Current Essay Contest
Previous Contests
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
Spring 2009
Special Thanks to Bruce & Astrid McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
Spring 2008
read/discuss • winners
The essay contest is currently closed
Previous Contests
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
Spring 2009
Special Thanks to Bruce & Astrid McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
Spring 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
FQXi FORUM
September 2, 2010
CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest
[back]
TOPIC: What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics? by Stephen Wolfram [refresh]
TOPIC: What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics? by Stephen Wolfram [refresh]
Essay Abstract
This essay uses insights from studying the computational universe to explore questions about possibility and impossibility in the physical universe and in physical theories. It explores the ultimate limits of technology and of human experience, and their relation to the features and consequences of ultimate theories of physics.
Author Bio
Stephen Wolfram is CEO of Wolfram Research, creator of Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha, and author of A New Kind of Science. Long ago he was officially a physicist, receiving his PhD from Caltech in 1979 (at age 20). His early papers on particle physics and cosmology continue to fare well. Every few years he makes an effort to continue his approach to finding the fundamental theory of physics; his effort-before-last is in Chapter 9 of A New Kind of Science. Today he noticed the title of this essay competition, and this evening decided to have some fun writing the essay here.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
This essay uses insights from studying the computational universe to explore questions about possibility and impossibility in the physical universe and in physical theories. It explores the ultimate limits of technology and of human experience, and their relation to the features and consequences of ultimate theories of physics.
Author Bio
Stephen Wolfram is CEO of Wolfram Research, creator of Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha, and author of A New Kind of Science. Long ago he was officially a physicist, receiving his PhD from Caltech in 1979 (at age 20). His early papers on particle physics and cosmology continue to fare well. Every few years he makes an effort to continue his approach to finding the fundamental theory of physics; his effort-before-last is in Chapter 9 of A New Kind of Science. Today he noticed the title of this essay competition, and this evening decided to have some fun writing the essay here.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
The official essay entry has three pages omitted for length reasons. The full essay is attached here.
attachments: What_Is_Ultimately_Possible_in_Physics_Full.pdf
report post as inappropriate
attachments: What_Is_Ultimately_Possible_in_Physics_Full.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Now before anyone shouts, I want to confirm that "today" in the abstract refers to a day last week, not literally today. The author submitted his essay in a timely manner before the contest deadline.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Dear Prof Wolfram, you wrote:
"we can imagine transferring our experience to some simulated universe, and in a sense existing purely within it"
- isn't the "Second Life" Game doing something like that already?
Thnaks,
(when you find time a vote is appreciated)
report post as inappropriate
"we can imagine transferring our experience to some simulated universe, and in a sense existing purely within it"
- isn't the "Second Life" Game doing something like that already?
Thnaks,
(when you find time a vote is appreciated)
report post as inappropriate
Greetings Stephen,
I enjoyed reading your essay. After resolving to read only the 'official' version, I did end up downloading the expanded paper and skimming through the missing pieces, because I wanted to see what you had to say.
I agree with many of the points you make. In my contest essay, I echo your sentiment that many physicists tend to forget that an equation is just a model, and that its predictive capability is largely a reflection of how closely it models what is real. Too many confuse equations with reality. But if a computational process gives rise to what is real, one would expect the order inherent in Mathematics to both emerge from and shape that process.
I wonder, however, if some of the current perceived limits to knowledge arising from limits to computation are due to our failure to recognize or incorporate the hierarchal nature that arises in any process of asbstraction. If we could somehow encode the hierarchality of symbologies involved into a generalized heuristic computational algorithm, this might allow some of the limits to what is knowable to disappear.
For example; perhaps Gödel simply started in the wrong place, with Arithmetic and Number Theory. I am a constructivist, and I believe that advances in various branches of Math rest on certain fundamentals which must be constructed out of first principles. Had Gödel posited that the rudiments of Geometry were necessary to Topology, which brings us topological distinctions or boundaries, and that this was necessary to Set Theory, which is part of the picture needed for Number Theory to be formulated, a very different picture might emerge.
Now; I'm not saying I think Gödel is nescessarily wrong, but the decidability gets more complicated when procedural hierarchality is figured in.
I am glad I had some exposure to your work, prior to reading this essay, as it is a merry romp through most of the key concepts you introduce in NKS. But I am happy to see you have an essay entered in the contest, as I'll have an opportunity to dig into what you've written and pose some additional meaty questions. I've long been a fan of the Computational Universe hypothesis, as it links up with my work in Cosmology with the Mandelbrot Set. I like the extensions of Wheeler's concept "It from Qubit" of Zizzi and Deutsch (plus Lloyd and Ng). And I coined a phrase imitating Descartes "It computes therefore it is!" which sums up that view nicely.
All the Best,
Jonathan J. Dickau
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed reading your essay. After resolving to read only the 'official' version, I did end up downloading the expanded paper and skimming through the missing pieces, because I wanted to see what you had to say.
I agree with many of the points you make. In my contest essay, I echo your sentiment that many physicists tend to forget that an equation is just a model, and that its predictive capability is largely a reflection of how closely it models what is real. Too many confuse equations with reality. But if a computational process gives rise to what is real, one would expect the order inherent in Mathematics to both emerge from and shape that process.
I wonder, however, if some of the current perceived limits to knowledge arising from limits to computation are due to our failure to recognize or incorporate the hierarchal nature that arises in any process of asbstraction. If we could somehow encode the hierarchality of symbologies involved into a generalized heuristic computational algorithm, this might allow some of the limits to what is knowable to disappear.
For example; perhaps Gödel simply started in the wrong place, with Arithmetic and Number Theory. I am a constructivist, and I believe that advances in various branches of Math rest on certain fundamentals which must be constructed out of first principles. Had Gödel posited that the rudiments of Geometry were necessary to Topology, which brings us topological distinctions or boundaries, and that this was necessary to Set Theory, which is part of the picture needed for Number Theory to be formulated, a very different picture might emerge.
Now; I'm not saying I think Gödel is nescessarily wrong, but the decidability gets more complicated when procedural hierarchality is figured in.
