SimonFunnell

Hi, I believe the universe is a kind of cellular automata. I am here hoping that skilled mathematicians can help me develop the idea further. To start with, I think the universe is composed entirely of identical cells, I would suggest they are planck scale in size. The cells go through a cycle of composing, then decomposing the themselves (think "calculating space"), all in sync, so much so that the whole entire universe follows the cycle of composition, then decomposition, I would suggest the cycle is planck scale in length. In this universe movement of objects is perceived but not real as each object is composed/decomposed in one place before composing/decomposing in a different place, hence giving rise to what we see as motion. How do I develop the maths for an object moving through this universe. Thanks.

Ok, I guess my point here is the importance of space and time, they are at the root of physics, there is no motion without space and time. Hmmm, I think I am going to rethink things and start a new post because this isn't really going anywhere. Thanks for your input anyway.

Ok, lets try something else: In the most simple terms, what did Einstein do (with relativity)? I would argue in most simple terms that he combined space and time into spacetime. If there is more I am prepared to be schooled, but boiled down to basics, that's what I reckon he did, that was his innovation.

Please explain, and thanks for taking the time out to respond, it is appreciated. For example, if the universe were a cellular automata, that question is not only reasonable, its answerable. If the universe is a kind of cellular automata (composed entirely of identical cells) then all the laws of the universe are encoded into each and every cell, much like a monitor screen or a holographic plate.

That is cosmic sounding, but not an explanation.

Ok, its simple, you can't prove relativity to be fact, its a model that explains things. If the universe was a kind of cellular automata, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact. The way to resolve this is to first look at the standard model and ask questions of it, because it is in the process of answering the questions in which the solution naturally emerges. For example, I would like to hear how physicists answer this question: Where are the laws of the universe located? Try answering that, you may deem it philosophy and not relevant but it is.

I know, if you are influenced by people like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Lawrence Krauss and others then you not so keen on philosophy. Physicists worry me too Look, its the 'truth' that the earth revolves around the sun, there really is nothing to be worried about. Ok, this is the forth time I have mentioned this, but I am going to mention again, except this time I am going to offer up a small incentive. I am looking for 3 physicists to help me prove/disprove my case. I am not rich, but I can afford to pay £100 to each for their efforts. And, if it turns out the universe is a kind of cellular automata, we would have at long last gotten to the final truth. And it would be final, because that's as deep as the universe gets, this, if true, would be the ultimate truth about the universe. What exactly are you worried about? Is it a rational worry? You don't seem to explain why you are worried? Is that not the ultimate goal of science? To discover the truth?

I am aware of the success, I am not trying to denigrate the contributions. However, if, for the sake of argument, I am right, then Einstein was incorrect. I cant really help that, the two ideas are simply not compatible. I will still be producing the video, however I understand people not wanting to visit external sites and what not. I will say it a third time, give me 3 well trained physicists and I will prove/disprove in 3-6 months, possibly less. I will be honest, I am not skilled enough to produce the mathematics, yes I am naturally good at maths, I can read about and understand complex maths to some degree, but I cant really develop the equations. As mentioned previously, it is a simple idea, like 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth'. We have relativity which is basically a space/time theory, the universe being a cellular automata (more like a machine than a biological system) is essentially a space/time theory. I am basically saying that relativity is modern epicycles (false) and the truth (about space/time) is actually different. I could of course be wrong.

We know today that earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round. Today, we know it is the truth.

It has nothing to do with mathematics, it wasn't a better model, it was the truth in relation to something that was false, the model came after. I have a simple idea vs a massive body of work by many intelligent people over centuries, I cant compete with that. That said however, if I am right, then the new model that emerges will supersede the standard model, and not because its a better model, but because its the actual truth. And even as it is, there are plenty of good reasons to believe the universe is a kind of cellular automata, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is the case. I discuss the reasoning and evidence in the video, everything points to it.

Yes, stuff like that will come. As I have said, give me 3 well trained physicist and I will prove/disprove my case in 3-6 months. I will remind you also that the idea is literally as simple as 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth'. There is no mathematics in that. Furthermore its a space time theory, a literal specification of space and time that is simply not compatible with relativity and other spacetime manifold derived ideas. So as not to be too mysterious I will say it plain and simple as it will be asserted in the video, the universe is a kind of cellular automata. To the best of my understanding this was first suggested by Konrad Zuze in 'Calculating Space, and interestingly enough, Stephen Wolfram, who studied absolutely every aspect of cellular automata one could imagine, does not seem to touch on this particular implementation.

