The Quantum Playstation

Maybe I can Help. The gravitons you are looking for can be found using punnett squares. Often overlooked - this simple tool used to determine genetic probabilities can also verify a space-condensed wavefunction. Of course, with gravity it is admittedly a little different because other force carriers exist in space while the graviton is a manifestation of space itself.

could someone please provide the lqg equations the playstations are simulating?

without equations, what exactly are the playstations simulating?

lawrence crowell writes, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?" but without equations, what does the networked playstation computer do?

please, as this is a community, could someone please educated us as to the equations it is simulating? do not academics have to share their research?

The lqg and the strings are a joke.

They imply any foundamentals.

Never a string has been found, never a lqg will be found.The extradimensions and the pub of E1..3...8...x are strategy of "business sciences"(curses given in specialized universities where the capitals are so olds,it's important indeed to keep the capital of families.Well,the sciences aren't that, the sciences are the universality and the respect of all things, objectives and reals.

Let's Consider What this "business sciences" is an under sciences where the monney is the main driving force.But be sure they are competents and even machiavelics.

I pray for them,indeed They fear to loose their jobs, thus they are ready to invent stupidities and even ready to continue stupidities even when they know it's false.

Incredible NO???? It's the Earth and its ironies.

Soon dear Scientists, dear friends, we shall pay our Oxygen, yes we shall pay the air,after all we pay already the water and the fire.Incredible this Earth planet,Oh my God ,it's serious there.

What arethese systems behind that.

It's time to begin rational there.The sciences must implant solutions,I regret but never these strings extradimensionally stupids in the multiverses shall be a reality.

I beleive frankly what some universities and strategists of marketing confound a little the research for the humanity.

They search their monney yes,and their vanity, that's all.

It's sad to see that simply at the planetary vue and global.

Scientists of all over the world......we are in a circus where the truth is forgotten for the pleazsure of opulences.

Regards

Steve

Wow. I haven't visited this forum, because I am a pencil and paper guy with not much direct interest in experimentation.

It's a bit jarring, though, to see the vitriol from anonymous posters (or poster) on everything from a few dollars spent on computers to irrational criticism of a leading edge theory. It is unimportant whether loop quantum gravity is right or wrong -- it is a serious attempt to wed general relativity with quantum rules without need for extra dimensions. Can it be done?

In fact, there is an irony here. Neither Lawrence nor I believe that it can be done without extra dimensions. LQG does, however, have at least two important foundational properties:

1. Background independence and

2. Nonperturbative results

Anyone who doesn't know this would have to be completely ignorant of Lee Smoiln's work, and the previous literature, in which case one wonders why they would hold forth in a public forum on the subject of LQG. (OTOH, anonymous posters don't actually risk anything, do they?)

In any case, if we are to have a nonperturbative, background independent theory, we have to rule out some models to make way for others.

Personally, I hold for string theory, which Smolin criticizes for not being background independent. I think the criticism is not valid (string theory is background independent) as -- I believe -- does leading string theorist Joseph Polchinski, IIRC.

And BTW, physics really _isn't_ about writing down equations. Even mathematics is not about writing down equations.

Tom

thanks tom,

yes, i was also jarred and dismayed, like you, to see lawrence crowell's handwaving, namecalling, and ad hominem attacks. :( so sad.

i note that you say that you say "physics really _isn't_ about writing down equations. Even mathematics is not about writing down equations."

what, in your estimate are physics and mathematics about?

could have newton, bohr, einstein, dirac, pauli, feynman, heisenberg, or maxwell been physicists without having written down equations? perhaps they could have been lqgers or sting theorists, but probably not physics.

E = mc^2 and F = ma are cool equatsions of Einstein and Newton.

What are the equations of st and lqg?

Please do share.

i agree that physics is more than just writing down equations, but without equations, it isn't really physics.

and thanks for intervening and asking mr. crowell to tone down the childish games, vitriol, namecalling, and ad hominem attacks.

now that'd be great to see some physcial lqg/st theory equations and hear what they represent!

let's get this forum back on track after mr. crowell's childish antics and red herrings.

:)

Physics and mathematics are not _about_ anything. One does physics and mathematics and only draws one's conclusions in the precise symbolic language we call equations.

Thus, E = mc^2 comes at the end of Einstein's theory of special relativity, that after 20 or so less impressive equations capturing the observed physical properties of electromagnetic phenomena, leads to the equivalence between rest energy and the kinetic energy of accelerated mass. I expect Newton's f = ma is similarly derived, from experimental results, though I don't know the history.

