From Unpredictability to Predictability by Branko L Zivlak

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

Jonathan Dickau

While not as definitive as some offerings...

Your essay is certainly impressive Branko. I like the idea that much of the unpredictability and uncertainty we encounter is due to confusion with terms and units of measurement. Certainly the inadequate use of Math or the use of inadequate Maths contributes to those issues. But as you know; the variability of nature is quite impressive. I think it's really cool that so many things line up on your table of dimensionless constants though. I have not checked the whole list but I trust that you did.

Well done!

Jonathan

[deleted]

Thanks Jonathan

Really, when things are set up well in physics, it all comes down to repeating simple patterns (for example: bits, fractals, Planck constant). I have already rated your interesting work on Mandelbrot sets with a good rating.

Regards,

Branko

[deleted]

Branko

This is a response to a comment you made to my essay. I don't know how all this works so to make sure you get it I am placing it here. Al Schneider

There was a king that laid 10000 square feet of sod behind the castle. It looked so good he wanted rose bushes around the area. He asked the gardener to plant roses. The gardener asked the royal mathematician how many roses would be needed given the area was 10000 square feet. The mathematician made out an order slip for the gardener. It requested 400 rose bushes and 400 taycheon rose bushes.

Lawrence Crowell

I wrote the following on my essay blog area:

I will try to read your essay in the near future. This issue with the Euler formula hinges around the unit circle in the complex plane with

e^{iﾎｸ} = cosﾎｸ + isinﾎｸ,

where this is a way of thinking about trigonometry. the multiplicity of these functions for angles ﾎｸ竊' ﾎｸ + 2ﾏ\ is a part of the reason ln(-x) = ln(x) + iﾏ\, but also the entire set {..., -3iﾏ\, -iﾏ\, iﾏ\, 3iﾏ\, ...}. This leads to the concept of Riemann sheets, where the complex plane has multiple copies.

Cheers LC

James Hoover

Branko,

When you say that absolute decidability, calculability and predictability are definitely unattainable goals, I assume you are specifying "absolute" for a reason, especially when you say to use existing knowledge and technology to improve. My qualification is that it may take thousands of years to solve our scientific mystery if we survive that long. I also mention that human failure is an obstacle. Milankovitch cycles and even periodic cycles of the solar system's journey around the MW's core furnish perturbations of comets/asteroids periodically according to some scientists. Enjoyed reading your essay. Hope you get an opportunity before deadline to read mine: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Branko Zivlak

Dear James Lee Hoover

The text I wrote in the essay should only be an occasion to check the formulas that have been obtained by avoiding the obstacles I mentioned. You are writing similarly about obstacles. A basic university knowledge of mathematics is enough to understand my formulas. When you understand them and also my table from the previous FQX-i contest, then all the mysteries of the universe disappear for you. Then they would realize how right Einstein and Fred Hoyle were.

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 formula 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.

No Big Bang, there are a lot of smaller bangs.

Regards,

Branko

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Dear Branco! I am glad that you took the time to read my essay to the end and gave a meaningful comment. As a meteorologist, of course, you are well aware of atmospheric vortex phenomena such as cyclones and anticyclones, in which, I believe, the energy is concentrated not only in temperature changes, but also the energy associated with the rotation of the Earth is released. The atmospheric air rotates in cyclones and anticyclones, and the space rotates in corpuscles, which, according to Descartes, is the matter that forms us and the world around us. Electromagnetic waves are oscillations of space, and particles are stabilized rotations of the same space. Matter is a philosophical category for designating what is given to us in the form of a sense of space. The neocartesian generalization of modern physics does not chase the predictions of something new, it generalizes what has already been created in physics and reveals in it connections that were not visible before. For example, notice that the gravitational constant has such a dimension that if it is multiplied by mass, we get a stream of centrifugal acceleration of the rotation of space in the corpuscle. Of all the existing measurement systems, the neocartesian generalization of modern physics prefers the SYSTEM OF DYNAMIC PHYSICAL QUANTITIES IN DIMENSION LT (A.S. Chueva), in which the mass has the dimension L3 / T2. The amount of matter in this system is not measured by mass, but by volume - this means that the water bottle contains as much matter as it is in an empty bottle. I wish you success in the competition! I have long praised your essay. Sincerely, Boris Dzhechko.

Pavel Poluian

Dear Branko L Zivlak!

We think that mathematics can be of two types: essential mathematics (the language of God) and mathematics for modeling - human language.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Branko Zivlak

Dear Pavel Vadimovich Poluian

Thanks for the comment on my forum. I believe we mean the same thing. When you say: essential mathematics (the language of God) I mean discovered mathematics. When you say: mathematics for modeling - human language, I say invented mathematics. The first is responsible for the universe and us in it.

Regarding your essay, my experience is that some problems do not even need to be posed and therefore not to solve. Thus, for example, the problem of the shape of the universe is a fictional problem. The universe has no shape. The problem of the number of dimensions is also unnecessary. In my mathematical universe I function quite well without dimensions with only three properties mass, radius and time. Some even think that two properties are enough. You deal with time a lot in your essay. It is specific, which can be viewed in two ways. As the inverse value of the frequency, it is, like the frequency, limited. But if we understand it as the flow of time, we get that the universe is eternal, without beginning and end, than it is not limited.

Regards,

Branko

Pavel Poluian

Dear Branko!

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, we think the same about two types of mathematics. Just like you. The number of dimensions of space depends on the objective situation that we are modeling. For example, in the theory of relativity four dimensions of Minkowski arose. Regarding the limitations of the Universe in space and time, we believe that Immanuel Kant is right - and the question of finiteness-infinity reveals the boundary of our concepts.

We are always glad to talk about such issues. Thanks you!

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Branko,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"Therefore, the entire universe has finite space, mass and frequency and it is eternal, without preferred spatial center, without spatial boundaries and hence without shape".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Branko,

You asked

"Are neutrinos solitons?

What is the analogy of a hydrogen atom in another solar system that, for example, has only one planet".

Solitons are all elements of all levels of matter. All of them form gravispheres, which are potential wells. Neutrinos are usually called elements of the orbital electrons of the quark level of matter, which are, for example, elements of molecular bonds and which form orbital potential wells.

The function of the planets is to concentrate the energy of the environment of the physical vacuum in the star to minimize the energy of its interaction with high-speed flows of the environment. This function is similar to the function of electrons in an atom, to protect the nucleus from possible external disturbances.

The other solar system is different, for example, in the same way that the planetary system of Saturn is different from the planetary systems of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune Mars, Venus and the Earth. Earth has one large satellite, unlike other planets. Universal quantum laws form many variants of gravispheres (potential wells), as well as many complex atoms.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

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.

« Previous Page