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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

I am now on vacation, but I will do my best if you want to continue the discussion which I appreciate a lot. Irritation is a natural human reaction, I also get irritated from your comment, but I will not get it into my head. You can always opt out if you get too annoyed! That is your right of course. Now, I don't think it is wise to go into this cycle of yes it meets , no it doesn't. It does look like the numbers you picked seem to be the general area, however, you are right that there is no specific point, and there seems to be a good reason. I would like to analyse this fact a bit more later, but I want to go through several points before that. But before that I would like to emphasize a point relating to your comment that you can write a program to do such and such. That is why I emphasized in a previous post that all my results are done using one and only one system, I don't get to pick and choose. I only do what is possible as to the system allows me to do, which is relatively very small set of actions. To see my point about the system please cut out the code in my website and replace it with a copy of the code appearing in the thread. run it to see the results in the textbox and see what number comes up. it might take few minutes(10-15). . run it few times and average for even more accuracy. the two particle interacting have a Compton wave of 1822.8885 and sitting at a distance of Bohr radius. 1/(m*alpha). Alpha seems to be nothing more than a probability ratio of hitting the particles directly to kj or f(unaccepted throws). The program is exactly as the previous one with a condition shown. Once confirmed we take more. //insert code here function GraphIt() { var newElement = document.createElement('p'); var L = 1000000; var w=1; var f = 0; var q = 0; var en = 0; var en1 = 0; var edx = 0; var edx1 = 0; var kj = 1000000000; // increase for accuracy var m = 0; var km = 1; var d0 = 1822.888; var d1 = 1822.888; var intr = 1 ; var eqt=0; var rand = new Random(); // create an array 's' and 'l' and initialize all elements to 0 var fr = new Array(); // KM or w*d0 !!!!!! for (var i = 0; i <= km;i++) { fr.push([0,0]); } for ( var m = 0; m <km; m++) { var dist = d0*137.036-0+2*m*intr ; var st1 =(L/2)-(d0*137.036)/2+ -d0 - m*intr; var st0 =(L/2) +(d0*137.036)/2+ 0 + m*intr ; f = 0; f1 = 0; edx = 0; edx1 = 0; en = 0.0; en1=0; ent=0;q=0; for ( var i = 1; i <kj; i++) { // throw random lines var p = d0 * rand.random(); var li = (dist + d0) *rand.random(); var p1 = d1 *rand.random(); var li1 = (dist +d1)* rand.random(); if ((st1 + p1 + li1 > st0 + 0) && (st1 + p1 + li1 < st0 + d0) ) { // if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) { eqt=eqt+li q=q+1; } } // put random lines through conditions if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) { // do nothing } else { en = en+(li); f++; en1=en1+li1; } } en = f/en; en1 = f/en1; fr[m][0] = dist; fr[m][1] = en; document.lf.log.value += 1/(q/f)-1+"\n"; } var myChart = new JSChart('chartId', 'line'); myChart.setSize(750,600); myChart.setDataArray(fr, '100' ); myChart.setLineColor('#00AA00', '100'); myChart.setDataArray(fr1, '500'); myChart.setLineColor('#0000ff', '500'); myChart.setDataArray(fr2, '1000'); myChart.setLineColor('#ff0000', '1000'); myChart.setDataArray(fr3, '1500'); myChart.setLineColor('#AA0066', '1500'); myChart.setLineWidth(1); myChart.setTitleColor('#7D7D7D'); myChart.setAxisColor('#9F0505'); myChart.setGridColor('#a4a4a4'); myChart.setAxisValuesColor('#333639'); myChart.setAxisNameColor('#333639'); myChart.setTextPaddingLeft(10); myChart.setAxisPaddingLeft(80) myChart.setAxisNameFontSize(12); myChart.setAxisNameX("Dist"); myChart.setAxisNameY("en"); myChart.setLabelFontSize(8); myChart.setAxisValuesDecimalsY(7); myChart.setIntervalStartX(1500); myChart.setIntervalEndX(7000); myChart.setIntervalEndY(.0016); myChart.setAxisValuesNumberY(100); myChart.setLegendShow(true); myChart.setFlagRadius(6); myChart.setTooltip([5500,'','100']); myChart.draw(); }