For string theory, you can go to texts by Polchinksi among others, whose titles I can't bring to mind and am not going to look up, or try Barton Zwiebach, _A First Course in String Theory_. For LQG, google Lee Smolin and see if that gets you what you want.

So far as I know, Michael Faraday did physics without equations, and Richard Feynman despised formalism, inventing diagrams to describe results of particle experiments. Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know.

If you want to carry on a civil discussion -- even debate -- you'll find it here if you want to identify yourself and actually risk being shown wrong.

Tom

Hello Tom,

do not the fqxi judges retain their anonimity? are you asking them to reveal themeselves? i hope so!

you write, "So far as I know, Michael Faraday did physics without equations, and Richard Feynman despised formalism, inventing diagrams to describe results of particle experiments. Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know."

this is simply laughable. feynman was one of the best mathematical physicists, and most formal, of all time! sure his formalisms were different and creative, but they were entirely formal! have you ever read his disseration? 100% formal, as well as all his research! so what are you talking about, pray tell?

indeed bohr and faraday used lots of words, thoughts, and ideas reflecting physical reality, but lqg and string theory also lack these, as they do not look towards physical reality. for instance there is no experimental evidence of strings nor loops, nor quantum gravity. both bohr and farady were very loyal to physical reality and experiemnt, as was feynman. and at the end of the day, they all used math to express the final forms of their research.

but today both lqg and string theory reject experimental evidence and physical reality as there is no evidence for quantum gravity whatsoever. both lqg and string theory also reject maths, as there exist no equations for either "hunch."

it is hilarious, and quite telling, that you write, "Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know." so all they need to do now is draw smolin diagrams? if they mimic faraday, they will have to turn themselves towards sketching physical reality and experiments, which the playstations won't help with.

:)

Oh, so you're an FQXi judge, are you?

And path integral pictures are formalisms. Okay.

And string theory and loop quantum gravity lack "words, thoughts, and ideas reflecting physical reality"

I don't have time for this nonsense.

Tom

hello tom,

well, please do share what words, ideas, and thoughts lqg and string theory have refelcting *physical* reality. bear in mind that there is no empirical nor physical evidence whatsoever for tiny, vibrating strings or little loops. please do share though!

you already admitted that st & lqg lack postualtes and equations, and without words, ideas, and thoughts representing physical reality, one has to ask "where's the physics?"

please do enlighten us all.

thanks. :)

Tom,

I thought I'd check to see what transpired here since Monday. Who ever this person is they are not worth trying to reason with. For some reason all he wants is some list of LaTex'd up equations or something, and releases has all these barbed comments. This is not DiMeglio at least. Though I notice he and his sock puppets are filling up the "recent blog comment" sidebar. I suppose he wants to give the impression that in talking to himself he is at the hub of a serious conversation.

Cheers LC

"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." --R.P, Feynman

why all these bizarre accusations of being a sock puppet? it is quite obvious that numerous peopke are posting in this thread. why all this evasion of simply posting either the simeple thoughts, ideas, and physical realities that string theory and lqg represent, and/or their simple mathematical equations?

why are you guys ganging up in your butter vinidictiveness?

i'm not demanding any laytex. even a simple link to he page containing the equations of lqg and/or st would be great! certainly that would take a second or two.

the great feynman stated that in science one must always question the experts. and as you guys are experts in lqg and string theory, i am asking you...

i do hope that the greater community does not find your bizarre, dismissive, ad hominem-attacking, namecalling behavior representitive. and yet it must concern everyone.

"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."

-- Richard P. Feynman

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

-- Richard P. Feynman

please do not castigate, impugn, and try to shut down my curiosity:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." Albert Einstein

...which may or may not be my real name. I will say this: I am not a physicist, but I have a bilogy background as you might have guessed from my previous post. In any event, I have been trying to play catch-up the past 2 or 3 years with aspects of physics, string theory being one of them. I personally think string theory is junk science. Although many noted physicists share this sentiment, they are still apparently in the minority.

I can't "prove" string theory is wrong but an important point is that the community's enthusiasm for it - is extremely disproportioniate with its likelihood of ever being falsified or verified. Time to move on guys!

In evolution and genetics, we have been dealing with a similar enthusiasm for alternative, outlandish theories. They are called creation science and intelligent design.

I can't speak much about LQG, but with regard to string theory, I can confidently say that you have got nothing! Never did, never will.

If you have anything other than the endorsement of your heroes - then why don't you put that kelly blogger out of his misery and prove him wrong???