I am glad I had some exposure to your work, prior to reading this essay, as it is a merry romp through most of the key concepts you introduce in NKS. But I am happy to see you have an essay entered in the contest, as I'll have an opportunity to dig into what you've written and pose some additional meaty questions. I've long been a fan of the Computational Universe hypothesis, as it links up with my work in Cosmology with the Mandelbrot Set. I like the extensions of Wheeler's concept "It from Qubit" of Zizzi and Deutsch (plus Lloyd and Ng). And I coined a phrase imitating Descartes "It computes therefore it is!" which sums up that view nicely.
All the Best,
Jonathan J. Dickau
report post as inappropriate
Hi Stephen,
You write 'Is there a direct correpondence of mathematical impossibility with physical impossibility. The answer is that it depends of what physics is made of. If we can successfully reduce all physics to mathematics, then mathematical impossibility in a sense becomes physical impossibility.'
While the universe is dynamic, mathematics, at least on paper is formal and static, so one suspects that physics cannot be completely reduced to mathematics. On the other hand, the only things we can say about physics are those which are invariant with respect to time so can be written down in static formal form. This is the beauty of differential equations which capture a dynamic process in a static string of symbols.So perhaps we may think about the relationship between physics and mathematics in terms of fixed point theorems. Since the universal dynamics maps the universe onto itself (there being by definition nowhere to go outside) we can expect to find fixed points which can be satisfactorily encapsulated in the physical literature and remain true for at least long enough to get published.
On this picture, we may think of the dynamics within which we find the fixed points as guaranteeing the mutual consistency of the fixed points. . . .
Best regards,
Jeffrey Nicholls
report post as inappropriate
You write 'Is there a direct correpondence of mathematical impossibility with physical impossibility. The answer is that it depends of what physics is made of. If we can successfully reduce all physics to mathematics, then mathematical impossibility in a sense becomes physical impossibility.'
While the universe is dynamic, mathematics, at least on paper is formal and static, so one suspects that physics cannot be completely reduced to mathematics. On the other hand, the only things we can say about physics are those which are invariant with respect to time so can be written down in static formal form. This is the beauty of differential equations which capture a dynamic process in a static string of symbols.So perhaps we may think about the relationship between physics and mathematics in terms of fixed point theorems. Since the universal dynamics maps the universe onto itself (there being by definition nowhere to go outside) we can expect to find fixed points which can be satisfactorily encapsulated in the physical literature and remain true for at least long enough to get published.
On this picture, we may think of the dynamics within which we find the fixed points as guaranteeing the mutual consistency of the fixed points. . . .
Best regards,
Jeffrey Nicholls
report post as inappropriate
Dear Stephen Wolfram,
i am happy to read your essay here and to learn more about your general thoughts about physical possibilities/impossibilities. Your paper is well written and has a nice rythm in exposing your lines of reasoning.
My personal view of the computational paradigm is, that it will change at some time in the future - maybe not so far away - to a mind/spiritual...
view entire post
i am happy to read your essay here and to learn more about your general thoughts about physical possibilities/impossibilities. Your paper is well written and has a nice rythm in exposing your lines of reasoning.
My personal view of the computational paradigm is, that it will change at some time in the future - maybe not so far away - to a mind/spiritual...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Hi Dr. Wolfram,
I hate to be one of those guys who says "Nice paper, now please read mine," but in this case, since I titled my paper in homage to your book "A New Kind of Science," I couldn't resist piling on with exactly such a request.
Your paper seems to be a great distillation of many of the themes emerging from different contestant's submissions. Plus, it has the benefit of being written conversationally and in a natural, engaging tone. Bravo.
The very earliest spark of my paper was, right after I finished "A New Kind of Science," I read Seth Lloyd's book "Programming the Universe," and thought to myself, "This is the first time I've purchased a book with the word 'programming' in the title that hasn't contained a single line of source code." To co-opt the terminology of pure mathematics, the digital physics community seems to have contented itself with producing existence proofs, but not constructions. That community seems to agree that "Yup, the entire universe could indeed be software," but nobody seems to have taken the next logical step, to say "OK, what might that software look like? How might its source code be constructed?" My paper offers up a starting point for exploring such possible constructions. That starting point is, as is yours, fundamentally graph-theoretic in structure. More specifically, it is a fractal that operates within graph-theoretic space.
Traditional fractals like the Mandelbrot set, Menger sponge (indeed anything listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_d
imension) consume a subset of traditional n-dimensional space; part of the reason a Sierpinski triangle's Hausdorff dimension is less than 2 is that a complete representation of it can fit inside a 2-dimensional plane. The same reasoning ensures that the Menger sponge's Hausdorff dimension is less than 3. No fractal at the wikipedia page has a Hausdorff dimension greater than 3.
I wonder if part of the reason this is the case is that traditional fractals, because they work by "claiming" points within a larger predefined space, can only _consume_ space. The fractal I propose in my paper (the "Object" class) simultaneously consumes _and_generates_ space (by "claiming" points/nodes and then also having a mechanism for creating new points/nodes). This means, if we were to find a suitable generalization of Hausdorff dimension that can take graph-theoretic fractals into account, then the "Object" class's Hausdorff dimension could be something greater than 3. It could even be, for instance, pi.
Anyhoo, the other day I was lamenting to Ray Munroe Jr that "I wish someone who had as much history as I do with computation, and also as much history as you do with physics, would read the paper and comment on it." Seems to me you're just the right man for the job -- or, at worst, overqualified.
Thanks,
Owen Cunningham
report post as inappropriate
I hate to be one of those guys who says "Nice paper, now please read mine," but in this case, since I titled my paper in homage to your book "A New Kind of Science," I couldn't resist piling on with exactly such a request.
Your paper seems to be a great distillation of many of the themes emerging from different contestant's submissions. Plus, it has the benefit of being written conversationally and in a natural, engaging tone. Bravo.
