Tegmark's Mathematical Universe

qsa,

Some quick points in a way of a first response.

1)Though I have great expectations and appreciation for Computer Simulations, I do not consider these as Mathematics. Perhaps more than Mathematics!

2)My proposal that physical laws can and should be derived as mathematical identities and your Computer Simulations of Physics are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. My hunch is both may be needed.

3)I am not equating 'soft' Social Sciences with 'hard' Physical Sciences. Rather, my analogy has to do with the process of 'knowing' (anything). I believe this to be the same and independent of subject. You believe this is different and depending on the subject matter. No matter. It's not a 'deal breaker'! Your view on this is more commonly held. I am perfectly content to hold radical and uncommon views. And as long as my reasoning is sound and sensible to me, I will continue holding this view.

4)I have reasons to believe the "very high degree of accuracy" between our calculations and experimental data may be the result of mathematical tautologies that underlay our physical theories. I have shown this to be true, for example, for Planck's Law for blackbody radiation. This physical Law is actually a mathematical tautology and not a physical law per se. This would explain why the experimental spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve! No other explanation of this exists but mine!

Constantinos

Constantinos,

The simulation that I use is indeed mathematics. It is nothing but a long serious of additions, multiplication and division, nothing fancy. However, this system can be converted to regular but high end mathematics one day. A similar system is already in use by a variation of non-commutative geometry that is used in quantum gravity, the math looks quite hairy.

It is somewhat paradoxical that my view is the minority (very small), and yours is a bigger minority. The majority proper science view is agnostic, the important thing for it is modeling and RESULTS, and it is not concerned about ontology one way or another. It is paradoxical/ironic because my view has a lot of faith in proper science. Of course, here I do not count religious opinion as a view.

While I have seen many nice attempts in the non-mainstream physics, my theory OTOH works at very much fundamental level. It shows what the origin of reality is by showing how and why it arises. It is the only mathematical structure available, using fundamental entities, to produce a dynamic universe which is ours. All other designs will lead to static or quasi-static "dead" universes.

Constantinos,

Sorry, the first line should have been read as

"The simulation that I use is indeed mathematics. It is nothing but a long series of "

qsa,

We may be splitting the same hair of a larger argument. In my department (when I was in graduate school) the Computer Science Department was different from the Mathematics Department. As was also the Statistics Department. I see some differences between the three disciplines. No matter.

Please respond to my explanation why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve based on Planck's Law. Likewise, I argue, such high degree of accuracy as also claimed by QM is due to underlying mathematical truisms not yet fully understood or shown as such.

What are your thoughts on that?

Constantinos

It seems to me that Professor Tegmark's Mathematical Universe can be united with Einstein's Unified Field Theory to produce a Theory of Everything. I tried to submit my thoughts about this to FQXi's "It from Bit or Bit from It?" contest - with the intent of showing the universe is nonlinear, and "It" is quantum entangled with "Bit" (which means the effect, whether we consider that to be "It" or "Bit", is retrocausal with the cause and instantly influences the cause). But I don't think I'm eligible to enter the contest since my explanation, in essay form, of all modern science's objections to Einstein's unified field caused me to exceed the word limit - and I can't see any way to reduce the essay without making it incomplete. According to this TOE, string theory is validated and parallel universes are invalidated. I'll make a short summary here and attach the essay submission, for those who want more details (the essay can also be viewed at http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0218 and https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Bartlett/?ev=pub_int_doc_dlext).

It is my belief that Charles Misner and John Wheeler were correct in 1957 when they said, in the "Annals of Physics", that Albert Einstein's latest equations united gravitation and electromagnetism, and demonstrated the unified field theory ("Classical physics as geometry" - Volume 2, Issue 6, December 1957, Pages 525-603). (The unified field wouldn't be complete without references to mass increase and time dilation - so those are included here.) In January 2012, I wrote a little article called "Misner/Wheeler correct about Einstein's Unified Field Theory being successful". That was just a summary of this present article, sketching its basic outline and the points that needed to be filled in. I wrote to Professor Misner (the coauthor of the 1957 article which I'm taking another look at) over a year ago for information about his article with John Wheeler regarding Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory. His reply was very helpful indeed. I wrote a short piece at the time, which turned out to be just a basic outline of my present article. I've spent 15 months filling it with more and more detail. I still think Professor Misner was correct. I've tried to reconcile Einstein's theory with modern concerns.

The first point of debate is - it has been argued that the gravitational fields, if known everywhere but only for a limited time, do not contain enough information about their electromagnetism to allow the future to be determined, so Einstein's unified theory fails. Physicists also argue that a unified "theory of everything" must now include not just gravity and electromagnetism, but also the weak and strong nuclear forces plus dark matter and dark energy. I address all these concerns in detail. The ideas I came up with are very unusual sometimes, but they were necessary to fit in with the unified theory being correct. Despite most of the world considering Einstein's unified field to be a failure, it's interesting that his work is making my heart beat a little faster more than 80 years after he started work on it. As my article shows, the unified field is based in mathematics but will prove to have remarkable consequences not just for maths, but also for the physical world. I therefore chose to write it in the form of an essay (there is mathematics, but very few equations) that uses concepts like planetary motion, revised gravitation, and string theory to arrive at a theory of everything. The essay might be suitable for a young teenager living in the second part of this century. Why is it written this way? "If a complete unified theory was discovered, it would only be a matter of time before it was digested and simplified ... and taught in schools, at least in outline. We should then all be able to have some understanding of the laws that govern the universe and are responsible for our existence." ("A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, Introduction by Carl Sagan)

