Posts Tagged ‘existence’

Simulating the Universe

November 6, 2017

That title is a bit of a tease, although it is what I’m trying to do, at least on some level. I went through a major redo of my physics simulation software because it was based on the Unity environment, which, while easy to get working and makes use of physics intrinsics built into the Unity graphics environment, turned out not to be suitable for my sim runs. Even with a fairly highpowered PC and some level of optimization work, it was too slow and could not realistically process a large enough field array memory. I could have eventually learned enough about Unity to overcome my initial findings, but I am several orders of magnitude off from the performance I needed, so I did a massive learning curve effort and switched to CUDA programming. This turned out to be pretty close to ideal for what I needed, because in the end the physics provided in Unity wouldn’t work anyway–I would have had to write my own physics, never mind the performance and memory limitations. CUDA is turning into a fantastic environment for what I want to do.

This did get me thinking about the big-picture view of what I am doing. I can imagine the overarching intelligent being or beings (either God or real physicists) overlooking what I am doing–“Oh look, a little doofus putzing around on a computer thinking he will find new physics, God and the meaning of existence!” Yup, that’s exactly what I’m doing, although there’s been a huge amount of guided thinking before initiating the sim process.

There has to have been hundreds of thousands of real physicists who have created field sims with various ideas for algorithm kernels and nobody has found something that’s even close to a match for observed science. What makes me think I can do what so many have already tried? Here’s what I think: it’s partly because of what we know of EM field central force behavior. I’m betting that a large percentage of people think the underlying field that gives rise to EM fields, gravity and particles must have central force behavior, and set up field kernels that dissipate over distance. As I’ve noted in a previous post, this cannot work for a bunch of reasons, one of the strongest being that QFT interactions never work this way (all forces are mediated by quantized exchange particles that do not dissipate). So why do EM fields and gravity have central force behavior? It’s not because the underlying field is central force. I discovered several years ago something that’s probably obvious to any physicist–any point source granular emission system will look like a central force system if the far-field perspective is taken. This means that the underlying precursor field has to be far different than the obvious guesses based on experiment.

Some realistic means for providing field quantization must be built into the field kernel for QFT to work. I thought for a long time and realized the only geometric means to get quantization specified by E=hv is to provide a modulus function on the precursor field with a preferred state. What I mean by that is that field elements cannot have magnitude, they can only rotate, and in addition have a preferred “lowest energy” rotation state. This rotation can propagate in either a line or in some system of closed loops, but must have an integer number of turns (or twists, thus forming the name of the theory: Unitary Twist Field). Now, for a particle such as an electron or photon or proton to be stable in our existence (R3), the lowest energy direction must point in another direction dimension than in R3, otherwise our universe would have sampling noise detectable by radio telescopes, the Michelson Morley ether detector, or similar sensors. I arbitrarily point this dimension in the I direction. When I set up this list of constraints on a precursor field, I can analytically show that there are two “wells” of field states that should form stable states and hence solitons in the field. Once I lad locked down the constraints necessary for an underlying field, I was able to develop a field kernel that should give rise to a particle zoo, and then I was ready to set up a sim or see if more analytic work could be done.

I’m guessing that most physicists have access to simulation tools like mine (actually likely far better), but I would be pretty surprised if someone has taken the path I have taken. I am very fond of using the “million physicist tool”–that is, it’s been around 100 years and no smart physicist has come up with an underlying field kernel, so any scheme I come up with *must* be “out-of-the-box” thinking. That is, a good rule for investigations that aren’t worth doing is an investigation that has likely been done by 1 or more of a million physicists. As I said, I suspect a lot of people have gone down various central force paths because of EM and gravitational field behavior–but I discovered years ago that a precursor field cannot be central force, and cannot be linear, along with a bunch of other painfully worked out constraints I just mentioned.

In other words, I don’t think anybody else has been in this room I’m standing looking around in. I see promise here (the two energy wells provided by this field kernel) and am hopeful that a CUDA sim will shine light on it.

