Quantum Statistical Automata

[qsa]

If there isn't a singular equation to describe the entire universe, how can the universe be math?

 

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.

[questionposter]

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.

 

It's not cumbersome its just that you can't do it with 100% accuracy, ever. Not even Einstein could create this equation, and scientists definitely don't know for sure how the universe will end up, there's multiple theories.

Edited April 23, 2012 by questionposter

[qsa]

It's not cumbersome its just that you can't do it with 100% accuracy, ever. Not even Einstein could create this equation, and scientists definitely don't know for sure how the universe will end up, there's multiple theories.

 

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.

[qsa]

Well it's all part of communicating the idea. If the code's ugly but does what you say and the data are interesting, it doesn't matter that much.

 

I don't think it's helpful to try to get me interested. Tailoring this for me is a dead end. It's just a slight curiosity (but not a huge curiosity because the program's bugs hide any interesting behavior), but I don't know anything about the topic---I'm not even a scientist---and I'm not seeing the point that you're seeing in all this. Even if I saw what you're seeing, I can't see what I would do with it.

 

There are others who would be able to see pages of grandiose but vague claims, equations and numbers, and descriptions of simulations... and put it all together in their head much better than I can. But I don't expect you'll find that. I would suspect that there's a lack of interest in discussing your ideas because you start so big that there's nothing to respond to eg. "The Bohr model falls out of QSA" would need to be researched maybe for hours before someone could comment on it! For me the specifics also get lost in a sea of explanations and data.

 

Anyway, if you want my advice anyway as a non-scientist I'd suggest working on an abstract (I think http://www.lightblue...te-an-abstract/ gives good advice about it). My non-professional opinion is that you should describe in one paragraph:

- What it is that you're simulating (I mean your methods, not what you think it represents),

- What your results are,

- Why you think that's important. Something simple, not "all of QM..." unless you're showing that literally every detail of QM really does correspond (either covering every detail or show how your stuff precisely accommodates it as a whole or explain why the details that you don't know about don't matter).

- Perhaps address what I see as a problem: show that the results happen naturally rather than that the program has been molded and tweaked to arrive at the results you want.

 

I know a lot of that has been mentioned but for me it's too scattered and impossible for me to synthesize. I think your goal should be getting the interest of others, by writing something that's simple enough for experts in the field to say "Here's what is wrong or missing: ..."

 

 

 

I'm using gcc-4.6 on Ubuntu. How about you?

 

Thank you very much. You helped me more than your share. I will not burden you anymore.

 

I am using ms C++ express with sdk 7.1 for 64 bit. I have also ran it with fedora 15, but its random number generator is not so good.

[md65536]

Thank you very much. You helped me more than your share. I will not burden you anymore.

You're welcome. It wasn't a burden!

[qsa]

I am resurrecting this thread with a better explanation of
the idea hoping to get a feedback as to its clearness.

 

This is the first post of several to come as a response to people who are demanding better explanation for the theory here and not on the web. The posts will be a bit longish. It took a bit of effort on my part, but anybody who wants to understand the theory must also make a bit of an effort to read through and think a bit hard. So I ask people to make some decent effort before making judgments. But please keep in mind that my system starts out as an idea but quickly turns into a system that is entirely based on simulation. I do some simulation and then interpret the result to extract some physics, not unlike regular physics except that no differential and integral equations are used. I will say more things about the technique later but let’s concentrate on the idea first.

I have already stated in the OP that the philosophical thinking was that to my mind both mathematics and reality seem to carry the idea of truth. Meaning that math is about statements with compelling truths and the word reality comes from the word real meaning true (truth). Besides, we have been describing reality very successfully using mathematics with amazing effectiveness, so it seemed there could be some deeper connection.

I have to admit that the basic ideas that I came up with are hardly original. They have been around in various forms for a long time, but my approach seems to be the correct one. Moreover, I was unaware of any of those ideas before I came up with mine; I only got to know them later while I was researching why my approach worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathema...rse_hypothesis

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life



There are quite few concepts in math, but one of the most fundamental and elementary is relations between the entities, like points and lines, that make up a geometric (like circles and triangles) or arithmetic (like natural numbers) structures. So I got to think that if nature has something to do with mathematics, then why not start with these basic concepts and see what relations between what entities could give rise to reality.

