qsa

Unfortunately you did not address my question directly. I was asking about the perimeter of the area. Also you never gave an example of "logic".

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.

How big is this "area of reduced entropy", and how is this area defined. and what was in it that had entropy and then got reduced?

how did logic came about and at what instant it created no 13, and how?

how can there be "time" before numbers, do you think no 13 was born in a certain instant of time, that implies that it might not exist in the future. ie. all math is temporary which is against the definition. you said " examining logic as it must have been early on". like what?

Please give example.

What entity(entities) that made up the universe were in chaos. And why they started out in chaos. And why those entities and not others.

Ok, that is what I thought you meant but I was not sure. However, I don't think hardly anybody believes that mathematics is evolving (not clear in what sense you mean that). The whole point about math is that it is amazing as it seems to describe compelling TRUTHS , and truth is by definition is eternal and unchanging. A circle has always existed and it will exist in the future no matter what. It is exactly this property that I used to come up with my theory which describes reality since reality also is a statement of "truth". Philosophers of math have debated and tried to construct a "foundation" for math, but like Putnam for example has declared that there is no foundation for math and it does not need any. This is in regards to things like what are EXACTLY numbers and so on. As for physics, after 400 years of doing physics there is not a shred of evidence that nature cannot be described by math the opposite is fantastically true. My theory is a natural outcome of that. I can tell that you have zipped through my website with your mobile, but I suggest to look at it in a much deeper way. I am not sure about your programming skills, but the programs are so simple, but you also do need to understand modern physics in a proper academic way to follow my theory.

platonic means that mathematics is discovered, i.e. it is real and it exist on its own. I don't follow the rest. edit: logic is a subfield in mathematics. Chaos word is used in mathematics as in chaos theory which is about nonlinear differential equations. I don't follow your relating of the two words.

Mathematics philosophers have been debating this for a long time. The ultimate question is, does mathematics exist in an independent way, sometimes called Platonic. Tegmark has a conjecture but not a theory. I do have a theory. Fundamental Theory of Reality Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally. http://www.qsa.netne.net/ http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877 So my theory proves that reality is a mathematical structure and hence a proof that mathematics is platonic, we are the proof. You get two birds in one stone, that is profound. BTW, Tegmark's new book is just out http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809/

You are 100% correct, good guess. This consequence is an automatic outcome of my theory which derives the laws of physics from a simple postulate.That is exactly what my theory concludes, the stick is nothing but the difference between two numbers. check out this thread (particularly the last two posts). http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62848-quantum-statistical-automata/ The really big result which I obtain is the essence of Dirac equation included the notorious non-locality. When I try to simulate the 2D situation, I am forced to restrict my line throwing activity to only lines that can go between particles directly so as to keep the invariance of quantities calculated in case the frame is rotated. And Wala, I get two particles to interact through their width in the second axis and it does not matter if each is on the other side of the universe, they are both linked!!!! When I calculate spin (what I believe to be) one is up the other down

there are tons of ideas on EM as the Origin of mass started way back by Lorentz and others. see as an example http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5619 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass The Higgs has considerably weakened these arguments, but I think the pundits will not give up easily.

I guess you meant this is how "Quacks" behave.Anyway, the satire is a joke that has gone flat. I personally never met a "Quack" I did not like. On the other hand I have mingled with so many PHD's of all sorts of fields, and I would say more than 99% of them are a soulless, uncreative, boring, robot-like and let me add dumb (it is better than the acronym pun). “Quacks” have the opposite characteristics even if their tries are unsuccessful, at least they try. And let alone the rest of the population, the Kardashians (or some other BS) adorers.

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.

My point is that scientists do go for the peeling process because they believe they WILL get to the final center. Otherwise, why try if it was "fruitless".

