qsa

quote from wiki Since most physicists would consider the statement of the underlying rules to suffice as the definition of a "theory of everything", most physicists argue that Gödel's Theorem does not mean that a TOE cannot exist. http://en.wikipedia....y_of_everything however, my definition of TOE is more loaded than JUST unifying forces. But it is still less than tackling consciousness, which I think it is not fundamental. Also, Penrose comments are misinterpreted. The idea of simulating the universe did not just come from VR, but from many other considerations. The latest being quantum computing. Nobody said it is simple or can be done for sure. It is just a conjecture from many evidences that one day in the distant future it MIGHT be possible. Of course the type of TOE that we will have in hand will greatly influence that possibility.

http://www.idsia.ch/...eruniverse.html My theory seems to indicate that it is possible (at least a small universe). I have made a rough estimate that we need to cannibalize one galaxy to produce enough computers at today's power to it. How hard is that? It depends. But I keep wondering if this universe produced a conscious being should we help him with his troubles, or should we ignore him since little simulation hurt nobody!!

I have already explained the domain of theories and how we view them in the previous posts. So far in all of physics theories AND philosophy we do not talk about writing equation of universe in the sense that you are talking about. We are after the building blocks and their origins, once we have that then other questions might follow and some other conclusions might be derived from that. And that should lead to more understanding of origin of the universe and its fate, but not the equation of the universe in your sense. Unless we become very confident of our discoveries( supper accurate and solvable/simulatable) and tells us that simulating a small universe is possible in some future time.

It is in the same sense as you flip a dice, we know the law that controls it but it would be cumbersome to calculate how it will end up. But that does not diminish the classical law.

The main idea in all present theories is to have a unified principle to describe particles and forces, and from that to explain the cosmic problem. My theory seems to do the former well in a natural way, but it is to early for the later. I doubt if you will have a realistic equation for the universe, since in QM we have a hard time tracking individual particles (even in principle) let alone the universe.

What is meant in the first sentence is that if reality is not math then what is it. We can also say water is water and air is air, so what. Yes, math is the pattern that we observe reality with, that is the whole point. This is how we do science, we say the only thing that we can know are these patterns. But I say from my theory it appears that these patterns look very much like the patterns that we notice in mathematical objects (like circle and triagles for simplicity) which have no underlying cause and they stand on their own. Hence, nature IS a mathematical structure ( or object, albiet with complexity but which arises from realtively simple relations).

In SR the observers measurement depends on his relative velocity and it is considered REAL and not an illution. That is your take which really shows what kind of a problem you are having. The business of modeling physics have been going on for hunderds of years, and accepted by ALL humans. They accepted it because of the benefits. You must of heard, Knowledge is power, and that is attained by standard scientific methods. Hence, your assertion that such methods keep us in the dark is utterly incorrect, to put it mildly. You have bypassed my arquement that in all areas of physics from hundred of years all we do is model. We use wavefunction in QM , and we don't even know if it is real or not, yet it works remarkably. Address this issue, do not run away from it. BTW, this is how science works. We make REASONABLE assumptions and if that leads to a theory that predicts something that we can measure in lab, then we say the assumptions are TRUE no doubt, unless a new knowledge comes to light.

Of course we know how well that math works to describe reality that is not new, but it is more correct to say that we don't know what nature is made of, mathematics or otherwise. But because our understanding of nature has grown tremendously in the past hundred years or so, it was the scientists in the field who got to consider that nature looks like it has more than this casual relation with mathematics. It was not just the suggestion of that casual relation but also the deeper understanding of how nature seems to be constructed. While we don't understand a lot of things about nature, it was this comprehendible thing about it that made many scientists make that connection. The quote of Wigner's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is very well known and pointed to as one of the first hints. Another hint you can see in the classic textbook by Wheeler , Misner and Thorne GRAVITATION where the first attempts were made to drive the law of physics by logic which they called pre-calculus. As our knowledge increased more people got to consider it like Wolfram in New Kind of Science, Conaway's game of life, all kinds of automata ideas, Fractals and not the least as we got hints from how computers generate virtual realities. But the grand slam belonged to Dr. Tegmark with his MUH. So this idea did not happen in one go but in a continuous fashion. But the man who put that in words that I think is most beautiful is wheeler. 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? you can also get some idea from http://www.fqxi.org/...kles_fqxi_2.pdf I did not say that reality is a mathematical structure and stopped. I show some evidence. maybe you can say that your evidence is not good enough because ....so and so. Mathematics has a lot of philosophical issues. like is there anything deeper as to the reason of their compelling truth, to my knowledge most agree that no reason is there or needed. as to where those numbers exist, I take a guess and say WE are the living proof, derived from my theory.