I started out with a very naive simple system like in the image shown. let’s say the system is made up of some relation between triangles, but to simplify we can take the simplest subsystem like two triangles. But now we have to decide on what relation, like the distance ( red lines) between a vertex and a vertex or center of line to a center or vertex to center or any point to any point. Obviously, there are numerous choices and none look natural. But why should we choose a triangle, and not a sphere or any arbitrary shape for that matter. Again, there are infinite arbitrary shapes and by what criteria I was going to choose the relations between them, so all this looked confusing.

So then I thought to simplify more I will just go to a 1D axis instead of geometric shapes in 2D. To simplify even more I have to choose some line segment. But what can exist on a line? The answer is points and shorter line segments within the original line.

Let’s first try points on the line, and lets denote arbitrary positions on the line by x1,x2, …xn, to simplify divide the line into any numbers of equidistant. We ask what design is available to us. Not a lot, say I have 50 counts at x1, 43 counts at x2 and so on. But how many points to choose and how many counts to assign for each point. The only solution is to generalize the concept by randomly choosing any point on the line and iterating the process for let’s say for J times. Every time we hit a position we update the counter by one for that position. After doing that j times you will see that all the points will have their counter to have roughly same count. But j can be any number (it should be sufficiently large) so the natural thing to do is to normalize by dividing the counters by j.

And this will give you the probability of hitting each point which is 1/n. and so, if you sum up all the probabilities they add up to one i.e. n*(1/n)=1, does that remind you of QM?. This simple design carries the seed of the design of reality.

In the next post I will generalize the above concept using lines and you will see how more complicated Quantum Mechanical systems are generated with astonishing mind boggling conclusion.

I continue from the last post by generalizing the process from points to lines. I will refer to the drawing in the image for explaining the process. Just like in the points example I use a line segment of length L, then in this case I throw two random numbers each time. One number denotes the position on the line L (just like last time) the other a line segment that extends from that position to the right (blue) and to the left (red), denoted by li. The green vertical lines denote where a random position hit occurred. And I repeat the process j times.

The only thing that we can do now is register how many times we hit each position(like 5,9 in the drawing) and save the counter, and add up the lengths of all the lines associated for each point and save that in a counter. Then I normalized by dividing by j for the points and multiplying the inverse of totals of the lines by j. This is pretty much the only design that is available to us, in other word it is very much the only thing that we can do. There are variations but you will see later that they are all equivalent to this basic design.

When I first did that, I could not infer any interesting results. So I thought why not complicate things just a bit, let me but the simplest constraint. That is I will relate the three numbers that I have with a certain relation, if that relation holds I register the points and the associated lines otherwise I ignore the random throws.

The simplest relation was

p + li (or p – li) “< “or “>” or “= “L , that also produced uninteresting results. So I thought p, li are random already but L isn’t so why not force the right hand side to also be random but also be related to L. so I after two minutes of trials the expression p+li < L*rnd(0) , and p-li < L*rnd(0) gave me the results which was beyond my wildest dreams. Notice how random always comes to rescue, it is the single most powerful feature of the system, I will have much more to say about that.

After curve fitting the plotted probabilities derived from the points count, I got sin^2. That probability function sure looked like the probabilities you get for a particle in a box in a 1D (infinite potential) after you solve the Schrodinger equation. There was no problem with generalizing the results to 3D. While deep down inside I knew I had a mega hit, but I was a bit apprehensive. I could have used any constraint and it would have produced any function, but I thought it would be prudent to put such glitch aside and push ahead.

And push ahead I did. Now what about those lines, what could they represent. An astute reader will guess right, energy. When I added up all the results for all the points and divided by the length L to get the average energy, they quadrupled very time I halved L and ran the simulation in perfect agreement with particle in a box solution for the energy.

That was great, but I did not feel very safe yet. So I thought why not complicate the matter more and have two of these particles together, so I designed another one to take up a portion of the line segment L. Of course, that was relatively easy enough but nothing fantastic will happen, you will see the second particle just will have a higher energy because it occupies a smaller space.

Now is the time for the really big one. These two particles do not exist in different universes, they must interact. But, again, what is available for the design. Only the lines of the particles are available. The system forces only certain processes which are available, and that is comparing the line for each particle for each random throws. Here a nice automatic constraint is suggested by the system. If the lines cross I ignore if not I keep the positions and the associated lines. Lo and behold, I get the phenomenology of a particle in a finite potential, with the exponential decay and the tunneling. I thought to myself, WOW, I do have a mega hit, not knowing that even more surprises are in store.