The very earliest spark of my paper was, right after I finished "A New Kind of Science," I read Seth Lloyd's book "Programming the Universe," and thought to myself, "This is the first time I've purchased a book with the word 'programming' in the title that hasn't contained a single line of source code." To co-opt the terminology of pure mathematics, the digital physics community seems to have contented itself with producing existence proofs, but not constructions. That community seems to agree that "Yup, the entire universe could indeed be software," but nobody seems to have taken the next logical step, to say "OK, what might that software look like? How might its source code be constructed?" My paper offers up a starting point for exploring such possible constructions. That starting point is, as is yours, fundamentally graph-theoretic in structure. More specifically, it is a fractal that operates within graph-theoretic space.
Traditional fractals like the Mandelbrot set, Menger sponge (indeed anything listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_d
imension) consume a subset of traditional n-dimensional space; part of the reason a Sierpinski triangle's Hausdorff dimension is less than 2 is that a complete representation of it can fit inside a 2-dimensional plane. The same reasoning ensures that the Menger sponge's Hausdorff dimension is less than 3. No fractal at the wikipedia page has a Hausdorff dimension greater than 3.
I wonder if part of the reason this is the case is that traditional fractals, because they work by "claiming" points within a larger predefined space, can only _consume_ space. The fractal I propose in my paper (the "Object" class) simultaneously consumes _and_generates_ space (by "claiming" points/nodes and then also having a mechanism for creating new points/nodes). This means, if we were to find a suitable generalization of Hausdorff dimension that can take graph-theoretic fractals into account, then the "Object" class's Hausdorff dimension could be something greater than 3. It could even be, for instance, pi.
Anyhoo, the other day I was lamenting to Ray Munroe Jr that "I wish someone who had as much history as I do with computation, and also as much history as you do with physics, would read the paper and comment on it." Seems to me you're just the right man for the job -- or, at worst, overqualified.
Thanks,
Owen Cunningham
report post as inappropriate
Hello again,
I like some of Stefan W's comments a lot, and would like to point out that they relate to my statement about the need for hierarchality in an observational procedure. One needs to rise to a higher level of abstraction, sometimes, in order to see the answer to a problem, or see that what is being viewed is part of a larger whole. When we look at illustrations in a Math text, we are viewing the idealized figures from a point off the page. Only then can we see the 'true' nature of a circle.
I tend to believe that we see both bottom-up and top-down procedures at work in nature, arising from the very fact that the levels of abstraction required to create or observe anything do have a natural hierarchy. And this is easily linked up with the mind/spirit paradigm. But as Stephen has pointed out, a lot of this sort of behavioral complexity can arise from very simple computational systems. So we are left to wonder if perhaps the universality of their emergence is the result of natural order inherent in Math. I tend to believe that what's out there, in the land of mathematical abstractions, has an influence on what happens here and that this reflects the very mind/spiritual element of which Stefan speaks.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
I like some of Stefan W's comments a lot, and would like to point out that they relate to my statement about the need for hierarchality in an observational procedure. One needs to rise to a higher level of abstraction, sometimes, in order to see the answer to a problem, or see that what is being viewed is part of a larger whole. When we look at illustrations in a Math text, we are viewing the idealized figures from a point off the page. Only then can we see the 'true' nature of a circle.
I tend to believe that we see both bottom-up and top-down procedures at work in nature, arising from the very fact that the levels of abstraction required to create or observe anything do have a natural hierarchy. And this is easily linked up with the mind/spirit paradigm. But as Stephen has pointed out, a lot of this sort of behavioral complexity can arise from very simple computational systems. So we are left to wonder if perhaps the universality of their emergence is the result of natural order inherent in Math. I tend to believe that what's out there, in the land of mathematical abstractions, has an influence on what happens here and that this reflects the very mind/spiritual element of which Stefan speaks.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Stephen Wolfram,
"No doubt, though, we will one day master the construction of atomic-scale replicas from pure information. But more significant, perhaps our very human existence will increasingly become purely informational~at which point the notion of transportation changes, so that just transporting information can potentially entirely achieve our human purposes. ...
...But consider a time in the future when the essence of the human condition has been transferred to purely informational form."
Is there more you can say within this forum to clarify what you mean by becoming purely informational?
James
report post as inappropriate
"No doubt, though, we will one day master the construction of atomic-scale replicas from pure information. But more significant, perhaps our very human existence will increasingly become purely informational~at which point the notion of transportation changes, so that just transporting information can potentially entirely achieve our human purposes. ...
...But consider a time in the future when the essence of the human condition has been transferred to purely informational form."
Is there more you can say within this forum to clarify what you mean by becoming purely informational?
James
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Wolfram,
I much enjoyed your essay and your books, in particular modeling using Turing state machines.
In my FQXi essay I suggest a computer model of the universe with atomic systems being bimodal Truing machines which alternate between modes. One mode conducts classical computation and the other mode quantum computation as a network. Have you or to your knowledge anyone else thought along those lines?
Sincerely,
George Schoenfelder
report post as inappropriate
I much enjoyed your essay and your books, in particular modeling using Turing state machines.
In my FQXi essay I suggest a computer model of the universe with atomic systems being bimodal Truing machines which alternate between modes. One mode conducts classical computation and the other mode quantum computation as a network. Have you or to your knowledge anyone else thought along those lines?
Sincerely,
George Schoenfelder
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Wolfram,
I just finished reading the long version of your paper - It looks like the correct length! It is odd that so many authors want you to read their papers, and yet your community score is relatively low.
It sounds like you are applying the Principle of Computational Equivalence to solve unknown problems (such as TOE) computationally. There are other papers here that attempt similar tasks (Abhijnan Rej and Owen Cunningham), but it is obvious that more simplifications or approximations need to be applied.
I think that my Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE might be the type of idea that could simplify these computations. Any feedback would be appreciated!
Sincerely,
Ray B Munroe - Author of "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE"
report post as inappropriate
I just finished reading the long version of your paper - It looks like the correct length! It is odd that so many authors want you to read their papers, and yet your community score is relatively low.
It sounds like you are applying the Principle of Computational Equivalence to solve unknown problems (such as TOE) computationally. There are other papers here that attempt similar tasks (Abhijnan Rej and Owen Cunningham), but it is obvious that more simplifications or approximations need to be applied.