Agemoz

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

One Rule To Rule Them All: The One Question Every Human Being Must Ask

August 18, 2016

I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking and analysis on what the precursor field would have to be.  I’ve had some discussions and conclusions about the precursor field that I’ll get into shortly here–but I wanted to digress a little because one of the discussions homed in on why I’m doing this work.  The discussion was extensive but revealed a crucial point about humanity’s search for meaning.  Let’s see if I can summarize the extensiveness of this conversation down to the bare essentials in a clear way:

The main driver for the approach I am taking is that this universe emerged from nothing.  To put it another way by using a popular physics aphorism, it’s not turtles all the way down, the first turtle emerged from nothing.  As I detailed in several previous posts, I see how this could happen–essentially a massive generalization of the principle that infinity times zero can give a finite number.  This drives many of the requirements of the precursor field that I am developing which causes emergence of quantized particles and emergence of particle motion and the EM field, the strong force, and related properties.

This question–did the universe emerge from nothing–is *the* most fundamental question a human being can ask, and is beautiful and elegant in its own right.  It encompasses many issues, especially the question “Is there a God”.  It’s rare that a question can be formed with such simplicity in our language.  The whole study of philosophy of all forms spends a lot of time clarifying what is a “real” question versus what is semantics, i.e, an artifact of the language we choose to work in.

For example, the common philosophical study of “I seek the Truth” raises semantic questions like “what do you mean by truth?”  “What does the concept of seeking mean?”  Or, the question “What is the meaning/purpose of life?”  Well, what does “meaning” mean to you?  How do you define life?  Does it involve consciousness?  Memory?  A tree is alive, and on a very long timescale likely has the same stimulus/response capability as faster moving animals or humans.  It’s really tough to extract the various philosophical issues out of the semantics of most questions.

But the question “did the universe emerge from nothing”, while not immune from semantics, cuts to the core issue easily and elegantly.  It asks whether the observed rules of our existence are intrinsic or not.  If there is even just one rule that has to be there in addition to nothing (and yes, there are semantic issues with “nothing”, so we do have to tread carefully even here)–then the universe didn’t emerge from absolutely nothing.  Then you are forced to ask what caused that rule to emerge, and with a lot of thought I think you have to declare that there is a God–an intellect, a being, or other organized structure that formed the universe.  Then you have to ask what formed those.  It is a recursion of thought that leads some to say “it’s turtles all the way down”, that there is no beginning.  But if you do that, you still are saying there is a God, I think.  This question is so elegant because the dividing line is so precise.  Either the universe emerged from nothing, or else there is no point in continuing because a God or Being or Computer or *something* takes a turtle, puts it there, and voila, we as humans emerge.

The assumption of a God is so problematic in my mind–you simply cannot answer the question of how did this universe get created, you also *cannot ask the question why are we here*!!!  By defining a God, we have taken that question out of our hands and put it in the hands of an unknowable entity.  By saying it’s turtles all the way down (similar to saying there is no beginning, the universe has always existed), we throw up our hands and say these questions cannot be answered.

On the other hand, if we study the approach that we came from nothing, there is a path that can truly be followed, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.  I assume this precursor field had to emerge from nothing and that constrains the characteristics of the field in many ways.  For example, the particle zoo has to emerge from it, so a geometrical basis should exist.  Or, getting on the subject I’ve been focusing on, the precursor field has to emerge from nothing, so it cannot have extra degrees of freedom, which implies rules preceded the field–a no-no in forming the field description.  If there are rules, there has to be a God of some form.

The astonishing thing to me is how clear the path for humanity has to be.  There really is only one study worth doing–how could we emerge from nothing.  Any other explanation for our existence appears to have no fundamental value in investigating!

I hope you find this digression fascinating and helpful why I am doing this study.   It has so far led to the following conclusions, some of which I’ve described in previous posts:

The precursor field cannot require continuity (differentiability) otherwise quantized twists are not possible, and such twists are required for the formation of stable particles in the particle zoo

The field has no vector magnitude, it is a unitary directional field with an R3 + I dimension plus time.  This means that the field elements are orientable (that is, there is a property of the field element that distinguishes from other field elements both by physical location and by direction)

The elements of the field do not move.  They can only rotate.  Movement is an emergent concept that results from the formation of rotation structures that can propagate through the field

Rotation of a field element induces rotation of neighborhood field elements.  This induction is infinity elastic otherwise the field would be forced to be continuous and differentiable, which is contradictory to enabling field twists

Field elements are quantized by creating a preferred orientation to the imaginary dimension direction.  This, combined with the ability to form field twists, is what allows the formation of stable particles

There are other properties I am uncovering, but this list is a good starting point for setting up a computer simulation and for analytic derivations.  My goal is to uncover the specific quantized states available and see if they match with what we see in the particle zoo.

