PDA

View Full Version : I need help!



chriscurtis
2008-Sep-16, 02:18 PM
I really need someone’s help. I know its unethical but I will pay 100 bucks USD to the first person who can spot what is wrong.

Can you spot the flaw in this reasoning? I’m going crazy.

This was supposed to be an extension of the Theory of Everything based on E8 that Lisi published last year but without having to know the maths of E8. This work is complete but the result is really out there. The theory has changed into a proof by induction, which I didn’t think was possible for a theory in physics. It gets even weirder, the proof implies that it is the only theory in nature that can be proved because it can describe everything and yet cannot be simplified, in that it is irreducible.

Here it is. It’s a one liner too.

“Everything can be shown to be represented by just the units 0 and 1 as long as they are different”.

Here’s the “proof”.

First try and break the hypothesis by showing that we need least three different states to describe nature by starting from zero and increasing by one state and then another to make three states. We will start from zero since it should be possible to show that at least three states are needed.

State 1 - Zero dimensions – zero dimensions represents nothing or one state. This can be represented by the number zero. No amount of zeros can represent anything but one state.

Two examples

The empty set represents one state and so
{} = {}{}

In the same way as
having twice of nothing is nothing (0 = 00) and the number 11 represents one state.


State 2 One dimension – to create two states, we know we cannot choose the same as the first, we cannot choose any number less than the first as that is the smallest state. The definition must include the first in its definition (as just having 1 is the same as just having zero). It must cannot be longer than the sum of itself and the first state since it would consist of more than one nothing which is nothing. This means the unit length after zero must be the golden ratio with respect to the first state. In terms of the empty set this can be written as:

{{}}

It is also called the differential or the infinitesimal change. We have just shown that this is the only number that can come next to give to state. No matter how you choose any unit of measure that includes nothing, the golden ratio appears, in that the magnitude is simply different. But this can be seen next.

Try and add a third state. The third state must be different from the previous two.

These are the only possibilities with the empty sets

{}{{}} or {{}}{} or {{{}}}

These are all examples of trying to use 0 and 1 to describe three states including the last. The set with one element that is empty has already been defined. It is impossible to make anything a unit bigger since this can represented with 0s and 1s. Anything smaller than 2 would be smaller than 1 and we have defined everything smaller than 1 as zero.

That is the proof that all states that can exist that are not the first two possible states can be expressed in terms of those states where smallest state and the second state always have magnitude of the golden ratio.

The reasoning is simple in that by adding a second state to the first always creates the third state with no choice. If you have a length a and b has to be different by having the second state b, you create a third different state a + b. Since a and b have to be different. This creates the Fibonacci sequence if you start from 0.

0,1,1

By having two states, you create a third as well, but by having three states, the fourth different one is created which is b + (a + b) etc.

What does this mean?

It is simple, by creating anything more than nothing you create everything recursive at the same time. Binary for example by creating 1 you create 01 and 10 and 11 etc


Predicitons

Applying these to physics means that everything else can be derived from two and different dimensions by making the golden triangle constant. In nature there are the 3 of distance and one of time. If on unit of distance and one unit of time are different we can derive everything from these since a third state is created which is d/t which is c, the speed of light, etc.

The geometry of this concept is also the geometry of the E8 lie algebra and is the simplest way to fully express the asymmetry of {} and {{}}.

Someone help show what is wrong!

Jeff Root
2008-Sep-16, 04:03 PM
I really need someone’s help. I know its unethical but I will pay
100 bucks USD to the first person who can spot what is wrong.
Unethical? It's unethical to pay someone for work they do for you???



Can you spot the flaw in this reasoning?
There's really no flaw because there's no reasoning. Just a description
of an instance of self-reference. Not much else that I can see. Nothing
much interesting.



This was supposed to be an extension of the Theory of Everything
based on E8 that Lisi published last year but without having to know
the maths of E8. This work is complete but the result is really out there.
The theory has changed into a proof by induction, which I didn’t think
was possible for a theory in physics.
It isn't a theory, it's pure math, and it has nothing to do with physics.



It gets even weirder, the proof implies that it is the only theory in
nature that can be proved because it can describe everything and
yet cannot be simplified, in that it is irreducible.
One plus one equals two. Same type of assertion, not a theory,
same kind of "proof", nothing at all to do with physics, not even
interesting.



Here it is. It’s a one liner too.

“Everything can be shown to be represented by just the units 0 and 1
as long as they are different”.
What does the pronoun "they" refer to? Grammatically, it refers to
the zero and one, but that makes no sense.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Neverfly
2008-Sep-16, 04:46 PM
By the way... Jeff Root has assigned to me power of Attorney so I'll be accepting that $100 now...:whistle:

01101001
2008-Sep-16, 05:56 PM
“Everything can be shown to be represented by just the units 0 and 1 as long as they are different”.

