31 replies to this topic

[qsa]

I derive the whole of physics from a simple postulate " Reality is a Mathematical structure". It is the only dynamic structure possible using fundamental entity which is a random line.

Particles are modelled as end of lines, one end is confined to a small region and the other to other particles in the universe. I simulate , with a simple C++ program,two particles interacting in 2D by counting the lengths of the random lines that cross each other from the two particles. In the X-axis I get the 1/r law for coulomb potential.The system automatically reproduces the hydrogen 1s energy. The secret is that in my system the Hamiltonian is an output and not an input. when lines meet that is gravity.

NOW for the big surprise. In the Y-axis the particles can only interact on a region set only by their width and it is NOT dependant on the distance between them. so each on can be at the other side of the universe. and the expectation value are always the opposite of each other, one is negative the other is positive. Please click new developments in my website and be sure to go where I show the relation between spin and mass. You can verify the results for yourself by running the simple C++ program.



QSA theory



check out these formulas that I deduce from my theory, these are NOT a guessed formulas.

alpha=α = 7.297352533(27) × 10−3
let
m= 27*(1/(2*alpha) -(.5*alpha) -1) + (alpha/(2*PI))
m=1822.888474(approx).....

the term (alpha/(2*PI)) it is related to spin
.................................................. .................................................. ..............

Also first term 27*(1/(2*alpha) )=1849.98599...
Two terms 27*(1/(2*alpha) -1 )= 1822.98599
average (1849.98599+1822.98599)/2 -1/3= 1836.15266 electron-proton ratio, strange ha !!!

Actually 27=3^3, 3 is equal to e^2(charge squared!!) in my system, the long term not the running phase.
Also reversing the relation I find
1/alpha= (2/3)(1/m*e^4) +2 +(3/2)(m*e^4) Approx.(m=1/1822.8885) (e^2=3), e^4=9
beautiful symmetry. all these equation can also be written in a form that uses the golden and silver ratios (google)
α

Edited by qsa, 9 January 2012 - 05:32 AM.

[md65536]

I derive the whole of physics from a simple postulate " Reality is a Mathematical structure". It is the only dynamic structure possible using fundamental entity which is a random line.

QSA theory

This article (David Mermin's "What's bad about this habit" http://www.ehu.es/ai...ence/mermin.pdf) was mentioned in another thread, about being wary of reifying abstract concepts. You've gone in the opposite direction to an extreme.

The sin^2 curve that you fit to some of your output -- could it not be a bell curve? From a cursory glance at the description of what you're doing (intersection of random line lengths in a box), I'd expect a bell curve distribution, depending on what you're plotting.


Also, the "1823" result is curious. Are you saying that you have N possible simulation results, and whatever N is, the probability distribution rises up until the last 1823 possible values at which point it falls to near 0? Do you know what is causing the result? Did you tweak things to get this result?

In your program code for qsa.c you have this:

long long S[1823];
// long long Po[80510000];
long long Lo[1823];
[...]

d0 = 4000; // Particle 2 size
[...]

long long kk;
for (kk = 0; kk <= d0; kk++) {
S[kk] = 0;               	// *** Out of bounds error here???
// Sy[kk] = 0;
// Loy[kk] = 0;
Lo[kk] = 0;

} // Next kk

(*** note added by me)

You're writing to 4000 locations in an array that only has 1823 locations? That's writing outside the bounds of the array. I think your results might be in part due to overwriting data. -- Actually that's jumping to conclusions since this code's just in the initialization stage, but still I get the sense that the program isn't reliable.

Edited by md65536, 9 January 2012 - 07:36 AM.

[qsa]

This article (David Mermin's "What's bad about this habit" http://www.ehu.es/ai...ence/mermin.pdf) was mentioned in another thread, about being wary of reifying abstract concepts. You've gone in the opposite direction to an extreme.

The sin^2 curve that you fit to some of your output -- could it not be a bell curve? From a cursory glance at the description of what you're doing (intersection of random line lengths in a box), I'd expect a bell curve distribution, depending on what you're plotting.


Also, the "1823" result is curious. Are you saying that you have N possible simulation results, and whatever N is, the probability distribution rises up until the last 1823 possible values at which point it falls to near 0? Do you know what is causing the result? Did you tweak things to get this result?

