md65536

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.

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.

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? 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.com/feynman-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.

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.

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.