreover this mass has shifted two standard deviations from its experimental value in the 1980s to very close to where the Koide formula predicts. The current prediction is 1776.969 MeV/c^2, if my calculation is correct, compared to the CODATA 2014 value 1776.82(16), so that it is within 1 standard deviation. So I wonder why you feel the need to modify this formula, which is doing quite well as it is?

Second, since the calculations are not entirely trivial, I would like to ask what is the value of the tau mass predicted by your formula?

For comparison, the value predicted by the formula e+mu+tau+3p=5n in my essay is 1776.84145(3).

Regards,

Robert Wilson.

pjackson

Dear Branko,

Excellent essay, original, interesting, instructive, well expressed and argued, (and it certainly need arguing), also masterfully not reverting to mentioning Chaos theory at all! (I'd have bet the same you did about Werner & Kurt!).

I commend your comments on singularities, indeed if you get to my essay you'll see I use observational data of AGN to propose the potential reverses at the torus to give the nuclear 'Mexican hat' potential and so ALL accreted matter is ejected in the polar (quasar) helical jet outflows of mainly re-ionized matter.

But that does bring me to one issue; Are you aware of the 'regular' growth in mass function of galaxies since the early universe? Apparently due to pair production at the jet shear planes as we find MORE mass than goes in 'each time' (modelling quasars as galaxy recycling mechanisms!) It's just that you commented the mass will be the same at any stage, when that appears not to be the case. Did you base that on any conflicting evidence?

Related to that is your 13.7Gyr cycle. I've found the evidence seems to suggests we may be near MID cycle. Indeed if the process follows that of galaxies it would reproduce all the troublesome CMB anisotropies including the underlying helicity! But that's quite speculative. Of course if you include the 96% 'dark energy' ('condensate') in the total mass/energy size then you should be correct!

We also now have some very good data strongly suggesting the universe DOES have a 'shape' and 'centre' the filaments radiate from, and the CMB flow 'axis of evil'(lol) points towards! Have you seen any of the excellent morphological models produced recently? Of course that would mean the spatially greater "cosmos??" may even contain near infinite numbers of 'universes', or do we need a new word?

But that's just content, not a scoring matter, and on the valid criteria it rates as excellent to me.

Thank you, well done, and best of luck in the contest.

Peter

George Gantz

Hi Branko - I just posted my own essay and started reading the other ones, beginning in the order they were posted. Yours was the first to be at all intelligible to me! Thanks! Finally, someone talking about data and prediction!

I thought your suggestions were useful and interesting, but I'm not clear how they "resolve" the inherent limitations of chaos and complexity to make things more predictable - to me these lead to a conclusion that much that we would like to know about the future is unknowable. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

George Gantz: The Door That Has No Key

Yutaka Shikano

Dear Branko,

I would like to ask you about your opinion on the imprecise terminology. In quantum information science, the terminology "quantum supremacy" is often used. While this meaning is often confused, the Google AI Quantum teams was recently claimed to achieve this in Nature paper. This counterexample was claimed from IBM researches. On the other had, this terminology is not socially proper as seen in the comment. For scientific achievements, do we need improve the terminology from the fuzzy definition? After the meaning is established, I would agree with your opinion to avoid the usage of the imprecise terminology.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Branko Zivlak

Dear Yutaka Shikano

I'm a meteorologist, not related to quantum information science. Of course, in all fields of science, there is imprecise terminology that interferes with education, and on issues that are addressed by most participants in the universe, this is unacceptable.

I would be grateful if you would check and comment on my formulas.

Regards,

Branko

Syed Raiyan Nuri Reza

Dear Dr. Branko,

Having read your essay, we found submisison very unique!

In particular your emphasis on usesage of proper terminology and clear mathematics; without which we cannot formulate an accurate question, let alone provide a good answer.

Something our paradigm of viewing mathematics as the only possible language of natural sciences emphasize on ( a point you mentioned in commenting on our essay)

Best,

Raiyan Reza and Rastin Reza

Michael muteru

dear Zivlak your essay raises simple but pertinent breath taking questions on dimensionless physical constants we apply as measure and quantity to Space -time,hence attracts a handsome vote. I too question these in my essay here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.kindly pass by for review/vote.i greatly appreciate. thanks

Georgina Woodward

Hi Branko, I agree that imprecise (and ambiguous) terminology causes problems in communicating and modelling in physics. Physics sidelines metaphysics yet i think existence has to be foundational.Mainstream physics concerns itself with that which can be measured or observed. So the visible universe is what can be seen,a production/ many products of observation. The observable universe is the potentially observable, but not necessarily seen. Whereas the entirety of that existing is something utterly different. Not itself see-able. Using the correct mathematics correctly is difficult as what seems appropriate depends on what is being modeled and whether the model corresponds to existential reality. Different units for same phenomena are (I think) less insidious, less ingrained, more known than the other two issues, you raise.