In the next post I will present the extraordinary conclusion that I have promised. Until then, cheers.

[qsa]

In this part I explain the amazing aspect of the design of reality. But before that I like to point out that I will explain more later about the other results in my website, but it is crucial that the ideas presented so far should have been understood to a good degree, at least.

In my last post I recreated the interaction of two particles (one of them acted as a potential) where their probability waves overlapped. But we can also make two particles interact from a distance by simply allowing their random lines to be able to fully extent to the other particle. This is the next result which I will present in detail, but it suffices for our purposes now to only consider the main idea.


The main idea is that we assume two particles represented by two line segments (actually the points on those lines) sitting at some distance from each other. You can read about the setup in my website just to get the main idea, don’t worry too much about the details, like calculations; and then come back here.


http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

The width of those particle segments we will identify them with Compton wavelength later, and they can be anything from small to very large, both can be the same or different (usually the same). So in this case it is easier to visualize than when the two particles are meshed.

So basically, we have lines going from a point on one particle to a point on the other and vice versa. For each throw we have two lines with random length if they reach each other the throw will be ignored if they don’t we register the positions and the line as part of the particle.

Now look at the image in the thumbnail above. We can now do a general arbitrary 2D shape instead of a line. The two shapes can interact in very much the same way as the two lines above. For example, a point on object “A” can go to any point on “B” (including interior) and vice versa. Also, as shown the relation between point “1 “ on object A and “1’ ” on object B have the usual relation have the usual relation in case you get these points on random draws, just like the relation between point on lines.

Of course, then the relation is generalized for any point on A to any point on B and vice versa. The relation can be generalized to 3D even. For 4D and above this might get complicated, we will stop at 3D. I will come back to 4D and higher later.

So, in this system you end up with a mathematical structure such as every point is represented by a probability that is the result of it relation to all other points in the universe. Also all the points in the universe even in place where no particles exists you have point that carry energy related to the end of the lines that did not reach the other particles, I might talk about their interpretation later. But, in effect the location of these point we call space and they are direct result of the existence of particles, so there is no such a thing as empty space.

This the big surprise, we are back to the original design that was suggested in the first explanatory post. Except the relation between the points are generalized to every point in object A to every point in object B and vice versa with the above random lines associated with them. If you try to design a universe by using FUNDAMENTAL ENTITIES you end up with a general shape in 3D that can be decomposed to lines on each axis and so some equivalence can be found. And since there is only one choice of design on the line, hence the design of the universe is unique.

In ordinary QM/QFT (even string), we associate some function to each point which we solve for to find the interaction, and hence the physics, by some equations. But my system shows what the origin of the values of these functions is. Moreover, any attempt to assign some predetermined values by some algorithm like fractals and ordinary automata are bound to fail. Because the values at those points are the results of all the points in the universe and not due to neighbors like in automata and some arbitrary function like in fractals.

My conclusion is, that is very mind boggling. That is why we humans are rightly astonished at the existence of reality. Our reality is the result of only one dynamic design that is possible out of endless mathematical structures. Also, this structure created particles that formed atoms that formed us. What was the chance of that? One in google!

[qsa]

Hi

 

I have already had a thread regarding my theory here posted a long time ago.

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62848-quantum-statistical-automata/

 

 

However, In this thread I would like to present a specific prediction (the mass of the electron) via a simple JavaScript program which is very easy to run. Moreover, for all of you with minimum programming skill you can check the program for yourself to make sure no hanky panky is going on.

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net/a.htm

 

 

The mass of the electron in AU units appear as a convergence of the curves generated by the simulation program for some random numbers(denoting different Compton waves) like 100,500.1000,1500 (d0=d1 in the program) .

 

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

 

The heart of the program is very simple, the top and bottom portions are related to JavaScript plotting

    for ( var i = 1; i <kj; i++) {
        // throw random lines
        var p = d0 * rand.random();
        var li =  (dist + d0) *rand.random();
        var p1 =  d1 *rand.random();
        var li1 = (dist +d1)* rand.random();

        // put random lines through conditions
 
        if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) {
            // do nothing
        }
        else
        {

            en = en+(li);
            f++;
            en1=en1+li1;
        }
    } 

en is energy and dist is distance between interacting particles

 

 

see http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.html for details of the program.

 

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2014 by qsa

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Merged. Let's keep all of this in one thread, please.