Look, if I am wrong, fair enough, I am not emotionally attached to the idea. But I will be honest, I am not bragging, its just the plain facts, I have an IQ of about 140 and I am a polymath, I am a reasonably intelligent person. Furthermore, I have, like you would do in a Phd, taken one single problem and found an intuitive solution. It just so happens that because its a space/time theory and everything else is built on top of that, it effects everything else. Space/time underpin physics in the same way physics underpins biology and so on, its at the root. It will not be me vs the establishment either (although I do expect resistance initially) as I have a research plan to prove/disprove my case so others will likely get involved to take it further, its not going to be me alone. I have read the type of posts you are referring to, and yes people do get a upset. I am happy to be proved right or wrong, at this stage that's now what I really want. The mathematics will come with further study, my work just lays the philosophical foundations, it opens up a rich line of enquiry. Furthermore, considering this statement by John Wheeler: “Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.” This statement is so true, its pretty obvious once you understand it. Ill be honest, what I am doing is very Copernican in nature. Consider the statement 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth', yes there is mathematics involved, but it was essentially a simple non-mathematical idea, a new way to look at things. What I am doing is very similar, I am basically saying the following abstract is overly complex and as creative as it is, is basically modern epicycles. "Abstract: Recently, black hole and brane production at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been widely discussed. We suggest that there is a possibility to test causality at the LHC. We argue that if the scale of quantum gravity is of the order of few TeVs, proton-proton collisions at the LHC could lead to the formation of time machines (spacetime regions with closed timelike curves) which violate causality. One model for the time machine is a traversable wormhole. We argue that the traversable wormhole production cross section at the LHC is of the same order as the cross section for the black hole production. Traversable wormholes assume violation of the null energy condition (NEC) and an exotic matter similar to the dark energy is required. Decay of the wormholes/time machines and signatures of time machine events at the LHC are discussed." If I am right, then dark matter/energy/flow, inflation, are all modern epicycles. In fact, give me 3 well trained physicists and I could prove/disprove my case in 3-6 months, maybe even less.

Not sure I understand?

This is probably going to be a bit controversial, but I find this a great forum so I am hoping things go well. Fifteen years ago I had a profound realisation about the nature of reality, this realisation is basically a theory of everything (actually its just a space/time theory). Now I realise what I am saying here and it is either one of two things: 1 - I am insane (most likely). 2 - I am proper genius (highly unlikely). Now if its the first one, there might be a few laughs and that will be the end of it. Not very interesting outcome. However, if its the second one, then this is not only good for me, its good for all mankind. Very interesting outcome. I am working on presenting my theory in a video I expect to release in the next 6 months but I would like to, as an experiment, get some thoughts from people on what a theory of everything should do and what people expect it to be. For example Stephen Hawkings (according to wikipedia) stated "it would necessarily be a set of equations", this is actually not correct (assuming number 2). Also, Einstein, despite recent claims he was right (detecting gravity waves) would basically be wrong. Thank you for you thoughts.

Well, this has certainly sparked some interesting debate, I am struggling to keep up let alone chime in! I would have to go through it all again before commenting but thanks for all the input, I have found it very interesting.

Evolution is often said to have no direction, it can't plan ahead. However, after careful consideration, I think that evolution has an inevitability about it. For example, given our environment, is it any surprise we have things swimming in the water, flying in the air, and walking on the ground? For example, you could have a process like natural selection/mutation that generates new life forms (evolutionary theory or another mechinism) however given the environment, is there not an inevitability that the perfect wing evolves?

I was wondering if I could get some clear answers on the evolution of flight, I am aware flight has evolved in 4 different types but I wanted to focus on mammals. My questions are as follows: What was the first creature to fly? What did it evolve from? How did the faculty of flight propagate (i.e. how many generations/mutations did it take to get from non-flying animal to flying animal)? What are the fossils to support this? Thanks very much for responses!

I have a bit of a puzzle for mathematicians regarding a hypothetical universe. I am basically going to define a simple solar system with a sun and one planet. This planet, exactly like ours does, circles the sun and spins on its axis. Now in our puzzle the inhabitants of the single planet have discovered that a 'force', much like gravity, keeps their planet in orbit around the sun. Now its basically very simple (although it has crossed my mind it could be complex than I first imagined) and I am hoping that mathematicians/physists could express it mathematically quite easily, a.k.a. produce a rudimentary model. However, what I am really wondering is, is there something within that model that could say be a candidate for explaining what the inhabitats of our single planet intepret to be a force? Have a look at this diagram (please excuse, its really rough) : In this diagram the sun is spinning in space, as it spins it creates a radial wave that rolls outwards. On the back of this wave, rolling towards the sun, is our single planet. Now the speed of the wave moving away and the rotation of the planet (rolling towards the sun) are such that the planet 'appears' to stay the same distance from the sun while spinning on its axis. Now add to that the source of the wave is slowly moving around the surface of the sun and we now have a solar system much like our own, but produces the result differently. Is there something within that model that could be a candidate for explaining what the inhabitats of our single planet intepret to be a force? Thanks. Edit. On reflection this might not be the right section, I was just thinking 'theoretical' at the time of writing.