Thanks for the reply much appreciated. Of course I am well aware of all the short comings you listed. As you well know docummantation is both boring and seems tediuos when many changes occur while I am actively developing it. But it is prudent to do it good if others have to invest their time in it. So I promise to clean it up and show you the essential feature with minimum effort and time on your part. I will do my best to get you interested again, mind you my theory only deals with the basic of QM and QFT. BTW, which OS and C++ version are you using.

md65536, will you help me in confirming the results of the simulations at least, since you seem to be a good programmer. you can PM your answer if you like. sorry I can't pay you for that ,because that will raise my Baez crackpot index. I have a reputation to keep, you know.

http://bookofodds.com/Accidents-Death/Natural-Disasters-Hazards/Articles/A0284-Danger-Falling-Objects

The many contradictions in your statments tells that you want to blieve what you believe regardless. First , you ask for an answer, yet you confess you don't want to rely on "expertise". So you want just words that make "sense" without any mathematical proofs, sorry no such thing in science. Lets say somebody comes up with the correct theory, he states it and stops. NOBODY will take his words no matter how correct in reality, he must show the work. So you must accept the scientific methods first which you seem to have a big problem with. NO other talk will help. But if you do understand how and why scientific methods are used then the problem automatically disappears for you. Second, you accept SR that says space and time strech and contract yet you do not accept GR!! and you say it is evident against all other people like you yourself showed from wiki. Since nobody expected that ,and it just became clear when very high speed are taken into account which we normaly do not experience. BTW, there are techniques to derive GR from SR(in a heuristic way). Third, you by passed my arquement about matter being treated as "points" in both classical and quantum which is NOT an "evident" thing. BTW, do you accept QM. But most of all you do not get the idea that what we do in physics we MODEL, not by choice but by imperativeness. I can show you many many example of why and how, but I feel you will still not get it since you have not done any real scientific type work. But it is not all your fault, the education system is to be greatly blamed for not clarifying this point early on in senior high school. That is why people who do not finish college have hard time with the concept, as is evident in many forums. I do not care if you have the specific titles or not, but you must have studied the subject as if you would have been trying to get the title. There are many people whom physics is not their main subject, yet I know many that know the subject even more than typical physicist. You can guess why ,right!

