Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by qsa

  1. Thanks for that, but if you can not tell if something is talking about invisible sweepers or Balkan synagogues, then how can you possibly tell if it's on about black holes or time?

    Is it a real problem with Arabic that you simply can not tell what it means (I'm not unaware that this happens to a degree with English but it's hardly the same magnitude of problem)?


    I am not sure how you understood my posts, but I will recap. Quran was first written about 1400 years ago, the first written explanation was done about 200 years later. So many words were in disuse already and the authors of the "explanation" had to resort to old Arabic poetry and many other efforts to find the meanings and put them into context.


    from the link I gave for Tafsir(explanation)

    "Arabic literature[edit]

    The classical Arabic poetry and the text of the Qur'an are two resources which can be used as foundational reference in ascertaining the meaning and signification of the remaining literal and figurative diction of the Qur'an and its style of expression.[17] Using Arabic poetry for defining words is a long used practice, in fact there are nearly no scholars who haven’t used this source.[18]"

    One of the most important work of explanation is from the 14th centruy scholar Ibn Katheer. the translation given of those verses I have linked to and according to that the word either mean a STAR(the thing that appears at night and disappears during the day), or the minority opinion which said a COW(which hides in the shed and so on).

    So there is no talk about blackholes or anything like that , they explained things in their day and age terms based on what the earlier people have written. Of course, only part of the words appearing in Quran were in disuse (their meaning had to be deduced)the main part is normal classical Arabic which is in use today.

  2. Can you explain why your translation is so different from the Google + Bing ones?


    These are very old words not in use today. As a matter of fact, even 200 years after the birth of Islam when the the Quoran "explanation" was formally being documented by various people they had to resort to old Arabic poetry to figure out the "exact" word meaning/meanings. Google uses contemporary words only and words can have multiple meaning depending on how you pronounce them.


    It is a bit complicated to go to the exact reason (coupled with above) but you can get some idea with this reference.




    P.S. The translation is not mine but I have quoted the explanation from the original reference that I have posted a link to (it is in Arabic).




    As part of the definition of a planet is that they "clear the neighbourhood" then planets would have a better chance of matching this description.


    Definitely not black holes though.



    I have already explained what the words actually mean I come from that part of the world. That is STAR or some minority said COW, you know words can have two meanings( as the song goes).

  3. There are quite few sources for traditional explanation of Quran which are considered to be the "reliable"ones which come from word of mouth of generations after another. One of the important ones is ibn Katheer, and in it the verse is translated to either star or a wild cow!


    Star as in disappears during the day and appears at night.




    Some Muslims try to put a scientific spin but other oppose such move.

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


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


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


    Thanks for the reply.


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


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




    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.

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



    FQXI contest article




    Gravity simulation producing Newtonian law at large distances.




    Other interesting simulations especially the Fine Structure Constant






    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.

  6. 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.




    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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



    1. define variables/types


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


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


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


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


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


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


    long r= rand();

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


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


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


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


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


    11.go to 6


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


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


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


    calculate how much expectation is offset from center of the particle



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


    14. update all data in file for that separation.


    15 . go to mk loop for new separation distance


    16. done


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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



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

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


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


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



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


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


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

    I agree with Bignose, who presented a very clear and immediate problem. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of science. I think you either have to show significance or drop the claim.


    You said you're not interested in fooling yourself but I think you're doing just that. One way is, assuming that your understanding is great enough that a challenge to it is just an "opinion", no more important than your own, and so a refusal to even accept the validity of challenges. Another way is, avoiding facing a major problem that is brought up, brushing it aside and being content to have it "opted out" of discussion.


    Do you understand the problem Bignose has identified, and its importance? Do you understand how if you can't explain the significance of the values you're using, not even to yourself while being critical, you're tricking yourself?


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

  12. Ok, I'm starting to get irritated by this. It is NOT 'clear'. It is NOT 'significant'. It is NOT where they 'start converging'. It is NOT 'unique', unless you can tell me why!


    You keep using these words, but they are all synonymous with 'this looks like the right spot to me'. But, that is not scientific.


    I can take every single one of your arguments and defend x=6500 and x=4000 in the exact same manner. I can call x=6500 'clear', 'significant','start of convergence', or 'unique' in the same manner you can.


    Since I can do this... then your point is not significant. You must show why your point is so much better than any other point -- apart from the very coincidental relationship that at your x, the value on the y axis has meaning. But you can't let that drive your picking your particular value on the x axis.


    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++) {
        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) 
            // put random lines through conditions
            if ( st1+p1 + li1 > st0+ p - li) {
                // do nothing
                en = en+(li);
            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.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');

  13. My point is that 'opinion' should have nothing to do with it.


    If it was a maximum or a minimum, then you have something. Or an intersection. Or something.


    But you have a region where the curves are somewhat more closer together then they were, but not as close as they are farther long.