Thank you for the long reply and your good observation, That shows that you are carefully examining the results. Of course I say that because I also wrestled with this issue, I was not getting a clear point of intersection. As a matter of fact the curves never meet even at large distances although very close there was no clear criteria as to what the difference should be taken as. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the area we are talking about is significant in the general sense. What I mean is that it is a standard practice to approximate functions for instance by cutting off the higher terms. We do many such approximations when solving engineering or physics problems. Also don't forget that here we are talking about the mass of the electron which has been the untouchable of the standard physics. So any hint of it showing up is very significant, Moreover, it is showing up in a theory in a natural way i.e. without making too many assumptions, just extension of the basic system. To convince you that the area mentioned is significant I show a plot(in the image shown) for the difference in the values for 100 and 1500 for each of the distance of the separation. You can see how the values quickly went down by 97% at the vicinity of the area marked by the red circle. from there on the difference takes a much much more gradual poster. the curve was fitted with a power function using EXCEL and you can see it is almost 1/X^3, a very fast decay before the end of bent. I post the image of the typical curves that is being talked about for the benefits of those who don't what to go and run the program.

I am not sure why I got -1, I just thought I would be courteous by informing that I will not be able to reply soon( 4 AM local time). I could have simply waited, I pass that as a misunderstanding. I don't want to make a big issue out of side issues like the derivation of SE, but if you Google for it you will see a lot of papers claiming such a thing, They usually start with criticizing previous work and then offer their "right" explanation. There is no standard acceptable theory. Now to the issue at hand. But before proceeding further, I would like to emphasize couple of points. First, do you agree that I am not doing anything on purpose to produce those curves. I.e. I use the same algorithms that I use in getting the basic results that I mentioned to swansont in post # 40. Second, the curves are fully divergent to the left and almost fully convergent on the right. So there is an area where they start converging. Can you please estimate the range of this area approximately and tell me what it is in YOUR opinion. Thank you. In this post I want to address your specific suggestion that the system with random lines and point represent some physical activity. If some Gods were running a computer with a program that would be a possibility, however it sounds remote. It could also be some children in some God universe playing with their fancy needles, that even sounds even more remote. Since the design looks unique and natural, my first guess is that mathematical facts are real and reality is a by product of that via this mathematical structure.

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

Very good question, thank you. Yes you are right, That is why I have said previously in the "vicinity" of the electron mass. To clarify maybe I should have said just at the "beginning" of the curves convergence. Obviously, that vicinity looks like an interesting or unique place not like when the curves are separated or fully(almost) converged. and it is a wonder why this unique place is in the vicinity of the electron mass. I will diverge with a story to clarify a point. It is said that Feynman commented about Schrodinger equation by saying "Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger." So Schrodinger just made an educated guess and it worked(hydrogen). Even the correct interpretation for PSI came one year later. So, in the same sense the system works, especially combined with all the other results. However, I cannot claim I understand FULLY what is going on, all I can see at this point is that I do get some surprising results(some which I have not documented yet). Some agree with standard physics others like electron mass have no standard equivalent. And it seems that we might have the origin of Schrodinger equation. Also these separated curves seem to have something in common with renormalization as in standard theories, more work is needed to see if there is any relation. The electron mass that I get seem to agree with non-standard theories like this one http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4204 with the electron having "structure". My tentative conclusion( too early to be sure) is that the interpretation of Yakawa potential as m standing for the particle that carries force does not seem to be correct. Yakawa potential is just that a potential. I have much more to say later about how the system exhibits scale invariance and maybe even mc^2 origin!! and other things. Hi md65536, Thanks for coming back, you know how much I appreciated your participation in the past. As you know as soon as you pointed out some mistakes in my program it took me seconds to acknowledge them and I was very glad that you found them. As a matter of fact I had another error which I discovered myself, the results of post #6 in this thread which I have promptly removed from my website. So as you can see I have no interest whatsoever in fooling myself, I have much better things to do in life. In this program there is no any number close to 1822.8885, only 100,500, 1000, 1500. You could change those numbers to 251,654,1234, 1456 and you will get the same results. I am really looking for any reason as to why I am getting these results, like by chance or some hidden assumption or whatever other than that the system is showing real physics. I hope people will help me with that. As to Buffon's needle, I have posted in many forums and blogs to say that QSA seems to have some links to it. As a matter of fact, in the FQXI contest I chat with Torsten here http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877 and I mention this "Also one important link that I found is that my system seems to be a generalization of Buffon's needle in the sense that both the needle and the lines become random in size. And that leads a series of connections to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon's_needle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_geometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon_transform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_transform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory

