Quantum Statistical Automata

[Bignose]

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.

Ok, good, I appreciate your acknowledging this point. That said, a new set of code still doesn't address the point, and I'd like to see it actually addressed.

 

On a meta level, you're right, I can always check out. But, I thought the point of posting this on a forum was to solicit at least some feedback -- and I'm trying to do that for you. If you didn't want to get feedback, feel free to go and start your own blog or website and allow or disallow all the feedback you want.

 

And on that note, my feedback in my prior note was that I felt like you weren't paying any attention to that feedback, despite appearing like you were soliciting it. In reality, I think this even applies to this latest reply -- again, you acknowledge the feedback, but still don't really address it. So, again, if you don't plan to address it, then I guess I don't get why you're posting on a forum where the give and take -- the posting and the feedback are the main purpose of a forum.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Bignose

[qsa]

Ok, good, I appreciate your acknowledging this point. That said, a new set of code still doesn't address the point, and I'd like to see it actually addressed.

 

On a meta level, you're right, I can always check out. But, I thought the point of posting this on a forum was to solicit at least some feedback -- and I'm trying to do that for you. If you didn't want to get feedback, feel free to go and start your own blog or website and allow or disallow all the feedback you want.

 

And on that note, my feedback in my prior note was that I felt like you weren't paying any attention to that feedback, despite appearing like you were soliciting it. In reality, I think this even applies to this latest reply -- again, you acknowledge the feedback, but still don't really address it. So, again, if you don't plan to address it, then I guess I don't get why you're posting on a forum where the give and take -- the posting and the feedback are the main purpose of a forum.

 

 

The whole point of discussing my theory on forums is to "debug" my idea, so I am very much interested in any opinion particularly the negative ones. I am planning to publish it in some open journal so I need to be prepared for any criticism. As a matter of fact I spent several days trying to see how to make the issues more clear and I spend at least three hours rewriting the new program since it was written in C++. actually it was more like for checking the output, C++ PRNG is much better than JavaScript. I am trying to take you a step by step through the system hoping to make it much easier to understand. So you cannot accuse me of ignoring your feedback.

 

However, I cannot answer purely on your terms I have to put my own arguments in my own way. Now, if you don't accept them after reviewing them that is all together another matter, I could be wrong or you might not understand them.

 

So, please take your time and run the new program, it only takes a minute to setup. you can run it and then go about your business and then come back to check the results so we may discuss it. Please note that the javascript screen might go blank(if you switch to another tab) but it will come back after it finishes the results.

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?

 

Yes, I understand the problem. The discussion is all about that. the prediction is not given a clear point but of a general area. I am trying to explain that. Please see my reply to Bignose.

Edited February 23, 2014 by qsa

[Bignose]

Now, if you don't accept them after reviewing them that is all together another matter, I could be wrong or you might not understand them.

There is little point in running a new program if you aren't willing to more clearly define what is or is not a significant output.

 

I don't see how re-writing your code from one language to another changes the significance of its output.

 

Lastly, you are right. I don't understand. I don't understand how you can defend x around 5500 as significant when, as above, I can use every one of your arguments to similarly defend both x around 4500 and x around 6500. Rewriting code into another language doesn't change that.

[qsa]

There is little point in running a new program if you aren't willing to more clearly define what is or is not a significant output.

 

I don't see how re-writing your code from one language to another changes the significance of its output.

 

Lastly, you are right. I don't understand. I don't understand how you can defend x around 5500 as significant when, as above, I can use every one of your arguments to similarly defend both x around 4500 and x around 6500. Rewriting code into another language doesn't change that.

 

 

I could chit chat about the philosophy or the techniques of what would be considered significant or not in a scientific activity, however, at this point I just want to show some basic results. It is up to you to decide if it is significant or not. this new program and two or three more will hopefully let me illustrate my results.

[Bignose]

I could chit chat about the philosophy or the techniques of what would be considered significant or not in a scientific activity, however, at this point I just want to show some basic results. It is up to you to decide if it is significant or not. this new program and two or three more will hopefully let me illustrate my results.

May I suggest that rather than code, you post the actual formulas you are using the code to solve? And preferably the derivation and what you take as the significance of those formulas...

 

My point is 1) posting code is harder to read than well-formatted math formulas (especially if you use this forum's LaTeX capabilities) 2) code has a lot of distracting overhead, like initializing variables, the actual making of the grpahs etc. These just distract from your main points 3) if someone is really interested in the equations, they can write their own code to solve them. At the very minimum, I wouldn't post the code directly; if you feel you must post it, link to it stored to it offsite someplace. github would be my suggestion.