England's Professor Penrose has argued that the gravitational fields, if known everywhere but only for a limited time, do not contain enough information about their electromagnetism to allow the future to be determined, so Einstein's unified theory fails. My approach regarding the nature of time - it's impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height [0]. My approach concerning unification of those particles with gravity and EM - suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in "Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure Of The Elementary Particles Of Matter?", a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role not only in elementary particles but also in the constitution of the nuclear strong force and the weak nuclear force i.e. the nuclear forces may not be separate from gravitation but may be modifications of it , and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and in the nuclear forces. Therefore, time is unified with the gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

[0] The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons i.e. of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960's adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. At lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time's 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can't exist at lightspeed and photons are massless (even when not at rest). Mass increase at increasing accelerations is inevitable because the object is encountering more spacetime and gravity (the producers of mass). But mass increase cannot become infinitely large since mass doesn't exist at lightspeed. The object is converted into energy which means mass and energy must be equivalent and Energy must equal Mass related to the Speed of Light (E=mc^2, in the words of Albert Einstein).

[0 continued] The former pair (spacetime/gravity) also lose existence at the speed of light. Since the universe is based on mathematics (see below), it's possible to progress in number-line fashion from the positive acceleration in space-time to the state of zero spacetime at lightspeed ... and go beyond that to negative 5th-dimensional hyperspace described by imaginary numbers (see below). Later parts of this article show that this hyperspace beyond the speed of light allows a particular kind of time travel (various interpretations of Einstein's theories have suggested superluminal velocity permits time travel). We couldn't reach this hyperspace by travelling faster-than-light because we would have turned into energy - and no energy can exceed light's speed. But we can access hyperspace at subluminal speeds by "inverting" space. Since there is zero, or no, spacetime at light speed; all distances - between here and there, past and future - are totally eliminated (a photon experiences the whole universe - and all time - in its existence). It is stated in [3.1] that the laws of gravity and the inverse-square combine to say "infinity equals the total elimination of distance". So infinity exists at light speed. In "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books 2008, p.227), ".. whenever we naively try to marry these two theories (general relativity and quantum theory), the resulting theory makes no sense: it yields a series of infinite answers that are meaningless." We see, by [0] and [0 continued], that infinite answers are supposed to be arrived at because "infinity (in the sense of total elimination of distance) exists at light speed". Infinity and infinite answers are not barriers to uniting general relativity and quantum theory. When we realize that c=∞ (infinity exists at light speed), those infinite answers can yield not nonsense but real meaning.

Maths wasn't my favourite subject in school, but I nevertheless feel that Prof. Tegmark is correct about this being a Mathematical Universe. So with the help of string theory, these are my conclusions about how the cosmos works when it's mathematically unified with the quantum world. Warning - conservative souls who are afraid to speculate may see "bananas stuff" ahead:

If the nuclear forces may be different facets of gravitation, is it possible that electromagnetism also has no existence independently of it? (In this case, gravity would be the underlying cause of all repelling and attracting.) This is possible if all forces have a mathematical origin, in which case a few ideas can be borrowed from string theory's ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current [2] Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle whose construction from binary digits would make it malleable and flexible, deleting any gap and molding its border to perfectly fit surrounding subuniverses. [3] This Klein bottle could possibly be a figure-8 Klein bottle because its similarities to a doughnut's shape describes an idea suggested by mathematics' "Poincare conjecture". The conjecture has implications for the universe's shape and says you cannot transform a doughnut shape into a sphere without ripping it. One interpretation follows: This can be viewed as subuniverses shaped like Figure-8 Klein Bottles gaining rips called wormholes when extended into the spherical spacetime that goes on forever (forming one infinite superuniverse which is often called the multiverse when subuniverses - which share the same set of physics' laws - are incorrectly called parallel universes[3.1] which are wrongly claimed to each possess different laws). Picture spacetime existing on the surface of this doughnut which has rips in it. These rips provide shortcuts between points in space and time - and belong in a 5th-dimensional hyperspace. The boundary where subuniverses meet could be called a Cosmic String (they'd be analogous to cracks that form when water freezes into ice i.e. cosmic strings would form as subuniverses cool from their respective Big Bangs).

[2] The flow of ones and zeros can produce waves that cancel and result in electric neutrality and masslessness - they can produce waves that reinforce and result in mass or electric charge. Whether the charge is positive or negative depends on the precise orientation of the Mobius. The orientation of a Mobius is equivalent to the relative positions of 2 Mobius loops. Synchronous motion of the currents in the loops means a neutral neutron can have a large mass of 939.566 MeV/c^2 (approx. 1839 times an electron's energy) because both quantum Mobius loops are in motion - moving together, at the same rate - and producing 939.566 MeV of energy. (This might be adapted to a neutral Higgs particle whose known example has a mass of about 125 or 126 GeV/c^2.) The orientation of a Mobius (relative positions of 2 Mobius loops) determines the many combinations of fractions, negativeness, neutrality or positivity of mass, charge and spin. The combinations are finite because the two-dimensional Mobius programs from which fermions and bosons originate, plus each four-dimensional Klein bottle which manifests and expresses the particles, are themselves limited and finite.

