kristalris

Will what you say that I should do further bring the idea any closer to it being tested on what I'm already very sure it requires a simulation on a supercomputer? Most certainly not. Only trying to get backing or put someone on the idea who does have the means to do so is a possible route.

Indeed you are not a liberty to take anything you like as being true or not true on MN. You are of course at liberty - and even scientifically required - to check by experiment and observation as primary method anything you feel like. That is the basis observations and thus not mathematics. The hypothesis is that the balls will go to order. If so then any (not too small a) virtual box of space can be seen as a box with infinitely thick walls. If it fails it is irrelevant. This as a dictate of logic. I don't think any textbook deals with this idea because it is new as far as I know. And I don't need a textbook for the logic. Do you?

If you have an infinite amount of the particles distributed across the infinite universe and it is a given that these particles are hitting each other then you can take it any way you like. The question then is more one whether or not it is orderly or chaotic or a combination of the two? I.e. the test I propose is a closed box in order to simulate an open system in which any not too small a box has infinitely thick walls. The proposed test is pragmatic (if it is feasible that is) and has as a test thus nothing to do with metaphysics or philosophy anymore. It only stems from that and will if the test is successful have great ramifications on physics. So nothing to do with that yet. As such because the test describes an idealized computable situation it is in fact a pure mathematical problem. Are you thus calling the simulation of a pure mathematical problem not pragmatic? It is a proposed computed way to get at very relevant mathematics akin the way that fractals were found.

I edited the garbled bit, I had to leave in a hurry. I thought I checked it. Sorry. Science holds more than just physics for it includes metaphysics where the OP clearly stems from. I.e. the OP starts off from a question on something inherently immeasurable. Whereas physics sec only concerns itself with what is measurable. Although more and more physicists are thinking about multiverses / the shape of the universe et cetera. Granted they do this via mathematics. The point is logic dictates that you shouldn't only do that. Logic presides over mathematics and not vice versa. In other words mathematics is a tool of logic. A magnificent and essential tool but a tool nonetheless. You approach the OP as only a pure physics problem, whereas it is as said metaphysics and the computer simulation in fact a pure mathematical question. That the model is exact enough for a computer expert of actually doing the test is indisputable. Even agreed upon BTW. That if it goes to any sort of order will have huge ramifications in the sense of immediately causing a paradigm shift in physics on the second law, is undeniable and, doesn't make it a physics test. So why apply physics norms? It is a computer simulation to get to a mathematical formula on a metaphysics question. Maybe not in physics but in science there is only one option left to decide the issue and that is falsify it, by showing it to fail the test of logic, the test of mathematics or the test of experiment; the latter to the degree that is claimed by the prediction and logically not by what physicists assume to be sufficiently accurate. Rule of logic. Ergo, the test is potentially extremely important if it succeeds, it can at this moment not be shown to fail, and the test is very simple. Logic dictates science doing the test by experiment (unless it can show fallacy, mathematical impossibility (you simply don't have the required input for that) or that the test already has been done to the claimed level of accuracy required - which you can't either - or that the effort and cost are prohibitive. Sufficient reason is that we indisputably see more order in the system than current science can explain and this begs the question if we have truly done everything possible to exclude gravity out of the equation? Answer: clearly not. There thus is no logical further reason required not to investigate further.

The test of mathematics is (more or less!) exactly what you ask me to do. If I don't provide quantitative predictions (to a high degree so not just saying "it will go to order when you do stated experiment") this fails in your opinion if none is given. The 'no one"you refer to is then the convention that states this requirement. A requirement thus not based on logic but on some sort of majority even when it infringes on logic. You et all - assume - that the second law is irrespective of gravity having particles not stick a bit causing chaos based on what you assume is an accurate enough measurement providing a means to say the effect is cancelled out or negligible. Thus an inaccurate test is provided to oppose where logic dictates an accurate one is required. Yes you can describe the bulk properties in such a way that it at a certain level is accurate enough. That thus doesn't disprove anything stated logically because to do that it must be accurate enough. To establish how accurate is on the claimant to provide as a prediction. This can be done by simply providing a test of which it is nigh absolutely certain that all gravity effects have truly been eliminated sufficiently. Basic very common error in reasoning when in effect applying correct production norms on research questions. In production you correctly demand extreme care before doing anything else than you have been doing even if this doing is illogical or not very accurate. If it works it works. In research it is exactly the other way round. You may test on an inherently inaccurate hunch but when you test it must be up to the required degree of accuracy. In research you may thus make errors. In production you may not. So given that you don't know whether choice - b - is correct or not either, and you don't have any accurate enough test to oppose either, their is then no reason not to investigate further if this chosen route - b - can lead to a useful test. Say with a computer simulation with 1000 x 1000 x 1000 exactly modeled to be as accurate as good billiard balls, being as close as possible absolutely rigid in an as large as possible cube yet providing between 1 and 100 times the size of the length of a billiard table with dito rigid walls go to any kind of order. There is nothing in science to provide an answer apart from doing this - BTW - quantifiable test. It either goes to any sort of order or it doesn't. (= quantified) In effect you then are testing the second law as a truly fundamental law, given as a reason the observation of having more order in the universe than we can explain. No more reason is required than having a practically executable test like this.