I think that my Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE might be the type of idea that could simplify these computations. Any feedback would be appreciated!
Sincerely,
Ray B Munroe - Author of "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE"
report post as inappropriate
p.s. - I love the Wolfram Research site. I use it and Wikipedia quite often. In fact, my essay references your research site.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
To Uncle Al: Are we to infer from your comment here that you view the computational approach to physics as fundamentally at odds with the experimental ethos that has driven science forward? If so, that is unfortunate, because introducing an experimental angle to the existing, and very young, subspecies of physics known as "digital physics," which has heretofore been a purely theoretical genre, is precisely what my paper is attempting to do. In the digital physics world, the best way to conduct experiments is to write some code, run it, and see whether its behavior at all reflects that of the universe.
To George Schoenfelder: Your paper sounds extremely interesting. I'm going to read it in detail and post a comment on its thread at some point in the next few days.
report post as inappropriate
To George Schoenfelder: Your paper sounds extremely interesting. I'm going to read it in detail and post a comment on its thread at some point in the next few days.
report post as inappropriate
Stephen
A very thought provoking essay with a welcome conclusion. Some comments:
1. I think you you place too much some reliance on Godel for the incompleteness of mathematics. I refer to him slightly in my essay but I still doubt his theorem. It only applies to structures with countable = separable & Hausdorf etc. sets of axioms and theorems. It is therefore appliable to digital computers / Turing machines - but not analogue computers. My essay focuses on the incompleteness of mathematics for pragmatic scientific reasons. One aspect of that incompleteness is that the sciences of Computation & Information have not yet been coherently incorporated into main stream mathematics. There is stlll scientific apartheid. Some measures via model theory and category theory are being taken to address this but results so far are ineffective.
2. You write "But traditional mathematical models of physics tend to have parameters that are specified in terms of real numbers." This is wrong. Input from physics can only be Rational numbers. The relevance of Real numbers is that by assuming their existence they enable continuity of representation of the physical variables between measured Rational values. This requirement is why the Topology of Open Spaces is fundamental to PHYSICAL measurement. (see page 9 of "An Introduction to Geometrical Physics" Aldrovandi & Pereira). Note that Turing Machines rely on this assumption of topological continuity between each step.
3. There is a hidden assumption that Logic is complete. I doubt it.
4. You attribute the Ultimate limit on physics to Teleology. Purpose implies causality. It is interesting to note that conventional physics does incorporate causality - but its reductionist structure back to explaining everything in terms of elementary particles is a process that eliminates causality at the elementary level. Reverse the process direction and at the Top Level cause we get Purpose. Your conclusion is predicated on emergence, and purpose on consciousness. These are the 2 of the things my essay requires for the Ultimate completion of mathematical science.
report post as inappropriate
A very thought provoking essay with a welcome conclusion. Some comments:
1. I think you you place too much some reliance on Godel for the incompleteness of mathematics. I refer to him slightly in my essay but I still doubt his theorem. It only applies to structures with countable = separable & Hausdorf etc. sets of axioms and theorems. It is therefore appliable to digital computers / Turing machines - but not analogue computers. My essay focuses on the incompleteness of mathematics for pragmatic scientific reasons. One aspect of that incompleteness is that the sciences of Computation & Information have not yet been coherently incorporated into main stream mathematics. There is stlll scientific apartheid. Some measures via model theory and category theory are being taken to address this but results so far are ineffective.
2. You write "But traditional mathematical models of physics tend to have parameters that are specified in terms of real numbers." This is wrong. Input from physics can only be Rational numbers. The relevance of Real numbers is that by assuming their existence they enable continuity of representation of the physical variables between measured Rational values. This requirement is why the Topology of Open Spaces is fundamental to PHYSICAL measurement. (see page 9 of "An Introduction to Geometrical Physics" Aldrovandi & Pereira). Note that Turing Machines rely on this assumption of topological continuity between each step.
3. There is a hidden assumption that Logic is complete. I doubt it.
4. You attribute the Ultimate limit on physics to Teleology. Purpose implies causality. It is interesting to note that conventional physics does incorporate causality - but its reductionist structure back to explaining everything in terms of elementary particles is a process that eliminates causality at the elementary level. Reverse the process direction and at the Top Level cause we get Purpose. Your conclusion is predicated on emergence, and purpose on consciousness. These are the 2 of the things my essay requires for the Ultimate completion of mathematical science.
report post as inappropriate
Stephen,
The idea of computational equivalency is related to something which occurred to me some years ago. As I might pour cream in my coffee the flow of the cream becomes complex with tentacles and filigree that has a growing amount of complexity. This is a common observation of course that we don’t often think of as having some complexity to it in the sense of a Connection Machine. However, that flow of cream is effectively computing something, say the hydrodynamic evolution according to the Navier-Stokes equation. The foldings of tendrils of cream often have a measure of recurrence and these are at least comparable to the iterative computation of “something.” We just do no ordinarily couple a cup of coffee to output devices to register its output in an alpha-numeric form. This also seems to strike a sense with the growing field of virtual reality computation. The Pixar movies, and those made by similar computer animation groups, use physics and algorithms to simulate reality. So in approximating what we observe in the ordinary world ends up requiring a large amount of computational complexity. These can involve how a sheet or item of clothing will fold as it is dropped on a surface, or the intertwining of leaves in a pile that has been brought together by wind. The latter of these has always intrigued me by how this exhibits a noticeable pattern that differs from a pile raked up by a person.
I would take some departure from the last paragraph on about this diverges from physics. The computations are ultimately the evolution of physical states. The universe may well be fundamentally a quantum computer, or a quantum gravitational computer. The occurrence of a macroscopic world may be a signature of exiomatic incompleness. The underlying algorithm, say a quantum error correction code --- maybe even deeper the monster (Fischer-Greiss) group, is subject to decoherence or some chaotic process which results in a set of all possible “computations,” or physical algorithms. So the universe (or multi-verse) might contain all possible Turing machines or algorithmic processors, where most have an undecidable halting status, or a Chaitan halting probability. Then the universe is a Universal Turing Machine is not able to compute all its outcomes from a bottom up sense. Yet through this the computational states are ultimately the physical states of atoms, particles, quanta or a tiny volume of fluid in a flow.