[qsa]

!

Moderator Note

Merged. Let's keep all of this in one thread, please.

The reason that I started a new thread is that I thought it would be too confusing for people to go over the old stuff, Also it seemed the theory was hard to follow because of the simulations involved. So, I thought it would be a better strategy to start with a simple program (That people can play with) and then explain more at later stage.

 

I hope the readers start with the program get a feeling and then try to find out more. But I understand your concern.

[swansont]

The post by itself lacks context; you don't spell out details of what you are doing or why one might think it explains anything at all.

[qsa]

The post by itself lacks context; you don't spell out details of what you are doing or why one might think it explains anything at all.

 

Sorry if you did not get the idea of the post. The idea of the post was to go the program page, run the program and confirm that the curves converge on the vicinity of the electron mass in AU units and then confirm that no "fixing" of any kind was involved.

 

I was hoping once that was done and confirmed(i.e. acknowledging that the result does look significant), we could ask why this was the case and how it came about and what does it mean,

 

if you want to take a more comprehensive route. you can start with

 

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

Edited February 11, 2014 by qsa

[swansont]

 

Sorry if you did not get the idea of the post. The idea of the post was to go the program page, run the program and confirm that the curves converge on the vicinity of the electron mass in AU units and then confirm that no "fixing" of any kind was involved.

 

I was hoping once that was done and confirmed(i.e. acknowledging that the result does look significant), we could ask why this was the case and how it came about and what does it mean,

 

if you want to take a more comprehensive route. you can start with

 

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

 

The important thing is an explanation of what the program does, i.e. what the model is.

[Bignose]

I was hoping once that was done and confirmed(i.e. acknowledging that the result does look significant), we could ask why this was the case and how it came about and what does it mean,

Since you don't define what 'convergence' even means, or why it is important, it is hard to really get the gist of what you're driving at.

 

Furthermore, it looks to me like the point you choose is pretty arbitrary. The curves look even more 'converged' on one another the farther to the right down the x-axis you go. But, of course, choosing one of those points with higher apparent convergence doesn't give you the prediction you that want. My point being that it looks quite like you picked an arbitrary amount of 'convergence' and decided that that gave you a significant answer. You need to demonstrate why that, and only that, point is seemingly so important.

[qsa]

 

The important thing is an explanation of what the program does, i.e. what the model is.

Thank you for asking.

 

I have given the link in the last line in my OP, but I will give a summery of the concept again and explain in detail as the need arise.

 

I start with a conjecture that reality is something akin to a circle, i.e. a relation between points, meaning that reality is basically a mathematical structure, a la Tegmark MUH theory. However, the theory is developed independently without any knowledge of Tegmark's theory.

 

I simplify by starting with a line segment and then exploring all the possible relations that I can create with the point of that line.

 

If I divide the line into n point and choose any point randomly and repeat the process for jk number if times, I get a probability of 1/n for each point. This the equivalent of the QM usual opening explaining the probability of a free photon being equal in "all" space.

 

Next I generalize to choosing random pieces of the line not exceeding the original lines with starting position in the line interval. Then by putting a constraint so that I ignore the lines that cross the original line, I obtain the particle in a box probability density wave sin^2 (x).

 

Then repeating the process by assuming I have two lines one inside the other, then I get the phenomenology of a particle in a finite potential with tunneling, as shown in the FQXI link.

 

finally I generalize the concept to two lines with some separation, with the minimum being the distance between their centers as they are sitting just next to each other gradually increasing it to any distance. The lines can be interpreted as the Compton wavelengths of the particles. Since these lines are far a part I allow the random pieces of the line to reach the other line segment. Now, you can see how the law is naturally incorporated, since the underlying elements are lines so the possible relation between them is that for each iteration we must sort out if they have crossed each other or not. Upon interpreting the lengths of the lines(added and normalized to numbers of throws)) that did not intersect as energy we obtain the 1/r law just like in QFT at large distances(more than 3/m). You will get the running phase for the short distance interaction.

 

In the electron mass simulation I do the above for the two lines with different lengths like 100, 500,1000,1500 , I then obtain the mentioned results.

 

I am sure this brief explanation does not suffice, but I hope with some reading of the links it might be a bit clearer.

Edited February 11, 2014 by qsa

[md65536]

What do you make of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

 

There are known relationships between randomly oriented lines, and pi. They have geometrical explanations. Is this similar enough to your idea that you would say that the results of Buffon's experiment is due to the physical nature of matter, and not just mathematical concepts that also work abstractly?