Science and mathematics start off as a logical exercise. Mathematics is the most accurate language of logic so to say. Proper use of mathematics entails you first get to grips with what you want to put into the mathematics. There can be no logical objection to starting of with choosing one of all possible choices and to see where that speculation leads to. Indeed it must lead to a test. Now that isn't a problem. Your demand for use of mathematics in the logical process of deciding what to test is illogical. You want an extreme degree of accuracy that mathematics provide on a choice on what to put into the mathematics that you agree / must agree is knowing that you don't know if choice b is correct. There are several tests that can be applied: the test of logic, the test of mathematics, the test of experiment and observation. On what logic other than a convention is it based to demand the test of mathematics before the test of experiment? It is only based on a convention. Well science isn't a democratic exercise but one of logic. Ultimately indeed it must be modeled with mathematics. Logic thus dictates you work from inaccurate to accurate: inaccurate in order to choose what to test and accurate in doing the test. You want it the other way round: extreme accuracy before testing and inaccuracy in the test. You're right concerning the "jump off" situation. Yet it is actually because logically filled within a short timeframe. (given the - I should of said) ad random vectors of the beginstate) Thanks for the comment.

Sorry just edited the 1,2,3,4 in the intended a,b,c,d. The computer changed what I posted and I didn't notice. B entails something and nothing so filled means there is room for maneuver as a given because otherwise you won't have "nothing"as well. The idea that the second law applies with particles not exerting gravity can not be logically inferred out of the movement of any observed particle because all known observations include gravity. That includes crystals. I don't have any beef with the first law. I don't have beef with the first or the second law. The first one is fundamental and applies at this level the second is a law that doesn't apply at this level.

The 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and gravity not being fundamental http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics a. The universe is fundamentally built up of nothing, a beginning and an end; b. The universe is fundamentally built of something and nothing and no beginning or end; c. The universe is fundamentally built up of something and no beginning or end; d. None of the above, but……… These are logically all possibilities. We know that we don’t know which. So, for sake of the argument lets choose b. If it is indeed b then the question arises what this something could be in order that it fits all known measurements / observations? As an in part solution on our way to answer that question we can idealize the question to its most simple form: The entire universe is filled with one sort of object with a volume, a mass and a relative speed vectored to hit other objects. With all these parameters identical. Given b this is a logical deduction for the simplest form. Then we get to the question does this mass need gravity? Not if you can build that gravity using mass, no. How does this then compare to the second law of thermodynamics? Simple at this level that law doesn’t apply because the regime of that law requires the use of objects that exert gravity. Ergo opposing any idea based on b and logically derived from that with the statement that it conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics is committing a fallacy. In fact then the first law of thermodynamics is indeed the first law. The mass is logically thus un-split-able. Then the question arises must it logically be absolutely rigid in order to stay in permanent motion? The answer is no as long as the volume stays the same. I.e. it must have some rigidity. I.e. it would only stop if there is something else besides this mass and nothing (energy, waves, gravity and what not). Yet it is a logical given – b - that there isn’t, so then the question becomes can one build with this sort of mass everything we observe? (i.e. energy, waves, gravity and what not) Concerning the second law question on entropy or order it depends. Only when the form is above average exactly the same could order logically ensue. So, maybe maybe not, but we can logically conclude that any objection based on either named first or second laws in this respect is a fallacy.