If it is easy as you stringers claim - then that will also be a "small annoying price" for communicating with an open society.

i find some exceellent sensical postings at dr. peter woit's blog about the tragedy of string theory and lqg and how it has destoryed opportunity for young honorable physics whiel creating opportunity for political lapdog useful imbecile pseudo-physicist student of elite failed guard of elders who seek to please not truth and passion and curiosity and honorable quest for truthful physics, but politics and polemicals of elder moneys regiments:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3077#comments

#

Bruno Galileo says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm

In the history of all of science, has a hunch such as string theory ever received so much attention and funding?

Truly, string theory and its handwaving ethos shped physics over the past twenty-thirty years. Even LQG adopted some of its tenor and tone, often stating in its own defense, "hey if string theory can be not even wrong then we have every right to be not even wrong too!"

One must wonder about all the lost opportunities. What physicists were shut out from the academy and funding? How many bright young minds were lead down a seemingly dead-end street? How many gained tenure not by science, but by politics?

As Witten was an undergraduate history/politics major, it would have been interesting to hear his take on how string theory politicized and polemicized science.

Best,

Bruno Galileo

#

CNX says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:00 am

As Thomas Kuhn stated in his book about Scientific Revolutions, in many cases new ideas/theories do not just replace the old ones by being more successful, but they simply outlive them: they only get established when the older generation of supporters for the one theory gradually die out and the younger generation prefers the new theory. I think this is the most likely scenario how String theory will fade out, if it does at all, and this can take a very long time(Too long for middle-aged people to witness?). However, if the theory continues to win the souls of the younger physics students, whether by its rosy prospects(?), virility(?) or career pressure from its established, influential practitioners, then it may still be able to survive many more generations. In that case, even during the entire lifetime of a younger person such as me fundamental theoretical physics may continue in its current shape, monopolized by one seemingly promising theory which does not live up to its huge expectations.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3077#comments

please you all reads and this speaks like truth, no?

courage i wish upon you all to stand for goodness,

gregor

thanks gregor and bobby,

yes it it quite amazing the lengths that lc crowell and tom th ray will go to defend non-theories -- lacking postulates, equations, and physically meaningul models -- the very opposite of physics.

bu i sense a paradigm shift, as both tom th ray and lb crowell are looking foolish, engaging in little word counting games and going so far as to say that physics is not about equations, nor anything really. this is the party line that gets one funding it seems.

but it seems their gig is almost up, as how many young physicsts are going to follow third-generation, meaninghless handwaving consisting of neither equations nore ideas nor anything else. it is just not sexy to follow blind, politicized and polemicized regimes whcih are physics-free. what does it offer the soul and ruggged physicist whose highest payment is not money, but truth?

both tom and crowell are making quite a display, lamenting the fact that we live in an open and free society, which they would want to change, to keep out those who question the experts of failed regimes.

keep up the good work all!

time is on science's and freedom's side!

kelly

hi all ,

Who???

Kel= nat.... from......latitue east ?????

just curious....

Steve

Perhaps we can let the Great Physicists resolve the disagreements here--saw this on woit's blog:

Guiding principles from the great physicists to take us beyond the standard model!

Perhaps if we focus on the common philosophy of the great physicists as to what physics is and ought be, expressed in their simple words reflecting infinite wisdom, we will be better prepared to advance physics beyond the standard model.

Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the

present, but an equation is something for eternity. -Albert Einstein

It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the

greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And

therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must

endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must

it be in seeking to understand these visions. Truth is ever to be

found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of

things. . . -Sir Isaac Newton

When the solution is simple, God is answering. -Einstein

The only real valuable thing is intuition. -Einstein

A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. -Einstein

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -Einstein

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by

understanding. -Einstein

No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. -Newton

For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope. - Einstein

If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the

shoulders of giants. -Newton

In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the

humble reasoning of one individual. -Galileo

Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But

thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the

three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae, are the beginning of

every physical theory. --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the

whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only

became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler

and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of

the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience

and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are

completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and

particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is

the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether.

-Einstein , Ideas and Opinions

.. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of

this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations,

they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at

the planets or Moon or my telescope. -Galileo

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it. -Planck

Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It

forces us to change our thinking in order to find it. -Niels Bohr

...my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning

preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which,

either because of its being their own or because of their having

received it from some person who has their entire confidence,

impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it

out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea ...

gain their instant acceptance ... whatever is brought forward against

it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or

with hot rage ... Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not

be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their

adversaries.... No good can come of dealing with such people . . . their

company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous. -Galileo

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both

true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -Newton

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -Einstein

A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are

composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is

ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical

thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as

probability. -Einstein

When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective

representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to

known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence

the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in

the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a

representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the

characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its

entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction

the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled.

