Theory Of Everything?

[SimonFunnell]

Hi, I believe the universe is a kind of cellular automata.

 

I am here hoping that skilled mathematicians can help me develop the idea further.

 

To start with, I think the universe is composed entirely of identical cells, I would suggest they are planck scale in size.

 

The cells go through a cycle of composing, then decomposing the themselves (think "calculating space"), all in sync, so much so that the whole entire universe follows the cycle of composition, then decomposition, I would suggest the cycle is planck scale in length.

 

In this universe movement of objects is perceived but not real as each object is composed/decomposed in one place before composing/decomposing in a different place, hence giving rise to what we see as motion.

 

How do I develop the maths for an object moving through this universe.

 

Thanks.

Edited March 9, 2016 by SimonFunnell

[Mordred]

How you can have the illusion of moving without moving due to cells composing and decomposing?

 

I've been studying physics for nearly 30 years. I would have absolutely no idea how you would describe the above mathematically...

 

At least not as written.

 

Are you describing all forms of movement or a specific dynamic?

Replace cell with particle, and use terminology such as particles decay and created you might have more success.

[Sensei]

Hi, I believe the universe is a kind of cellular automata.

 

I am here hoping that skilled mathematicians can help me develop the idea further.

 

To start with, I think the universe is composed entirely of identical cells, I would suggest they are planck scale in size.

 

The cells go through a cycle of composing, then decomposing the themselves (think "calculating space"), all in sync, so much so that the whole entire universe follows the cycle of composition, then decomposition, I would suggest the cycle is planck scale in length.

 

In this universe movement of objects is perceived but not real as each object is composed/decomposed in one place before composing/decomposing in a different place, hence giving rise to what we see as motion.

 

How do I develop the maths for an object moving through this universe.

 

If Planck Length (L) (or any other length unit) is going to be "elementary" length. That's how far is one cell from the other.

And Planck Time (T) (or any other time unit) is going to be "elementary" time.

That's it, no fraction of it allowed, only positive integers.

(quantization of length and time)

Then macro scale velocities should be quantized in similar way:

[math]v=\frac{L*x}{T},x=integer[/math] (in this case velocity is also integer quantized)

or

[math]v=\frac{L}{T*x},x=integer[/math] (in this case velocity is not integer quantized)

With L and T, normalized to 1, x is the only variable.

 

How you can have the illusion of moving without moving due to cells composing and decomposing?

 

I've been studying physics for nearly 30 years. I would have absolutely no idea how you would describe the above mathematically...

 

At least not as written.

 

Are you describing all forms of movement or a specific dynamic?

It's very easy to write algorithm for something like this, but describing it mathematically?

 

Imagine you've array (2d) of cells,

class Cell

{

private:

bool particle; // true if cell is filled, false if empty

// some other properties, like charge, mass?

int x,y; // location in array

int vx,vy; // where particle should go in the next time (x,y,vx,vy could be floats)

int counter,timer;

};

Cell cells[ 100 ][ 100 ];

Now for each time, for each non-empty cell in array, counter is decreased by 1.

And if it reaches 0, particle swaps content with the one at cells[x+vx][y+vy], and counter=timer again.

There is also needed collision detection. If that cell is non-empty, there is hit, and new vx,vy are needed to recalculate, and/or annihilation, and/or absorption etc. etc.

If timer=1, cells are swapped/collision-tested the most often (the largest "velocity").

 

How about algorithm generating waves?

It has the same begin as above.

We have array of cells. But they have the only parameter: amplitude.

For every time tick, for every row, every column (for 2d array) amplitude of cell is decreased by f.e. 8 (or some other variable), then surrounding it cells get +1 (because in 2d, 3x3-1=8) (in the case of using different variable than 8, then decreased by variable/8 "conservation of energy-momentum"). There is needed to write to spare array (so same cell is not subtracted/incremented multiple time, different row/column process), and swap them every tick.

When you will start with central cell with f.e. 100,

you will see waves spreading similar like in the real world.