Thank you for asking. I have given the link in the last line in my OP, but I will give a summery of the concept again and explain in detail as the need arise. I start with a conjecture that reality is something akin to a circle, i.e. a relation between points, meaning that reality is basically a mathematical structure, a la Tegmark MUH theory. However, the theory is developed independently without any knowledge of Tegmark's theory. I simplify by starting with a line segment and then exploring all the possible relations that I can create with the point of that line. If I divide the line into n point and choose any point randomly and repeat the process for jk number if times, I get a probability of 1/n for each point. This the equivalent of the QM usual opening explaining the probability of a free photon being equal in "all" space. Next I generalize to choosing random pieces of the line not exceeding the original lines with starting position in the line interval. Then by putting a constraint so that I ignore the lines that cross the original line, I obtain the particle in a box probability density wave sin^2 (x). Then repeating the process by assuming I have two lines one inside the other, then I get the phenomenology of a particle in a finite potential with tunneling, as shown in the FQXI link. finally I generalize the concept to two lines with some separation, with the minimum being the distance between their centers as they are sitting just next to each other gradually increasing it to any distance. The lines can be interpreted as the Compton wavelengths of the particles. Since these lines are far a part I allow the random pieces of the line to reach the other line segment. Now, you can see how the law is naturally incorporated, since the underlying elements are lines so the possible relation between them is that for each iteration we must sort out if they have crossed each other or not. Upon interpreting the lengths of the lines(added and normalized to numbers of throws)) that did not intersect as energy we obtain the 1/r law just like in QFT at large distances(more than 3/m). You will get the running phase for the short distance interaction. In the electron mass simulation I do the above for the two lines with different lengths like 100, 500,1000,1500 , I then obtain the mentioned results. I am sure this brief explanation does not suffice, but I hope with some reading of the links it might be a bit clearer.

Sorry if you did not get the idea of the post. The idea of the post was to go the program page, run the program and confirm that the curves converge on the vicinity of the electron mass in AU units and then confirm that no "fixing" of any kind was involved. I was hoping once that was done and confirmed(i.e. acknowledging that the result does look significant), we could ask why this was the case and how it came about and what does it mean, if you want to take a more comprehensive route. you can start with http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

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

Hi I have already had a thread regarding my theory here posted a long time ago. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62848-quantum-statistical-automata/ However, In this thread I would like to present a specific prediction (the mass of the electron) via a simple JavaScript program which is very easy to run. Moreover, for all of you with minimum programming skill you can check the program for yourself to make sure no hanky panky is going on. http://www.qsa.netne.net/a.htm The mass of the electron in AU units appear as a convergence of the curves generated by the simulation program for some random numbers(denoting different Compton waves) like 100,500.1000,1500 (d0=d1 in the program) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron The heart of the program is very simple, the top and bottom portions are related to JavaScript plotting for ( var i = 1; i <kj; i++) { // throw random lines var p = d0 * rand.random(); var li = (dist + d0) *rand.random(); var p1 = d1 *rand.random(); var li1 = (dist +d1)* rand.random(); // put random lines through conditions if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) { // do nothing } else { en = en+(li); f++; en1=en1+li1; } } en is energy and dist is distance between interacting particles see http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.html for details of the program. Thank you