Thanks for the reply. While it is true that there is a controversy of math being "invented" vs "discovered", but I would say the vast majority agree that reality and math is outside of our minds and objective. And in science they are treated as so. Our mind does not make up the concept of circle. My system uses a computer program to prove the point, but I suspect someday an equivalent mathematical system can be produced. It just seems so much easier to do it with a computer program, say, just like CDT(casual dynamic triangulation)-google-. So it is not about a computer program it is the mathematical structure that is important. Here is the most important first result from the three results that I will show. The results confirm that the classical Bohr Model falls out from QSA model which encompasses QM and QFT. It is generated using the same program listed in post # 11 Please always refer to these wiki http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bohr_radius http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bohr_model this is the result of simulating two particles with a width of 1823 which is close to 1822.8885 for electron compton wavelength (just simplification)interacting at a seperation of around Bohr radius which is 1/(m*alpha)=1/(.00054858*.007297352569) = 249801.3 the raw data is below from the program with int=50. also make this change in the program to get these results for (mk = 2475; mk <= 500000000; mk++) also d0 =1823; // Particle 1 size d1 = 1823; // Particle 2 size long long kj =20000000000; // # of random throws (approx 30 min for each distance) but next I give the important data that we will discuss distance energy (P.E.) charge^2(e^2) Expectation value(Ex) 249323 0.0000120326 3.000003457 2.219640631 249423 0.0000120278 2.999998876 2.219325817 249523 0.0000120229 3.000000804 2.217591031 249623 0.0000120181 3.000000809 2.217731633 249723 0.0000120133 2.999998829 2.215744702 249823 0.0000120085 3.000006682 2.215434488 249923 0.0000120037 2.999998356 2.214921159 because I have the 1/r law I interpret the energy as e^2/r , e=charge so if you multiply distance *energy(P.E.)= e^2=3 as shown, the average of above e^2= 3.000001, but we will take 3 to simplify. then because we know alpha I deduce that ( from alpha=e ^2/(h*c)) h*c=e^2/alpha= 3/ .007297352569= 411.108 from other arguments I have h=c= sqrt(411.108)= 20.2758 Now, the important part which Expectation value(Ex for short) after inspection I find it to be related to the classical bohr model variables Ex=v^2/(2*m*e^4) ---------- eq 1 solving for v^2=(2*m*e^4)*Ex --------------- eq 2 from above simulation the average of Ex= 2.2172 almost hence v^2= (2*.0005485*9)*2.2172= 0.0218936 v= sqrt(0.0218936)= 0.14797 now we compute v/c=0.14797/20.2758= 0.0072976 v/c should be alpha we have a very good match with some error mostly because of Ex which we can simulate with higher j thows to get more accuracy and also due to the approxomation of 1823 and 1822.8885 Great we proved that Ex is what it is and h=c next from eq 1 we can compute the kinetic energy K.E.= (m^2*e^4)*Ex=(1/2)*m*v^2=.5*.00054858*0.0218936 = 0.000006005195544 2*K.E.= 0.000012010 That is Bohr Model P.E.= 2*K.E. So the energy has the interpretation of potential energy and Ex is related to K.E. , that makes perfect sense also if we take 1/(2*Ex)=1/(2*2.2172)=0.22551 almost m*c^2 m*c^2=.00054858*411.108= 0.225526 errors should be taken into account as mentioned earlier Q.E.D 2475 249323 1.2032598102434993e-005 5.9941919763095141e-006 3.0000034566933995 1.823 2.2196406306904919 -2.1562643940237649 2476 249423 1.2027755561853412e-005 5.9917972737823617e-006 2.9999988755041636 1.823 2.2193258174578432 -2.1564566940604664 2477 249523 1.202294299276971e-005 5.9894015680537819e-006 3.0000008043848765 1.823 2.2175910306876858 -2.1541575969249607 2478 249623 1.2018126569310113e-005 5.9870183764102081e-006 3.0000008086108982 1.823 2.2177316327685048 -2.1541184268552342 2479 249723 1.2013306059579073e-005 5.9846252913626688e-006 2.9999988291162647 1.823 2.2157447018220182 -2.1534291553698495 2480 249823 1.2008528765272037e-005 5.9822392351484673e-006 3.000006681726556 1.823 2.2154344880241297 -2.1517840085696207 2481 249923 1.2003690562073311e-005 5.9798542464554e-006 2.9999983563450483 1.823 2.2149211586316824 -2.1521569239379232

This is just a write up on the background of the theory Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. So, to my mind I connect both since both seem to be a statement of truth. So I took a guess that reality is something akin to a circle (truth). The relations between the points give you a mathematical structure whereby you get PI which defines the structure of the circle. So I was thinking the relation(s) between what entity(s) could give a rise to a universe (truth). To come up with a structure with some entities, the easiest way was to see if I could draw two entities and define some kind a rule for their interaction. At that time I was familiar with fractals and vaguely heard of Conaways idea, but I said let me see maybe I will be smarter than Conaway and get some really fancy rule between some triangle or circles or lines or whatever. But as soon as I put a blank sheet in front of me ,for a short while I thought to myself this sounds very enigmatic, first by what criteria I am going to choose my entity, and which characteristic of that entity I was going to interrelate them and what expression. Choosing by trial and error was not very natural. My intuition was telling me I needed something more natural. Being an engineer and a programmer we learn to be efficient in our designs. So I opted first for the simplest configuration and that was point and to start simple and not to draw points all over the paper, I restricted myself to a line. Now, if I iterate on an artificial formula I will just get fractals which has already been tried which gives you beautiful suggestive pictures but that's all. Also the different formulas I could use were most unnatural. So I thought the only way out is to throw random numbers on the line and see what happens. Off course, after a bit more than few seconds it was obvious I am going to get a uniformly distributed points on the line, I don't have to tell you that I was sad at that point( although I should have been happy as hell, you will see why). How I was to get out of this conundrum, other than mangling that paper, throwing it in the garbage can and go to a party. The only other thing to do was to throw random lines that did not exceed an original line of length L. One more choice was necessary is to choose where those lines started, the obvious choice was random position on that line L. Simulating this concept with simple BASIC program and using the simplest constraint , to eliminate the lines that went out of the L bound I plotted the probability of hitting the positions on the line L. And WOW sin^2 the solution to Schrodinger equation(actually psi square) in an infinite potential well. The rest of the story of multi axis, general potential, and interaction and so on you can read about it in the website.