Agemoz

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Mathematics, Chaos, and God

August 25, 2013

I have made the greatest discovery of my life.

You see, I have spent the majority of my life searching for the mind of God, and I did this by observing the world around me, reading about it, and trying to draw conclusions unfettered by wishful or unsupportable thinking.  I thought that by understanding physics, in particular the underlying geometry of quantum field theory coupled with special relativity, that I might see better how God works and thinks.  Along the way, I came to the conclusion that this Unitary Twist Field idea made a lot of sense, and spent a lot of time trying to show how it might work.  I wrote several simulators and tried to refine the ideas sufficiently–and maintain a Feynman skepticism whether they were workable or just simply wrong.

I still maintain that the main idea is probably right–and was beginning to come up with an experiment to induce a linear twist field.  This turns out to be extremely hard, because the timing of the twist has to move at the speed of light–the twist generator has to be both very small and very high frequency.  I envisioned sort of a prefetch driver mechanism that would charge plates in a cylinder in such a way that the field phase was anticipated.  The assumption is that the rotating field would induce the magnetic portion of the twist and that detectable emission would occur.  The reason I think nobody has built something like this before is that the phase timing of the plates has to be such that the twist propagates at speed c–you cannot make a propagating circuit to do this because electrons will travel down wires at less than the speed of light.  You must design a circuit at multi-gigaHertz frequencies that adds phase to take the slower electron path and cancel it out.  Such a configuration cannot occur in nature or even in antennas of any design.  I have sufficient electronics knowledge that I know how to do this–but it still would be a difficult undertaking.

I was starting down the path of doing this when I watched the movie Pi.  Kind of nutty, but still a good movie, I thought.  A mentally disturbed mathematician uncovers a sequence of numbers that forms the unspeakable name of God and goes crazy uncovering the implications.  He reaches peace only by expelling (literally) the knowledge from his mind.  This movie gets a bunch of things wrong, but the principle is a great one.  First, it claims mathematics is the language of all nature, and second, all nature is based/driven by patterns–wrong on both counts.  Nature is the profound mixture of mathematics and chaos–not everything in it is well described by the language of mathematics.  As a corollary, patterns are only part of the game, intrinsic randomness also drives the behaviors we see in nature.

But the point is still valid–while the “answer” wont be a 216 digit number, the mind of God could be said to take a form that could reside as an abstraction inside a human mind.  That’s what I’ve been doing for about 25 years or so–trying to find that abstraction, or more likely some new portion of it.  Then, the meaning of my life gets some resolution as I get closer to knowing God.

I tried to envision what would happen, like in the movie, if some human succeeds.  Does that become a humanity singularity that is eventually inevitable?  Is that the destiny of humanity–probably not me, but someone will eventually find that key?  I woke up this morning and realized I had my answer, a life changing answer.  Just waking up is a great time to do your mightiest thinking–that emerging consciousness is cleared and refreshed.  I remember doing a lot of thinking about death and what it really means about us and God, and one day walking in a cemetary suddenly realizing “God Is Not Here”.  Answers will not be found in the study of dying–it’s just the point where our thinking stops.

This morning, I woke up and realized that is also true of my study of physics.  God Is Not Here.  Because my leading hypothesis of existence is that there is a way for something to emerge from an infinity nothing (search for my previous posts on scale-less systems and the resulting something-from-nothing process), discovering another underlying structure to quantum field theory will NOT get me closer to God–He is not there.  He might be involved somehow at a higher level, but the creation of existence from nothing is a series of steps that eventually results in the Big Bang and then the evolution to our existence.  My discovery is this:  the discoveries of physics is the process of discovering those steps, but does not point us to God (at least directly).