In your program code for qsa.c you have this:

long long S[1823];
// long long Po[80510000];
long long Lo[1823];
[...]

d0 = 4000; // Particle 2 size
[...]

long long kk;
for (kk = 0; kk <= d0; kk++) {
S[kk] = 0;                   // *** Out of bounds error here???
// Sy[kk] = 0;
// Loy[kk] = 0;
Lo[kk] = 0;

} // Next kk

(*** note added by me)

You're writing to 4000 locations in an array that only has 1823 locations? That's writing outside the bounds of the array. I think your results might be in part due to overwriting data. -- Actually that's jumping to conclusions since this code's just in the initialization stage, but still I get the sense that the program isn't reliable.

Thank you for catching the 1823, error. I just simulated that few days back, I guess doing a ton of simulations with code makes you do a lot of mistakes, which I have done plenty of. But still that is a good start. Anyway, I appreciate your help a lot, and if it turns out that the theory is just a mathematical illusion then that will be a relief eventually. And if it has any value no matter how small then I will be just glad, either way I win. I do hope you stay with me until it is resolved.



But for your first question the output sine^2 wave simulates the shrodinger equation solution for particle in a box, ie with infinite potential. The constraint is just not to allow the random lines to go out of bound.


particle in a box

just corrected the link, I am new here.

Edited by qsa, 9 January 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[md65536]

Thank you for catching the 1823, error. I just simulated that few days back, I guess doing a ton of simulations with code makes you do a lot of mistakes, which I have done plenty of. But still that is a good start. Anyway, I appreciate your help a lot, and if it turns out that the theory is just a mathematical illusion then that will be a relief eventually. And if it has any value no matter how small then I will be just glad, either way I win. I do hope you stay with me until it is resolved.

If you read the Mermin paper linked above, it might give you some insights.

I think also applicable is the notion of cargo-cult science. http://en.wikipedia....go_cult_science
The analogy to cargo cults is especially relevant in cases like your theory. In one fascinating example, "Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating them." [http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Cargo_cult]

Imagine a tribeperson who doesn't speak Japanese or English, sitting at mock radio equipment and mimicking Japanese or English words. They may get the words right, but they wouldn't know the meaning. They would be like magic words. If you do cargo cult science, then you can do the same with math. You can do some math, and without understanding the meaning, if it works out it might seem like magic. Then it's a short mental leap to thinking that this magic math that somehow fits reality, IS reality.

Anyway my point is not that the math does or doesn't have meaning (or whether it is somehow illusory), just that understanding the meaning is important.

I don't have a lot of experience, but my experience is that most of the understanding comes from picking apart the math and understanding what it means or why you get certain results or why it corresponds with another result (such as sin^2). On the other hand it might just be that this is say a different way to simulate particles and get similar results to some other way... so it could have use without having that much meaning. But my point is that I don't think you can express the meaning of the math beyond your understanding of the math or its meaning.

Also I don't know the math of quantum physics so I couldn't tell you whether or not your results correspond and whether or not there would be a reason (other than my guess that you're plotting a bell curve).

---

As for your code, what happens when the mistake is fixed?

One example of how the mistake could manifest itself in the results, is as such:
You intialize 4000 elements of array Lo[], but it only has 1823 elements. Array ex[] is declared next, and it's likely to be adjacent in memory, so you may end up initializing the first 4000-1823 (if the elements are the same size) elements of ex[]. Then you use elements of ex[] in a1, and you use a1 as a divisor. So if the last 1823 elements of ex[] are uninitialized, they may start off as some large pseudorandom number, and anything divided by those elements may be turned into something small.

I don't know that that's happening, but I don't want to put a lot of effort into analysing the code to look for curious behavior, if there are mistakes like that which could account for it.

Edited by md65536, 10 January 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[qsa]

Thank you for the reply,much appreciated. As for that programing error took me less that 3 seconds to realize it when you pointed it out. But otherwise I have checked for the possible errors that you have mentioned.

As for Mermin paper ,which I have seen before, its points are well taken. It remains to be seen how my theory is to be interpreted in its context.



As for the cult thing, it simply does not apply to me. I am a very well to do person with a history of many success on my side and also I have a patent. Like I have explained a bit in my website I have a Masters in EE from University of Sussex , and I keep my mind sharp by reading about complicated stuff with physics and other things. Although, I cannot claim to be a high end physicist but I have read a lot in the area ,up to the latest QG theories, and I do have the basics albiet far from full. I guess what I mean is that I know very well how science works and I am very well aware of the cult example pitfalls. I tinker with ideas for fun. like I also mentioned in my web the result that I got was a COMPLETE surprise to me, I had a gut feeling about the idea , but NEVER expected those results. As you may know, which I came to know much later, that people like Wolfram (New kind of science-google-) and Conaway game of life have consciously persued such ideas righlty from their experience with physics. But fortunatly I did not, and I did not even know about them at the time. Nor, I knew of Dr. Tegmark's conjecture which I think my theory proves, somewhat at least. I arrived at it from a very different prespective. Now, you could look at it as if it is a fourth method of doing QM ( the others,schrodinger,matrix,path integral), but from a very diffrent prespective. Whether that adds something very new or not is to be seen. My first impression is that it seems to justify my claim, but I cannot be very sure. That is the whole purpose of these discussions.