[3] Currents in the two 2-dimensional programs called Mobius loops are connected into a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle by the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles. As Bob Berman's article "Infinite Universe" ("Astronomy" - Nov. 2012) wrote, "The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite" and "Many separate areas of investigation - like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space - all point the same way."

"Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" reports that the WiggleZ galaxy survey confirms that matter is distributed evenly at the largest scales. But if we disregard the largest scale of infinite flatness; smaller scales reflect the idea of fractals e.g. from roughly spherical galaxy clusters, down to stars, down to atoms.

(after examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sànchez, Yuri N. Parijskij (published by Springer, 31/12/2003), the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

[3.1] God's existence cannot possibly be scientifically comprehended in the current non-unified understanding of the cosmos. Thus, many scientists need to invoke the existence of an unlimited number of parallel universes having limitless combinations of the laws of physics (so one of those universes would produce all the correct laws that enable beings such as ourselves to exist). However, BITS (BInary digiTS) only suggest existence of the divine if time is linear. A non-supernatural God is proposed via the inverse-square law coupled with eternal quantum entanglement, but Einstein taught us that time is warped. Warped time is nonlinear, making it at least possible that the BITS composing space-time and all particles originate from the computer science of humans. The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation partly depends on the distance between the centres of objects, the distance of separation between objects only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the objects' sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance - the infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits). Zero separation is the case in quantum-entangled space-time and physicist Michio Kaku says in his book "Physics of the Impossible" that modern science thinks the whole universe has been quantum-entangled forever. This means there's still room for the infinity known as God. God would be a suprapantheistic union of the universe's spatial, temporal, hyperspatial, material and conscious parts; forming a union with humans in a cosmic unification, and a universal intelligence. Science's own Law of Conservation says the total mass (or matter) and energy in the universe does not change, though the quantity of each varies (I interpret this Law as saying - to get matter and energy, you have to start with matter and energy; which means that time must be warped). So what happens if we subtract humans of the distant future - with their ability to travel into the past and use incomprehensibly-advanced cosmogenesis, terraforming and biotechnology (cosmos, Earth-like planet, and life-generating abilities) from the origins of life? It becomes impossible for inorganic materials - and referring to the creation of amino acids in the laboratory by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller in 1952, relatively simple amino acids - to be assembled into complex plants and animals, whose adaptations are often called evolution.

The strings of physics' string theory are the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in computers and electronics. The digits are constantly switching between their representations of the "on" and "off" states. This switching is usually referred to as a flow or current. Currents in the two 2-dimensional programs called Mobius loops are connected into a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle by the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of 8-Kleins. Each Klein 1) is one of the universe's subuniverses (our own is 13.7 billion years old), 2) is made flexible through its binary digits which seamlessly, or almost seamlessly, join it to surrounding subuniverses and eliminate its central hole, and 3) possesses warped time and space because its foundation is the programmed curves in its mathematical Mobius loops (along with the twists they generate). The universe functions according to the rules of fractal geometry. So the Mobius does not exist only at the cosmic level. It also manifests at the quantum scale, giving us photons and protons etc. Space and time are no longer separate, but are an indivisible space-time. So if space and the universe are infinite, how can time not be eternal? The past and the future must both extend forever (the idea of time being finite arises from confusion of our subuniverse with the one infinite universe).

BITS (BInary digiTS) only suggest existence of the divine if time is linear. Although a non-supernatural God is proposed via the inverse-square law's infinite aspect coupled with eternal quantum entanglement, Einstein taught us that time is warped. Warped time is nonlinear, making it at least possible that the BITS composing space-time and all particles originate from the computer science of humans.Attachment #1: Unified_Field_Relativity_and_Quantum_Mechanics_Meet_String_Theory_Parallel_Universes_the_Mathematical_Universe_and_TOE.pdf

Dude you rock! I vote this as best answer!

Writing at risk,

There is a mismatch between life and the universe's mathematical object. The

universe converges strongly on how our nine planets have formed. Look at our

galaxy from the macroscopic to the microscopic and those are the examples of the convergence of early matter and energy. The foundation or building materials of life is the mathematics of the universe. Life has a different organization than the states of matter. Life has an algorithm. Life is a state machine. Life is the result of information imposed on foundational matter. Once the machine is broken, the elements of life respond to the forces of the inorganic states of matter. Think about the density and the thickness of photosynthetic life on the ocean surface and land. It is a film and in our solar system, a vanishingly rare 2D surface. See also FQXi You Tube "Michael Russell on LIFE".

Notice how unlikely it is for an algorithm to arise out of our mathematical universe, biological complexity and biochemistry necesssary for the most simple functioning form of life. What we have not done is quantify the complexity of life as a state of matter. Life only generates matter with an algorithm. We currently believe that life as a plasmid, Rna or viral form happened only once. Why not a long epoch of primitive genesis or even now? If life generating from inorganic processes is 100% likely why should it stop? Why only once in a very short period of time? Lately we have turned our search to Mars, comets and extraterrestrial panspermia as an

origin of life. Why stop at speculations that go back further in time and solar system "AU" distances? We have 152 close encounter orbits with other solar systems and the chance to exchange mass with them. What was close to us 4.5 billion years ago? Is that where we got Pluto and Uranus? What objects are

nearby that came from galactic collisions?

