Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

Note the electron mass is very interesting but strictly speaking is not correct, and also the proton mass is very tricky and a bit complicated and I don't feel very confident about it though it is not totally incorrect. Actually it is the proton mass and size problem.
 
Oh Christ, another electrical engineer. When these people become cranks they are the worst. :D

https://www.theguardian.com/science...n Einstein was asked if,humanity?, 7 December).

James Clerk Maxwell was EE

"James Clerk Maxwell: The Man Who Changed the World – recognized as the greatest scientist between Newton and Einstein. When Einstein was asked if he stood on the shoulders of Newton, he replied “No, on the shoulders of Maxwell”; he gave Maxwell’s photo pride of place on his study wall (100 years on, is this Einstein’s greatest gift to humanity?, 7 December)."

Dirac
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/p... educated at the,(Engineering) degree in 1921.

"then went on to Bristol University. Here, he studied electrical engineering, obtaining the B.Sc. (Engineering) degree in 1921. "

In the older days there was a strong connection between EE and theoretical physics. even Einstein tried to study EE first but failed.

I know you are going to say you are non of those. True ,Thanks.

Relax mate, my website is purely informational. You have to run those programs before you can make a bit of sense of the system. It is not very practical to restate all that info again in this thread although I have stated the opening statement. The FQXI is not my website and has a good introductory info. Also you can go through this old thread.

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/“...ical-structure-literally.120745/#post-3005594
 
Here is an older essay from FQXI.


https://forums.fqxi.org/d/1877-fund...al-structure-literally-by-adel-hassan-sadeq/8

https://www.vixrapedia.org/wiki/Philip_Gibbs

his comment
I have always liked the MUH and my own version of it the "Theory of Theories" so I find this essay spot-on. The idea of trying to create physics with a computer from maths principles is great but it is never going to be easy to get really convincing results.

I think you should build on your work so far by trying to get more detail and see if you can get even better numbers. It would be nice if you could use complex numbers as in quantum mechanics or show why complex numbers are already built in.

good luck
 
No, because I feel I need more results and I doubt they will accept it since it is not a mainstream. Although it is easy to publish in open journals. But anyway I am interested in seeing more results from my idea than publishing. there are a lot things I need to show like what is exactly a photon and higher multiple electron systems and such.
If the methods make sense and the results are correct there is no reason not to submit for publication.
You have a masters so you know how science works.
It's not websites and blogs.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/08/einstein-inspired-by-james-clerk-maxwell#:~:text=When Einstein was asked if,humanity?, 7 December).

James Clerk Maxwell was EE

"James Clerk Maxwell: The Man Who Changed the World – recognized as the greatest scientist between Newton and Einstein. When Einstein was asked if he stood on the shoulders of Newton, he replied “No, on the shoulders of Maxwell”; he gave Maxwell’s photo pride of place on his study wall (100 years on, is this Einstein’s greatest gift to humanity?, 7 December)."

Dirac
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1933/dirac/biographical/#:~:text=He was educated at the,(Engineering) degree in 1921.

"then went on to Bristol University. Here, he studied electrical engineering, obtaining the B.Sc. (Engineering) degree in 1921. "

In the older days there was a strong connection between EE and theoretical physics. even Einstein tried to study EE first but failed.

I know you are going to say you are non of those. True ,Thanks.

Relax mate, my website is purely informational. You have to run those programs before you can make a bit of sense of the system. It is not very practical to restate all that info again in this thread although I have stated the opening statement. The FQXI is not my website and has a good introductory info. Also you can go through this old thread.

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/“reality-is-nothing-but-a-mathematical-structure-literally.120745/#post-3005594
Ah but these people were not cranks. We have EEs here who are not cranks, too.
 
“Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally”

Tegmark, Wolfram and Conway are 100% correct( in principle) because my theory "quantum statistical automata" proves it. [...]

Whatever your "QSA" is and its original stimulus, Tegmark probably dived into this philosophical sphere for a different reason.

Tegmark is a multiverse or parallel universes enthusiast. Due to that, he can't reference a "simple" block-time conception that specifically pertains to a single universe. So he moved up to the broader category level of swinging "mathematical structure" around in order to accommodate his multiverse convictions.

IOW, his ultimate motive for espousing some form of mathematical realism arguably doesn't even fall out of the traditional drivers compelling thinkers toward radical Pythagoreanism, Platonism, etc.

Max Tegmark: A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity... If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it, but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space.

In four-dimensional spacetime --the bird perspective-- these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog [perspective] sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix.

To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta --a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds [in is view] to a cluster of particles that store and process information.

Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds. --Parallel Universes

To him, it is a "more complicated" mathematical structure than a block-universe because -- again -- he accepts a many universes scenario.
_
 
Last edited:
I flicked through the book in Waterstones last week. At least half of the book is a run through of the cosmology of the time so nothing new before he hits his thesis.

Didn't buy it,I still have the paper.

Intuitively? It feels like woo with padding.

What is an electron? A bunch of numbers?
If we describe it that was it is because we have assigned those numbers based on it's properties.
The numbers themselves are conceptual, all mathematics is.
 
I flicked through the book in Waterstones last week. At least half of the book is a run through of the cosmology of the time so nothing new before he hits his thesis.

Didn't buy it,I still have the paper.

Intuitively? It feels like woo with padding.