I haven't even thought about it, but I know I like it!

John Jones
2008-Sep-16, 06:09 PM
I haven't even thought about it, but I know I like it!


For some reason I can't put my finger on, that sounds like something that would appeal to you.:)

mugaliens
2008-Sep-16, 06:45 PM
I really need someone’s help. I know its unethical but I will pay 100 bucks USD to the first person who can spot what is wrong.

Can you spot the flaw in this reasoning? I’m going crazy.

I'll byte.


Here it is. It’s a one liner too.

“Everything can be shown to be represented by just the units 0 and 1 as long as they are different”.

What about the carbon unit known as Kirk?


Here’s the “proof”.

First try and break the hypothesis by showing that we need least three different states to describe nature by starting from zero and increasing by one state and then another to make three states. We will start from zero since it should be possible to show that at least three states are needed.

State 1 - Zero dimensions – zero dimensions represents nothing or one state. This can be represented by the number zero. No amount of zeros can represent anything but one state.

Two examples

The empty set represents one state and so...

Solved. The answer is "no, it can't." The reason is that you said, "the empty set represents..."

It's not what you said that's important. Rather, it's the fact that you had to say it.

You had to define the condition/situation only after which, with that additional understanding NOT represented solely by 0's and 1's, would it appear that everything can be represented by 0's and 1's.

In essense, the premise is referring to data. However, in order for that data to make sense, it requires metadata, which, put simply, is data about the data.

Without the metadata to define the date, what it means, how it's organized, the 1's and 0's which comprise the data, have no inherent meaning. In other words, it's not self-defining. All data requires external definement.

Please pass the buck.

buck

buck

buck...

....

...

buck (100).

Thanks!

Drunk Vegan
2008-Sep-16, 08:50 PM
The flaw in your logic is that 0 is an imaginary concept.

Nothingness can not be somethingness.

So if you wanted to be really anal you could say everything exists as only ONE state.

Or, you could modify the 0 and 1 to be ON or OFF - activated or not activated.

But as it stands your conjecture is flawed because nothingness is not a concept that can be measured or weighed. Therefore 0/nothing is an imaginary concept used strictly for accounting purposes. It isn't actually something.

Ok, where's my $100?

chriscurtis
2008-Sep-16, 10:28 PM
Thanks for your help guys. None of you got the hundred bucks yet.

What the proof says is that by defining any unit from a to b requires more than one state because a and b are cannot be equal (forget zero or nothing). But the proof then demonstrates that by doing this, a third state is created which is different from a and b which is a + b and is produced by default, you cannot stop it. This in turn by definition introduces another state that is different and cannot be stopped form existing which is b + ( a + b ) which is different from a, b, a + b and this induction goes on forever. This is the proof that only two states are needed to create an irrational number which in turns creates an infinite amount of states as soon as it exists.

The proof says that the golden ratio (irrational) is produced as soon as two different terms or states can exist (the a and the b which are different).

Apply this to the constants of nature and you have unit (Planck) length is different from unit time and therefore since length is larger, their ratio must must form the golden ratio and produce all the other terms that can be used in physics. These are c, G, Dirac's constant, Coulumb force constant and Boltzmann constant k.

Planck length is about 1.616252 X 10e-35
Planck time is about 5.39124 X 10e-44

If you guys are right then these two terms cannot be used to describe all the constants.

From the proof length unit/time unit MUST be the golden ratio AND l and t can be used to be build everything because they are different units.

length/time = 1.616252 X 10e-35 / 5.39124 X 10e-44 = 299792255 which is c, so c must be the unnormalized golden ratio

Now G has units that are L^3/MT^2

In the smallest units (Planck) we don't have M which is the mass unit but according to the proof, it must be a combination of L and T (which is simply T * golden ratio c). Since c is the golden ratio and is this is how to get L from T, we must also be able to get another state according to the proof. One way to do this is to express the golden ratio (Phi) in terms of Pi (they are intimately related but we don't need that yet). We know that a circle with a radius Phi will have a circumference of 2Pi and so let's assume that the inverse of the golden ratio is to not to divide by Phi but to multiply by 2Pi which is similar to saying if you have one known unit you can always make a different unit out of it by making a circle out of its radius and it becomes 2Pi. The inverse of getting the golden ratio is time/length X 2Pi.

The numbers are

5.39124 X 10e-44 / 1.616252 X 10e-35 X 2Pi

This is the same as 1/c X 2Pi

which is

1/299792458 X 2Pi = approx 2.10e-8 which equals the closest approximation by measurement of the Planck mass.