A photon in this model and the double slit experiment. If I understand correctly we don’t know exactly what a photon is, other than know a lot about what it can do and distinguishing it from other particles. In this model the energy packet of the photon could be as small as two counter rotating interlocked strings of six large fundamental particles in spin rotation. (Spinning like a toy top only then 3 D spiralling through the double crystal.) It thus travels in a straight line. Yet it has a waving pattern because the strings are short tracked like a string of skaters. It thus can’t go faster than c. When due to the under pressure in the double crystal (= gravity, all matter working like little black holes drawing in the double crystal of the Higgs field) the photon can hold c by accelerating yet becoming unwound, like a toy wound up car. Steering in at twice the Newtonian value. Outside gravitational fields it can travel in a (seeming?) straight line until it either pops out of the double crystal that is like the earth’s crust, or when it has become so unwounded that it disintegrates or hits other particles of the SM. Because EM is larger parts of the double crystal being brought into a bit of spin they in part fly off to then be measured as such. The photon is too fast for the Higgs mechanism to work properly. Photons don’t get mass added to them and the mass of the Higgs field or the photon thus doesn’t exert gravity. The meter long bow wave and tail of a photon at c provides the time the double crystal needs to restore itself. From the chaos caused by its passing. You thus need an infinite universe with particles to exert the pressure to keep the photon together. Double slit experiment; Well see the energy packet of the photon as a ship and its bow wave and wave at the stern as the effect on the Higgs field. It goes through a lock with two narrow openings. The bow wave causes the ship to hit the sides of the lock in effect slowing the ship down. The stern wave catches up via the other slit and causes the ship (= energy packet) to experience interference when in finally leaves the lock. Showing even when one photon is sent at a time a normal distribution when done often enough. (Electrons the same BTW). If you start observing this you are either pulling water away under the ship or squirting it on the ship, because that is the only possible way to observe anything anyway. Either way it can explain that the ship then is not slowed down and stays in front of the rear wave. Hence no more interference. Neat simple explanation I’d say. (I used to have another one but this one by someone else was better so I swapped) Any way it is not the core of the idea. Both given tests are. It only shows how simple everything can potentially be explained in an elegant way.

And again you put knowledge & formulas on GR / QM on my model. Thus extrapolating these formulas out of their regime for my model is in this thread a given probandum to be tested. It would only be relevant if my model couldn't cater for what you find. I don't see why my model would be in any way having a problem explaining that. You clearly are not familiar with the duck / rabbit analogy that is widely used in mathematics and psychology as well. Depicting that there can be two ways of looking at the same evidence. Your way (the current way) works brilliantly - I agree - I call it a law of physics as far as that it has been verified to be brilliantly correct. Yet then you can't marry GR to QM without resorting to believing in magic. I.e. contradictions like something from nothing. So I plug in where you showed me where GR isn't brilliantly correct by current science, and there we differ. Photons are then not massless but matterless because they don't exert gravity. In science then the test should decide the issue. I can do exactly the same as GR and QM but then in an integral plausible and testable way. Albeit only via a computer simulation on a supercomputer that I for a start don't have. Logic can lay demands wich have been met, convention is subordinate in science to logic. Risk = chance X consequence. If you don't test what is reasonably testable you run the unnecessary risk of never reaching TOE at all. If my test goes to order it is relevant on TOE and if my test on mounting gravity at higher speeds is measured as well. Logic, old boy. Unless of course you can state that if it goes to order or indeed shows a rise in gravity would not be relevant on TOE, or prove - given - my model that it can't work.

Logic is indeed for some felt as a brick wall. Of and BTW on conductivity = 1/ resistibility => a fundamental particle in a absolute void experiences no resistance so the absolute void is absolutely conductive. When it hits another fundamental particle it experiences a resistance deforming and deflecting both. For a much larger photon the term is that the Higgs field is at least superconductive it only gets deflected and red shifted in gravitational fields thus experiencing a resistance of the stretched Higgs field to fly at c in a straight line. Experiencing no gravity the Higgs field is for a photon thus absolutely conductive. It flies in a straight line (or probably nearly so?). So it also depends in what context you want to use the word. If you only want to use it in the context of GR / QM then you are extrapolating rules (on GR /QM) outside their regime.