 

Furthermore, the formulas should also drive to help address my yet-unanswered question of what makes this point you are focused on so important. If you can't clearly show that with math (again, as a turning point, or a maximum, an intersection.... something) then it really makes me question why any point is so important.

[qsa]

May I suggest that rather than code, you post the actual formulas you are using the code to solve? And preferably the derivation and what you take as the significance of those formulas...

 

My point is 1) posting code is harder to read than well-formatted math formulas (especially if you use this forum's LaTeX capabilities) 2) code has a lot of distracting overhead, like initializing variables, the actual making of the grpahs etc. These just distract from your main points 3) if someone is really interested in the equations, they can write their own code to solve them. At the very minimum, I wouldn't post the code directly; if you feel you must post it, link to it stored to it offsite someplace. github would be my suggestion.

 

Furthermore, the formulas should also drive to help address my yet-unanswered question of what makes this point you are focused on so important. If you can't clearly show that with math (again, as a turning point, or a maximum, an intersection.... something) then it really makes me question why any point is so important.

 

I agree with you that programming for the uninitiated can be daunting. However, this system is really very simple, even md65536 can confirm this for you.

 

I am not sure if you are aware of Wolfram's NKS and Conway they tried to generate the laws of physics through a simple automata. As you know they are very heavy duty mathematicians(and physicists) yet they believed in such a simple system such that ordinary mathematics will be very hard to emulate if not impossible.

 

So, unfortunately at this time I have not tried to convert to ordinary physics techniques, yet I have been more successful than Wolfram(and others) by obtaining direct results in such a simple and powerful way.

 

That does not mean that I have no plans, I do have three routes to convert to standard mathematics but it is too early, they are all complicated as far as I can see at this point. I need to understand and extract more results from the system as is, which is surprisingly able to do.

[md65536]

I agree with you that programming for the uninitiated can be daunting. However, this system is really very simple, even md65536 can confirm this for you.

Sorry, I must do the opposite. I haven't analyzed a lot of your code but my impression of what I've seen is that it has "magic number" constants that are behind some of the "interesting" results, that and calling a desired value "significant" without quantifying why, as Bignose has stated. I think that if the code was simpler it would generate a sin curve or bell curve or whatever, but that this would have a conventional geometric explanation.

 

I agree with Bignose, except that I don't think anyone should go easy on you about this, especially yourself. I think you must prove to yourself quantitatively that your results are significant. I think that you've been tricking yourself, and rather than facing challenges, your confidence despite the challenges suggests to me delusion.

 

This isn't just something speculative scientists must do, this is something every scientist must do, especially theoretical scientists who are coming up with predictions far before the experimental evidence backs it up. Just today I heard an example of exactly the attitude I wish you had:

 

"I always leave with this feeling, 'what if I'm tricked?' What if I believe into this just because it is beautiful?"

-- Professor Andrei Linde, who probably has a good chance at a Nobel prize now for work on cosmic inflation.

 

 

 

I have no interest in your work or in backing you up, until you are actually working toward answering Bignose's challenge, or dropping those claims. But by the way, I have quite a bit of experience in tricking myself, but I know it and always suspect it, and the feeling of understanding that comes with fitting an idea into existing physics has so far always outweighed the disappointment of realizing that a "discovery" is wrong or unimportant --- or it might simply be not what you thought it was. Fitting an idea into existing physics has always improved it, in my experience. I wish you could feel that feeling, but you seem to resist it, waving away the challenges instead of wondering "what if I'm tricked?", and building up the case to prove (to yourself and everyone) that you're not.

 

I think that the problems in your claims far outweigh the importance of the claims themselves, and you should be focusing on whether the results are significant, and not yet so much on what they mean.

Edited March 17, 2014 by md65536

[Bignose]

I agree with you that programming for the uninitiated can be daunting. However, this system is really very simple, even md65536 can confirm this for you.

Thanks for the backhanded insult here. I am well versed at mathematics and programming, FYI.

 

If it is so simple, why is it so hard to directly answer my question?

[qsa]

Thanks for the backhanded insult here. I am well versed at mathematics and programming, FYI.

 

If it is so simple, why is it so hard to directly answer my question?

 

Checking your profile I knew that you have a mathematical background. But since you asked me for equations and your other comments about programming I assumed that programming might not be something you like to do. So far you have been my main customer and the adage is "customer is king", so no insult was intended.

 

And I tried to explain that I can only try to clarify the results by showing a step by step some of the results that I have , but only using the simulations. In my last post I tried to explain why I must use simulation.