I have had my life profoundly turned on its head, for the search I’ve so diligently pursued and tried to do as rigorously as I could has come to an end–there is no point other than the pleasure of figuring something out.  God Is Not Here.

Of course, new questions arise from the ashes–then, where is God?  What do I do now?

Agemoz

I

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

Lattice fields and Specular Simulation (latest work)

August 25, 2012

The latest work on the twist model is proceeding.  This work makes the assumptions noted in previous posts–EM interactions are mediated by photons as a quantized linear field twists.  The current work assumes these photons comprise the macroscopic electrostatic and magnetic field,  are unitary, and that they are sparse (do not interact).  It assumes that the twist has a common imaginary axis and three real dimensions on R3, similar but not the same as the QFT EM field, which is a complex value on R3 (t is assumed in both cases).  Electron-photon interactions occur when a twist ring captures a linear twist and absorbs it.  I am assuming that a photon twist is magnetic when the real axis of the twist is normal to the real dimension direction of travel, and is electrostatic when the real axis of the twist is tangent to the direction of travel (note how relativistic motion will alter the apparent axis direction, causing the expected shift of photons from electrostatic to magnetic or vice versa).

This set of assumptions creates a model where the linear twist of the photon will affect a twist ring electron in different ways depending on the photon twist axis direction.  Yes, this is a rather classical approach that ignores the fact that quantum interactions are probability distributions, among other things.  My approach is to create a model simulation environment to test the hypothesis that quantization can accurately be represented by field twists, the foundation of the unitary twist field theory.  It does not currently include entanglement, which I represent as the assumption that field twist phase information is instantaneous but that particles (twists) are group wave assemblies that propagate no faster than the speed of light.

These assumptions require that I make changes to my current simulator, which is a lattice approximation of a continuous vector field twist.  I was able to show in that simulator that a continuous twist solution could not work due to the unitary field blocking effect.  From that (and from QFT), I concluded that the twist field must be sparse and specular, where interactions are mediated by linear twist photons that do not interact.  I cannot use my existing simulator for this model but must make a new version, which is underway.  It will take a while so my posts will become less frequent until I get this working.

However, since I am now going away from a lattice simulator to a sparse model simulator, it did make me think about lattices as a representation of existence, and I concluded that that cannot be.  I have often seen theories that our universe is a quantum scale lattice of Planck length.  This supposedly would explain quantization, but I don’t think it works–the devil is in the details.  If the lattice is periodic, such as an array of cube vertexes or tetrahedral vertices, then there should be angles that propagate photons differently than others.  If our existence is spinning on a periodic lattice, we should see harmonics of that spin as background noise.  Within the range of our ability to detect such “radiation” from space, neither are happening.

So, suppose the lattice is not periodic but is a random clustering of vertexes, which solves the problem of periodicity causing background frequencies.  In that case, I would expect that photon propagation would have velocity variation as it propagated through varying spacing of vertexes.  There would have to be an upper bound to the density of vertexes to ensure apparent constant speed, and I struggle to think what would enforce that bound.  This is probably the most workable of the lattice ideas, but due to the necessity of a vertex spacing constraint, there would have to be an upper limit to the allowable energy of a photon, something we have no evidence for.  At this point, I think there is no likelihood that existence can be described as a lattice.  That hypothesis is attractive because we can easily imagine a creator God could build a computer that could most easily create a model of existence using a lattice of some form.  But even though the Planck length lattice is far too small for us to detect directly, I don’t think the evidence points that way.  (Side note:  it’s so interesting to look at early literature to see the historical evolution of what people thought formed the underlying basis for our existence–early on, God creating and controlling a mechanical model, then universe models were complex automated assemblies of gears and pullies, then the steam-engine or steam-punk type of machine, then mechanical computing engines, and now computer program driven machines simulating a lattice…  What is next? !)

Back to the lack of evidence for an underlying lattice to our existence.  This is a more important  realization than it might appear, especially from a philosophical standpoint.  If there was evidence that the universe was built on a lattice, that would strongly imply creation by a being, because a lattice is an underlying structure and constraint.  Evidence that there is no lattice, which is what I think I am seeing, would imply that there is no higher being because it is hard for me to imagine constructing a world without a lattice.  Of course, it would only be a mild implication, because my ability to imagine how a universe could be constructed without a lattice is limited.  Nevertheless, it is a pointer in the direction of existence coming from nothing rather than being constructed by a God.