Q Bignose So I am directly asking you, what is stopping you from following the literature of simulations of rigid spheres that have been done at the parameters, temperature, and accuracy you claim is needed? EQ Sorry that you feel ignored, it wasn’t my intention dear Bignose. Swansont, ajb, and you are scientists, actual researches even, and all no doubt well versed in the mathematics and physics concerning the question at hand. Now one slight question crossed my mind. Would all the literature of simulation of rigid spheres et cetera take into account the fact that the mass I’m talking about doesn’t exert gravity? I.e do you think if (or don’t these? You are the experts.) the atoms you use in the simulation exert gravity and that this might prevent reaching a dynamic crystal? BTW in my model pressure and temperature are the same at the deepest level. I.e. you simply don’t grasp what it – logically - means to have two such particles and why logic - taking it in a broad sense - dictates that they are required. (Again broad outline shows you where to look, there you mustn’t get hung up on details.) Having acquired where to look you (your psychology permitting) go into super focus. What are we looking at? ……. Well, basically MN continuously shooting guns with particles so small any string as part of any matter like an atom, acts like a little black hole that can hold much more than trillions of these. Whereby MN hits these bullets (> c) shot from several guns every time over great distances spot on, subsequently following the flight path to do it continuously. Then you ask me why the required accuracy? So here you do get hung up on the details. You three get it? Now ajb & Swantsont on the psychology of crack pots and Kruger Dunning. Let me tell the tale of Sir Flamealot on Charcoal his crusted steed long time ago in a time thread on a faraway site. In many gallant attempts to kill the Crystal dragon he miserably failed time and again because he missed out in openness to oversee the problem in defending his paradigm written boldly on the crest of his shield. In fact what he thought was the crystal dragon was sir Oepsalot, who he normally saw as a failed knight crusader bearing not a nice cross like He, but an L plate as shield. Waving not – like He - the magnificent sword of literature but having a childish string and stick. This to the point that even though two went before him attempting to Kruger Dunning sir Oepsalot and thus becoming the Kruger Dunning twins after being explained what it meant, he charged and became one of the KD triplit. The nitwit. Ending in sulking with his bookwise KD mates in another thread on the word wizardry that had befallen them. KD measures humour, grammar and logic. I must admit I’m not the humorous type and you can range that from no humour at all, like not getting irony – to laughing when it explained, too copying jokes from others and – “you too” jokes all scoring low on the KD scale to originally and quickly amending jokes from others or compiling them yourself. (Now try and figure out why it is that measuring humour has anything to do with what KD is about?) Then we have grammar. Well again I’m at a loss indeed for English is not my native tongue. (BTW do you want me to comment on your grammar? Be glad to.) And last but not least is logic. Well, now you three have been making a lot of fallacies on your own stated fields of expertise. The opening point I made in this post shows this yet again. This begs the question will we have a quartet? Get it? Then on the crackpot bit. According to DSM V now Newton, Einstein et cetera and 50 to 80 % of the population are suffering from some sort of mental illness. This is due to the fact that the Flamealots have taken over in research from the Oepsalots. The latter dare to make mistakes and owe up to them and quickly learn from them and carry on. The former belong in production. (BTW everybody has both the flamealot and the oepsalot trait.) On the logical procedure: You three are playing a different ball game. You keep on playing GR golf and QM midget golf whereas you should be playing marbles much like Newtonian bonkers of old. (If you care to lose points on the KD scale you can now say that I lost my marbles or that I’m bonkers.) You keep on criticizing me for my bad swing at (midget) golf, and I keep on trying to point out that no clubs are allowed in this game of MN of which we yet have to find the rules of the game she is playing. And you don’t get the fact that the (black) hole in which to throw the marble is much smaller than with bonkers or golf, and so requires more accuracy. In short all three – like my dad warned me – are experts at extrapolating formulas of GR and QM etc out of their respective regimes. Furthermore I’ve put my finger on the sore spot of GR: photons extremely probably don’t exert gravity. Take that out and you simply link GR to Newton, to QM. Newton with a twist of superconductivity and matter being a little black hole. You simply can’t get your heads round the simple implications, and insist on hitting the problem with your clubs. Try logical humorous creative vocabulary as a remedy against KD’ism. What does super conductivity mean in that given context? Don't try and read it in some book but: Think! BTW I'm fully aware of the extremely complex mathematical / physics problem that will ensue if either of my tests shows a positive result and even to get such a result at all. Rheology and what not. I would be a KD if I tried to go it myself. Your job not mine. Mine is to provide science with first aid seeing that it undeniably has been diverging instead of converging on TOE. Get your act together this is costing lives. Get it properly organized. How can it be that I who place myself irrelevant as it might be at a 1/1000th of an Einstein can get in principle falsifiable tests for TOE in and zoom in and plug in at GR . In effect nicking all your mathematics via a I plug you play method? How did I find this weak spot in GR? A lucky guess? No, just applying what I learnt from my dad and in math’s and science classes. You three are undeniably in a strangle hold of string and stick. No hand waving needed. Simply logic. Show a better idea on TOE or falsify this one.