I am not trying to denigrate Einstiens contribution or science, I am all for science and Einstien moved us forward and brought us today, his work was essentially pagadigm changing. I am currently writing another post which will be in 'other science', because it doesn't fit in the others, that elaborates why I am a skeptic of certain aspects of science and explains my intentions with the posts (as part of a video). I guess I am just trying to get the hard facts, you know, if you were pinned down and brutally honest, is there a chance, it doesn't matter how small, just a tiny, tiny chance that relativity is mathematical model that works (modern epicycles) as opposed to being the literal truth.

I have been following this thread and I don't feel like the original question has really been addressed, but I am going somewhere with this and a few of the posts made by people touch on the same point I am going to make now. Prior to the Copernican Revolution we had theories that effectively modelled the motion of celestial bodies (Ptolemaic model), however following the revolution we discover the model, while having explanatory power, was not a reflection of the of the underlying reality. Now people may have their opinions on this but my own is that relativity is a modern version of epicycles, basically a mathematical model that works but does not reflect the underlying reality. Can physicists authoritatively say that, for example, spacetime is quite literally bending as modelled in relativity or would they accept there is a very small chance that relativity is nothing more than modern epicycles?

As I understand it Newton said that while he could model gravity mathematically he could not explain exactly what is was, however, with Einstien we now understand gravity to be (the geometry?) of spacetime bending/warping. Does this mean that gravity is not a force as such?

That great thanks, this looks interesting and I will investigate the information and resources provided to see if I can get a better understand of things.

I just somehow imagined that this issue would have come up when people were looking at this problem, and that consequently I could learn about it. I kind of find it hard to believe that it has never been discussed. Its true i am not providing an explanation for why the atoms may vibrate at a higher or lower speed, but surely this question would have come up at some point, and disscussed? It can be quite difficult to find information about really specific points hence coming to this forum hoping to speak to a person who could actually clear this up for me. If I am honest I am skeptical about relativity. Given the choice between, say, is relativity "sophisticated mathematics that works" or "a deeper insight in the nature of reality", I would favor the former over the latter. Of course thats my opinion, and other people may have theirs, thats why I would like to get down to the facts about a few specific points. Time dialation is one of those points and I will be making posts regarding other points. I am then going to compile this into a video with the results....in fact I might create a post that explains what I am trying to achieve with the video and provides links to the individual posts.... Again, while I am thankful for the links and what look interesting reads, I would really like to hammer away one final time at this single following point: Has what I have brought up, namely alterative interperations of this particular phenomna, been discussed in full? If so, by whom and in what papers?

Could you provide a convient link to the history of science regarding this subject, if there is one? I am happy to read or watch a video, it obviously started with Einstein and relativity but what about other people and the papers they produced since Einstein and up to the experiment? While I am thankful for the answers provided this maybe more useful than technical replies at this stage. If there is not a convient link could someone put together a number of links that sort of explain the history, or, and I know its asking a lot because not everyones going to have the time, provide a summary I could use to investigate further? Thanks very much.

Thank you sincerely for taking the time out to answer my question, however I most aplogise and reinterate the question in the hope of getting a solid answer I can understand. Atomic clocks keep time by using the vibrations of an atom. We have one on the earth, one flying round the earth in a plane, the clocks lose sync, this is a common explanation if this experiement. Now the most obvious explanation is that flying the plane around the earth is causing the atom to vibrate a higher or lower speed accounting for the difference between two. This is very simple and ordinary, intuitive and obvious, however... I am now presented with a different explanation (relativity) that is not only very complicated in comparison to the above, it also requires you to essentially believe that time itself is flowing differently for each clock (time dialation). That is kind of extraordinary and non-intuitive. Given occams razor surely one would choose the simpler of the two as an explanation. However this is not the case, at some point the scientific community must have dissmissed the simple notion I have put forward in favour of the complex one, I assume. My question is, when did this discussion, and consequently the decsion to choose the more complex explanation over the simple one, take place? Who was the discussion between? This must have happened as I find it hard to believe that no one would ever think of this. Thanks again, sorry for being so persistent.