BTW, I have again connected electron mass to spin, I think there are no errors this time. I will post that when I put the material in a presentable form. it involves few graphs.


As to your knowledge of quantum physics I hope somebody with experience can help, maybe somebody you know. But thank you very much anyway.

Mathematical Universe theory,wiki



A new kind of science, Wolfram

Edited by qsa, 11 January 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[qsa]

Ok, here is the the electron mass and spin relation. if you look at the attachment you will see as the particle size approches 1823,1822,1821 then at 1820 you get a flip in those notches and the frequency becomes minimum. I interpret that there is a relation such as 1820+3(charge square)=1823 which is almost electron mass.

also the same behaviuor appears at 1820*5, 1820*3,1820*2,1820*2,1820*1,1820/2,1820/3,1820/4 ...



I am not sure at all what is going on, but the simulation don't lie. If it is some kind of coincidence , well that will be strange to say the least. but there is also some support form the X axis simulation also. but again I have to put it in a presentable form. attached mass.txt has the code just plug the the particle size (1823 ....) into d0 and d1 in the code. take the data from "y5a.txt" and put it in excel sheet and plot. Please erase "y5a.txt". before you run again for different particle number.

change code to prevent from repeated runs
from
for (mk = 1; mk <= 100; mk++)

to



for (mk = 1; mk <= 1; mk++)

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Attached Files

•  mass.txt   3.73K   50 downloads

Edited by qsa, 12 January 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[md65536]

Ok, here is the the electron mass and spin relation. if you look at the attachment you will see as the particle size approches 1823,1822,1821 then at 1820 you get a flip in those notches and the frequency becomes minimum. I interpret that there is a relation such as 1820+3(charge square)=1823 which is almost electron mass.

I'm very much not convinced that this has anything to do with electron mass. What makes you think it has anything to do with electron mass? Is it just that the values coincide? How does an electron's mass result in the data you're getting?

I am not sure at all what is going on, but the simulation don't lie.

Well that's the thing: If the data are "true" but the statement they make is unknown or even meaningless, it's not the same as a true statement.
To me the data say "There are some curious results relating to the number 1823." Maybe they say more. I think more would require much more analysis.
If you wrote a paper I'd suggest calling it a "curious result" and being clear that you don't know why you get the results, rather than saying that you interpret it as electron mass, or that you've derived the whole of physics. http://www.ar-tiste....on-honesty.html

That's only enough for me to be curious to the point that there's a chance (a small one... sorry) I might one day run the program and try to figure out the results (ie. part of analysis). I don't know enough about QM and electrons, but others here will likely be even less curious, just due to the sheer volume of work that's already out there, in which are made specific statements that are backed up straightforwardly with evidence and logic. To accept conclusions, one expects at least that the analysis has been done.

But since I don't know much, it's possible that there's some interesting and new correlation here and I'm just not seeing it.

Edited by md65536, 12 January 2012 - 11:57 PM.

[qsa]

Thank you for reply again. I basically agree with everything that you have said. I have explicitly and implicitly admitted to what I have been able to make sense of and how much. The sad thing is that I have not gotten much attention because that was the whole purpose of the exercise is to see what other people make of it and what mistakes I have made since like I said it is in my interest. I replied to your post in less than two minutes when you pointed my error, that was really nice. Because I saw the behaviour that I show in the thumbnail before but did not pay attention to it that much and it was not clear because of the error that you pointed out. So when that cleared up the new picture became much more clear and I caught it, thanks to you. That is why I said I am sad, because people here demand some real math in the theory and I show it with simulation, yet people who wrote prose got much more attention, not that there is anything wrong with that.



The physical picture is building up very slowly. but even the formulas I show I have hard time fiquring out what is going on. Still I am having a very vague idea what is going on since I have not shown you many other results and I also know what I need to do to have a better picture. and I don't blame the reader because my website writeup is a disaster of its own. But basically the equivalence to standard physics is coming from the fourier wave analysis.