On balance this is a well written and interesting essay.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
The idea of computational equivalency is related to something which occurred to me some years ago. As I might pour cream in my coffee the flow of the cream becomes complex with tentacles and filigree that has a growing amount of complexity. This is a common observation of course that we don’t often think of as having some complexity to it in the sense of a Connection Machine. However, that flow of cream is effectively computing something, say the hydrodynamic evolution according to the Navier-Stokes equation. The foldings of tendrils of cream often have a measure of recurrence and these are at least comparable to the iterative computation of “something.” We just do no ordinarily couple a cup of coffee to output devices to register its output in an alpha-numeric form. This also seems to strike a sense with the growing field of virtual reality computation. The Pixar movies, and those made by similar computer animation groups, use physics and algorithms to simulate reality. So in approximating what we observe in the ordinary world ends up requiring a large amount of computational complexity. These can involve how a sheet or item of clothing will fold as it is dropped on a surface, or the intertwining of leaves in a pile that has been brought together by wind. The latter of these has always intrigued me by how this exhibits a noticeable pattern that differs from a pile raked up by a person.
I would take some departure from the last paragraph on about this diverges from physics. The computations are ultimately the evolution of physical states. The universe may well be fundamentally a quantum computer, or a quantum gravitational computer. The occurrence of a macroscopic world may be a signature of exiomatic incompleness. The underlying algorithm, say a quantum error correction code --- maybe even deeper the monster (Fischer-Greiss) group, is subject to decoherence or some chaotic process which results in a set of all possible “computations,” or physical algorithms. So the universe (or multi-verse) might contain all possible Turing machines or algorithmic processors, where most have an undecidable halting status, or a Chaitan halting probability. Then the universe is a Universal Turing Machine is not able to compute all its outcomes from a bottom up sense. Yet through this the computational states are ultimately the physical states of atoms, particles, quanta or a tiny volume of fluid in a flow.
On balance this is a well written and interesting essay.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Stephen,
i read your essay and it appears you are living with the computational world. Some others live in the mathematical world and some like me are experimetalists and empirical people who prefer to live in their own world of making. But the maker if the universe lies beyond us and still has generated we all individually in this universe which got created far earlier than when the humansm first appeared on the scene. Yes, it is achallenge. But when we look at whatever we have been able to decipher about the universe evolution, the entire Physics got born with the primordial matter ( we don't know yet what it was). Ths in turn created the visible and dark matter world along with dark energy that is attributedly repelling the minor component called the visible world. The visible componennt is baryonic in nature while dark matter is non-baryonic. They do not have means to interact with each other, except that the non-baryonic one repells the baryonic component gravitationally. Within the visible world the gravity is attractive force field.
From this description it become clear that nature governs Phsyics and not vice versa. Humans have a mind of their own. It is known to be complex, wandering entity. t is what we use to study nature. It is simple but our means are complex and that is we have made the universe a complex subject. As one works towards one theory in Physics that may explain all processes, we go towards the simplicity of approach. But our mind comes in the way to complicate the matter. Thus we need to quiten the mind and discipline it further. That is we need improvement in ourselves before we can improve our computational, physical and mathematical tools. The experiments are governed by the technolgy and so it will follow physical machinenaries that we develop. Thus we are in a vicious circle of possibilties that accompany immpossibilities. Enjoy ht egame but keep your mind wide open, calm it down and discipline it to see the simplicity of nature , rather than complicate its simplicity.
report post as inappropriate
i read your essay and it appears you are living with the computational world. Some others live in the mathematical world and some like me are experimetalists and empirical people who prefer to live in their own world of making. But the maker if the universe lies beyond us and still has generated we all individually in this universe which got created far earlier than when the humansm first appeared on the scene. Yes, it is achallenge. But when we look at whatever we have been able to decipher about the universe evolution, the entire Physics got born with the primordial matter ( we don't know yet what it was). Ths in turn created the visible and dark matter world along with dark energy that is attributedly repelling the minor component called the visible world. The visible componennt is baryonic in nature while dark matter is non-baryonic. They do not have means to interact with each other, except that the non-baryonic one repells the baryonic component gravitationally. Within the visible world the gravity is attractive force field.
From this description it become clear that nature governs Phsyics and not vice versa. Humans have a mind of their own. It is known to be complex, wandering entity. t is what we use to study nature. It is simple but our means are complex and that is we have made the universe a complex subject. As one works towards one theory in Physics that may explain all processes, we go towards the simplicity of approach. But our mind comes in the way to complicate the matter. Thus we need to quiten the mind and discipline it further. That is we need improvement in ourselves before we can improve our computational, physical and mathematical tools. The experiments are governed by the technolgy and so it will follow physical machinenaries that we develop. Thus we are in a vicious circle of possibilties that accompany immpossibilities. Enjoy ht egame but keep your mind wide open, calm it down and discipline it to see the simplicity of nature , rather than complicate its simplicity.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Stephen
We search universe in two ways: with the mind and with the consciousness. When we integrate both approaches we have optimal results.
I publish about the subject on
http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0018v1.pdf
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
We search universe in two ways: with the mind and with the consciousness. When we integrate both approaches we have optimal results.
I publish about the subject on
http://vixra.org/pdf/0910.0018v1.pdf
yours amrit
report post as inappropriate
Dear Stephen-
Thank your for your interesting essay, although I have a different opinion about the suitability of a computational approach to fundamental physics. Basically, I have similar concerns with many other posted essays, which have a computational, philosophical or formal character. This leads to an unbound search for, and speculative discussions about, a unified theory of physics....
view entire post
Thank your for your interesting essay, although I have a different opinion about the suitability of a computational approach to fundamental physics. Basically, I have similar concerns with many other posted essays, which have a computational, philosophical or formal character. This leads to an unbound search for, and speculative discussions about, a unified theory of physics....