And you have wave effect, without any movement..

Sum of all cells will remain 100 regardless for how many cells it'll be spreaded.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Sensei

[Klaynos]

How do I develop the maths for an object moving through this universe.

 

 

This is a good aspiration to have, and it's good to be think about the nature of the universe.

 

I do have two big buts though...

 

What you've got here isn't what we would call a theory in physics. A theory is the highest level of idea, in that it is mathematical in nature and very well tested.

 

The answer to your question is not a simple one, nor one that won't take you a massive amount of time (think at least 5 years full time before you are even close and that assumes you already pretty competent at maths). You'd need to study a lot of physics (and bit just the pop sci idea of physics but the actual maths). Most working physicists I know studied fill time in physics for 10 years and at that point would have probably considered themselves barely starting their understanding.

 

At some point you'd probably also realise your idea won't with for some reason based on what we already understand.

[ajb]

Hi, I believe the universe is a kind of cellular automata.

The idea that cellular automaton may be applied to cosmology is not a new idea. However, I do not think that any proper model has ever been developed. This is not exactly mainstream cosmology, so I am not sure how popular these ideas really are.

 

Anyway, for sure you will need to do more of the hard work if you expect anyone to listen to your version of this idea.

[ScienceBoy]

I do know a skilled mathematician that could help you with this

[Mordred]

Wow I've studied a lot of different model ideas but this is the first time I've encountered this proposal.

 

Guess it goes to show no matter how much you study or learn there is always something new..

Edited March 9, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Thus far, this is falling short of what we expect for speculations discussions

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

In short, if you are in need of a mathematician, the implication is that you don't have a model. Absent any evidence or specific predictions, there's nothing here but a vague hypothesis. We need more.

 

[Strange]

The idea that cellular automaton may be applied to cosmology is not a new idea.

 

SimonFunnell, have you read this, and more importantly, all the referenced sources? Do you still think you have something that has not been considered before?

[studiot]

 

The cells go through a cycle of composing, then decomposing the themselves (think "calculating space"), all in sync, so much so that the whole entire universe follows the cycle of composition, then decomposition, I would suggest the cycle is planck scale in length.

 

In this universe movement of objects is perceived but not real as each object is composed/decomposed in one place before composing/decomposing in a different place, hence giving rise to what we see as motion.

 

How do I develop the maths for an object moving through this universe.

 

This is a bit like Conway's 'life' automaton, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-like_cellular_automaton ) with the composing and decomposing, however there is a major problem the the condition supplied

 

"all in sync"

 

What does that mean?

 

Instantaneous action at a distance, extending throughout the universe?

 

We know from relativity that doesn't fit with current observations on our universe.

 

Another automaton

 

Langton's Ant

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=langton%27s+ant&gbv=2&oq=langtons+a&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i10j0l9.1907.6141.0.9313.10.10.0.0.0.0.188.1593.0j10.10.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.10.1593.ANoT3MvVVKs

 

is more promising.

 

The active agent (the Ant) propagates within a preset grid, and constraint squares can be randomly or regularly seeded.

Edited March 9, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

"all in sync"

 

What does that mean?

 

Instantanweous action at a distance, extending throughout the universe?

 

We know from relativity that doesn't fit with current observations on our universe.

 

I assume that in this sort of model, global simultaneous updates could explain entanglement while some emergent property would preserve causality. But that is just (yet) another challenge for the model to address.

 

Langton's Ant

 

Cool!

[Sensei]

"all in sync"

 

What does that mean?

 

Instantanweous action at a distance, extending throughout the universe?

No.

It's what I called 'tick', in my simplified example algorithm in post #3.

Periodical update of all cells to new state.

And to simulate various speeds, there are counter and timer variables.

For photon-like particles timer would be 1.

So they run at full speed, while others run slower.

[studiot]

Sensei

No

 

Even in the computer world it is not possible to simultaneously update every cell.

 

But I was asking the more fundamental question

 

What does simultaneity (=sync) mean in this context?