That's still not superconductive EQ I dealt with this in my answer to ajb. Q I sked about the temperature you would need to see the effect in atom, if they didn't stick. EQ I don't know whether it might be possible to do the test with atoms at low temperatures when the don't stick. A simulated billiard ball hitting another billiard ball in a simulated absolute void in a computer is something else than atoms bouncing around. So I wouldn't know at what temperature that is. To understand my model you have to start thinking in terms of a yin and yang of order and chaos. Maybe some atoms remain chaotic and don't stick at very low temperatures because they remain inherently chaotic. Q That's the advantage of a written record — you don't have to rely on your incorrect recollection. EQ Bit cryptic your reaction. So do you now state that it is unverifiable that photons exert gravity? ——————— ajb is right, these analogies are pointless. The simple fact is that someone who has a very poor grasp of physics (or any topic) is often not able to properly assess their mastery of the subject. Anyone has taught can confirm this — the number of students who do poorly on an exam but were supremely confident they had "aced" it up until the test was returned is frighteningly large. Are you implying Kruger Dunning again?

Oh no, the milkman sees someone lying on the floor in a pool of blood with what looks to him a bullet wound, yet gasping for air (= metaphor for having an idea on TOE given that fundamental research in general saves lives, and thus already constituting an urgent situation for a doctor to start acting); then because it takes too long for the doctor to react the milkman starts providing first aid to the best of his ability (= metaphor for working an idea up to a concept). Then the doctor arrives with a microscope in front of his eyes asking the milkman to be more precise in his wording. (= metaphor for being too accurate and demanding the use of incorrect norms both in the used wording as to the use of mathematics in the idea / concept phase.) A milkman is not only fully entitled but even morally and even by law required to act in this way, as is he allowed to criticize the doctor for using a microscope in search for a patient. Now this doesn't mean to say that the patient indeed has a bullet wound to the head and in need of the brain surgeon to do brain surgery then correctly using the microscope of course. It might of course be that the guy was drunk fell on his head hence the pool of blood and only suffering from a serious skin disease. (The patient of TOE is of course per definition lying around, only this is then not that patient.) Now when the milkman files a complaint on the silly way the doctor went about his business, then he's confronted by the medical board a vast majority of whom have microscopes in front of their heads and thus not understanding what all the fuss is about. Saying well milkman also put a microscope in front of your head and see how we do this in research nowadays. Even if further investigation would show that there is no bullet wound but only a dermatology problem with this patient then still the milkman acted scientifically correctly and all the doctors with microscopes incorrectly. This is the only logical way to work it and the proof lies in the fact that the past hundred years you in science have been diverging instead of converging on getting to a TOE. You have and are applying production norms instead of research norms to the problem. You don't keep your eye on the ball: i.e. the goal TOE. Now on the wording I used. If I use for instance the word "mass" you lot immediately think ah ëxerts gravity" whereas in my model it doesn't. What word to use then? And if I say external elasticity: you think that is wrong for elasticity is per definition internal. If I were to say that atoms get excited when the temperature rises you think in terms of electrons changing position etc. whereas I'm talking the stuff that ultimately builds the atoms. You act like "good" lawyers do via the following simple algorithm: "can I misunderstand this?" if so do so. You have in no way decapitated my concept and where I'm told that I'm required to work out my concept myself you ask the milkman to perform brain surgery and where the milkman has done first aid you criticize him for not having done proper resuscitation using a microscope. I've shown where you definitions are failing, and what my dad warned me about that is even experts using formulas out of their regime and in so doing making a hell of a mess. GR is a law of physics in so far it has been validated yet not in so far it is unverifiable as in where GR states that photons exert gravity. Swansont hasn't reacted yet. So I ask you. Do you believe that photons exert gravity?

Agree bit of a problem when a brain surgeon insists that the milkman tell exactly where the stated bullet hole is at. No, it isn't the temporal lobe. In casu it is only the milkman telling the brain surgeon to use the mark 1 mod 1 eyeball or, if need be, specs.