Limiting ourselves to vanishingly small 2D surfaces for the genesis of life asks the question, "Why at all?" The precursor has to be a 3D region of space where the entropy is equal to the entropy of the simplest form of life. Life might form in an early kind of small red or brown dwarf galaxy with carbon, where there are low energy or cold volumes of space, not large planetary surfaces, supporting tunneling chemistry in the carbon compounds formed by collision. Titan is warm but might be an upper limit on composition and size as an example.

Is this universe too dominated by the foundational mathematical object to allow for the probability of life? To simply say "We're here aren't we?" does not answer the question. Life as a state of matter may be too complex to have ever formed in our universe except during inflation. Should our early model universe prove to be true, inflation should have influenced the holographic state of the universe. The probability of life had to be there at inflation. What would that number be compared to the volume of the solar system? The information for the probability of life had to be there when inflation took place. It had to be part of the non diluting substance of inflation. What is the origin of the information that creates a state machine where the algorithm is executed over time? The matter and energy of each state of the machine converges on reality. That is what our substance seems to do. Rock, water, the sun, the universe converges on what we perceive as reality. The algorithm of life does not converge on the average state of matter until it is suspended. There is always a part of the algorithm superimposed on the current

state that generates the next and future state. Life contains a potential for

dynamic changes of information. It is a kind of clock or oscillator. It seems the midpoint between pure information and inorganic states of matter. Your computer is provided with low entropy power and a clock. The output is completely a part of the mathematical universe but the interpretation and my mind is the result of an algorithm. The fantasy in a game, movie or letters in a book exist only for us. Other forms of life have no idea what we are doing just as we stare in return. Nothing at all can't be measured. It can be hungry, naked, alone and afraid. Somewhere, Nothing at all does have a beginning and an end.

Here's a copy of an article I just submitted to vixra.org which happens to be very relevant to TEGMARK'S MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE -

title - USING SPACE TRAVEL, T TAURI STARS, E=mc^2 AND TERRESTRIAL HONEYBEES TO CONCLUDE THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM IS MODIFIED GRAVITY

author - Rodney Bartlett

abstract -

Starting with today's generation of rocket thrust by means of the energy-mass relation (as in chemical rockets or ion propulsion), this essay proposes thrust generation through the gravity-electromagnetism relationship (modifying string theory to explain G-EM). Then the statement "T Tauri stars don't generate energy through fusion but rather as a result of gravitational collapse" takes us to m=E/c^2, Einstein's E=mc^2 solved for mass. It also takes us to the concept that mass does not create gravity, but gravity produces mass as well as the other fundamental forces (this section includes Dark Energy and Dark Matter). The essay ends with "The paragraphs above show that the magnetic waves are actually modifications of gravitational waves. When they encounter the iron oxide in the bees, m=E/c^2 describes how the interacting forces/energies produce a tiny amount of what we call mass, causing the iron oxide to swell."

content -

THRUST

In discussing ion propulsion in which thrust is generated by escaping plasma, "rocketman" (Discover Magazine - May 2014) emphasized the relation of energy and mass. Another way of producing thrust is to emphasize the relation of gravity (G) and electromagnetism (EM). The relation of energy to mass is famously expressed by Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2: E (energy) equals m (mass) multiplied by c^2 (the velocity of light squared). The relation of gravity to electromagnetism can be expressed as G=EM/c^2*c^2.

A 2009 electrical-engineering experiment at America's Yale University by electrical engineer Hong Tang and his team demonstrated that, on silicon-chip and transistor scales, light can attract and repel itself like electric charges or magnets. This is the "optical force". For 30 years until his death in 1955, Albert Einstein worked on his Unified Field Theory with the aim of uniting electromagnetism (light is one form of this) and gravitation.

Gravity is the warping of space-time, and it's composed of gravitons at the quantum level. Uniting G and EM to achieve GEM means the microscopic components of space-time warps called gravitons could mimic the Optical Effect and be attracted together, thereby eliminating distance between spaceships and stars/galaxies (this is similar to traversing a wormhole between two folds in space). When Franklin Chang Diaz has finished work on the VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, he might like to design a spacecraft that works according to the Einstein-Yale principle.

STRINGS AND G-EM

Suppose electromagnetic photons consist of a particular series of 1s and 0s, while gravitational gravitons are made of a different sequence of 1s and 0s. This would help answer Einstein's 1951 question, "Fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta (photons)?" (Discover Magazine - March 2014, p.31) It also suggests how, as Einstein believed, gravitation and electromagnetism may be related. Finally, it returns us to Professor Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe", and his suggestion that the physical world is one big mathematical object (the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in electronics comprise the base-2 form of maths).

String theory suggests everything's ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in four dimensions - "Workings of the Universe" by Time-Life Books (1991). We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a two-dimensional program called a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle (combining 2 Mobius loops in the right way does indeed form a Figure-8 Klein bottle). This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons (force-carrying particles) being ultimately composed of the binary digits of 1 and 0 depicting pi, e, в€љ2 etc.; and fermions (matter particles) being given mass by bosons interacting in "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles which are, in fact, "subuniverses" (we live in a 13.8 billion year old subuniverse). Union of space and time makes the infinite universe eternal - and binary digits fill in gaps and adjust edges of the Klein bottles to fit surrounding subuniverses (similar to manipulation of images by computers). Slight "imperfections" in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of space-time, gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong and weak forces) and thus of exact mass, charge and quantum spin.

