qsa

Thanks for the reply. ok,here is the link, not sure why it is not working. http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=431256 Also studying this one http://www.cs.indiana.edu/pub/hanson/Siggraph01QuatCourse/ggndgeom.pdf

let me ask you a hypothetical question. If in ten or twenty years time a theory is found that reality is a very natural process and does not need any creator and becomes the mainstream. Will you concede, or will you still believe in God b/c that is your choice no matter.

I think the case today is mostly Urban vs nonUrban. I travel a lot everywhere and I have seen that. As the population move into the urban areas( the economy becoming service based) you will see the typical libral atitude given certain amount of time. it is the same in the ME. even in the old day people of the city where different ,you could see that in their poems ,stories ,arts ... But now ME is highly urbanised and culture slowly changing. my brother lives in the upper floor and we go to the same family business but I hardly ever see him. In both cultures all kind of groups exist from fanatics to the librals to gays to hardworking to the lazy to racist to the humanist to the consevatives to the Promiscuous to .. and there is no general rule as to who has more or less of each at any cetain time local. Although, society always plays the coverup.

Thank you for reply again. I basically agree with everything that you have said. I have explicitly and implicitly admitted to what I have been able to make sense of and how much. The sad thing is that I have not gotten much attention because that was the whole purpose of the exercise is to see what other people make of it and what mistakes I have made since like I said it is in my interest. I replied to your post in less than two minutes when you pointed my error, that was really nice. Because I saw the behaviour that I show in the thumbnail before but did not pay attention to it that much and it was not clear because of the error that you pointed out. So when that cleared up the new picture became much more clear and I caught it, thanks to you. That is why I said I am sad, because people here demand some real math in the theory and I show it with simulation, yet people who wrote prose got much more attention, not that there is anything wrong with that. The physical picture is building up very slowly. but even the formulas I show I have hard time fiquring out what is going on. Still I am having a very vague idea what is going on since I have not shown you many other results and I also know what I need to do to have a better picture. and I don't blame the reader because my website writeup is a disaster of its own. But basically the equivalence to standard physics is coming from the fourier wave analysis. As to the whole of physics I agree it is a quite bit strong, but not entirely untrue from the large amount of evidence of both the shown and the unshown. But since this is not a publication it is only in the debug stage so I thought of doing clever advertizing! I do hope to publish soon in My link after more solid results are worked out. I will post the X axis soon, it is probably the most clear and interesting result. Thank you again. P.S. how did you find the links that I have posted in my last post. Speaking of coincidence. I calculate alpha (FSC) in my program with few terms that are an output of the simulation. the difference was something like .000004, it drove me nuts for months. Until I found out that it was pure concidence becaus of the closeness of 4/alpha*m to 1000000 , how much honesty do you want. untile I found the reasonable formula for alpha which I have shown.

Ok, here is the the electron mass and spin relation. if you look at the attachment you will see as the particle size approches 1823,1822,1821 then at 1820 you get a flip in those notches and the frequency becomes minimum. I interpret that there is a relation such as 1820+3(charge square)=1823 which is almost electron mass. also the same behaviuor appears at 1820*5, 1820*3,1820*2,1820*2,1820*1,1820/2,1820/3,1820/4 ... I am not sure at all what is going on, but the simulation don't lie. If it is some kind of coincidence , well that will be strange to say the least. but there is also some support form the X axis simulation also. but again I have to put it in a presentable form. attached mass.txt has the code just plug the the particle size (1823 ....) into d0 and d1 in the code. take the data from "y5a.txt" and put it in excel sheet and plot. Please erase "y5a.txt". before you run again for different particle number. change code to prevent from repeated runs from for (mk = 1; mk <= 100; mk++) to for (mk = 1; mk <= 1; mk++) mass.txt

As a person who lived on both sides I would say funamentally there is no difference, we all act like humans. We are just colored by our governments by their propaganda in the interest of the elites and the national geopolitics needs which is about economy(money) in the end. Most differences in each society comes from the experiences of ones enviroment, like education in all of its forms, small town big town, travel experience and so on. and these influences have different strengths in each area and country.

Thank you for the reply,much appreciated. As for that programing error took me less that 3 seconds to realize it when you pointed it out. But otherwise I have checked for the possible errors that you have mentioned. As for Mermin paper ,which I have seen before, its points are well taken. It remains to be seen how my theory is to be interpreted in its context. As for the cult thing, it simply does not apply to me. I am a very well to do person with a history of many success on my side and also I have a patent. Like I have explained a bit in my website I have a Masters in EE from University of Sussex , and I keep my mind sharp by reading about complicated stuff with physics and other things. Although, I cannot claim to be a high end physicist but I have read a lot in the area ,up to the latest QG theories, and I do have the basics albiet far from full. I guess what I mean is that I know very well how science works and I am very well aware of the cult example pitfalls. I tinker with ideas for fun. like I also mentioned in my web the result that I got was a COMPLETE surprise to me, I had a gut feeling about the idea , but NEVER expected those results. As you may know, which I came to know much later, that people like Wolfram (New kind of science-google-) and Conaway game of life have consciously persued such ideas righlty from their experience with physics. But fortunatly I did not, and I did not even know about them at the time. Nor, I knew of Dr. Tegmark's conjecture which I think my theory proves, somewhat at least. I arrived at it from a very different prespective. Now, you could look at it as if it is a fourth method of doing QM ( the others,schrodinger,matrix,path integral), but from a very diffrent prespective. Whether that adds something very new or not is to be seen. My first impression is that it seems to justify my claim, but I cannot be very sure. That is the whole purpose of these discussions. BTW, I have again connected electron mass to spin, I think there are no errors this time. I will post that when I put the material in a presentable form. it involves few graphs. As to your knowledge of quantum physics I hope somebody with experience can help, maybe somebody you know. But thank you very much anyway. Mathematical Universe theory,wiki A new kind of science, Wolfram

Thanks for the reply. But there is also this link, see last post. it is saying in 4D "it is very special situation" what is meant by that. My link I am specificly asking about 4D and higher. would two lines intersect as shown in attachment. Is there a reference I can study. I don't seem to find much on google.