Okay I'll explain: if you raise the temperature atoms "vibrate more "see link" so you need a low temperature to simulate it properly yet then they become solid. BTW ever noticed that crystals have something to do with waves? Now try to understand what we are trying to simulate. Particles that build the SM. Now you think that they will behave like the particles of the SM. Bit silly, no? lhttp://web.mit.edu/mbuehler/www/SIMS/Thermal%20Expansion.html I'll explain the model some more than you might see the problem. Both fundamental particles - by logical deduction which I can provide - should be seen as: basically the same stuff best called mass. It is unsplittable in the sense that absolutely (there is a reason why this is) no scenario is possible to split them. I.e. true atoms. They have mass = kg. They are incompressible yet can deform. In a field of these particles they will thus on average in a short time frame given a dynamic crystal of only one field become a perfect sphere. Akin the forming of hail as a sphere. Chaos will deform the sphere. The elasticity is thus external and not internal because the mechanism of the crystal restores order and thus a perfect sphere. On the other hand chaos deforms the sphere like a golf ball especially if you have both dynamic crystals working against each other (which happens in the entire cosmos). The small sphere can exert a higher pressure on a point of the larger one apart from being faster. This makes it possible to work as a toothed wheel getting into spin quickly: i.e. the Higgs mechanism. Akin the air flow around a golf ball (as a rower I hate this part of my idea). Looking at a cube of space at one point in time it looks nearly absolutely void. In a very short time frame both particles each would create a solid: i.e. being everywhere. If you look at a deformed particle of mass after impact moving through the void it is absolutely still = extreme order => on its way to order of the dynamic crystal. Your rigid atoms at a high temperature in a perfect gas are when seen vibrating like hell = disorder => no crystal. Lower the temperature they become a solid crystal. My fundamental particles of course don't do the latter they don't stick. So your sim does NOT do the trick, and yes I can play billiards and my eye observes something far less accurate than a billiard sim what you show. It is an approximation. However taking the average perfect state it is a billiard ball under pressure. A slow game of 3 D billiards extremely accurately simulated should do the trick as an idealised mathematical way of finding the formula of a dynamic crystal and hence the heart of the Higgs mechanism. Edit: Oh, and BTW this is also superconductive i.e. the resistance caused by the surfaces of the particles is nil, yet the deforming is resistance that only causes a change in the movement of any interacting particle, or further deformation or reformation or spin or change in vector of the obeserved particle. Well okay I needed to explain the mechanism some more and just did. Now on another point. Earlier on you said - if I remember correctly - that photons have been verified to exert gravity as GR states. Am I now correct in stating that you mean this has been researched quite a bit but is unconfirmed i.e. unverifiable?

You need not model the collision itself, so the elastic modulus does not have to be part of the model. You have, as far as I can tell, proposed elastic collisions. The presence of "elastic" seems to be the problem. In physics, an elastic collision is one in which no kinetic energy is lost to e.g. the deformation of the objects. Given that there is no kinetic energy lost in the collision and momentum will be conserved regardless, what specific role does deformation play in your model? (This, by the way, is the sort of thing that you should have already told us) No kinetic energy is lost in an ideal gas collision. So again, what is the specific requirement that deformation be take onto account? EQ Again it is NOT about energy (because it remains the same) it is about - very accurate - movement. Taking the ideal situation of absolute rigidity (= no deformation at all (if possible)) makes it more easily computable via elimination the chaos problem (as far as possible). Atoms do NOT meet this requirement because at the temperatures that they would fit the bill they crystallize in normal crystals. You need to emulate - extremely accurately! - the collision of two billiard balls that don't strike at high speed. But then done an enormous amount of times. So I'm striving for an idealised a purely mathematical sim as possible. That is the easiest way to show it going to order. Only after that introduce deforming to see how that affects the outcome. Edit: try playing billiards with soft clay or tennis balls. It won't be very accurate. That specific enough?

EQ Well, I've seen several sims of complicated situations on extremely powerful computers being performed and the guys working on programming it stating that it (realtime) is at best only a rough approximation of reality. They must be wrong then. BTW even I could see that it was not the real thing though breathtakingly genius in programming I'm sure.