T TAURI STARS AND m=E/c^2

"T Tauri stars don't generate energy through fusion but rather as a result of gravitational collapse" (Astronomy magazine - June 2013, p.73) and

"A T Tauri star is a stage in a star's formation and evolution right before it becomes a main sequence star. This phase occurs at the end of the protostar phase, when the gravitational pressure holding the star together is the source of all its energy. T Tauri stars don't have enough pressure and temperature at their cores to generate nuclear fusion ..." Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/24299/types-of-stars/#ixzz31ZZIW41U.

The highest speed possible is Lightspeed. Physically speaking, it cannot be multiplied. Einstein himself proved this. The equation E=mc^2 can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. The version of the equation applicable here may be E=m/c^2*c^2. Dividing by c^2 then multiplying by c^2 cancels, leaving E=m. That is, in this case, (gravitational) energy = (T Tauri) matter.

m = E/c^2 is E=mc^2 when the formula is solved for mass. E=mc^2 means a tiny amount of mass can be converted into a very large amount of energy. Similarly, m=E/c^2 means a very large amount of energy is converted into a tiny amount of mass. E (energy) is measured in joules (J), m is the mass in kilograms (kg; 1 kg = approx. 2.2 pounds), and c is the speed of light (about 186,282 miles/299,792.458 kilometres per second) measured in metres per second (m/s or ms^-1). According to "E=mc^2, Solving the Equation" (http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Equation.htm#.UrY7RdIW2bv), "So from 1kg of matter, any matter, we get 9 x 1016 joules of energy. Writing that out fully we get: 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules (enough to power a 100 watt lightbulb for 28,519,279 years). From gravitational energy equivalent to a 100 watt lightbulb burning for 28,519,279 years, only a kilogram of matter is formed.

GRAVITY FORMS MASS AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL FORCES

(INCLUDES DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER)

If space-time (whose warping is gravity) forms mass, there could be "currents" of space-time flowing in the "oceans" between the galaxies. Space-time would form the matter in the galaxies, and it would form the Earth/objects on this planet. How? By some of the currents of space-time or gravity which pass the solar system's outer boundary being diverted towards the massive Sun's centre (just as some of the waves passing an island are refracted toward the shore by the island's mass). Along their course, the refracted gravitational waves are concentrated 10^24 times in the intense warping we call matter.

When gravity waves concentrate to form matter, gravity travels from external to matter: pushes against matter (repels). Repulsive gravity is dark energy*. Successive waves are re-radiated at unconcentrated** strength from matter to external (opposite action to repelling wave) and attract - it must be remembered that attraction is merely a matter of perspective, since Einstein showed that attraction of two bodies of matter actually results from space-time's curvature pushing bodies. Calculating time using imaginary numbers makes distinctions between time and space disappear. Hypothetical negative 5th-dimension is described by imaginary numbers and motions of its negative particles (dark matter) are time, since time can be calculated using imaginary numbers. So imaginary numbers eliminate distinctions between space-time and 5th dimension, permitting dark matter to exist as "ordinary" matter's scaffold.

* Feeble gravity might push galaxy clusters apart in the same way that feeble sunlight propels a solar sail. In the 1970s, Robert Forward proposed two beam-powered propulsion schemes using either lasers or masers to push giant sails to a significant fraction of the speed of light. These vastly magnify the power of sunlight via Light (or Microwave) Amplfication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. How is gravity's power boosted? When Einstein penned E=mc^2, he used c (c^2) to convert between energy units and mass units. The conversion number is 90,000,000,000 (300,000 km/s x 300,000 km/s) which approx. equals 10^11. After gravity forms matter, successive gravity waves are, via gravitational lensing, concentrated 10^24 times (to 10^25, weak nuclear force's strength). Then they're further magnified by the matter's density to achieve electromagnetism's strength (10^36 times gravity's strength) i.e. 10^25 is multiplied by Einstein's conversion factor [10^11] and gives 10^36. Successive gravity waves are absorbed by the matter and radiated as longer-wavelength waves (both as electromagnetic waves - possibly gamma rays, or a microwave background - and as gravitational waves which have lost 10^24 of their energy or strength (and are labelled "10^1".) "If space comes from bits" (specifically, the energy responsible for the bits is converted into space), "then so does gravity (warping of space)." So as more and more energy is invested in bit production, more and more space and repelling gravity result. This causes accelerating expansion within the universe, as discovered in 1998 by Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess. (Suppose the unit ascribed to concentrated gravity's strength of 10^25 is the hertz (Hz), a frequency of one cycle per second. If a gamma ray is emitted from an atom, that typically accounts for more than 10^19 Hz of the 10^25 Hz. The remainder's accounted for by radiation of gravitational and other electromagnetic frequencies.)

** Or, possibly, at relatively unconcentrated strength (the number 10^1 in the paragraph above would refer to this relatively unconcentrated strength while a strength that's totally unconcentrated and not magnified at all could simply be termed "1"). The gravity waves from deep space would push Jupiter (for example) towards the Sun, while waves from the opposite direction push it away from the Sun. They'd thus cancel and maintain the planet's orbit (in the short term). Over billions of years, Einstein's paper ("Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences) implies that planets gradually move farther away because gravity waves that first encounter the sun would help form the solar mass. They'd be diverted to the Sun's centre - during this journey, the increasing density would concentrate and magnify the gravitational waves. Therefore, they'd be more powerful when they emerge from the Sun's opposite side, and gradually push planets farther away (this happens whether planets are orbiting on one side of the sun or on its opposite side). According to "Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy", Volume 90, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-288 by Krasinsky, G. A. and Brumberg, V. A., the distance between Sun and Earth is growing by approx. 15 centimetres per century.

