Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

qsa said:
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.
Click to expand...
The reality is no one will take your work seriously, if you have a website but have never published in a reputable journal.

Is there no one in academia you can reach out to?
 
Pinball1970 said:
The reality is no one will take your work seriously, if you have a website but have never published in a reputable journal.

Is there no one in academia you can reach out to?
Click to expand...

Good question. I know what you are saying and it is true. Yes I am planning on a blitz to contact people in the academia and find some sympathetic ones. I have tried half heartedly to contact some professors at my country's university but I found them not suitable. Still I have one in mind that I am saving him when I feel that I have reached a good convincing stage. Actually he is well known, I remember he co-authored a paper that made a stir in the physics community

https://physics.ku.edu.kw/faculty/elias-vagenas
 
qsa said:
Good question. I know what you are saying and it is true. Yes I am planning on a blitz to contact people in the academia and find some sympathetic ones. I have tried half heartedly to contact some professors at my country's university but I found them not suitable. Still I have one in mind that I am saving him when I feel that I have reached a good convincing stage. Actually he is well known, I remember he co-authored a paper that made a stir in the physics community

https://physics.ku.edu.kw/faculty/elias-vagenas
Click to expand...
What about your thesis supervisor? Or a lecturer at uni you got on with?
 
qsa said:
I did my masters in 1987, my Advisors are long Dead (Peter Unsworth RIP, best advisor and a friend). he was so funny , I still remember his jokes.
Click to expand...
Ok so you are about 60, never published. This is going to be difficult for you unless you find that ally.
Perhaps there is something you can patent?
 
Pinball1970 said:
Ok so you are about 60, never published. This is going to be difficult for you unless you find that ally.
Perhaps there is something you can patent?
Click to expand...

I appreciate your kind help. I am more push to 70 with a start of a brain meltdown:). My website has the "creative common logo" and that is enough for me. Patenting physics ideas with no practical use is typically not possible. I do have a patent in other fields.

https://gccpo.org/AboutUs/Form40En?appid=15382
 
qsa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just want to clarify a point in this post. The errors quickly diminish as the number of iterations and simulated point are increased, however as accuracy increases but after certain increase in iterations and points it will become harder and harder to increase the accuracy (i.e. more accurate significant figures) as anybody who has done PRNG simulation would have noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top