What is an electron? A bunch of numbers?
If we describe it that was it is because we have assigned those numbers based on it's properties.
The numbers themselves are conceptual, all mathematics is.
Yeah I can't see it. The numbers only mean anything because we have defined, in words, some physical entities and attributes to which numbers can be assigned. Numbers on their own are abstract with no physical significance.
 
If the methods make sense and the results are correct there is no reason not to submit for publication.
You have a masters so you know how science works.
It's not websites and blogs.
Of course I know that. But publishing in a "reputed" peer reviewed journal is very demanding. you must belong to some organization and the material has to have the flavor of mainstream( so called incremental).
Even the arXiv the famous repository with comparatively easier rules has a sponsor requirement.

https://info.arxiv.org/help/endorsement.html
"Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. Endorsement is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have papers accepted in arXiv; arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission."

In the earlier days I used forums to get some basic reaction and some people were helpful and useful to weed out some issues. Later my participation in FQXI was much more useful since many who submit papers are quite knowledgeable. Of course I had other sources to discuss my idea with.

This time I posted mainly as a viewpoint for the MUH, But not to push the idea down anybody's throat.
 
To him, it is a "more complicated" mathematical structure than a block-universe because -- again -- he accepts a many universes scenario.

Yes I know. I have had some contact with him long time ago.
Re: mathematics and existence
REPLYREPLY ALLFORWARD
Mark as unread

Sun 4/19/2009 1:52 AM
Inbox

To:
Adel Hassan Abul;
Cc:
Max Tegmark <tegmark@MIT.EDU>;

Dear Adel,
Thanks for your encouraging words! You and I clearly belong to the same small minority in our views about mathematics and existence! If you have further ideas on this topic, I'd encourage you to post them online somewhere, not just send them to me, where they're likely to disappear into the black hole that is is my overfull and backlogged inbox...
Thanks again,
Max
;-)

So I am very aware of his proposed four levels. As I have stated in my website the idea is old in the sense that many scientists could deduce that reality must be based on a relatively simple system (hence Wheeler's quote). Even Feynman had the checkerboard model among many others like Conway game of life , fractals, automata ....etc. Tegmark conjecture was purely based on arguments from known physics setup and its strong connection with math but he did not present an independent mathematical theory. Such theory was sought after for its own beauty and power, that is a mathematical theory of physics that is not based on experiment but can predict all "fundamental constants of nature" like c,h,e(q), G, mp/me, FSC and so on. Such theory will fundamentally be theory of everything and IMO would be an MUH theory. String theory was on such attempt that seems to have fizzled out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynm...vistic,dimensional spacetime as discrete sums.

Wolfram is hyping up his latest idea graph theory after his last "New kind of science" which was based on automata. His idea is interesting and has a very vague connection to my idea, but again it does not connect to known physics in a direct way as mine.

https://www.wolframphysics.org/
 
I flicked through the book in Waterstones last week. At least half of the book is a run through of the cosmology of the time so nothing new before he hits his thesis.

Didn't buy it,I still have the paper.

Intuitively? It feels like woo with padding.

What is an electron? A bunch of numbers?
If we describe it that was it is because we have assigned those numbers based on it's properties.
The numbers themselves are conceptual, all mathematics is.

The question of the relation between physics and mathematics and the nature of mathematics whether discovered or invented has been researched greatly. Here is an example.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-27495-9

you can find all these articles and others here

https://forums.fqxi.org/t/trick-or-truth-essay-contest-2015?sort=top

Basically there are two camps invented or discovered and some in between. I am in the first, even more so after I stumbled on my system.
 
Ah but these people were not cranks. We have EEs here who are not cranks, too.
I have already guessed what you are going to say :)
But this is strange, you are in an alternative theories forum what did you expect. Isn't the whole point is discussing /criticizing. Are you here just for snarky comments !
 
I have already guessed what you are going to say :)
But this is strange, you are in an alternative theories forum what did you expect. Isn't the whole point is discussing /criticizing. Are you here just for snarky comments !
Since you won’t present your ideas for discussion here I draw my own conclusions. But never mind. I’ll bow out of this.
 
Since you won’t present your ideas for discussion here I draw my own conclusions. But never mind. I’ll bow out of this.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not mean to refuse discussing the idea here. I stated that it is inefficient to list all the information here again. you said you don't want to look at my website, I said ok see the FQXI ones and I could have elaborated on any question/comment that you might have had.
 
I will touch on the results that I have obtained which can pickup Fine Structure Constant (FSC) automatically. Even in my system which I believe it to be fundamental the FSC is a maddening number, its like a water in an ocean it is everywhere but when you try to catch it it seeps through your hand

FSC alpha=.007297352568 , 1/alpha= 137.0359991 almost 137.036

so the trick that I could use and came naturally is to simulate and obtain two curves that crossed each other and when solved it gave an approximate value for FSC using wolfram alpha. of course I have simulation so the curves are constructed by curve fitting resultant points. So the data can be fit to multiple appropriate curves but non of them can give high accuracy because the simulation is based on PRNG and no matter how much iteration or number of point you make still you get errors due to simulation and curve fitting accuracy.
example

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=solve y=x^2, y=397.1161/x+549*exp(-19.57724/x) for x,y

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=solve y=12.0163*x-3.18925, y=1.00*x^2 for x,y
and its final result
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=(13801296569 + 120163 sqrt(13163446569))/200000000&assumption="ClashPrefs" -> {"Math"}

Note I am using the pro version if you have a problem but I think it is not a problem to use it with the free version. please tell me if you have a problem it can be overcome.
 
Back
Top