As to the whole of physics I agree it is a quite bit strong, but not entirely untrue from the large amount of evidence of both the shown and the unshown. But since this is not a publication it is only in the debug stage so I thought of doing clever advertizing! I do hope to publish soon in My link after more solid results are worked out. I will post the X axis soon, it is probably the most clear and interesting result.

Thank you again.


P.S. how did you find the links that I have posted in my last post.

Speaking of coincidence. I calculate alpha (FSC) in my program with few terms that are an output of the simulation. the difference was something like .000004, it drove me nuts for months. Until I found out that it was pure concidence becaus of the closeness of 4/alpha*m to 1000000 , how much honesty do you want. untile I found the reasonable formula for alpha which I have shown.

Edited by qsa, 13 January 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[md65536]

That is why I said I am sad, because people here demand some real math in the theory and I show it with simulation, yet people who wrote prose got much more attention, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Well don't worry too much. It seems the best way to get a lot of attention around here is to keep repeating a set of incorrect statements while avoiding seeming like you're purposefully breaking the rules. I don't see many people getting a lot of positive attention.

There are thousands of topics in the speculation forum. Most people who post likely think their idea is more important or right or interesting than the others. I don't think many people read expecting to actually find the next revolution in science here. I'm not an expert; I'm a crackpot. I'm here just as a diversion from my own revolutionary theories.

Chances are, if an idea is good it will take a LOT of work to develop it. If it's a good and simple idea, chances are it will take a lot of work to present it in a convincing enough way that people can see that it's worth reading just by a paper's abstract, and that it's demonstrably correct by the paper. (If it's a good and simple and obvious idea, chances are it's been thought of before.)

What makes me sad is realizing the sheer amount of work involved to get to the point where you've proven your claims and can easily show it, but it seems to be necessary. I don't know of anyone who's succeeded yet, here in the speculations forum.



I haven't read the links much. I disagree with Tegmark's postulate though. I think that math is invented (not intrinsic) as a description of what we observe in reality. But we can also invent abstract math that doesn't need to correspond to anything real. It might even be possible to somehow create some math that specifically contradicts the notion of "real". It's an interesting idea though.

[qsa]

Here it is, what I call the most beautiful graph ever, I simulate two particles interacting, with different compton wave lengths for each run. they all converge on the .00054858 the mass of the electron.

also check out this formula (compare with QED derivation)



electron g-factor=(4m_e/3eh)*(2/(3*m_e*alpha) - 2*e^2 -1)



=2.00231934...



e=3(charge square),h actually h_bar=(e/alpha)^.5=20.2758.. m_e=.00054858

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by qsa, 26 February 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[qsa]

Well don't worry too much. It seems the best way to get a lot of attention around here is to keep repeating a set of incorrect statements while avoiding seeming like you're purposefully breaking the rules. I don't see many people getting a lot of positive attention.

I would like to ask you (or anybody else) for a favour to run the program that reproduces above results to check that i have not made any silly mistakes. I thank you whether you can help or not.

But first let me explain a bit about the program.


the thumbnail shows 1D implementation. 1,2,3,4,.... are the number of loops. in each loop I throw two numbers for each particle denoting their position and length. if the lines cross (star) I ignore I don't register the position( the round marks) or don't do anything with the lines. But if they don't cross then I have a counter that updates the number of times a hit happened in the particular position (the squared marks). then for each particle I have a counter that simply adds the lengths of this line to the previous total for each particle.

I do that(loops) a million, sometimes a 100 trillion times. then I normalize to the number of throws. the totals of the lines(normalized) are the energy. the numbers of hits for each positions is operated on to get the expectation values. normalized position hits are the probabilities that are similar to the ones we get from the "squaring" of the wavefunction. Without interaction the expectation value is the midpoint of the particle. But when interaction happens the expectation value moves. lets say to left in the left particle and right in the right particle. That denotes a repulsion. you can also get attraction with different logic. But more on the logic part later.

then the particles are moved to a different distance and the operation is repeated.

Now I explain the code in more detail. see attached file.



The code that you see is the cleaned up version of the one in the website.

1. define variables/types

2. set the particle widths (d0,d1) , which I interpret as the compton wavelength, I assume lamda= h/mc the model shows (I will show why) that h=c , so lamda =1/m ,then I choose m to be in au hence if m=.0005485 then lamda=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 increas 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 acummulation 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 exectation 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 seperation.