Nice link thanks. And I agree that a TEO can't exist because I JFGI and it is not known by Wikipedia so it thus indeed can't exist. In short I don't know what a TEO is. Given what I say is true then there is no arguing possible that it is then fundamental, because then it all exists of just three things two spheres and absolute nothing interacting in a mathematical in part deterministic in part statistical way. As a purely mathematical test then: Then we can leave the normal atoms be. Now Bignose says that my sim is easy I doubt that very much. Because indeed if you just compute some balls then they will keep on hitting each other in a non exact way and not go to order. Sure. BTW in the ideal situation of absolute rigidity there is thus then no elasticity or inelasticity because there is no deformation whatsoever. Furthermore then you don't have to take into account mass either making it I guess even less complicated to simulate. Because only when elasticity comes into play do we need the acceleration and deceleration of the mass have to be taken into account. A digital sphere isn't a perfect sphere and only will get close to being that if it is very large. If you can compute say the accuracy of a really good billiard in 3D (maybe for ease it might work 2D as well) with a great many balls then you are getting close to what I'm talking about. Bignose says that has been done. I doubt it. If you can play billiards you will know what I'm talking about and that is IMO very difficult to simulate especially when a great many balls are in play. And yes, if that goes to order it will be fundamental without a shadow of a doubt. edit so if you can truely exactly simulate a really good billiard with many balls it should work

Well call it absolutely rigid then to get at the ideal formula for a dynamic crystal. If that can be simulated that would be great for then one could later simulate it with mounting elasticity and see where it stops going to order and how it changes the order with varying elasticity. Because the amount of elasticity is critical it might be that atoms can do the trick when cooled down sufficiently yet near zero kelvin they will I guess start sticking and forming a normal crystal. Of course atoms as such will not suffice. This one doesn't stick. I guess if you run a computer sim slow enough it should be possible to simulate absolute rigidity? I see that ajb objects to calling this a particle. Well, formally I could argue that it is the actual atom i.e. the unsplittable building block, the larger one is anyway. The other one acts more like the billard table. But that isn't part of this test.

In my model the two fundamental particles have a size and are a small one and a larger one. Yet are extremely small and fast. For the simulation it is only relevant that it has a size and mass. In this experiment spin (like a toy top or gyro spins and rotates) is not an issue. In this experiment you only need one sort of particle. Like a billiard ball. It is just a physical unsplittable lump of mass for the experiment to be taken as a near perfect sphere that is superconductive in the sense that when it collides with other billiard balls in 3D hardly any deformity takes place. Even better would be if possible to simulate absolute conductivity even though MN doesn't require this. Yet the mathematical principle of it going to order will work then even better. It is that principle we are after. Albeit that I guess that absolute conductivity can't be simulated. Maybe even superconductivity can't be simulated. If so then we would need better computers to do the sim. A billiard ball not being absolutely conductive means it will be to that extent behave chaotic. There must be a critical point I guess superconductivity under which the balls will not go to order due to too much chaotic behaviour. I.e. all the energy is transmitted between the balls. They may deform a bit as long as the energy in the system stays the same. I need perpetual motion for I assume MN is in perpetual motion (which would explain a lot) I.e. not energy is the driving force of MN but chaos and order in an ensuing movement game. So you need a lot of balls and a very large box. There will also be a critical size of the box but I'm sure it doesn't have to be as large as MN requires in reality in order to show the principle. Yet if it is to confined it won't work either (of course) yet the larger the box the harder to simulate i.e. the more accurate it has to be. If possible give each ball its own cubed billiard table size box as needed space per ball. Yet it may already work at a smaller scale. As such the sim is straightforward. Lot of balls in a large box at random the rest exactly the same. So if superconductive billiard balls can be had in a sim that when they strike each other with such accuracy 3D as if it indeed where billiard balls for the correct angles. Getting those 3D angles accurate is critical. Speed isn't because you can take a long running time for the sim. edit I BTW don't rule out that it might work with less than superconductive. But it must work at superconductive or else it is busted. this because I don't believe MN requires absolute conductivity because it then becomes much more difficult to explain.