 

Can you rule out a geometrical explanation of your results? Eg. if reality were *not* made up of your model's lines, would you expect to get different results for electron mass or whatever? It sounds to me like your evidence is only your claim that your model works and corresponds with reality. Is there a simpler explanation of why you get your results, other than that they directly model physical reality?

 

(I still think the answer to that last question is "yes", and that by putting constants like 1822.8885 in your code and then doing some random things, you're arriving at some meaningful-looking results but tricking yourself about how they came about.)

 

If yes, then I don't see how anyone else would accept it as actually representative of reality. If you use your model to predict a new, experimentally verifiable result, then people will be more interested.

[qsa]

Since you don't define what 'convergence' even means, or why it is important, it is hard to really get the gist of what you're driving at.

 

Furthermore, it looks to me like the point you choose is pretty arbitrary. The curves look even more 'converged' on one another the farther to the right down the x-axis you go. But, of course, choosing one of those points with higher apparent convergence doesn't give you the prediction you that want. My point being that it looks quite like you picked an arbitrary amount of 'convergence' and decided that that gave you a significant answer. You need to demonstrate why that, and only that, point is seemingly so important.

Very good question, thank you.

 

Yes you are right, That is why I have said previously in the "vicinity" of the electron mass. To clarify maybe I should have said just at the "beginning" of the curves convergence. Obviously, that vicinity looks like an interesting or unique place not like when the curves are separated or fully(almost) converged. and it is a wonder why this unique place is in the vicinity of the electron mass.

 

I will diverge with a story to clarify a point. It is said that Feynman commented about Schrodinger equation by saying

 

"Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger."

 

So Schrodinger just made an educated guess and it worked(hydrogen). Even the correct interpretation for PSI came one year later. So, in the same sense the system works, especially combined with all the other results. However, I cannot claim I understand FULLY what is going on, all I can see at this point is that I do get some surprising results(some which I have not documented yet). Some agree with standard physics others like electron mass have no standard equivalent. And it seems that we might have the origin of Schrodinger equation. Also these separated curves seem to have something in common with renormalization as in standard theories, more work is needed to see if there is any relation.

 

The electron mass that I get seem to agree with non-standard theories like this one

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4204

 

with the electron having "structure".

 

My tentative conclusion( too early to be sure) is that the interpretation of Yakawa potential as m standing for the particle that carries force does not seem to be correct. Yakawa potential is just that a potential.

 

I have much more to say later about how the system exhibits scale invariance and maybe even mc^2 origin!! and other things.

What do you make of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

 

There are known relationships between randomly oriented lines, and pi. They have geometrical explanations. Is this similar enough to your idea that you would say that the results of Buffon's experiment is due to the physical nature of matter, and not just mathematical concepts that also work abstractly?

 

Can you rule out a geometrical explanation of your results? Eg. if reality were *not* made up of your model's lines, would you expect to get different results for electron mass or whatever? It sounds to me like your evidence is only your claim that your model works and corresponds with reality. Is there a simpler explanation of why you get your results, other than that they directly model physical reality?

 

(I still think the answer to that last question is "yes", and that by putting constants like 1822.8885 in your code and then doing some random things, you're arriving at some meaningful-looking results but tricking yourself about how they came about.)

 

If yes, then I don't see how anyone else would accept it as actually representative of reality. If you use your model to predict a new, experimentally verifiable result, then people will be more interested.

Hi md65536,

 

Thanks for coming back, you know how much I appreciated your participation in the past. As you know as soon as you pointed out some mistakes in my program it took me seconds to acknowledge them and I was very glad that you found them. As a matter of fact I had another error which I discovered myself, the results of post #6 in this thread which I have promptly removed from my website.

 

So as you can see I have no interest whatsoever in fooling myself, I have much better things to do in life. In this program there is no any number close to 1822.8885, only 100,500, 1000, 1500. You could change those numbers to 251,654,1234, 1456 and you will get the same results. I am really looking for any reason as to why I am getting these results, like by chance or some hidden assumption or whatever other than that the system is showing real physics. I hope people will help me with that.

 

As to Buffon's needle, I have posted in many forums and blogs to say that QSA seems to have some links to it. As a matter of fact, in the FQXI contest I chat with Torsten

 

here http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

 

and I mention this

 

"Also one important link that I found is that my system seems to be a generalization of Buffon's needle in the sense that both the needle and the lines become random in size. And that leads a series of connections to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Bignose]

this unique place is in the vicinity of the electron mass.

this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value.