BEES

"20 Things You Didn't Know About... Animal Senses" by Molly Loomis (Discover Magazine - May 2014) says, "Worker honeybees navigate using rings of paramagnetic iron oxide in their abdomens that swell or shrink depending on outside magnetic changes, allowing the insects to find their way home by following changes in the Earth's magnetic fields." As the Chesterfield and District Beekeepers Association says at http://www.cdbka.org.uk/index.php/bee-keeping/47-members-beekeeping-questions/111-question-no-5-from-d-h-14-10-2012,"The researchers have found that in a bee, these miniature paramagnetic particles are of natural iron oxide and are aligned either side by side or end to end; and are attached to their respective parent cell walls in the bees' abdomen. As the bee flies around, these cells are affected by the earths' magnetic field due to the bees' position/relationship to the said magnetic field. These particles either swell or shrink and make subtle changes to the shape of the cells themselves. There are nerves attached to these cells and these cells act like miniature compasses, constantly sending information to the bees' brain identifying its current position."

The paragraphs above show that the magnetic waves are actually modifications of gravitational waves. When they encounter the iron oxide in the bees, m=E/c^2 describes how the interacting forces/energies produce a tiny amount of what we call mass, causing the iron oxide to swell.

That the Universe is completely described by mathematics is indeed an old idea, however Pythagoras and Galileo did not provide enough arguments why it is so! It is more like a postulate in their philosophy. It is easy to say that the Universe is mathematical but we need epistemological and ontological basis for such claims. I saw in your website the link to ontic structural realism (OSR) so I guess you are familiar with it. OSR indeed provides good arguments about the underlying invariant structure of all our theories.

I think Immanuel Kant is the first philosopher to provide the strong arguments why the Universe is described by mathematics. If you are familiar with history of philosophy, Kant reacted to the famous debate between Rationalists (Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza) and Empiricists (Locke and especially David Hume). Rationalists claim that the source of knowledge is reason and innate ideas, while empiricist claim that the source of knowledge is experience through the senses. Both are right from their perspective. Kant said that to speak about innate ideas in our mind which ground mathematics, metaphysics (a priori knowledge) as rationalists did is lazy business. David Hume has shown that everything comes from experience but he had problems with establishing mathematics on firm ground because maths speak of experience a priori. He could not explain how mathematics is possible! Kant tried to defend this a priori knowledge (mathematics, theoretical physics) and so-called synthetic a priori judgments. That's why I have used Kant to model our cognitive framework (and the Universe as it appears to us) as a quantum computer defined on a grid of cells. I claim that this grid is invariant structure within which all our thoughts, knowledge and theories originate. The structure OSR seeks.

Kant had influenced such mathematicians as Henri Poincaré and David Hilbert. In philosophy of mathematics Kant belongs to intuitionist school. It is also interesting to study the logicist school, that is Frege, Russell. I know that you are involved with FQXi. I claim that we will not understand ultimate reality unless we view everything as a system of mathematics, theoretical physics, philosophy of science and cognitive science. Cognitive science is of absolute importance in understanding ultimate reality because all our thoughts about the world originate in our brain. I know that you come from strictly scientific background but philosophy of science, philosophy of mind cannot be left out if you want to understand the ultimate reality.

It seems that you have buried the philosophy of corporeal nature. This is the true purpose of proper metaphysics of corporeal nature - to assist mathematics and physics. They should go together. It does not matter that people did not know about the Higgs boson or the mathematical description of general relativity 200 years ago. What Kant and Hegel knew is fundamentals - how our knowledge about the world in general is possible. If you know the roots of your knowledge, the epistemological basis of mathematics and physics, everything else is just details. To understand ultimate reality we must understand how we understand things in the first place! That is, we must have the picture of our cognitive faculties in general. This yields the big picture of the Universe how it appears to us.

That's why I took Kant who asked and provided answers in his work to the questions: ''how is mathematics possible?''. ''How is physics possible?''. ''How is metaphysics as science possible?''.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

Darius Malys,

Perhaps you are aware of the likelihood that the 'unit cell', 'Leibniz monad', 'cellular automaton', 'the unit of space geometry - the point' are the same thing. I will read your long paper later - 66 pages. I also wrote an essay last year on similar matter and community members made some beneficial comments.

Regards,

Akinbo

What is the final word on this?

If reality is a manifestation of Mathematics, or the patterning found therein, does it not make sense that what is most central to Physics about Math is that which is most essential to Math itself, or is in some way invariant? It comes to mind that there are precisely four normed division algebras, R, C, H, and O. Also, objects like E8 and the Mandelbrot Set seem to validate the External Reality Hypothesis, by existing apart from our discovery of them. But if nature is shaped by these mathematical objects as Lisi and I have suggested (respectively), then there are a host of other mathematical objects and invariant forms in the structure of Math - which also influence nature. The thing is; we first discovered a bunch of these things over the last 100 years, but there remain other invariants of Math yet to be discovered. However; we must assume that nature has already put them to use.