    My point is that I think it is perfectly viable to say that even near the y axis, the curves are somewhat close. Because if I use a fuzzy word like 'somewhat' then I get to chose what 'somewhat' means.


    This is the same thing you've done with 'start converging'... why is the area you've picked any better than any other area? Other than if you just happen to pick that area, it makes a so-called prediction that agrees with a single physical value.


    Here's my problem. I too can write a program that makes curves, and I can make some curves 'start to' converge at any point I want. That doesn't make my 'start to converge' point meaningful, and it doesn't make my program meaningful. I'm hoping that you're going to provide more meaning to both the point you've picked -- because 'start to converge' by your eye is not good enough in my book... zoom the graph out and the curves will look a lot more converged to your eye... zoom the graph way in, and it won't looked converged for much higher value of x... your eye is not a good enough judge here -- as well as more meaning to your program, per swansont's request.


    p.s. I don't know who gave you the -1 either, but I gave you a +1 to put it back to neutral.


    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.



  14. this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value.


    And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.


    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.

    What do you make of this?



    There are known relationships between randomly oriented lines, and pi. They have geometrical explanations. Is this similar enough to your idea that you would say that the results of Buffon's experiment is due to the physical nature of matter, and not just mathematical concepts that also work abstractly?


    Can you rule out a geometrical explanation of your results? Eg. if reality were *not* made up of your model's lines, would you expect to get different results for electron mass or whatever? It sounds to me like your evidence is only your claim that your model works and corresponds with reality. Is there a simpler explanation of why you get your results, other than that they directly model physical reality?


    (I still think the answer to that last question is "yes", and that by putting constants like 1822.8885 in your code and then doing some random things, you're arriving at some meaningful-looking results but tricking yourself about how they came about.)


    If yes, then I don't see how anyone else would accept it as actually representative of reality. If you use your model to predict a new, experimentally verifiable result, then people will be more interested.



    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.

  15. this doesn't answer my question. All you are doing in your answer to me is now calling this spot 'unique'. But never saying why it is. Why is it so much more unique than other points left and right on the curves? Other than you are using it to match a value.And just telling it that it comes from nowhere isn't sufficient for me to accept it. Your story on Schrodinger's equation is a non sequitor at the very least since it is derivable.

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

  16. Since you don't define what 'convergence' even means, or why it is important, it is hard to really get the gist of what you're driving at.


    Furthermore, it looks to me like the point you choose is pretty arbitrary. The curves look even more 'converged' on one another the farther to the right down the x-axis you go. But, of course, choosing one of those points with higher apparent convergence doesn't give you the prediction you that want. My point being that it looks quite like you picked an arbitrary amount of 'convergence' and decided that that gave you a significant answer. You need to demonstrate why that, and only that, point is seemingly so important.

    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




    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.

    What do you make of this?



    There are known relationships between randomly oriented lines, and pi. They have geometrical explanations. Is this similar enough to your idea that you would say that the results of Buffon's experiment is due to the physical nature of matter, and not just mathematical concepts that also work abstractly?


    Can you rule out a geometrical explanation of your results? Eg. if reality were *not* made up of your model's lines, would you expect to get different results for electron mass or whatever? It sounds to me like your evidence is only your claim that your model works and corresponds with reality. Is there a simpler explanation of why you get your results, other than that they directly model physical reality?


    (I still think the answer to that last question is "yes", and that by putting constants like 1822.8885 in your code and then doing some random things, you're arriving at some meaningful-looking results but tricking yourself about how they came about.)


    If yes, then I don't see how anyone else would accept it as actually representative of reality. If you use your model to predict a new, experimentally verifiable result, then people will be more interested.

    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 :











    The important thing is an explanation of what the program does, i.e. what the model is.

    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.

  18. The post by itself lacks context; you don't spell out details of what you are doing or why one might think it explains anything at all.


    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



  19. !

    Moderator Note

    Merged. Let's keep all of this in one thread, please.

    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.

  20. Hi


    I have already had a thread regarding my theory here posted a long time ago.







    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.





    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) .




    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
                en = en+(li);

    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

  21. previously you said no 13 was born, there was nothing in chaos. Now you are saying chaos has an indeterminate value/s. That sounds like contradiction.


    Moreover, The whole of chaos is made up of illogic as you say, by what mechanism the illogic becomes logic and the values become fixed. BTW, the value of what becomes fixed.

  22. I still don't get the area that you are talking about. In your theory there is logic making up chaos. logic is not a "thing"(or is it, you never gave an example). We understand area as having a perimeter, what is this perimeter made of. Or is this area a sort of make believe or just a figure of speech.


    edit:anyway there is no way to define a space(infinite or not) without material thing which is the whole exercise to figure out its origin.


    Can you also please tell me if you looked at my theory in post #3. If so, what did you understand from it.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.