 

And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Bignose

[qsa]

this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value.And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.

I will respond later . It is very late our local time. Thank you for your interest.

[qsa]

this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value.

 

And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.

 

I am not sure why I got -1, I just thought I would be courteous by informing that I will not be able to reply soon( 4 AM local time). I could have simply waited, I pass that as a misunderstanding.

 

I don't want to make a big issue out of side issues like the derivation of SE, but if you Google for it you will see a lot of papers claiming such a thing, They usually start with criticizing previous work and then offer their "right" explanation. There is no standard acceptable theory.

 

Now to the issue at hand. But before proceeding further, I would like to emphasize couple of points.

 

First, do you agree that I am not doing anything on purpose to produce those curves. I.e. I use the same algorithms that I use in getting the basic results that I mentioned to swansont in post # 40.

 

Second, the curves are fully divergent to the left and almost fully convergent on the right. So there is an area where they start converging. Can you please estimate the range of this area approximately and tell me what it is in YOUR opinion. Thank you.

What do you make of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle

 

There are known relationships between randomly oriented lines, and pi. They have geometrical explanations. Is this similar enough to your idea that you would say that the results of Buffon's experiment is due to the physical nature of matter, and not just mathematical concepts that also work abstractly?

 

Can you rule out a geometrical explanation of your results? Eg. if reality were *not* made up of your model's lines, would you expect to get different results for electron mass or whatever? It sounds to me like your evidence is only your claim that your model works and corresponds with reality. Is there a simpler explanation of why you get your results, other than that they directly model physical reality?

 

(I still think the answer to that last question is "yes", and that by putting constants like 1822.8885 in your code and then doing some random things, you're arriving at some meaningful-looking results but tricking yourself about how they came about.)

 

If yes, then I don't see how anyone else would accept it as actually representative of reality. If you use your model to predict a new, experimentally verifiable result, then people will be more interested.

 

 

In this post I want to address your specific suggestion that the system with random lines and point represent some physical activity. If some Gods were running a computer with a program that would be a possibility, however it sounds remote. It could also be some children in some God universe playing with their fancy needles, that even sounds even more remote.

 

Since the design looks unique and natural, my first guess is that mathematical facts are real and reality is a by product of that via this mathematical structure.

Edited February 12, 2014 by qsa

[Bignose]

Second, the curves are fully divergent to the left and almost fully convergent on the right. So there is an area where they start converging. Can you please estimate the range of this area approximately and tell me what it is in YOUR opinion. Thank you.

My point is that 'opinion' should have nothing to do with it.

 

If it was a maximum or a minimum, then you have something. Or an intersection. Or something.

 

But you have a region where the curves are somewhat more closer together then they were, but not as close as they are farther long.

 

My point is that I think it is perfectly viable to say that even near the y axis, the curves are somewhat close. Because if I use a fuzzy word like 'somewhat' then I get to chose what 'somewhat' means.

 

This is the same thing you've done with 'start converging'... why is the area you've picked any better than any other area? Other than if you just happen to pick that area, it makes a so-called prediction that agrees with a single physical value.

 

Here's my problem. I too can write a program that makes curves, and I can make some curves 'start to' converge at any point I want. That doesn't make my 'start to converge' point meaningful, and it doesn't make my program meaningful. I'm hoping that you're going to provide more meaning to both the point you've picked -- because 'start to converge' by your eye is not good enough in my book... zoom the graph out and the curves will look a lot more converged to your eye... zoom the graph way in, and it won't looked converged for much higher value of x... your eye is not a good enough judge here -- as well as more meaning to your program, per swansont's request.

 

p.s. I don't know who gave you the -1 either, but I gave you a +1 to put it back to neutral.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Bignose

[qsa]

My point is that 'opinion' should have nothing to do with it.

 

If it was a maximum or a minimum, then you have something. Or an intersection. Or something.

 

But you have a region where the curves are somewhat more closer together then they were, but not as close as they are farther long.

 

My point is that I think it is perfectly viable to say that even near the y axis, the curves are somewhat close. Because if I use a fuzzy word like 'somewhat' then I get to chose what 'somewhat' means.