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Stephen Wolfram,
While analog computers cannot compare with digital ones with respect to reproducibility and performance, they were in an important sense closer to reality. For more details you might have a look at the attached files and 527.
Kind regards,
Eckard
attachments: 1_Ritz09.pdf, 1_M283.html
report post as inappropriate
While analog computers cannot compare with digital ones with respect to reproducibility and performance, they were in an important sense closer to reality. For more details you might have a look at the attached files and 527.
Kind regards,
Eckard
attachments: 1_Ritz09.pdf, 1_M283.html
report post as inappropriate
Mr. Wolfram,
Thank you for an interesting essay. You wrote, "So what about time travel? There are also immediate definitional issues here. For at least if the universe has a definite history--with a single thread of time--the effect of any time travel into the past must just be reflected in the whole actual history that the universe exhibits."
For some thoughts on why time travel is not possible, please see my FQXi essay 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which may be found here.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for an interesting essay. You wrote, "So what about time travel? There are also immediate definitional issues here. For at least if the universe has a definite history--with a single thread of time--the effect of any time travel into the past must just be reflected in the whole actual history that the universe exhibits."
For some thoughts on why time travel is not possible, please see my FQXi essay 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which may be found here.
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Ok two weeks is long enough for me take a hint. Good luck in the contest.
James
report post as inappropriate
James
report post as inappropriate
Sorry about several typographic mistakes in my commeny of ocy 14 that awaits reactions/responses!
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Hello dear Mr Wolfram,
Nice to know you .
I didn't know your work .I saw in this thread a post by Ray Munroe about Wolfram Research .Very very very interesting this architecture .
Like a taxonomy of all .I congratulate you for this platform .Very relevant about the classment ,and thus our utilisation of fundamentals .
The future of our technology is fascinating .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Nice to know you .
I didn't know your work .I saw in this thread a post by Ray Munroe about Wolfram Research .Very very very interesting this architecture .
Like a taxonomy of all .I congratulate you for this platform .Very relevant about the classment ,and thus our utilisation of fundamentals .
The future of our technology is fascinating .
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Wolfram,
As you probably know the establishment was sneering at some of your work as being numerology. Clearly the establishment or at least part of it did not know what they were talking about. Those who have traditionally worked starting from the Lagrangian could not possibly understand the approach of people like Penrose or your good self. Those poor fellows who spent the better part of their life trying to learn quantum field theory and all the no-go theorems attached to it, are again and again horrified when after a long or short time it is discovered that the no-go theorems do not apply. A very common trait is to confuse number theory with numerology. In this connection I would like to recall the furore which met Mohamed El Naschie’s proposal that the background radiation is connected to a Menger sponge geometry of spacetime. Fifteen years after his proposal the loop quantum mechanics community is suddenly discovering that their theory can be embedded in a Menger sponge. If it were not so sad, it would be really funny. Isn’t that exactly what Mohamed El Naschie proposed and was laughed out of court for by the same community? Will we all ever learn to respect everybody’s point of view? Will we all ever learn from our past mistakes of underestimating people just because they are different? I for one find your last book a different kind of science, not only different but magnificent.
Ernie
report post as inappropriate
As you probably know the establishment was sneering at some of your work as being numerology. Clearly the establishment or at least part of it did not know what they were talking about. Those who have traditionally worked starting from the Lagrangian could not possibly understand the approach of people like Penrose or your good self. Those poor fellows who spent the better part of their life trying to learn quantum field theory and all the no-go theorems attached to it, are again and again horrified when after a long or short time it is discovered that the no-go theorems do not apply. A very common trait is to confuse number theory with numerology. In this connection I would like to recall the furore which met Mohamed El Naschie’s proposal that the background radiation is connected to a Menger sponge geometry of spacetime. Fifteen years after his proposal the loop quantum mechanics community is suddenly discovering that their theory can be embedded in a Menger sponge. If it were not so sad, it would be really funny. Isn’t that exactly what Mohamed El Naschie proposed and was laughed out of court for by the same community? Will we all ever learn to respect everybody’s point of view? Will we all ever learn from our past mistakes of underestimating people just because they are different? I for one find your last book a different kind of science, not only different but magnificent.
Ernie
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ernie Bohm,
I just learned from you that Cantor dust was suggested to solve the problems of physics. I looked into
M.S. El Naschie A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics.Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 19 (2004)209–236.
Meanwhile the year 2010 is approaching, and I expect the LHC not to find compelling evidence for SUSY - if my humble suspicions are correct.
Be not mislead by my hesitation to accept Cantor's naive set theory as long as it has admittedly not a single tenable basis and there is no application for aleph_2.
I am pointing to a mistake that has nothing to do with set theory.
Given Mohammed El Naschie is correct, will the Higgs boson be found?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
I just learned from you that Cantor dust was suggested to solve the problems of physics. I looked into
M.S. El Naschie A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics.Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 19 (2004)209–236.
Meanwhile the year 2010 is approaching, and I expect the LHC not to find compelling evidence for SUSY - if my humble suspicions are correct.
Be not mislead by my hesitation to accept Cantor's naive set theory as long as it has admittedly not a single tenable basis and there is no application for aleph_2.
I am pointing to a mistake that has nothing to do with set theory.
Given Mohammed El Naschie is correct, will the Higgs boson be found?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr. Eckard,
I am a theoretical physicist, not a mathematician. None the less I learned from Bruno Augenstein that set theory can be applied to quarks. Augenstein published many papers in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals probably he unfortunately disappeared from the scientific arena probably due to old age. He used to work with Murray Gellman and he had a passion for set theory. I expect that the Higgs will be there whether or not Mohamed El Naschie is correct. The transfinite set theory of El Naschie tries to set more stringent limits on the number of Higgs but it is by no mean the other theory which predicts Higgs. There are a few papers in the 2009 issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, some by El Naschie giving an indication that at a minimum one particle should be found. This particle is most probably the Higgs. Similarly inclined non-mainstream people like Garrett Lisi made very similar predictions like Mohamed El Naschie. The establishment treated Lisi fare worse than they did El Naschie. At least El Naschie’s financial security and livelihood was never threatened. There are two versions of E8 exceptional Lie Group. The Lisi version and the transfinite version proposed by El Naschie. The difference between the two is fundamental but from a practical view point, the difference is almost irrelevant. To answer your question in a straight forward way after all that, the answer is yes, I expect one Higgs boson will be found. Mohamed El Naschie predicts that the mass will be about 169 gega electron volt. I am sure about the particle but I am not sure about the mass.