In this part I explain the amazing aspect of the design of reality. But before that I like to point out that I will explain more later about the other results in my website, but it is crucial that the ideas presented so far should have been understood to a good degree, at least. In my last post I recreated the interaction of two particles (one of them acted as a potential) where their probability waves overlapped. But we can also make two particles interact from a distance by simply allowing their random lines to be able to fully extent to the other particle. This is the next result which I will present in detail, but it suffices for our purposes now to only consider the main idea. The main idea is that we assume two particles represented by two line segments (actually the points on those lines) sitting at some distance from each other. You can read about the setup in my website just to get the main idea, don’t worry too much about the details, like calculations; and then come back here. http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm The width of those particle segments we will identify them with Compton wavelength later, and they can be anything from small to very large, both can be the same or different (usually the same). So in this case it is easier to visualize than when the two particles are meshed. So basically, we have lines going from a point on one particle to a point on the other and vice versa. For each throw we have two lines with random length if they reach each other the throw will be ignored if they don’t we register the positions and the line as part of the particle. Now look at the image in the thumbnail above. We can now do a general arbitrary 2D shape instead of a line. The two shapes can interact in very much the same way as the two lines above. For example, a point on object “A” can go to any point on “B” (including interior) and vice versa. Also, as shown the relation between point “1 “ on object A and “1’ ” on object B have the usual relation have the usual relation in case you get these points on random draws, just like the relation between point on lines. Of course, then the relation is generalized for any point on A to any point on B and vice versa. The relation can be generalized to 3D even. For 4D and above this might get complicated, we will stop at 3D. I will come back to 4D and higher later. So, in this system you end up with a mathematical structure such as every point is represented by a probability that is the result of it relation to all other points in the universe. Also all the points in the universe even in place where no particles exists you have point that carry energy related to the end of the lines that did not reach the other particles, I might talk about their interpretation later. But, in effect the location of these point we call space and they are direct result of the existence of particles, so there is no such a thing as empty space. This the big surprise, we are back to the original design that was suggested in the first explanatory post. Except the relation between the points are generalized to every point in object A to every point in object B and vice versa with the above random lines associated with them. If you try to design a universe by using FUNDAMENTAL ENTITIES you end up with a general shape in 3D that can be decomposed to lines on each axis and so some equivalence can be found. And since there is only one choice of design on the line, hence the design of the universe is unique. In ordinary QM/QFT (even string), we associate some function to each point which we solve for to find the interaction, and hence the physics, by some equations. But my system shows what the origin of the values of these functions is. Moreover, any attempt to assign some predetermined values by some algorithm like fractals and ordinary automata are bound to fail. Because the values at those points are the results of all the points in the universe and not due to neighbors like in automata and some arbitrary function like in fractals. My conclusion is, that is very mind boggling. That is why we humans are rightly astonished at the existence of reality. Our reality is the result of only one dynamic design that is possible out of endless mathematical structures. Also, this structure created particles that formed atoms that formed us. What was the chance of that? One in google!