15 . go to mk loop for new seperation distance

16. done

To get the said graph you have to run it several times with these parameters. d0=d1= 5,50,200,500,1500,1647,1966 what ever you like up 2000 is ok. just plot distance vs frf(energy)[second and third output columns] for the different runs of particle sizes. but make mk start=0 and intr =50 and kj= 500000000 for 150 points run for each particle will take 2 hours. for 5 particles 10 hours and you are done. you can also run it for only 3 runs for d0=d1=5,200,1500 to get a rough idea. Take the data to a spreadsheet(excel) and plot.

you can also change to

for (kk = 0; kk <= 10000000; kk++)

just to be on the safe side.also change to following

long long w =1;

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Attached Files

•  qsaclean.txt   3.79K   45 downloads

Edited by qsa, 12 April 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[qsa]

This is just a write up on the background of the theory



Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. So, to my mind I connect both since both seem to be a statement of truth. So I took a guess that reality is something akin to a circle (truth). The relations between the points give you a mathematical structure whereby you get PI which defines the structure of the circle.


So I was thinking the relation(s) between what entity(s) could give a rise to a universe (truth). To come up with a structure with some entities, the easiest way was to see if I could draw two entities and define some kind a rule for their interaction. At that time I was familiar with fractals and vaguely heard of Conaways idea, but I said let me see maybe I will be smarter than Conaway and get some really fancy rule between some triangle or circles or lines or whatever. But as soon as I put a blank sheet in front of me ,for a short while I thought to myself this sounds very enigmatic, first by what criteria I am going to choose my entity, and which characteristic of that entity I was going to interrelate them and what expression. Choosing by trial and error was not very natural.


My intuition was telling me I needed something more natural. Being an engineer and a programmer we learn to be efficient in our designs. So I opted first for the simplest configuration and that was point and to start simple and not to draw points all over the paper, I restricted myself to a line. Now, if I iterate on an artificial formula I will just get fractals which has already been tried which gives you beautiful suggestive pictures but that's all. Also the different formulas I could use were most unnatural. So I thought the only way out is to throw random numbers on the line and see what happens. Off course, after a bit more than few seconds it was obvious I am going to get a uniformly distributed points on the line, I don't have to tell you that I was sad at that point( although I should have been happy as hell, you will see why). How I was to get out of this conundrum, other than mangling that paper, throwing it in the garbage can and go to a party. The only other thing to do was to throw random lines that did not exceed an original line of length L. One more choice was necessary is to choose where those lines started, the obvious choice was random position on that line L. Simulating this concept with simple BASIC program and using the simplest constraint , to eliminate the lines that went out of the L bound I plotted the probability of hitting the positions on the line L. And WOW sin^2 the solution to Schrodinger equation(actually psi square) in an infinite potential well. The rest of the story of multi axis, general potential, and interaction and so on you can read about it in the website.

Edited by qsa, 14 April 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[questionposter]

Observations occur in our minds, therefore our observations cannot themselves be reality. Math is based off those observations: math cannot be reality.
Also, how is making programs which themselves can create programs via evolution going? Last time I heard it would take 100 years for a program like that to make a game, but computers are probably faster by now.

Edited by questionposter, 14 April 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[qsa]

Observations occur in our minds, therefore our observations cannot themselves be reality. Math is based off those observations: math cannot be reality.
Also, how is making programs which themselves can create programs via evolution going? Last time I heard it would take 100 years for a program like that to make a game, but computers are probably faster by now.

Thanks for the reply.

While it is true that there is a controversy of math being "invented" vs "discovered", but I would say the vast majority agree that reality and math is outside of our minds and objective. And in science they are treated as so. Our mind does not make up the concept of circle.

My system uses a computer program to prove the point, but I suspect someday an equivalent mathematical system can be produced. It just seems so much easier to do it with a computer program, say, just like CDT(casual dynamic triangulation)-google-. So it is not about a computer program it is the mathematical structure that is important.

Here is the most important first result from the three results that I will show. The results confirm that the classical Bohr Model falls out from QSA model which encompasses QM and QFT. It is generated using the same program listed in post # 11

Please always refer to these wiki

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bohr_radius
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bohr_model

this is the result of simulating two particles with a width of 1823 which is close to 1822.8885 for electron compton wavelength (just simplification)interacting at a seperation of around Bohr radius which is

1/(m*alpha)=1/(.00054858*.007297352569) = 249801.3


the raw data is below from the program with int=50. also make this change in the program to get these results

for (mk = 2475; mk <= 500000000; mk++)

also

d0 =1823; // Particle 1 size
d1 = 1823; // Particle 2 size

long long kj =20000000000; // # of random throws (approx 30 min for each distance)

but next I give the important data that we will discuss

distance  energy (P.E.)     charge^2(e^2)     Expectation value(Ex)   