Pretty interesting stuff!  More to come as the new simulator work gets underway.
Agemoz

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in philosophy, Physics | Leave a Comment »

existence and me

September 18, 2007

Wow, that last post was a doozy. Summarizing it, I tried to say–dying is less of a big deal than it seems–nothing really gets destroyed, the bag of particles that makes up me, just gets rearranged into a more diffuse distribution. The concept of me is immortal, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no difference between what is real and what isn’t. You say, there is too a difference–I am real, but the idea of me is not… But reread that last sentence, it is really very astonishing. You think you are real, but the death of you is just “your” particles floating about in a different way–you are just the *idea* of particles in a particular order. You are no more real than me defining you as a circle, and then creating a real you by putting a bunch of rocks in a circle. By the same token the idea of the circle, or of you, is just as real as you are.

The utterly profound way to think of reality is that ideas and reality are one and the same. Reality has no more meaning than an idea. When you die, it’s just a shuffling of the deck. The combination of particles and environment that made you, the idea of you, disappears, but no particles will disappear–the only thing that vanishes is that particular order. When we suffer loss of loved ones, we suffer loss of the idea, the particular arrangement of particles will not recur. I know I’m probably sounding rather bizarre here, but to the best of my abilities, I have concluded that this thinking is “true”, that is most likely from a global point of view.

The concept of existence as a distinct entity from non-existence becomes in this way of thinking becomes somewhat narrower than we might think. Here we are, full circle from the thinking about something arising from nothing. Existence can readily be defined as something, and non-existence can be defined as nothing. But Existence is really just one particular ordering and non-existence is another. One way to see this is by studying what it means to die–it’s just a different ordering–but you must realize that my statement is true, because we say that in one case we exist and in the other we don’t. There is basically no difference between existing and not existing!! (I need to throw in a caveat here that does not break this analysis but just needs to be mentioned–I am assuming that in one form or another the particles, or the equivalent energy is conserved. Standard physics says the energy-mass of a particular system will be conserved, although in extreme cases such as black holes we might see some odd permutations of this–but the basic concept of the idea is valid in the space-time we “exist” in.

So what the heck does it mean to realize that existence doesn’t really have significance over non-existence? Well, one thing is for sure–philosophizing over the meaning of existence, why we are here, and does God exist, and similar questions, takes on a whole new light when this realization is made. The realm of existence as different from non-existence is intriguingly very small using this analysis. But doggone it, when we are born or die, there is no question a major cataclysm occurs, there is definite change of some sort. We form or lose a particular pattern, an *idea* that has great meaning to us, the pattern that we call the “existence of me”. We really hate it when that idea vanishes.. uh actually I guess we dont hate it once the pattern of our existence vanishes, but we sure hate knowing that the pattern will vanish (that is, knowing we will die), and do everything possible to make the pattern last longer. That’s because that longing to preserve our existence is built into our pattern. You can see that it doesn’t have to be that way, but it is in order that the patterns can be self propagating/reproducing. A pattern that has the ability to produce similar patterns will not decimate itself if this urge to survive is built into the pattern–the Darwinian principle of survival.

What is so cool about this is it starts to answer the question about consciousness. I’ve always wondered why we seem to have that trait but a pile of rocks doesn’t… Does the fact that we have consciousness mean that there is a soul, or some entity separate from our existence (!), ie, the existence of our pattern of life. The answer has got to be no. Rocks dont have consciousness, among other things, that allows propagation, survival, and reproduction. So rocks won’t reproduce, and have no apparent consciousness. *BUT*, that’s only from our perspective when we look at rocks–it might be conscious if we look at the complete earth, or some such subsystem over the appropriate scale of time. Does my toenail have consciousness of itself–no, but the pattern it is part of does.

Now, what does all this say about God?

I suppose you’ll have to wait for the next post for the answer to everything…!

Agemoz

Tags:, ,
Posted in philosophy | Leave a Comment »