I typically run a simulation that draws a line between two random point in 3d space. then I throw two random numbers that represent two lines ( see red lines in attachment) starting from the two previuos points and sit on top of the original line. if the lengths of those two lines are such that they cross I update a register. I repeat that J times. I want to generalize this to higher than 3d. Is that possible and is it unique. Please provide any links to such information. Please check this thread, the last post, it says the concept of line (or I guess he means line intersection ) does not work in higer than 3d. I wonder why. My link Thank you for your help.

Thank you for catching the 1823, error. I just simulated that few days back, I guess doing a ton of simulations with code makes you do a lot of mistakes, which I have done plenty of. But still that is a good start. Anyway, I appreciate your help a lot, and if it turns out that the theory is just a mathematical illusion then that will be a relief eventually. And if it has any value no matter how small then I will be just glad, either way I win. I do hope you stay with me until it is resolved. But for your first question the output sine^2 wave simulates the shrodinger equation solution for particle in a box, ie with infinite potential. The constraint is just not to allow the random lines to go out of bound. particle in a box just corrected the link, I am new here.

I derive the whole of physics from a simple postulate " Reality is a Mathematical structure". It is the only dynamic structure possible using fundamental entity which is a random line. Particles are modelled as end of lines, one end is confined to a small region and the other to other particles in the universe. I simulate , with a simple C++ program,two particles interacting in 2D by counting the lengths of the random lines that cross each other from the two particles. In the X-axis I get the 1/r law for coulomb potential.The system automatically reproduces the hydrogen 1s energy. The secret is that in my system the Hamiltonian is an output and not an input. when lines meet that is gravity. NOW for the big surprise. In the Y-axis the particles can only interact on a region set only by their width and it is NOT dependant on the distance between them. so each on can be at the other side of the universe. and the expectation value are always the opposite of each other, one is negative the other is positive. Please click new developments in my website and be sure to go where I show the relation between spin and mass. You can verify the results for yourself by running the simple C++ program. QSA theory check out these formulas that I deduce from my theory, these are NOT a guessed formulas. alpha=α = 7.297352533(27) × 10−3 let m= 27*(1/(2*alpha) -(.5*alpha) -1) + (alpha/(2*PI)) m=1822.888474(approx)..... the term (alpha/(2*PI)) it is related to spin .................................................. .................................................. .............. Also first term 27*(1/(2*alpha) )=1849.98599... Two terms 27*(1/(2*alpha) -1 )= 1822.98599 average (1849.98599+1822.98599)/2 -1/3= 1836.15266 electron-proton ratio, strange ha !!! Actually 27=3^3, 3 is equal to e^2(charge squared!!) in my system, the long term not the running phase. Also reversing the relation I find 1/alpha= (2/3)(1/m*e^4) +2 +(3/2)(m*e^4) Approx.(m=1/1822.8885) (e^2=3), e^4=9 beautiful symmetry. all these equation can also be written in a form that uses the golden and silver ratios (google) α

hi maruikia, That is really a very smart theory that you have, simply brilliant. I was just about to post my own theory which is ,more or less, your idea. Here is a quick write up My theory Quantum Statistical Automata explains how entanglement comes about and how spin is related to electron mass. I derive the whole of physics from a simple postulate " Reality is a Mathematical structure". It is the only dynamic structure possible using fundamental entity which is a random line. Particles are modelled as end of lines, one end is confined to a small region and the other to other particles in the universe. I simulate , with a simple C++ program,two particles interacting in 2D by counting the lengths of the random lines that cross each other from the two particles. In the X-axis I get the 1/r law for coulomb potential.The system automatically reproduces the hydrogen 1s energy. The secret is that in my system the Hamiltonian is an output and not an input. when lines meet that is gravity. NOW for the big surprise. In the Y-axis the particles can only interact on a region set only by their width and it is NOT dependant on the distance between them. so each on can be at the other side of the universe. and the expectation value are always the opposite of each other, one is negative the other is positive. Please click new developments in my website and be sure to go where I show the relation between spin and mass. You can verify the results for yourself by running the simple C++ program. http://www.qsa.netne.net qsa theory check out these formulas that I deduce from my theory alpha=α = 7.297352533(27) × 10−3 let m= 27*(1/(2*alpha) -(.5*alpha) -1) + (alpha/(2*PI)) m=1822.888474(approx)..... the term (alpha/(2*PI)) it is related to spin .................................................. .................................................. .............. Also first term 27*(1/(2*alpha) )=1849.98599... Two terms 27*(1/(2*alpha) -1 )= 1822.98599 average (1849.98599+1822.98599)/2 -1/3= 1836.15266 electron-proton ratio, strange ha !!! Actually 27=3^3, 3 is equal to e^2(charge squared!!) in my system, the long term not the running phase. Also reversing the relation I find 1/alpha= (2/3)(1/m*e^4) +2 +(3/2)(m*e^4) Approx.(m=1/1822.8885) (e^2=3), e^4=9 beautiful symmetry. all these equation can also be written in a for that uses the golden and silver ratios (google) α