Branko Zivlak

Dear Robert Wilson

Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

My answer regarding the Koide formula is in my forum.

In the spirit of my essay, it would be best if dimensionless formulas can be presented. It is just such a Koide formula with its expected result of 2/3. Please send me your result in dimensionless form.

Thanks to mathematician Hugh Matlock I have this spreadsheet comparing errors of my formula and CODATA values.

And you noticed well:

"and moreover this mass has shifted two standard deviations from its experimental value in the 1980s to very close to where the Koide formula predicts."

In the attached table of Hugh Matlock you can see that by my formula the CODATA value from 2014 (3.167 47 e-27 (29)) have been predicted with the data from 1986.

Year CODATA tau *e-27 kg Zivlak tau

1969 xxxxxxxxxx 3.167550(113)

1973 xxxxxxxxxx 3.167542(33)

1986 xxxxxxxxxx 3.1674871(33)

1998 3.16788(52) 3.16748435(47)

2002 3.16777(52) 3.16748485(97)

2006 3.16777(52) 3.16748468(32)

2010 3.167470(290) 3.167484977(281)

You can compare your formula the same way through CODATA history.

More importantly, many other physical constants are obtained using the same methodology, as you can see in thise essay and my previous FQX essays.

Regards,

Branko

Robert Wilson

I am not quite sure what you mean by sending you my result in dimensionless form. It already is in dimensionless form. That is, it says one mass is equal to another mass. If you want me to say instead that the ratio of the two masses is equal to 1, I can do it, but I am sure you are quite capable of making that translation for yourself.

Robert Wilson.

Robert Wilson

Well, it seems my prediction is a little higher than yours, and a little lower than Koide's, at 3167.5076. Time will tell, I guess, which is most accurate.

Robert.

Branko Zivlak

Dear Georgina Woodward

You said the key thing:

Mainstream physics concerns itself with what can be measured or observed.

That is why no profession, not even physicists, has the right to speak of "entirety of that existing."

It is convenient to use the term Philosophers of Nature for those trying to understand the universe.

I do not agree with your position:

"Using the correct mathematics correctly is difficult as what seems appropriate depends on what is being modeled and whether the model corresponds to existential reality."

Using the correct mathematics correctly is easy and goes smoothly.

Using uncorrect mathematics to calculate uncorrect presumptions is hard and stressful, leading to wonders, paradoxes and mysticism.

Regards,

Branko

Georgina Woodward

Yes, I did not express myself as well as I could have. I meant it is difficult to know what is correct, when the model of reality being modeled is not necessarily so. For example correct use of Pythagorean maths. in the light clock thought experiment. It does not depict the reality that would have to be under those circumstances. The light beam in the clock must travel the same distance whether the observer is still and seeing a moving clock or is moving with the clock seeing it still (like a still observer watching still clock). Whether it is moving or not is relative perception.If the light is following a wave path it is the same distance whether the path is expanded or contracted. So Pythagorean maths. does not apply. The period of periodic motion is invariant under translation. How it is seen by an outside observer doesn't affect how the clock itself works.

Georgina Woodward

The square of the hypotenuse is only equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides if all sides are straight lines. If the hypotenuse is a wave path and the other two sides are straight lines, then Pythagoras theorem does not apply.

Branko Zivlak

Yes, that's why I use exponents and logarithms in my formulas at the end of the essay. Then Pythagoras' theorem becomes a special case and approximation in the local part of the universe.

Georgina Woodward

Hi Branko, I think my example highlights your statement,"There are numerous traps in the application of mathematics in natural sciences...".

I also agree with your point that the word 'universe' has a number of different possible meanings. However the meaning of 'universe' as you use it is not fully explicit. As you say, it is the "entirety of that existing" but you do not say whether that includes existing at different times. Or if there is only that which is existing (present tense).

Branko Zivlak

Hi Georgina,

as I wrote:

The universe is at one point in time spatially finite. It also has finite mass, ...

... and it is eternal

Branko Zivlak

Dear Peter Jackson

Sorry for the late answer. This is due to changes introduced by FQXs regarding emails during the competition.

I have no doubt as to the results I have received.

Sometimes our senses deceive us, so we have to engage our racio to understand what it really is.

Each process also has the opposite process, where the attraction in the environment is repulsion, radiation is the opposite of matter. Somewhere there is mass growth and somewhere there is a decrease.

But, I did not think about these things at all but got them as a result of mathematical calculations.

Just because we see distant galaxies moving apart does not mean that the universe is expanding, because galaxies are transforming too. It is also often the case that scientists invent a problem that they then solve and the problem does not even exist. The mass as it is created may disappear, the same applies to space.

Imagine these opposites:

Observer Huuble with his galaxy repel vs Newton with his formulas.

Priest Lemaitre with Big Bang vs priest Rudjer Bošković with his deduction explaining the forces.

Which ones do you bet first or second. I bet on Newton and Bošković.

Regards,

Branko

« Previous Page Next Page »