249323 0.0000120326 3.000003457 2.219640631
249423 0.0000120278 2.999998876 2.219325817
249523 0.0000120229 3.000000804 2.217591031
249623 0.0000120181 3.000000809 2.217731633
249723 0.0000120133 2.999998829 2.215744702
249823 0.0000120085 3.000006682 2.215434488
249923 0.0000120037 2.999998356 2.214921159

because I have the 1/r law I interpret the energy as e^2/r , e=charge

so if you multiply distance *energy(P.E.)= e^2=3 as shown, the average of above e^2= 3.000001, but we will take 3 to simplify.

then because we know alpha I deduce that ( from alpha=e ^2/(h*c))

h*c=e^2/alpha= 3/ .007297352569= 411.108

from other arguments I have h=c= sqrt(411.108)= 20.2758

Now, the important part which Expectation value(Ex for short)

after inspection I find it to be related to the classical bohr model variables

Ex=v^2/(2*m*e^4) ---------- eq 1

solving for v^2=(2*m*e^4)*Ex --------------- eq 2

from above simulation the average of Ex= 2.2172 almost

hence v^2= (2*.0005485*9)*2.2172= 0.0218936

v= sqrt(0.0218936)= 0.14797

now we compute v/c=0.14797/20.2758= 0.0072976

v/c should be alpha we have a very good match with some error mostly because of Ex which we can simulate with higher j thows to get more accuracy and also due to the approxomation of 1823 and 1822.8885

Great we proved that Ex is what it is and h=c

next

from eq 1 we can compute the kinetic energy

K.E.= (m^2*e^4)*Ex=(1/2)*m*v^2=.5*.00054858*0.0218936

= 0.000006005195544

2*K.E.= 0.000012010

That is Bohr Model P.E.= 2*K.E.

So the energy has the interpretation of potential energy and Ex is related to K.E. , that makes perfect sense

also if we take 1/(2*Ex)=1/(2*2.2172)=0.22551 almost m*c^2

m*c^2=.00054858*411.108= 0.225526

errors should be taken into account as mentioned earlier


Q.E.D

2475   249323   1.2032598102434993e-005 5.9941919763095141e-006  3.0000034566933995   1.823      2.2196406306904919   -2.1562643940237649
2476   249423   1.2027755561853412e-005 5.9917972737823617e-006  2.9999988755041636   1.823      2.2193258174578432   -2.1564566940604664
2477   249523   1.202294299276971e-005 5.9894015680537819e-006  3.0000008043848765   1.823      2.2175910306876858   -2.1541575969249607
2478   249623   1.2018126569310113e-005 5.9870183764102081e-006  3.0000008086108982   1.823      2.2177316327685048   -2.1541184268552342
2479   249723   1.2013306059579073e-005 5.9846252913626688e-006  2.9999988291162647   1.823      2.2157447018220182   -2.1534291553698495
2480   249823   1.2008528765272037e-005 5.9822392351484673e-006  3.000006681726556   1.823      2.2154344880241297   -2.1517840085696207
2481   249923   1.2003690562073311e-005 5.9798542464554e-006  2.9999983563450483   1.823      2.2149211586316824   -2.1521569239379232

[qsa]

md65536,



will you help me in confirming the results of the simulations at least, since you seem to be a good programmer. you can PM your answer if you like.



sorry I can't pay you for that ,because that will raise my Baez crackpot index. I have a reputation to keep, you know.

[md65536]

will you help me in confirming the results of the simulations at least, since you seem to be a good programmer. you can PM your answer if you like.
sorry I can't pay you for that ,because that will raise my Baez crackpot index. I have a reputation to keep, you know.

I will forgive you for the increase in crackpot index. Please see attached invoice.


I'd lost interest but I'll check it out anyway since you axed.
I'm running the qsaclean.txt source attached to post #11.

1). The line
for (kk = 0; kk <= 20000000; kk++) {
causes a segmentation fault at qsaclean.cpp:98
But your suggestion

for (kk = 0; kk <= 10000000; kk++) {
avoids this.


2). Segmentation fault at qsaclean.cpp:185
ex1[mk] = (double)edx1 / ((double)f1)- (0.5 * int(w*d1))+.5 ;

You have

for (mk = 2479778; mk <= 500000000; mk++)
but you declared the array with a size of only

double ex1[90000];


I don't understand how you could have got the program to run at all, even with some of the suggested modifications. Without the array overruns but with the current loop counts, would this program take centuries to run??? Is there an example version that can run in like a minute and produce rough estimate data?