I am resurrecting this thread with a better explanation of the idea hoping to get a feedback as to its clearness. This is the first post of several to come as a response to people who are demanding better explanation for the theory here and not on the web. The posts will be a bit longish. It took a bit of effort on my part, but anybody who wants to understand the theory must also make a bit of an effort to read through and think a bit hard. So I ask people to make some decent effort before making judgments. But please keep in mind that my system starts out as an idea but quickly turns into a system that is entirely based on simulation. I do some simulation and then interpret the result to extract some physics, not unlike regular physics except that no differential and integral equations are used. I will say more things about the technique later but let’s concentrate on the idea first. I have already stated in the OP that the philosophical thinking was that to my mind both mathematics and reality seem to carry the idea of truth. Meaning that math is about statements with compelling truths and the word reality comes from the word real meaning true (truth). Besides, we have been describing reality very successfully using mathematics with amazing effectiveness, so it seemed there could be some deeper connection. I have to admit that the basic ideas that I came up with are hardly original. They have been around in various forms for a long time, but my approach seems to be the correct one. Moreover, I was unaware of any of those ideas before I came up with mine; I only got to know them later while I was researching why my approach worked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathema...rse_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life There are quite few concepts in math, but one of the most fundamental and elementary is relations between the entities, like points and lines, that make up a geometric (like circles and triangles) or arithmetic (like natural numbers) structures. So I got to think that if nature has something to do with mathematics, then why not start with these basic concepts and see what relations between what entities could give rise to reality. I started out with a very naive simple system like in the image shown. let’s say the system is made up of some relation between triangles, but to simplify we can take the simplest subsystem like two triangles. But now we have to decide on what relation, like the distance ( red lines) between a vertex and a vertex or center of line to a center or vertex to center or any point to any point. Obviously, there are numerous choices and none look natural. But why should we choose a triangle, and not a sphere or any arbitrary shape for that matter. Again, there are infinite arbitrary shapes and by what criteria I was going to choose the relations between them, so all this looked confusing. So then I thought to simplify more I will just go to a 1D axis instead of geometric shapes in 2D. To simplify even more I have to choose some line segment. But what can exist on a line? The answer is points and shorter line segments within the original line. Let’s first try points on the line, and lets denote arbitrary positions on the line by x1,x2, …xn, to simplify divide the line into any numbers of equidistant. We ask what design is available to us. Not a lot, say I have 50 counts at x1, 43 counts at x2 and so on. But how many points to choose and how many counts to assign for each point. The only solution is to generalize the concept by randomly choosing any point on the line and iterating the process for let’s say for J times. Every time we hit a position we update the counter by one for that position. After doing that j times you will see that all the points will have their counter to have roughly same count. But j can be any number (it should be sufficiently large) so the natural thing to do is to normalize by dividing the counters by j. And this will give you the probability of hitting each point which is 1/n. and so, if you sum up all the probabilities they add up to one i.e. n*(1/n)=1, does that remind you of QM?. This simple design carries the seed of the design of reality. In the next post I will generalize the above concept using lines and you will see how more complicated Quantum Mechanical systems are generated with astonishing mind boggling conclusion. I continue from the last post by generalizing the process from points to lines. I will refer to the drawing in the image for explaining the process. Just like in the points example I use a line segment of length L, then in this case I throw two random numbers each time. One number denotes the position on the line L (just like last time) the other a line segment that extends from that position to the right (blue) and to the left (red), denoted by li. The green vertical lines denote where a random position hit occurred. And I repeat the process j times. The only thing that we can do now is register how many times we hit each position(like 5,9 in the drawing) and save the counter, and add up the lengths of all the lines associated for each point and save that in a counter. Then I normalized by dividing by j for the points and multiplying the inverse of totals of the lines by j. This is pretty much the only design that is available to us, in other word it is very much the only thing that we can do. There are variations but you will see later that they are all equivalent to this basic design. When I first did that, I could not infer any interesting results. So I thought why not complicate things just a bit, let me but the simplest constraint. That is I will relate the three numbers that I have with a certain relation, if that relation holds I register the points and the associated lines otherwise I ignore the random throws. The simplest relation was p + li (or p – li) “< “or “>” or “= “L , that also produced uninteresting results. So I thought p, li are random already but L isn’t so why not force the right hand side to also be random but also be related to L. so I after two minutes of trials the expression p+li < L*rnd(0) , and p-li < L*rnd(0) gave me the results which was beyond my wildest dreams. Notice how random always comes to rescue, it is the single most powerful feature of the system, I will have much more to say about that. After curve fitting the plotted probabilities derived from the points count, I got sin^2. That probability function sure looked like the probabilities you get for a particle in a box in a 1D (infinite potential) after you solve the Schrodinger equation. There was no problem with generalizing the results to 3D. While deep down inside I knew I had a mega hit, but I was a bit apprehensive. I could have used any constraint and it would have produced any function, but I thought it would be prudent to put such glitch aside and push ahead. And push ahead I did. Now what about those lines, what could they represent. An astute reader will guess right, energy. When I added up all the results for all the points and divided by the length L to get the average energy, they quadrupled very time I halved L and ran the simulation in perfect agreement with particle in a box solution for the energy. That was great, but I did not feel very safe yet. So I thought why not complicate the matter more and have two of these particles together, so I designed another one to take up a portion of the line segment L. Of course, that was relatively easy enough but nothing fantastic will happen, you will see the second particle just will have a higher energy because it occupies a smaller space. Now is the time for the really big one. These two particles do not exist in different universes, they must interact. But, again, what is available for the design. Only the lines of the particles are available. The system forces only certain processes which are available, and that is comparing the line for each particle for each random throws. Here a nice automatic constraint is suggested by the system. If the lines cross I ignore if not I keep the positions and the associated lines. Lo and behold, I get the phenomenology of a particle in a finite potential, with the exponential decay and the tunneling. I thought to myself, WOW, I do have a mega hit, not knowing that even more surprises are in store. In the next post I will present the extraordinary conclusion that I have promised. Until then, cheers.

Thanks for the correction and the link.

@Royston I will not debate with juanrga, But I will share few things with you and I will elaborate when I have the time. My point of view is that the debate as to what is more fundamental is ongoing. There are 4 or 5 main views with a lot of other variations. 1. Particle physicists view of particle being fundamental. 2. field/wave functional ( which is nothing but the extension of normal Non relativistic schrodinger wave equation) supported by Weinberg as I showed in the other thread. 3. The question is unscientific,we only care about the formalism. 4. it is both like in this reference(bohemian picture) see page 38 http://xxx.lanl.gov/...-ph/0609163.pdf also this http://www.mat.univi...hysics-faq.html and particularly this http://www.mat.univi...opics/pointlike so the question is more involved and depends on the prespective.

Thank you very much. You helped me more than your share. I will not burden you anymore. I am using ms C++ express with sdk 7.1 for 64 bit. I have also ran it with fedora 15, but its random number generator is not so good.

I have already explained the domain of theories and how we view them in the previous posts. So far in all of physics theories AND philosophy we do not talk about writing equation of universe in the sense that you are talking about. We are after the building blocks and their origins, once we have that then other questions might follow and some other conclusions might be derived from that. And that should lead to more understanding of origin of the universe and its fate, but not the equation of the universe in your sense. Unless we become very confident of our discoveries( supper accurate and solvable/simulatable) and tells us that simulating a small universe is possible in some future time.