I would like to ask you (or anybody else) for a favour to run the program that reproduces above results to check that i have not made any silly mistakes. I thank you whether you can help or not. But first let me explain a bit about the program. the thumbnail shows 1D implementation. 1,2,3,4,.... are the number of loops. in each loop I throw two numbers for each particle denoting their position and length. if the lines cross (star) I ignore I don't register the position( the round marks) or don't do anything with the lines. But if they don't cross then I have a counter that updates the number of times a hit happened in the particular position (the squared marks). then for each particle I have a counter that simply adds the lengths of this line to the previous total for each particle. I do that(loops) a million, sometimes a 100 trillion times. then I normalize to the number of throws. the totals of the lines(normalized) are the energy. the numbers of hits for each positions is operated on to get the expectation values. normalized position hits are the probabilities that are similar to the ones we get from the "squaring" of the wavefunction. Without interaction the expectation value is the midpoint of the particle. But when interaction happens the expectation value moves. lets say to left in the left particle and right in the right particle. That denotes a repulsion. you can also get attraction with different logic. But more on the logic part later. then the particles are moved to a different distance and the operation is repeated. Now I explain the code in more detail. see attached file. The code that you see is the cleaned up version of the one in the website. 1. define variables/types 2. set the particle widths (d0,d1) , which I interpret as the compton wavelength, I assume lamda= h/mc the model shows (I will show why) that h=c , so lamda =1/m ,then I choose m to be in au hence if m=.0005485 then lamda=1822.8885 units of length on the axis/line . more on scale later. 3. set the interval (intr), that is used as a quantity to increas the distance between the particles after the calculation finished for certain distance. 4. start the mk loop that will increase the distance between the particle after each iteration. 5. based on mk value set the positions of the particles,zero out some of the variables need be. f1 is the number of hits for crossing f for not crossing. Zero out the arrays (S[],Sy[]),that hold the hits for each position on the axis/line. 6. next is the j loop the heart of the program, it iterates on the random throws 7. don't worry about these lines, not important long r= rand(); double rndm=(double)r/((double)RAND_MAX); 8. calculate the start of the lines from inside of the particles and the length of the lines shooting to the other particl all based on random numbers. 9. use if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) to check if lines crossed or not. 10. if not crossed update the position hit by incrementing the counter S[] for that position. add the random line to an acummulation counter (en). I do that for one of the particles only. the other will be similar. While I said I don't do anything when lines crossed but in this program I do the same using Sy[], en1 just for information. I will talk more about it later. 11.go to 6 12. when done with j loop normalize the energy en to the numbers of throws accepted frf = (double)f/en; //energy of the particle 13. calculate the expectation value for the position array S[] -over the width of the particles. edx = edx + (( n) * S[n]); calculate how much exectation is offset from center of the particle ex[mk] = (double)edx / ((double)f)- (0.5 * int(w*d1))+.5 ; 14. update all data in file for that seperation. 15 . go to mk loop for new seperation distance 16. done To get the said graph you have to run it several times with these parameters. d0=d1= 5,50,200,500,1500,1647,1966 what ever you like up 2000 is ok. just plot distance vs frf(energy)[second and third output columns] for the different runs of particle sizes. but make mk start=0 and intr =50 and kj= 500000000 for 150 points run for each particle will take 2 hours. for 5 particles 10 hours and you are done. you can also run it for only 3 runs for d0=d1=5,200,1500 to get a rough idea. Take the data to a spreadsheet(excel) and plot. you can also change to for (kk = 0; kk <= 10000000; kk++) just to be on the safe side.also change to following long long w =1; qsaclean.txt