-Schrodinger

Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we

grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium--we will all say to

each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been

so stupid? -Wheeler

Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity; From discord find

harmony; In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. -Einstein

A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder

would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long. -Einstein

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more

violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in

the opposite direction. -Einstein

Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas

which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make

the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid

of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under

a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find

themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be

doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite

found their way out of the equations into their minds. -Maxwell

I don't believe in mathematics. -Einstein

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that

mine are greater. -Einstein

Geometry is not true, it is advantageous. -Poincare

A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -Plato

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can

be counted counts. -Einstein

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by

the nose. -Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is

the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is

a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,

is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Einstein

The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Einstein

Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of

physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be

said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible

to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is

obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The

second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the

material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself,

with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the

"naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic

concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a

basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with

great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and

evaluation of theories since time immemorial. -Einstein

String Theory has been the leading candidate ... for a theory that

consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including

gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV

finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: "Although there is no

rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite..." -STRING

THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

We don't know what we are talking about . -Nobel Laureate David Gross

on string theory

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a

five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one

of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does

not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for

10-30+ dimensions!)

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses . -

Feynman, Nobel Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.

-Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a

"theory" rather a "model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a

theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it

to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the

elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able

to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these

particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I

give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing,

and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon;

whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? -'t Hooft, Nobel

Laureate

It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of

them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They

just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when

one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20

years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that

curious. -Glashow, Nobel Laureate

I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that

they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that

disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation-a fix-up to

say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory requires ten

dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the

dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not

seven? . . . So the fact that it might disagree with experience is

very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most

of the time. It doesn't look right. -Feynman

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really

works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical

outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their

formalism includes a description of such things as protons and

electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental

prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a

logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature.

--Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow

The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself

is not unified. . . For a theory that makes the claim of providing a

unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that

the theory itself appears so disunited!! Introduction to Superstrings

& M-Theory -Kaku

If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of

affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to

develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his

beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of

logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but

above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be

summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment,

demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated

beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more

precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The

unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be

perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over

in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was

not fundamental at all but emergent (emergent from MDT!) . . . It

would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on

which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there

might be something beyond. (MDT!) -A Different Universe, Laughlin,

Nobel Laureate

[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to

sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental

evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special

mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be

calculated or predicted more easily. . . String theory is, in fact, a

textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will

always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful

technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic

consequence of an obsolete belief system-in which emergence plays no

role and dark law does not exist. --A Different Universe, Laughlin

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the

easiest person to fool. ... You just have to be honest in a conventional

way after that. . . I would like to add something that's not essential

to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you

should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. . . I'm

talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying,

but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you

ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our

responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I

think to laymen. . . If you're representing yourself as a scientist,

then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they

don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their

decision. -Nobel Laureate Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or

distinction than that connected with advances in science. -Newton

Errors are not in the art but in the artificers. -Newton

I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin

not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations .

-Galileo

By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox . -Galileo

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand

things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of

them is not understanding . -Isaac Newton

Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about

things is exclusively a working-over of the raw material furnished by

the senses. ... Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full

clarity and decisiveness . -Einstein

LET US EMBRACE THESE PHILOSOPHIES AS WE FORGE AHEAD!!!

The secret of the big crunch is that mass is four states in one and the four forces are a superforce which is repulsive.

That is prior to the big bang.

The cyclical universe is like a bouncing ball with each big bang/big crunch energy is lost due to entropy.

And for a bouncing ball 2+2 does not equal 4 over 4 cycles..........

To make the universal energy equation equal mass must increase and the speed of light must incease as you cycle back in time.

With endless time mass becomes infinite.

WHich EInstein thought was a paradox and a dealbreaker..........

This fudge of mass increasing does balance 2+2=4 exactly but leaves us with the problem of a begining of infinite mass..............

Model this on the PS2.

Here is a program for the quantum playstation.

Hawking imagines 10^500 different universes each with different rules.

There is no need to imagine.

Import physics equations QM and GR from the net with MATHS TYPE 6.

And import them into a spreadsheet where they are added with EInsteins dice 1 ODD+1 EVEN= 2 ODD and 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.

Print out millions of equations using a dot matrix printer.

And add them all up with 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.

So get one equation for millions of equations...

SIMPLE ELEGANT STUPID. SES.

Steve