Some suggestions:
- Use something like "#define SMAX 18230000; long long S[SMAX];" and use the same define in loops that iterate over that array, rather than using explicit numbers everywhere.
- Also add some bounds checking, since you're using math to calculate some array indexes. E.g. #include <assert.h> and then add some "assert( int(w*p) < SMAX );" --- must then run in debug mode.
- More-descriptive variable names is a good habit.
- Description of the output would be good, eg. a line of column names at the top of the output and yem.txt.


Sorry, I can't keep track of where all the output values are coming from and what they mean.
I'm looking for like one paragraph (in the style of a paper's abstract) to explain what value I should be looking at and why I should find it interesting, before I'll be interested enough to try to figure out why that value is or what it might mean.


So without having done any serious analysis, my guess is still that you have an interesting simulation that's been tweaked to coincidentally but purposefully get some values that you want it to get, and that you're simulating a process whose data is only roughly the same shape as the data you're looking to emulate.

Edited by md65536, 18 April 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[qsa]

I will forgive you for the increase in crackpot index. Please see attached invoice.....

Thanks for the reply much appreciated.


Of course I am well aware of all the short comings you listed. As you well know docummantation is both boring and seems tediuos when many changes occur while I am actively developing it. But it is prudent to do it good if others have to invest their time in it. So I promise to clean it up and show you the essential feature with minimum effort and time on your part. I will do my best to get you interested again, mind you my theory only deals with the basic of QM and QFT.

BTW, which OS and C++ version are you using.

[md65536]

Of course I am well aware of all the short comings you listed. As you well know docummantation is both boring and seems tediuos when many changes occur while I am actively developing it. But it is prudent to do it good if others have to invest their time in it. So I promise to clean it up and show you the essential feature with minimum effort and time on your part. I will do my best to get you interested again, mind you my theory only deals with the basic of QM and QFT.

BTW, which OS and C++ version are you using.

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?

[questionposter]

Thanks for the reply.

While it is true that there is a controversy of math being "invented" vs "discovered", but I would say the vast majority agree that reality and math is outside of our minds and objective. And in science they are treated as so. Our mind does not make up the concept of circle.

My system uses a computer program to prove the point, but I suspect someday an equivalent mathematical system can be produced. It just seems so much easier to do it with a computer program, say, just like CDT(casual dynamic triangulation)-google-. So it is not about a computer program it is the mathematical structure that is important.

Here is the most important first result from the three results that I will show. The results confirm that the classical Bohr Model falls out from QSA model which encompasses QM and QFT. It is generated using the same program listed in post # 11

Please always refer to these wiki

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bohr_radius
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bohr_model

this is the result of simulating two particles with a width of 1823 which is close to 1822.8885 for electron compton wavelength (just simplification)interacting at a seperation of around Bohr radius which is

1/(m*alpha)=1/(.00054858*.007297352569) = 249801.3


the raw data is below from the program with int=50. also make this change in the program to get these results

for (mk = 2475; mk <= 500000000; mk++)

also

d0 =1823; // Particle 1 size
d1 = 1823; // Particle 2 size

long long kj =20000000000; // # of random throws (approx 30 min for each distance)

but next I give the important data that we will discuss

distance  energy (P.E.) 	charge^2(e^2) 	Expectation value(Ex)   

249323 0.0000120326 3.000003457 2.219640631
249423 0.0000120278 2.999998876 2.219325817
249523 0.0000120229 3.000000804 2.217591031
249623 0.0000120181 3.000000809 2.217731633
249723 0.0000120133 2.999998829 2.215744702
249823 0.0000120085 3.000006682 2.215434488
249923 0.0000120037 2.999998356 2.214921159

because I have the 1/r law I interpret the energy as e^2/r , e=charge

so if you multiply distance *energy(P.E.)= e^2=3 as shown, the average of above e^2= 3.000001, but we will take 3 to simplify.

then because we know alpha I deduce that ( from alpha=e ^2/(h*c))

h*c=e^2/alpha= 3/ .007297352569= 411.108

from other arguments I have h=c= sqrt(411.108)= 20.2758

Now, the important part which Expectation value(Ex for short)

after inspection I find it to be related to the classical bohr model variables

Ex=v^2/(2*m*e^4) ---------- eq 1

solving for v^2=(2*m*e^4)*Ex --------------- eq 2

from above simulation the average of Ex= 2.2172 almost

hence v^2= (2*.0005485*9)*2.2172= 0.0218936

v= sqrt(0.0218936)= 0.14797

now we compute v/c=0.14797/20.2758= 0.0072976

v/c should be alpha we have a very good match with some error mostly because of Ex which we can simulate with higher j thows to get more accuracy and also due to the approxomation of 1823 and 1822.8885