Regards,
Ernie
report post as inappropriate
I am a theoretical physicist, not a mathematician. None the less I learned from Bruno Augenstein that set theory can be applied to quarks. Augenstein published many papers in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals probably he unfortunately disappeared from the scientific arena probably due to old age. He used to work with Murray Gellman and he had a passion for set theory. I expect that the Higgs will be there whether or not Mohamed El Naschie is correct. The transfinite set theory of El Naschie tries to set more stringent limits on the number of Higgs but it is by no mean the other theory which predicts Higgs. There are a few papers in the 2009 issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, some by El Naschie giving an indication that at a minimum one particle should be found. This particle is most probably the Higgs. Similarly inclined non-mainstream people like Garrett Lisi made very similar predictions like Mohamed El Naschie. The establishment treated Lisi fare worse than they did El Naschie. At least El Naschie’s financial security and livelihood was never threatened. There are two versions of E8 exceptional Lie Group. The Lisi version and the transfinite version proposed by El Naschie. The difference between the two is fundamental but from a practical view point, the difference is almost irrelevant. To answer your question in a straight forward way after all that, the answer is yes, I expect one Higgs boson will be found. Mohamed El Naschie predicts that the mass will be about 169 gega electron volt. I am sure about the particle but I am not sure about the mass.
Regards,
Ernie
report post as inappropriate
Dear Ernie Bohm,
Why should we expect the world to be digital if not even the ratio between diameter and circumference of a circle is rational? Stephen Wolfram claims that the quadrature of the circle has been solved. He means that there is no practical need for a higher than available accuracy of approximation. However, I cannot confirm that pi can be calculated for good.
As an engineer I learned to measure and draw the far field of a charge thought to extending endlessly into space. This does not fit into the drawer of any set theory.
Nonetheless I will look for Bruno Augenstein and Garrett Lisi. Thank you for the hints.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Why should we expect the world to be digital if not even the ratio between diameter and circumference of a circle is rational? Stephen Wolfram claims that the quadrature of the circle has been solved. He means that there is no practical need for a higher than available accuracy of approximation. However, I cannot confirm that pi can be calculated for good.
As an engineer I learned to measure and draw the far field of a charge thought to extending endlessly into space. This does not fit into the drawer of any set theory.
Nonetheless I will look for Bruno Augenstein and Garrett Lisi. Thank you for the hints.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Bruno Augenstein died in 2005. I guess: His antimatter rocket will not work.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
These El naschie and Huan are frauds.
You can consult
Integrity Under Attack:
The State of Scholarly Publishing
By Douglas N. Arnold
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-
under-attack.pdf
Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF),...
view entire post
You can consult
Integrity Under Attack:
The State of Scholarly Publishing
By Douglas N. Arnold
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-
under-attack.pdf
Rumors of editor and journal misconduct have dominated the highly publicized case of the applied math journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF),...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
You can check yours self a typical paper for Huan using E-infinity theory
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 –1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
Abstract
Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.
The same article again with little modifications
Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions
International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=103
7&context=ji_huan_he
Abstract
Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly
due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the
Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber
has so many excellent properties.
You can notice the confilict between the two abstracts, in the first fibre wool
has dimension 4.2325 (which is greater than the embedding space) and in the second it is 1.618. I hope El naschie can explain these remarkable results.
report post as inappropriate
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 –1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
Abstract
Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.
The same article again with little modifications
Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions
International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=103
7&context=ji_huan_he
Abstract
Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly
due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the
Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber
has so many excellent properties.
You can notice the confilict between the two abstracts, in the first fibre wool
has dimension 4.2325 (which is greater than the embedding space) and in the second it is 1.618. I hope El naschie can explain these remarkable results.
report post as inappropriate
I hope to have answers from the great supporters of E-infinity theory
(Ernie Bohm, Eckard, ...........)--> all in one (all in El naschie)
report post as inappropriate
(Ernie Bohm, Eckard, ...........)--> all in one (all in El naschie)
report post as inappropriate
Fred, I agree that it is perhaps not sound if "Conference organizers pay to have proceedings of their conferences published in ..."
However, why do you consider me a supporter of E-infinity theory?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
However, why do you consider me a supporter of E-infinity theory?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Dear Eckard ,
You see clear,more I read your words more I see pragmatism .The rationality seems thus the best road fortunally for the foundamentals sciences .
A model or a theory will take always its sense in the pure physicality with its specifics numbers and constants limits .The physical referential seems the main part of the confusions .The topology thus is specific inside a closed system more the motion and the evolutive point of vue .If the maths extrapolations utilize a false referential or a topology without real physicality thus we can understand the confusions about some models .
A model must consider all centers of interest furthermore and be in correlation with the foundamentals equations .
The sciences need limits and foundamentals .There the maths take all their sense but only if the objective referential is correlated .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
You see clear,more I read your words more I see pragmatism .The rationality seems thus the best road fortunally for the foundamentals sciences .
A model or a theory will take always its sense in the pure physicality with its specifics numbers and constants limits .The physical referential seems the main part of the confusions .The topology thus is specific inside a closed system more the motion and the evolutive point of vue .If the maths extrapolations utilize a false referential or a topology without real physicality thus we can understand the confusions about some models .
A model must consider all centers of interest furthermore and be in correlation with the foundamentals equations .
The sciences need limits and foundamentals .There the maths take all their sense but only if the objective referential is correlated .
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
What about the program supermaxine.Supermaxine runs on any computer and renders that computer a superthinker.
You can add random physics equations in a spreadsheet 1ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.
And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.
And you can express the two answers for everything Ying Yang as one answer 1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH.