Q. What role does the superconductivity play in this? EQ (In my first idea I thought I needed absolute conductivity: i.e. no bits flying off or any indentation. For various reasons it is IMO closer to nature that the particles of the Higgs field are - at least - superconductive. This means that the fundamental particles act like actual atoms in the sense that they are unsplittable yet do indentate a bit. Having a bit of disorder is what I need to more easily explain getting particles in and out of spin in a not to complex way. And for not having it ever get repetitive in a not complex way for then it is difficult / impossible to explain life as a not one off. It must be "atoms" (= unsplittable) to explain perpetual motion. => the main force is order disorder and not energy ) Anyway: not having to simulate more than superconductivity is less complicated (if it can be simulated at all by current computers) Apart from that only one of the two dynamic crystals needs its mechanism proven in priciple to warrant further investigation. Q What's the mechanism that would cause this? EQ Apart from that the aim of the simulation is only to achieve a proof of concept which is already achieved if set sim goes (or nearly so) to any kind of order. Akin the sim on fractals. That would already IMO warrant much more time and effort. This because given current science it should go to mounting disorder as I believe. The best scenario is that it goes to the order of a dynamic crystal. I.e. each ball stays in its own virtual cube. I.e. look at it like a Rubik's cube of dice placing on the center die the other dice side 1 on 1; 2 on 2 etc.. Now the center ball will remain in its center cube for it will meet the neighbor every time on the virtual wall. (Any other form than a cube is also possible as long as it gives order.) Ultimately the search is for the formula creating this order in order to subsequently try and find how MN has actually "used" this formula i.e. what constants are in play. Q I've heard that before. I want to know specifics before suggesting anything, so that there is no backpeddling. EQ Okay a bit of backpedaling beforehand. The simulation is not tailored to what I think MN is exactly at but to find part of the basic principle. However if the principle can't be shown by expert programmers and creative mathematicians after tinkering with it - given IMO - current supercomputers I'd say it's busted. The tinkering involved will be sizing up the box (say up to 1000 x) because nature will have extremely more nothing than something. However the principle should show given less room than MN in reality in the Higgs field has. (MN needs more room for other reasons than having it go to order.) Another problem is to get an accurate enough near perfect sphere that doesn't indentate to much in a sufficiently uniform way built up digitally. This might prove to be impossible by current computers. This I don't know yet it remains potentially testable.

Well AJB, then we are in agreement on these conclusions it seems, but I guess we differ that great imagination may be used in this context on TOE wider than just on mathematics i.e. also by thought experiments and logic especially where assumptions are unavoidable. So I guess the heart of the GR problem lies in the question whether or not we have massless particles or we should as I state call them matterless. I.e. that a photon doesn't exert gravity thus this being at odds with an unverifiable part of GR. If I read what Verlinde is doing it looks strikingly similar to what I'm on about. The ignored particle (actually two sorts of them) in my view is simply the Higgs particle when it is not in spin. When it starts spinning we can have a glimpse of it. Now I read on the Wikipedia on MSSN that a second Higgsfield is then required. Just what I say. As my dad taught me early on and what has stood me to great effect in later years is, especially in extremely complicated matters: keep it simple. As a thought experiment then: Integrating the entire picture: assuming an infinite universe with an infinite amount of two particles creating both Higgs fields we have pressure in the system. Having all matter picking up mass out of this field like little black holes creates an underpressure and thus gravity. It also adds momentum: and thus DE and extra speed causes extra mass to be added causing DM. As simple as it gets as a concept. To get the holographic effect Verlinde is also looking for it has to be a double dynamic crystal, immediately explaining waves and (non) interference. Interlocking counter rotating strings form the SM. The big bang is a result of bringing unspun Higgs particles in spin. As happens in the Higgs field as well. Thats why the illusion something from nothing is created. Simplex veri sigillum. (Occam dixit) I'm not saying it is production worthy science - yet - but it is a experiment worthy idea because its simplicity is appealing and thus provides a possible (even IMO probable answer for a TOE). The experiment for a computer simulation is also extremely simple in concept (but maybe impossible in practise, but that is another problem): Take a 10000 X 10000 x 10000 simulated superconductive identical near as perfect massive spheres (billiard balls). Place them in a perfect matrix of 100 diameters apart to create empty space. Place a cube around the matrix at 100 diameters. Give them each a random vector and identical slow speed. (Slow because accuracy is critical) I predict the balls will go to order in the middle after a long while in the middle far away from the disturbance of the walls. An order of a dynamic crystal whereby each ball remains in its own virtual cube. Even if it goes to near order akin water starting to freeze you immediately will have a paradigm shift. You then are on track of the (extremely complicated mathematics) at the heart of it all. What would it cost in time and effort to do a feasibility study on this simulation? Because I guess the simulation is accurately now described accurately enough. If after tinkering with it you can't get it to near order, I'd say the heart of this idea is busted. For it should have a certain ruggedness to it because a bit of chaos is needed as well.