 

This is the same thing you've done with 'start converging'... why is the area you've picked any better than any other area? Other than if you just happen to pick that area, it makes a so-called prediction that agrees with a single physical value.

 

Here's my problem. I too can write a program that makes curves, and I can make some curves 'start to' converge at any point I want. That doesn't make my 'start to converge' point meaningful, and it doesn't make my program meaningful. I'm hoping that you're going to provide more meaning to both the point you've picked -- because 'start to converge' by your eye is not good enough in my book... zoom the graph out and the curves will look a lot more converged to your eye... zoom the graph way in, and it won't looked converged for much higher value of x... your eye is not a good enough judge here -- as well as more meaning to your program, per swansont's request.

 

p.s. I don't know who gave you the -1 either, but I gave you a +1 to put it back to neutral.

 

Thank you for the long reply and your good observation, That shows that you are carefully examining the results.

 

Of course I say that because I also wrestled with this issue, I was not getting a clear point of intersection. As a matter of fact the curves never meet even at large distances although very close there was no clear criteria as to what the difference should be taken as.

 

Nevertheless, it is also clear that the area we are talking about is significant in the general sense. What I mean is that it is a standard practice to approximate functions for instance by cutting off the higher terms. We do many such approximations when solving engineering or physics problems. Also don't forget that here we are talking about the mass of the electron which has been the untouchable of the standard physics. So any hint of it showing up is very significant, Moreover, it is showing up in a theory in a natural way i.e. without making too many assumptions, just extension of the basic system.

 

To convince you that the area mentioned is significant I show a plot(in the image shown) for the difference in the values for 100 and 1500 for each of the distance of the separation. You can see how the values quickly went down by 97% at the vicinity of the area marked by the red circle. from there on the difference takes a much much more gradual poster. the curve was fitted with a power function using EXCEL and you can see it is almost 1/X^3, a very fast decay before the end of bent.

I post the image of the typical curves that is being talked about for the benefits of those who don't what to go and run the program.

[Bignose]

Nevertheless, it is also clear that the area we are talking about is significant in the general sense.

Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by this. It is NOT 'clear'. It is NOT 'significant'. It is NOT where they 'start converging'. It is NOT 'unique', unless you can tell me why!

 

You keep using these words, but they are all synonymous with 'this looks like the right spot to me'. But, that is not scientific.

 

I can take every single one of your arguments and defend x=6500 and x=4000 in the exact same manner. I can call x=6500 'clear', 'significant','start of convergence', or 'unique' in the same manner you can.

 

Since I can do this... then your point is not significant. You must show why your point is so much better than any other point -- apart from the very coincidental relationship that at your x, the value on the y axis has meaning. But you can't let that drive your picking your particular value on the x axis.

[qsa]

Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by this. It is NOT 'clear'. It is NOT 'significant'. It is NOT where they 'start converging'. It is NOT 'unique', unless you can tell me why!

 

You keep using these words, but they are all synonymous with 'this looks like the right spot to me'. But, that is not scientific.

 

I can take every single one of your arguments and defend x=6500 and x=4000 in the exact same manner. I can call x=6500 'clear', 'significant','start of convergence', or 'unique' in the same manner you can.

 

Since I can do this... then your point is not significant. You must show why your point is so much better than any other point -- apart from the very coincidental relationship that at your x, the value on the y axis has meaning. But you can't let that drive your picking your particular value on the x axis.

 

I am now on vacation, but I will do my best if you want to continue the discussion which I appreciate a lot.

 

Irritation is a natural human reaction, I also get irritated from your comment, but I will not get it into my head. You can always opt out if you get too annoyed! That is your right of course.

 

Now, I don't think it is wise to go into this cycle of yes it meets , no it doesn't. It does look like the numbers you picked seem to be the general area, however, you are right that there is no specific point, and there seems to be a good reason. I would like to analyse this fact a bit more later, but I want to go through several points before that.

 

But before that I would like to emphasize a point relating to your comment that you can write a program to do such and such. That is why I emphasized in a previous post that all my results are done using one and only one system, I don't get to pick and choose. I only do what is possible as to the system allows me to do, which is relatively very small set of actions.

 

To see my point about the system please cut out the code in my website and replace it with a copy of the code appearing in the thread. run it to see the results in the textbox and see what number comes up. it might take few minutes(10-15). . run it few times and average for even more accuracy.