Sorry, I must do the opposite. I haven't analyzed a lot of your code but my impression of what I've seen is that it has "magic number" constants that are behind some of the "interesting" results,

 

Thanks for your detail reply. I was not asking you to back me up on the idea, only that the program is relatively simple as you seem to be good at programming.

 

I have no magic numbers. you could use 100 and 700 or 500 and 1234 or such and you get essentially the same result. All other variables are counters and such and I can change any of them with no consequence on the results.

[md65536]

I have no magic numbers. you could use 100 and 700 or 500 and 1234 or such and you get essentially the same result. All other variables are counters and such and I can change any of them with no consequence on the results.

I'm mostly interested in hearing what your answer is to Bignose's question.

 

Sorry I was looking at the code posted in #49. As for the code at your previously linked site, I don't think the program is simple, as I don't know what these values or the variables represent or what is being calculated and charted.

 

Why is the tooltip on the 100 line? If it's put on the 1500 line the result is not as good. Why must d0 and d1 be less than 1800? If I use 100 and 700 the lines are closer together, so how is the point at Dist 5500 still significant?

 

I think it's more important to answer Bignose's question about what makes the point at 5500 so important in the first place.

[qsa]

I'm mostly interested in hearing what your answer is to Bignose's question.

 

Sorry I was looking at the code posted in #49. As for the code at your previously linked site, I don't think the program is simple, as I don't know what these values or the variables represent or what is being calculated and charted.

 

Why is the tooltip on the 100 line? If it's put on the 1500 line the result is not as good. Why must d0 and d1 be less than 1800? If I use 100 and 700 the lines are closer together, so how is the point at Dist 5500 still significant?

 

I think it's more important to answer Bignose's question about what makes the point at 5500 so important in the first place.

 

Thank you for your reply. What I was trying to ask you is to confirm that the program is simple in its structure, the variables are few literally. But of course it might be hard to understand what the system actually represents. That is why I wanted to go step by step, starting with the program in post #49. So what did you think of the result, did you recognize the number?

 

Yes, as you go further away from 1 and get closer to two particles with a width of 1500 or more the numbers start to become less and less although still staying close to 00054858. There is a very specific behavior, that is why I needed to show why in a step by step.

 

I repeat the two particle interaction explanation(although it is for c++, and step 13 is not implemented in javascript yet) here for ease of reference from section 3 in the website.

 

 

1. define variables/types

 

2. set the particle widths (d0,d1) , which I interpret as the Compton wavelength, I assume lambda= h/mc the model shows (I will show why) that h=c , so lambda =1/m ,then I choose m to be in amu hence if m=.0005485 then lambda=1822.8885 units of length on the axis/line . more on scale later.

 

3. set the interval (intr), that is used as a quantity to increase the distance between the particles after the calculation finished for certain distance.

 

4. start the mk loop that will increase the distance between the particle after each iteration.

 

5. based on mk value set the positions of the particles, zero out some of the variables need be. f1 is the number of hits for crossing f for not crossing. Zero out the arrays (S[],Sy[]),that hold the hits for each position on the axis/line.

 

6. next is the j loop the heart of the program, it iterates on the random throws

 

7. don't worry about these lines, not important

 

long r= rand();

double rndm=(double)r/((double)RAND_MAX);

 

8. calculate the start of the lines from inside of the particles and the length of the lines shooting to the other particl all based on random numbers.

 

9. use if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) to check if lines crossed or not.

 

10. if not crossed update the position hit by incrementing the counter S[] for that position. add the random line to an accumulation counter (en). I do that for one of the particles only. the other will be similar.

 

While I said I don't do anything when lines crossed but in this program I do the same using Sy[], en1 just for information. I will talk more about it later.

 

11.go to 6

 

12. when done with j loop normalize the energy en to the numbers of throws accepted frf = (double)f/en; //energy of the particle

 

13. calculate the expectation value for the position array S[] -over the width of the particles.

 

edx = edx + (( n) * S[n]);

 

calculate how much expectation is offset from center of the particle

 

 

ex[mk] = (double)edx / ((double)f)- (0.5 * int(w*d1))+.5 ;

 

14. update all data in file for that separation.

 

15 . go to mk loop for new separation distance

 

16. done

Edited March 18, 2014 by qsa

[qsa]

This thread is four years old. This is a follow up post to add the latest discovery which I derive gravity from the same system that reproduces Quantum Mechanics.

 

Moreover, some better and more compact writing of the concept is introduced with some more results from new simulations.