Great we proved that Ex is what it is and h=c

next

from eq 1 we can compute the kinetic energy

K.E.= (m^2*e^4)*Ex=(1/2)*m*v^2=.5*.00054858*0.0218936

= 0.000006005195544

2*K.E.= 0.000012010

That is Bohr Model P.E.= 2*K.E.

So the energy has the interpretation of potential energy and Ex is related to K.E. , that makes perfect sense

also if we take 1/(2*Ex)=1/(2*2.2172)=0.22551 almost m*c^2

m*c^2=.00054858*411.108= 0.225526

errors should be taken into account as mentioned earlier


Q.E.D

2475   249323   1.2032598102434993e-005 5.9941919763095141e-006  3.0000034566933995   1.823      2.2196406306904919   -2.1562643940237649
2476   249423   1.2027755561853412e-005 5.9917972737823617e-006  2.9999988755041636   1.823      2.2193258174578432   -2.1564566940604664
2477   249523   1.202294299276971e-005 5.9894015680537819e-006  3.0000008043848765   1.823      2.2175910306876858   -2.1541575969249607
2478   249623   1.2018126569310113e-005 5.9870183764102081e-006  3.0000008086108982   1.823      2.2177316327685048   -2.1541184268552342
2479   249723   1.2013306059579073e-005 5.9846252913626688e-006  2.9999988291162647   1.823      2.2157447018220182   -2.1534291553698495
2480   249823   1.2008528765272037e-005 5.9822392351484673e-006  3.000006681726556   1.823      2.2154344880241297   -2.1517840085696207
2481   249923   1.2003690562073311e-005 5.9798542464554e-006  2.9999983563450483   1.823      2.2149211586316824   -2.1521569239379232

Math is just the patterns we observe, there's nothing to suggest that math is reality and I can just find the number 2 floating around (I think one of the great philosophers like Plato or Aristotle also thought math was reality and that numbers could therefore exist on their own without human invention, and literally believed you could in some way find the true value of "2" just floating around somewhere). Math is reality in the sense that there are many of those patterns that exist in nature which change by specific amounts of something, but I don't think you can directly say any particular object is math.

[qsa]

Math is just the patterns we observe, there's nothing to suggest that math is reality and I can just find the number 2 floating around (I think one of the great philosophers like Plato or Aristotle also thought math was reality and that numbers could therefore exist on their own without human invention, and literally believed you could in some way find the true value of "2" just floating around somewhere). Math is reality in the sense that there are many of those patterns that exist in nature which change by specific amounts of something, but I don't think you can directly say any particular object is math.

Of course we know how well that math works to describe reality that is not new, but it is more correct to say that we don't know what nature is made of, mathematics or otherwise. But because our understanding of nature has grown tremendously in the past hundred years or so, it was the scientists in the field who got to consider that nature looks like it has more than this casual relation with mathematics. It was not just the suggestion of that casual relation but also the deeper understanding of how nature seems to be constructed. While we don't understand a lot of things about nature, it was this comprehendible thing about it that made many scientists make that connection.


The quote of Wigner's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is very well known and pointed to as one of the first hints. Another hint you can see in the classic textbook by Wheeler , Misner and Thorne GRAVITATION where the first attempts were made to drive the law of physics by logic which they called pre-calculus. As our knowledge increased more people got to consider it like Wolfram in New Kind of Science, Conaway's game of life, all kinds of automata ideas, Fractals and not the least as we got hints from how computers generate virtual realities. But the grand slam belonged to Dr. Tegmark with his MUH. So this idea did not happen in one go but in a continuous fashion. But the man who put that in words that I think is most beautiful is wheeler.

Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?

you can also get some idea from

http://www.fqxi.org/...kles_fqxi_2.pdf

I did not say that reality is a mathematical structure and stopped. I show some evidence. maybe you can say that your evidence is not good enough because ....so and so.

Mathematics has a lot of philosophical issues. like is there anything deeper as to the reason of their compelling truth, to my knowledge most agree that no reason is there or needed. as to where those numbers exist, I take a guess and say WE are the living proof, derived from my theory.