 

the two particle interacting have a Compton wave of 1822.8885 and sitting at a distance of Bohr radius. 1/(m*alpha). Alpha seems to be nothing more than a probability ratio of hitting the particles directly to kj or f(unaccepted throws). The program is exactly as the previous one with a condition shown. Once confirmed we take more.

//insert code here
 function GraphIt() {

	var newElement = document.createElement('p');
    var L = 1000000;
    var w=1;

    var f = 0;
    var q = 0;
    var en = 0;
    var en1 = 0;
    var edx = 0;
    var edx1 = 0;
    var kj = 1000000000; // increase for accuracy
    var m = 0;
    var km = 1;

    var d0 = 1822.888;
    var d1 = 1822.888;
    var intr = 1 ;
    var eqt=0;


    var rand = new Random();

    // create an array 's' and 'l' and initialize all elements to 0

    var fr = new Array();
// 	KM or w*d0 !!!!!!
    for (var i = 0; i <= km;i++) {
	fr.push([0,0]);
    }

    for ( var m = 0; m <km; m++) {
   
    var dist = d0*137.036-0+2*m*intr ;
    var st1 =(L/2)-(d0*137.036)/2+ -d0 - m*intr;
    var st0 =(L/2) +(d0*137.036)/2+ 0 + m*intr ;	

	f = 0;	f1 = 0;	edx = 0;	edx1 = 0;	en = 0.0;  en1=0;  ent=0;q=0;
	
    for ( var i = 1; i <kj; i++) {
        // throw random lines
        var p = d0 * rand.random();
        var li =  (dist + d0) *rand.random();
        var p1 =  d1 *rand.random();
        var li1 = (dist +d1)* rand.random();

if ((st1 + p1 + li1 > st0 + 0) && (st1 + p1 + li1 < st0 + d0) )
	{
// if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) 
{
        eqt=eqt+li
	q=q+1;
	}
}
        // put random lines through conditions
 
        if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) {
            // do nothing
        }
        else
        {

            en = en+(li);
            f++;
            en1=en1+li1;
        }
    }

        
        en = f/en;
        en1 = f/en1;
	fr[m][0] = dist;
	fr[m][1] = en;	
	document.lf.log.value += 1/(q/f)-1+"\n";


}



var myChart = new JSChart('chartId', 'line');
myChart.setSize(750,600);

myChart.setDataArray(fr, '100' );
myChart.setLineColor('#00AA00', '100');

myChart.setDataArray(fr1, '500');
myChart.setLineColor('#0000ff', '500');

myChart.setDataArray(fr2, '1000');
myChart.setLineColor('#ff0000', '1000');

myChart.setDataArray(fr3, '1500');
myChart.setLineColor('#AA0066', '1500');

myChart.setLineWidth(1);
myChart.setTitleColor('#7D7D7D');
myChart.setAxisColor('#9F0505');
myChart.setGridColor('#a4a4a4');
myChart.setAxisValuesColor('#333639');
myChart.setAxisNameColor('#333639');
myChart.setTextPaddingLeft(10);
myChart.setAxisPaddingLeft(80)
myChart.setAxisNameFontSize(12);
myChart.setAxisNameX("Dist");
myChart.setAxisNameY("en");
myChart.setLabelFontSize(8);
myChart.setAxisValuesDecimalsY(7);

myChart.setIntervalStartX(1500);
myChart.setIntervalEndX(7000);
myChart.setIntervalEndY(.0016);
myChart.setAxisValuesNumberY(100);
myChart.setLegendShow(true);
myChart.setFlagRadius(6);
myChart.setTooltip([5500,'','100']);
myChart.draw();

}  

[md65536]

Now, I don't think it is wise to go into this cycle of yes it meets , no it doesn't. It does look like the numbers you picked seem to be the general area, however, you are right that there is no specific point, and there seems to be a good reason. I would like to analyse this fact a bit more later, but I want to go through several points before that.

I agree with Bignose, who presented a very clear and immediate problem. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of science. I think you either have to show significance or drop the claim.

 

You said you're not interested in fooling yourself but I think you're doing just that. One way is, assuming that your understanding is great enough that a challenge to it is just an "opinion", no more important than your own, and so a refusal to even accept the validity of challenges. Another way is, avoiding facing a major problem that is brought up, brushing it aside and being content to have it "opted out" of discussion.

 

Do you understand the problem Bignose has identified, and its importance? Do you understand how if you can't explain the significance of the values you're using, not even to yourself while being critical, you're tricking yourself?