 

TO RECAP

 

Seven years ago I came up with an idea that proves DR. Tegmark's conjecture that "reality is nothing but a mathematical structure". The mathematical structure agreed with many of QM features and explained some of its mysteries.

However, during all these years gravity was incomplete, while I was getting a tiny tiny force( from the same structure that produced QM) but no Newton's gravity law appeared. That is until one month ago, now I have the correct constraint to generate Newton's law at large distances (of course you can calculate it at any distance).

here is the simulation for gravity


Other simulations for QM


Contest paper about the idea

LINKS REMOVED BY MOD

Edited September 18, 2016 by imatfaal
Removal of links

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

According to our rules you should post details here - members should not be forced to go off-site to get information crucial to the the thread. Please post abstracts/summaries

 

Thanks

 

 

I have removed the links as they were slightly odd in that the showed one link but seemed to be via facebook. Please post straight links rather than anything else as members may not wish to go to some sites and should be able to ascertain where they are going from the blue underlined text

[qsa]

Ok Thanks.(sorry that was copied from Dr. Tegmark Facebook posting) Here are the direct links

 

 

FQXI contest article

 

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451

 

Gravity simulation producing Newtonian law at large distances.

 

http://www.reality-theory.net/gravity.html

 

Other interesting simulations especially the Fine Structure Constant

 

http://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm

 

ABSTRACT

 

In This essay I shall derive the laws of nature from a simple mathematical system from a postulate that reality is indeed a mathematical structure. The system can be simulated by a computer program to generate many results that agree with Quantum mechanics. Also I will show that the system can be put in regular more familiar mathematical formalism. The postulate lead to assume particles are made of random lines were one end originates in a small region representing the particle and it extends to all other points in space and some ending on other particles. The points are really nothing but random numbers, hence reality is nothing but some relation between random numbers. Moreover, the lines are responsible for the interaction by a process of crossing or not crossing or meeting.The start point and the end point of these lines define space and the length of the line is interpreted as energy, time is just a change of state. The system unifies space, time, matter, energy and interaction, all in one coherent picture, so particles and the laws of nature governing them appear naturally. The simulations generate some basic Quantum Mechanics results and the 1/r law as in quantum field Theory. There are other results such as the hydrogen 1s level where the universal constants like c, h, e and their relation that lead to Fine Structure constant automatically fall out of the simulation. Two simulations are done; one is Bohr like model and the other Schrodinger like equations solution and show the equivalency. Also, the mass of the electron appear naturally using a simulation which is an extension of the Bohr model which in turn leads to the predicting the size of the proton. The system displays the non-local behavior and explains the EPR in simple terms and shows spin. The coulomb potential is produced by line crossing, Gravity appears for certain constraint as shown in the program.

 

P.S. the information in the FQXI contest about gravity is outdated but the program does produce Newtonian gravity.

[Mordred]

Ok mathematically I have no problem with using math to describe reality. This is essentially done with physics. Without having to search your links is there specific formulas you want to look at?

 

The Newton limit we can already derive using math. So without having to search your links. Can you post the math in your solution?

 

The extension of the Bohr model should also be looked at.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mordred

[qsa]

Ok mathematically I have no problem with using math to describe reality. This is essentially done with physics. Without having to search your links is there specific formulas you want to look at?

 

The Newton limit we can already derive using math. So without having to search your links. Can you post the math in your solution?

 

The extension of the Bohr model should also be looked at.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

If you have browsed through the thread you would have seen that my system is based on computer simulation. This technique is similar to what was attempted by Wolfram in his New Kind Of science, however, my system directly derives QM and gravity laws including particles and space and time in one coherent go.

 

My future plan is to convert the system into the familiar mathematical formalism which is related to Buffon's needle and it is closely related to this concept(and the related references therein)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0608251.pdf

 

However the important point is to read section two of the contest article and run the gravity and the Bohr model program to quickly familiarize yourself with the concept. All that should not take more that 10 min or 15 min max. Sometimes people expect to skim for a couple of minutes to understand, which is unreasonable.

 

As for Newton law I rewrite my first sentence in my post

 

to add the latest discovery which I derive gravity from the same system that reproduces Quantum Mechanics.

Edited September 19, 2016 by qsa

[Mordred]

 

to add the latest discovery which I derive gravity from the same system that reproduces Quantum Mechanics.

Yes I'm familiar with some of Wolframs work. Though certainly not in great detail.

 

Ok so you are simulating Newton gravity along x axis distance. Judging from above.