I can understand the sentiment. Since you have a lot of speculative people you want to knock some reality into them. But as I quoted ZEE the discovery of the origin of the 1/r is considered as peeling one thick layer to get at the fundamentals. You are reducing physics to just a first year graduate level, that is certainly not true. As a matter of fact the real physics is not applied physics of condensed matter and such but really to dig as deep as possible to find the fundamentals, and that is typically the job of the brightest people in the business in the most prestigious schools. And there physics is taken to different level with an array of varied ideas; some are very far away from standard physics. Take for example LQG (loop quantum gravity), here space-time is considered to have structure, and very complicated at the smallest grain. If that is not trying to find what elementary is then I don’t know what elementary is. Even in standard physics there are controversies of many types which indicate that much more work is needed to do than just “model”, the most famous is the virtual particle (is it real or not). I can cite thousands of examples. Take Wen’s fundamental entities as an example. Even Wheeler worked on a fundamental particle called Geon. Not to mention Wolfram and others. So even famous people dig into these off the beaten track ideas but nobody consider them CRACKPOTS. From wiki definition of pseudoscience “The boundary lines between the science and pseudoscience are disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite some basic agreements on the fundaments of scientific methodology.” Sure, there are a lot of ideas also by nonprofessionals that is natural for them to have very low probability of having some truth in them. But you do also get some very good ideas nevertheless. In my opinion the often stated case for physics as modeling has perpetuated misunderstanding by the general public (you can see Mike’s confusion is his last post as an example) that led to crazy ideas. Like reality is some weird mystical I don’t know what or QM is a mind thing and that sort of nonsense. No, reality is knowable, and our present science is almost on the verge of cracking the problem wide open. AND, THERE ARE NO DEEP OTHER THINGS than the ones we are investigating. And that is very clear for anybody who has done enough serious physics. One more thing. What about Tegmark? he has conjectured the origin of reality, that is a fundamental as it can get. Is he a crackpot, certainly all the science and non-science magazines that covered his idea did not think so. My theory supports his conjecture. whether the evidence in my theory is good enough is totally a different story.

I will try to make an amendment to clarify my explanation in a simple way. if you look at my avatar which represents my theory, and imagine due to the logic in the program that when lines crossed you ignore them. In another word they are not registered, in turn makes the numbers of start position in the particle to shift away from the other particle. that denotes repulsion. If OTOH you ignore the lines that don't reach each other, you get the opposite effect , i.e. attraction. If I only consider the lines that meet head on then I get a very very small attraction. At one time I interpreted that as gravity, but I think it needs more studying. well, your profile shows that you are Retired Physics Teacher/Electronic Engineer so the math presented is very elementary. With a bit of patience you should get the general idea. If you can't understand my math you sure won't understand Zee's not in a million years. But then I read that you really want to know the fundamentals, so you should make some effort to read and understand all the links provided.

the mechanism is an automatic outcome of a more comprehensive theory that was presented before in speculation. but you can read the basic direct answer in this link and ask more questions if you like. http://www.qsa.netne.net/index_files/Page310.htm

the thread is confusing. it is a question in speculation ! then the answer must be mainstream ! anyway for a good technical mainstream you can read ZEE's book. he calls the derivation of Coulomb law the 20th century triumph. yet it is only given in terms of energy variation. read 1.4, 1.5 http://gr.xjtu.edu.cn/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=21699&folderId=223292&name=DLFE-2506.pdf I also have my own "speculative" theory, the mechanism is direct and clear. If you like, I can open a thread about it in speculation.

Find yourself a good lawyer, not one that will make money off you and leave you cold. I am not sure if you have any experience with patents it is not like most people think. But my guess is that it will be looked upon as frivolous and not considered by a good lawyer.

you cannot patent natural law discoveries. http://www.webpronew...al-laws-2012-03 also, see what can be patented http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-4

I live in a hot country and napping is popular not as a joice, the heat just sucks the energy. the napping is a killer, you wake up grumpy and dazed and it scews your night sleep. NOT recommended at all. This is what I hear from all my friends.

Anil, let me add something which might help you. As I started college (engineering) I started getting interested in physics. So I read every article about physics in scientific american, then after graduation I started reading the popular books. While I could understand the overall ideas but I was so frustrated that I could not really understand. So I would look up the books on the more advanced physics and found the equations so daunting and I would put them aside hoping that somehow reading more popular articles and books will close the gap. It never did work and I forced myself to dig into those complicated work and do my best to understand. That really worked, slowly slowly I got to feel that thing were finally making sense, and it was not really any different from learning engineering. My bible became the fantastic two volume book. So concise and deep. http://books.google....AAJ&redir_esc=y Even now as I am getting old and my brain is rusty still I am learning more and more complicated stuff. That is why I tell you that you might be able to do it if you gather enough strength.

can you elaborate with more than just few lines, something useful.