Phil Gibbs has a very nice concept to help filter all of this content, which he calls the theory of theories. Briefly; this idea states that all Mathematics applicable to Physics takes a role in shaping reality, where the entirety of all the theoretical bases for a given tendency contribute to its reality in a kind of path integral which grants physical reality to those notions whose basis is strongest. And of course; this would be meaningless if there was no internal patterning to unify the structure of Math, but the fact that Math is a congruent entity which hangs together on its own engenders a meaningful basis for Physics. In this sense the Mathematical Univese Hypothesis is a no-brainer. It is absolutely true, given that we include all of Math, even the part we have not yet discovered. But indeed; this rests on the ERH being true, in the sense that Plato envisioned - where eternal ideal absolutes shape the ephemeral reality - and on Math being that external reality.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I could point out..

The existence of the Octonions implies E8, which is simply O x O. Similarly the existence of Complex numbers somehow implies the Mandelbrot Set, which in effect illustrates their properties. But it could also be said that E8 is the culmination of the octonions, or that the Mandelbrot Set is the reason for the complex numbers to exist.

It is better, in some ways, not to imagine that such chicken/egg questions yield a final answer, but rather to understand that each is a piece of the puzzle, and that all of the invariant forms are important cornerstones of Mathematics, which serve to create meaningful order which can engender Physics. So I'll leave off there.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Taking things to the next level...

It is often imagined that things proceed from simpler forms to more complex ones, but if what counts is algorithmic complexity in a universe born of Math, this may be backwards. An idea I've played around with, that Fred Diether articulated quite well a while back, is that higher-order numbers are more basic - because they require fewer rules to define. S15 and the Sedenions may offer the closest thing possible to a blank slate, as there is no preferred direction or orientability and all 16 dimensions are on an equal footing. This is sort of like Math without rules.

But if we assert that our number system must be alternative, we get the Octonions; if we assert the algebra must be associative, we get the Quaternions; if we add the rule that it must be commutative, we are left with the Complex numbers; and adding another restriction gets us to the Reals. This makes the Octonions more fundamental, as well as more general, while the Quaternions, Complex, and Reals, are the product of adding more conditions, leaving a more restricted set of possibilities that are successively restricted cases of the higher-order types - which are algorithmically more basic.

All the Best,

Jonathan

MATHEMATICS ARE YOU

You are part of life, the Universe and everything. You and that greater whole have to be grounded in some fundamental bedrock that connects everything into a logical and unified whole. Most would say that's the role of the laws, relationships and principles of physics. But there's a deeper level yet. Mathematics are the ultimate foundation that make physics a logical (if not quite yet unified) whole. So ultimately life, the Universe and everything is based on maths. Maths is ultimately your reality. It's what makes you tick!

The Universe IS just mathematics according to physicist/cosmologist Professor Max Tegmark (Department of Physics, MIT). It's called the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)" or the "Ultimate Ensemble", one of those proposals for a 'Theory of Everything' (TOE), that ultimate theoretical equation so beloved by physicists that describes life, the Universe and everything. It will be so concise that it can be printed on just the front of a tee-shirt. Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is: our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically. That is, the universe IS mathematics in a well-defined sense. Mathematics has an external reality, and since everything is built from the ground (i.e. - mathematics) up, everything ultimately is mathematics and therefore can be expressed in that ultimate theoretical TOE tee-shirt equation.

Mathematics is the universal language. Whether you're a Frenchman or a Chinaman; an Englishman or even ufonauts like those alien LGM (Little Grey Men); a Klingon or a Romulan; you understand the Pythagorean Theorem and the quadratic equation; topology and the calculus.

The most fundamental science is physics. That's the bedrock on which chemistry is formatted. The earth and space sciences are in turn supported and explained by those two building blocks. All of those collectively form the foundations of the biological sciences, which in turn support anthropology, psychology and the other social and behavioural sciences. Even economics and the arts have ultimate foundations in mathematics.

But what supports physics? Mathematics, that's what. Ultimately that's where it all begins. The Universe (including life and everything) is mathematics. You exist inside of geometry. You are receiving information about life, the Universe and everything encoded in mathematics; it takes mathematics to reveal the information. You cannot come to terms with understanding space and time, matter and energy, and the four (or more) fundamental forces that govern the Universe, hence ultimately you and your surroundings, without resorting to maths.

Your day is constantly filled with how much, how many, and how fast - mathematical relationships. 'Where' is maths; 'when' is maths; 'what' is often pure maths. You may not be a physicist, but economics probably rules your roost. There's gambling (even if just on the stock market or getting away with running a red light) involving probability theory. Every day in every way you add and subtract and multiply and divide numbers. You even do fractions! Your calculator may crunch the numbers, but you press the buttons.

Music and sounds in general play a massive role in our lives. Acoustics, harmonics, sound waves, and the like are all expressible in, and based around, mathematics. Ditto for navigation and GPS and related.

Now think of the mathematics supporting the physics (or its applied alter ego, engineering) behind your home, your transport, your entertainment, your comfort conveniences, and what goes into making you able to get through your day. What holds all your bits and pieces together and holds you to the ground yet doesn't allow you to go through it can be expressed in equations? What mathematical physics fuels the sun that ultimately gives you your daily bread? What mathematical physics keeps your home planet a goldilocks planet, not too far away from, or too close to the sun with an atmosphere over your head? 24/7/52 you are governed by time and space; matter and energy, all of which have reality as mathematical constructs. And where would sports teams*, NASA and the military be without the basic mathematics behind the basic physics that guide and govern their activities?