 

Thank you for your reply. What I was trying to ask you is to confirm that the program is simple in its structure, the variables are few literally. But of course it might be hard to understand what the system actually represents. That is why I wanted to go step by step, starting with the program in post #49. So what did you think of the result, did you recognize the number?

 

Yes, as you go further away from 1 and get closer to two particles with a width of 1500 or more the numbers start to become less and less although still staying close to 00054858. There is a very specific behavior, that is why I needed to show why in a step by step.

 

I repeat the two particle interaction explanation(although it is for c++, and step 13 is not implemented in javascript yet) here for ease of reference from section 3 in the website.

 

 

1. define variables/types

 

2. set the particle widths (d0,d1) , which I interpret as the Compton wavelength, I assume lambda= h/mc the model shows (I will show why) that h=c , so lambda =1/m ,then I choose m to be in amu hence if m=.0005485 then lambda=1822.8885 units of length on the axis/line . more on scale later.

 

3. set the interval (intr), that is used as a quantity to increase the distance between the particles after the calculation finished for certain distance.

 

4. start the mk loop that will increase the distance between the particle after each iteration.

 

5. based on mk value set the positions of the particles, zero out some of the variables need be. f1 is the number of hits for crossing f for not crossing. Zero out the arrays (S[],Sy[]),that hold the hits for each position on the axis/line.

 

6. next is the j loop the heart of the program, it iterates on the random throws

 

7. don't worry about these lines, not important

 

long r= rand();

double rndm=(double)r/((double)RAND_MAX);

 

8. calculate the start of the lines from inside of the particles and the length of the lines shooting to the other particl all based on random numbers.

 

9. use if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) to check if lines crossed or not.

 

10. if not crossed update the position hit by incrementing the counter S[] for that position. add the random line to an accumulation counter (en). I do that for one of the particles only. the other will be similar.

 

While I said I don't do anything when lines crossed but in this program I do the same using Sy[], en1 just for information. I will talk more about it later.

 

11.go to 6

 

12. when done with j loop normalize the energy en to the numbers of throws accepted frf = (double)f/en; //energy of the particle

 

13. calculate the expectation value for the position array S[] -over the width of the particles.

 

edx = edx + (( n) * S[n]);

 

calculate how much expectation is offset from center of the particle

 

 

ex[mk] = (double)edx / ((double)f)- (0.5 * int(w*d1))+.5 ;

 

14. update all data in file for that separation.

 

15 . go to mk loop for new separation distance

 

16. done

This shows x axis, but what about the y and z axis?

 

I look through your links I'm unclear which is your work or others.

 

you may find these articles helpful.

 

Cell Automata and Physics.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi0js7IrpzPAhUGy2MKHefsA-8QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9907013&usg=AFQjCNHja_3J6NFDSGI3PzKbHvDALS-3mQ&sig2=ymSvYw3QO-umfbRFt5yLKA

 

And "What are the hidden Quantum laws behind Newtons laws"

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi0js7IrpzPAhUGy2MKHefsA-8QFgggMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9904036&usg=AFQjCNGiDpIcBEmWePTYr-qmDmD_O8qx-g&sig2=n2oIRg0Qj90JeDaINLgbKw

 

both articles gives some excellent examples in Newton gravity. particularly in the 3d regime with CA having 26 neighbors. 2D only 8 ( see second article)

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mordred

[Bignose]

This thread is four years old.

So, ready to answer the questions I asked before, then? You are still claiming that your model predicts a certain number, but I still see you cherry picking that number because it is right, not because of any significant reason.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bignose

[qsa]

New JavaScript programs were added. also bump up for new members.

 

url deleted

 

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, qsa said:

New JavaScript programs were added. also bump up for new members.

!

Moderator Note

Posting to advertise your site and requiring people to go there to get information violates rule 2.7.

Bumping without addressing some long-standing questions is soapboxing, a violation of rule 2.8

 

[qsa]

Dear mentor,

1. I did not mean to advertise since the thread already had a lot of information. I just mentioned the extra results and I intend to answer any questions that might come up regarding the new programs.

2. their were not a lot of "outstanding" issues. the main issue was that bignose was not able to understand my point i.e. the mass of the electron appeared in an area just after the curves converged strongly. And we discussed it at length, so I thought there was no point on dwelling and I was waiting for other peoples opinions , that is the whole point of posting on speculation.

Thanks

Edited August 6, 2021 by qsa

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The last post before you resurrected the thread was a request to answer questions. So it appears Bignose did not share your opinion that there weren't a lot of outstanding issues.