So you can go on adding the answers to 2+2=4 in 1/3s until you reduce millions of equations to one equation for everything.
The program supermaxine can print out for all of time for hundreds of years coming up with a new E=MC^2 type breakthrough every day.
The equations can be divided by four to see if they balance for one.
If they don't balance that doesn't mean they are useless just not conventional math....
Just set up Suprmaxine Wolfram and import equations at random form wikkapedia using maths type 6.
And print in your office reams of paper with single answers for everything reduced from thousands of equations that you begin with and end up with one equation for everything.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
You can add random physics equations in a spreadsheet 1ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.
And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN= 4 EVEN.
And you can express the two answers for everything Ying Yang as one answer 1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH.
So you can go on adding the answers to 2+2=4 in 1/3s until you reduce millions of equations to one equation for everything.
The program supermaxine can print out for all of time for hundreds of years coming up with a new E=MC^2 type breakthrough every day.
The equations can be divided by four to see if they balance for one.
If they don't balance that doesn't mean they are useless just not conventional math....
Just set up Suprmaxine Wolfram and import equations at random form wikkapedia using maths type 6.
And print in your office reams of paper with single answers for everything reduced from thousands of equations that you begin with and end up with one equation for everything.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
It is interesting that everyone is now talking about the golden mean and the golden mean E8. Mohamed El Naschie was the first to intimate the relationship between E8 and the golden mean and subsequently introduced a fuzzy E8 based again on the golden mean. He work does not only apply to the Ising model which was tested experimentally in the Helmholtz Center in Berlin but to everything else as well. You could say he found a general theory based on the golden mean for high energy physics. Some call it quantum golden field theory. You can read much more about it in details from a very accessible short review The theory of Cantorian spacetime and high energy particle physics (an informal review) published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 41, 2009, p. 2635-2646.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Hi Hoffman,
Ther golden mean is just a irrational which helps to build like many constants and irrationalities around us.
E8 is false and a big joke in the sciences community.
The reality is a physicality, a pure physicality.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ther golden mean is just a irrational which helps to build like many constants and irrationalities around us.
E8 is false and a big joke in the sciences community.
The reality is a physicality, a pure physicality.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
from http://martialculture.com/blog/2010/01/the-golden-ratio-and-
quantum-mechanics/
El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name:
1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy.
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived.
The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 509-514
M.S. El Naschie
3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS.
On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291
M.S. El Naschie
Quarks confinement
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8
M.S. El Naschie
4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century.
Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture.
Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268
El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time.
report post as inappropriate
quantum-mechanics/
El naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name:
1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy.
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived.
The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 509-514
M.S. El Naschie
3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computer in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS.
On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291
M.S. El Naschie
Quarks confinement
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8
M.S. El Naschie
4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century.
Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture.
Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268
El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time.
report post as inappropriate
Hi,
The problem with E infinity is the uniqueness and the applications of the infinity on this uniquenes which has a finite serie.
I respect the thinker indeed and his creativity.But I don't agree about several conclusions about the Universe.
The fratal is finite anc correlated with the sphere in its primordial divisibility giving the uniqueness of all things.
God do not play with dices in an ocean of universes.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
The problem with E infinity is the uniqueness and the applications of the infinity on this uniquenes which has a finite serie.
I respect the thinker indeed and his creativity.But I don't agree about several conclusions about the Universe.
The fratal is finite anc correlated with the sphere in its primordial divisibility giving the uniqueness of all things.
God do not play with dices in an ocean of universes.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
What, exactly, do we mean by 'number'?
The human term ‘number’ and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. ‘Two fish’ decribes two discreet entities within a set ‘fish’. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that...
view entire post
The human term ‘number’ and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. ‘Two fish’ decribes two discreet entities within a set ‘fish’. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Two very informative papaers explaining in layman terms E-infinity theory and the role played by the golden ratio in fiber wool and high energy physics are the following:
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 –1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
Again the same article with little modifications
Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions
International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=103
7&context=ji_huan_he
The two articles are authored by a great official organ of the E-infinity group who is Prof. Ji-Huan He.
It is a true pleasure reading these articles which puts everything into perspective. In fact the golden ratio was recently discovered to be enjoyed by sheep through their fiber wool and this is deeply rooted on the basis of conformal quantum field theory. This is all apart from its fundamental connection on polylogarithm. This is a beautiful theory with applications in quantum sheep's wool and wooltex and related subjects. These recent discoveries should silence the critics of E-infinity theory provided this criticism is truly scientific and not just politically motivated to disturb sheep market and wooltex stores.
For the seriously motivated readers these are the abstracts of the two wonderful papers
First abstract:
Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.
Second abstract
Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the
Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber has so many excellent properties.
Some suspicious readers would ask why we have two different Hausdorff dimension for the same fiber wool.
-The answer is simple and it is that the two papers measured the Hausdorff dimension in two different frames. As any body know the dimension depend on the reference frame. This reveals that even dimension is a relative concept.
report post as inappropriate
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,
Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 –1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
Again the same article with little modifications
Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions
International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=103
7&context=ji_huan_he
The two articles are authored by a great official organ of the E-infinity group who is Prof. Ji-Huan He.
It is a true pleasure reading these articles which puts everything into perspective. In fact the golden ratio was recently discovered to be enjoyed by sheep through their fiber wool and this is deeply rooted on the basis of conformal quantum field theory. This is all apart from its fundamental connection on polylogarithm. This is a beautiful theory with applications in quantum sheep's wool and wooltex and related subjects. These recent discoveries should silence the critics of E-infinity theory provided this criticism is truly scientific and not just politically motivated to disturb sheep market and wooltex stores.
For the seriously motivated readers these are the abstracts of the two wonderful papers
First abstract:
Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.
Second abstract
Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the
Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber has so many excellent properties.
Some suspicious readers would ask why we have two different Hausdorff dimension for the same fiber wool.
-The answer is simple and it is that the two papers measured the Hausdorff dimension in two different frames. As any body know the dimension depend on the reference frame. This reveals that even dimension is a relative concept.
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post