G, the gravitational constant will then be (from its units L^3/MT^2)

substituting M for 2Pi/c

G = (1.616252 X 10e-35)^3/ (2Pi/c) X (5.39124 X 10e-44)^2

and substituting c for t/l

G = (1.616252 X 10e-35)^3/ (2Pi/(1.616252 X 10e-35/5.39124 X 10e-44)) X (5.39124 X 10e-44)^2

G = 4.22209 X 10e-105 / 2.09584 X 10e-8 X (2.9065 X 10e-87)

G = 4.22209 X 10e-105 / 6.091657 X 10e-95

G= 6.93 X 10e-11 which is correct given that I kept chopping off the decimal places in the calculation.

So, from T and L we have c straight off the bat as the ratio and then we can work out unit mass from c if we assume that c is the golden ratio from the proof. This then shows that G can be calculated in terms on only L and T.

chriscurtis
2008-Sep-16, 10:43 PM
The next constant is Dirac's constant which is measure in units of L^2 X M / T

since M = 2Pi/c which is 2Pi/(L/T)

Dirac's constant in terms of just L and T

Dirac's constant = L^2 * (2Pi /(L/T) ) / T

Dirac's constant = (1.616252X10e-35)^2 X (2Pi/ (1.616252X10e-35/5.39124 X 10e-44)) / 5.39124 X 10e-44

Dirac's constant = 2.61227X10e-70 X 2.09584 X 10e-8 / 5.39124 X 10e-44

Dirac's constant = 5.4749 X 10-78 / 5.39124 X 10e-44

Dirac's constant = 1.016 X 10-34 which is right again (with small rounding just to truncation)

So that is three of the five constants of nature derived from just L and T as per the proof assuming c is the golden ratio.

This has never been done before.

chriscurtis
2008-Sep-17, 01:23 AM
I'll do the rest later but you get the picture.

The relation with Pi is there is you think about it. Both Pi and Phi can be calculated as infinite series with just units of one. But with just one unit difference both Phi and Pi can be derived from the empty set since as soon as you have a unit, a circle made of that unit gives you Pi.

What is happening is that the addition operation exists because the any second unit has to be DERIVED from the first, so that the first state is called the derivative of the second. The derivative of any single state is that state differentiated. The derivative of 1 is 0, the derivative of 2 is 2/2 or 1. Differentiated is used to measure infinitesimal change. The derivative tells you the rest of the history of something from one single change which only involves two states. Think of the graph x^2 the history of x^2 is the derivative with respect to X which is 2x. This is all the info needed to create all of x^2

This can be seen in nature. Because everything can be related to the existence of the derivative (the smallest change from one thing to another - doesn't have to be zero or nothing), the Universe must be constructed of any unit and its derivative. The relation Pi can be seen again.

The derivative creates the simplest boundary condition in that the derivative is contained with in the unit. By containing a unit it is surrounding on all sides by the unit and so creates 3D + 1D automatically as the derivative has 3 directions of freedom described by 2Pi. This can be thought of as a dot with no dimension surrounded by the next biggest volume that can contain it.

I'm still working on the easiest way to show it this but there is one and only way to make 3D + 1D with this structure with this concept and this creates two sets of 3D + 1D. The first of these is the infinite set of infinitesimal chunks or quanta each of which is governed by the same local operations that are always the same set of operations. The second of these 3D + 1D structures includes the set of all the first 3D + 1 and represents how any two or more of the local structure changes (the operations). The first (local) structure is described by special relativity and quantum mechanics. The second (global) structure is described by general relativity. It can be shown (again proven as part of the simple hypothesis) that local operations are completely distinct and separate from the global operations which means quantum mechanics and general relativity are mutually exclusive which why they describe different predictions for the hypothesised singularity and black hole event horizon because the proof demands that neither exists. Make sense really. I'll show it later.

The simplest (irreducible) description of the only structure that can be made in 3D + 1 is actually two 3D + 1D structures that are asymmetric. One is the smaller than the other. We live in the 3D + 1D space of the larger. The two are related. The geometry of this only structure in its simplest form that describes this is the structure defined by E8 with the super symmetry broken in the way described by Garrett Lisi. The two are link by the ability to have recursion of the infinitesimal or by the operator + in that as soon as you have the ability to add two units together you automatically have Phi or Pi which are infinite since they are irrational.

There you go. More to come if anyone is still interested.

chriscurtis
2008-Sep-17, 01:35 AM
What this means for the speed of light incidentally is that it is the smallest unit of distance that can be travelled in the smallest time. If it could be any smaller then either Planck distance or time would have to be smaller and we can use any unit we like so long as it can be observed and the units are different (otherwise they are the same thing and no good as different units!.)