There's another kind of mathematical universe apart from the one promoted by Max Tegmark, though maybe they are actually one and the same. That's my hypothesis. There's another way of looking at this. There's another possible, even probable, Mathematical Universe - the Simulated Universe. Could these two universes be one and the same?

Firstly, why is a Simulated Universe our probable Universe? Well, for the exact same reason that while you suspect there is just one real Universe, the one real Universe the really real you lives in, you would be aware that Planet Earth in that really real Universe has an intelligent human population that has evolved computer technologies and has created thousands upon thousands of virtually real simulations, both for the purposes of instruction (say astronaut flight training) as well as for entertainment (video games). The ratio of virtually real landscapes to really real landscapes is therefore multi-thousands to one.

Further, in most cases there are thousands upon thousands of copies of those simulations, a sort of Multiverse, where say a character in one video game has thousands of 'clones' because there are thousands of copies of that game. That character of course couldn't meet any of his or her or its identical copies, which is probably a good thing. However, if you could ask that character whether they felt they were really real or simulated, they would of course answer really real not knowing or suspecting that a human being was their creator and the creator of their simulated landscape.

Go one level up from Planet Earth and humanity's numerous simulation creations and extrapolate and the odds are high that someone or something out there, a Supreme Programmer, created a simulation that's our Universe. There are numerous copies of this video game simulation called say "The Life and Times of Planet Earth" created by this unknown and probably unknowable Supreme Programmer, and thus there are really numerous copies of you, but fortunately only one copy per game! Your day-to-day reality is just a virtual reality because you don't really exist in the way you think you do.

Another way of thinking about the numerous copies of the video game "The Life and Times of Planet Earth" is that this amounts to the concept of Parallel Universes. In another copy of "The Life and Times of Planet Earth" another copy of you has led a different life and lifestyle to the you that exists in your copy or version of "The Life and Times of Planet Earth".

Now, the interesting bit, IMHO, is what if our Universe or Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe which is also our Universe was just a Simulated Universe; a virtual reality computer software generated Universe? Well, what is computer software? Computer software is just bits and bytes, ones and zeros, binary code, or in other words mathematics. You can construct life, the Universe and everything via mathematics by constructing or programming appropriate computer software. Ultimately a video game 'Universe' or landscape is just mathematics. An astronaut's training simulator is just a mathematical construction. If you are a computer software generated, simulated being, inside a virtual reality, then you are a mathematical construction.

What's the appeal of a Simulated Universe? It explains a lot that's currently unexplainable.

Why are all electrons (or positrons or up and down quarks, etc.) identical? Because all electrons have the exact same binary code, that's why. Forget vibrating strings as the reason. String theory isn't even in the hunt. Any and every anomaly is explained as easily as "run program" as there is no such thing as the concept of impossibility in a simulation or a video game. Joshua can indeed make the Sun and the Moon stand still in the heavens! You can even have a virtual reality afterlife! In fact, for the physicist, a Simulated Universe scenario should be pleasing since in fact there are two separate sets of incompatible mathematical software running the Simulated Universe - gravity software and quantum physics software. I bring this up because physicists have been trying to marry those two branches of physics for decades now into a Theory of Everything, and haven't scored a run yet.

In conclusion, our Universe is a Mathematical Universe; a Simulated Universe is a Mathematical Universe. Therefore, it's possible or even probable as I noted above, that our Universe is a Simulated Universe and you therefore live in a virtual reality landscape that exists as a mathematical construct!

*There's an entire book, for example, devoted to the physics of baseball, and no doubt many "How To Play..." books focus on the physics behind the scenes and the mathematics behind the physics. Baseball can be reduced to pure mathematics apart from the mathematical physics relating to bat and ball, which will come as little surprise to most baseball fans, players and managers. There's percentages this; statistics that, all of which make baseball about the most mathematical oriented sports on the ground.

I argue that the Universe is fundamentally logic, not maths. What do you think?

As Wittgenstein puts it: ''6.22 The logic of the world, which is shown in tautologies by the propositions of logic, is shown inequations by mathematics.''

http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

In order to perform any mathematics, one must first have a surface upon which one can depict symbols of value. This surface need automatically destroys all mathematical logic. For instance, if one inserts a 1 anywhere on the surface, one is indicating that the surface has no value even though the surface obviously covers a greater area than the symbolic 1 does.. When the mathematician inserts a zero on the seemingly valueless blank surface, he creates a beguiling abstraction that has nothing to do with reality. In effect, the mathematician is trying to organize ordinary human triadic perception. There is 1. There is 0. They can be represented on a surface that has no value. This translates into: There is Heaven. There is Hell. There is Purgatory. There is the Id. There is the Ego. There is the Super-ego. Unfortunately, although there is indubitably real quanta, there is no real nothing, therefore there cannot be a anything else but quanta wherever one looks.

Joe Fisher

Joe,

"...therefore there cannot be a anything else but quanta wherever one looks."

True. But can quanta cease to exist? Or is it eternally existing?

Akinbo

Dear Akinbo,

Quanta has to be eternal.

Joe Fisher

Dear Joe,

As I just told Jim in a post, unless the Universe exists eternally, Quanta can perish. Quanta cannot outlive the universe or exist before the creation of the universe.

Regards,

Akinbo