URAIN, Look What I have found for you, you will love it. Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia Abstract Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Experimental date confirms that changes and clocks do not run time; they run in quantum space only. Time is not a part of quantum space. Quantum space itself is timeless. In the universe as a whole amount of matter energy and amount of quantum space energy is constant. Density of mass and density of quantum space in a given volume of quantum space tends to be constant. Mass here is considered as a compressed energy of quantum space. Presence of mass in a given volume of quantum space diminishes its density. Massive objects move always into direction of lover density of quantum space. Gravitational motion of massive objects is result of change of density of quantum space. In space with no change of density massive object will not have gravitational motion as in centre of stellar objects or in a flat quantum space where massive objects are far away. Change of density of quantum space corresponds in General Theory of Relativity to the change of the curvature of space. Lower is density of quantum space bigger is its curvature. Here is introduced density/curvature of quantum space. Change of density of quantum space corresponds in General Theory of Relativity to the change of the curvature of space. Lower is density of quantum space bigger is its curvature. Here is introduced density/curvature of quantum space. My link this guy has an article for physorg.org My link2

anil, this is from wiki,Newton's first law Newton's first law is a restatement of the law of inertia which Galileo had already described and Newton gave credit to Galileo. Aristotle had the view that all objects have a natural place in the universe: that heavy objects like rocks wanted to be at rest on the Earth and that light objects like smoke wanted to be at rest in the sky and the stars wanted to remain in the heavens. He thought that a body was in its natural state when it was at rest, and for the body to move in a straight line at a constant speed an external agent was needed to continually propel it, otherwise it would stop moving. Galileo, however, realized that a force is necessary to change the velocity of a body, i.e., acceleration, but no force is needed to maintain its velocity. This insight leads to Newton's First Law —no force means no acceleration, and hence the body will maintain its velocity. What was "evident" (your word) to Aristotle and the ancients was not so evident for galileo. It depends on how you scrutinize. Also let me ask you do you believe in Special Relativity.And Why do you think it was discovered. Let me add this. In classical electrodynamics we model particles as points (notice the word) with a property of charge that affects other particles; so where is this "evident" that you talk about. These are just models we come up with based on experiments. Do enough actual science and you will get the hang of it.

Anil, I am not trying to make fun of you, I apologize if it looked that way. The basic idea is to try to show where you have gone wrong in the quickest way. I did not want to repeat what others have told you. just wanted to say it in different way hopping you will understand it better. Your main problem is that many people tried to tell you that in science we only talk about epistemological models and not ontological. We have no access to the ontological (actual entities). For example, in the 1800's people might have thought that those lines of force are real, now we know better. this is another way of telling you that we describe and not explain. if you get this idea then it will be a lot easier to understand physics. Also we describe matter as wavefunction, we have no idea what this wavefunction is exactly. Is it ontological or otherwise. I hope we don't have to repeat this important part.

I agree with you. I was just suggesting like a journalist (cohen,jewish) will instigate a war and convince the public in the west that such war is in their interest-and its coming no doubt ,he suggests-, while the opposite could be true. My analysis is that the west knows that Iran could not take such actions. But the game is part of a bigger geopolitical interests that involves all major world powers. With Israel trying to take advantage of the contradictions.

Thank you for aceraining my premise and conclusion My link

Israel is a huge liability. without US(and west) support it can hardly defend itself let alone help the US for anything. That is WHY one US president after another has iterated on the guarantee for Israel security. The Jews have enormous political and economical power in the west. That is what promted Hitler to counter act that. The Jews played central roles in all WWI,WWII wars. There are no real problems between arabs and the west except for Israels support. the arabs have to sell their oil. It is the chaos that can and have disrupted the oil flow. And that choas is the instability that was created by the creation of state of Israel.The volatility is coming from that. The arabs have not had any wars between them for hundreds of years. nothing minutly like european/american inter wars.

I guess you mean this Illuminati My link

if you read a bit about the link you would have seen that it is related because it telling the story of physics from before Newton to the 1950's not in just words but how we get the equations. you should have seen how humans grew out of describing nature by pure analogy like plato's cave to the more mathematical modeling were we concentrate on describing the phenamenon rather than explaining. your way and many others on speculations seem to take us back to the plato's time. Almost all people have said their piece and stopped responding to you, and you never reponded to my question in a direct way. I also have only limited patience in trying to help you. But my response carries also a message to the wider audience since it is a forum ( public debate) after all. Also your english is very poor. certain things you say we can take a good guess what you are trying to say even if its wrong. but combining wrong statements, wrong way of explaining and bad english you make the reader in a total state of confusion.

Anil and urain You will do yourselves a world of good by downloading these classics. Read them they are really fun, maybe you will learn something, I can't garantee that, you can. (also try Volume II) . My link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...