There is a well known situation/phenomenon in economy that, any market eventually tends to reduce to two big competitors/companies. Some examples of that are Coca Cola vs Pepsi, McDonalds vs Burger King, (Windows vs Linux?), (Chrome vs Firefox?), (PC vs Mac?), (Android vs IPhone?),...
I think another possible final market state/outcome is a single monopolistic company/product.
It seems to me that, general time evolution of multiple-political-party systems (in each democratic country in the world) is similar:
Either, finally, two big parties chaotically winning/losing elections, and so keep switching the control of the country between each other, like for example Democratic Party vs Republican Party in U.S.A.
Or, one political party eventually takes full control, and thus creates a dictatorship.
I think it also seems that another general trend is, as time (years/decades) passes, overall/general loyalty/faith levels of members to their political parties also become more and more non-questioning/absolute loyalty.
This also means that general effect of political parties on their societies is to cause (keep increasing) social polarization (thru a positive feedback effect?)!
(Realize that, as members become more and more absolutely loyal to their political parties over time, views of other parties would be rejected/refused more and more strongly (and so keep taking a country towards a civil war!)!)
This also means that people vote, more and more, for the party, not for the candidate!
(So any/all bad personal character/personality/intelligence/education/experience properties of candidates would be ignored/overlooked, more and more strongly/widely over time!)
So it seems to me that there is really no good/stable long term outcome/state with having political parties!
Then what is the general long term stable democratic political solution (if there is any)?
How we can prevent increasing social political polarization over time?
How we can make sure people always vote for the candidate, and not for the party?
How we can create a long term stable and democratic political system?
I would like to ask, why a political system needs to have parties anyway?
Is there really any good reason(s) (I really do not know)?
Because it seems to me that, if there were no political parties (so, only independent political candidates are allowed, always), then, there would/can not, any long term increasing (political) social polarization in that society!
And people would be always forced to vote for the (independent) candidates, depending on their good/bad personal qualities, and not for their parties (since there aren't any allowed anymore), isn't it true?
20180811
20180630
A New Equivalence Principle
If we want to revolutionize physics, by creating a GUT of Quantum-Gravity, wouldn't be a good idea to look at the past examples of revolutions in physics, first?
For example, how Einstein and Newton did it?
(Their success was really due to their superior (to everyone else) mathematical talents?)
I think, in Einstein's Special Relativity Theory case, a big experiment (Michelson–Morley Experiment) disagreed with Newton Physics.
And unlike other physicists, Einstein fully accepted the results/implications of the experiment, which (its mathematical expression(s)) led directly to Special Relativity Theory!
When it comes to Quantum-Gravity Theory problem, do we really have any big experiment disagreeing with Quantum Mechanics and/or Relativity?
I think the answer is no!
I think, in Einstein's General Relativity Theory case, on the other hand, Einstein started with finding/defining a new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle (equivalence of gravity and acceleration), which (its mathematical expression(s)) led directly to General Relativity Theory!
I think, what led Newton to success was also finding/defining a new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle (equivalence of force between, Earth and a falling Apple, and, Earth and (constantly falling) Moon)!
Can we really find/define a new Equivalence Principle, to led us to a (realistic/consistent) GUT of Quantum-Gravity?
A new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle that joins/bridges foundations of (General) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
Can't we say foundation of (General) Relativity is spacetime?
Can't we say foundation of Quantum Mechanics is quantum-vacuum?
Then, what if, we define a new Equivalence Principle, such as, spacetime and quantum-vacuum are equivalent (same)?!
Or, spacetime is created by quantum-vacuum (which created by virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence everywhere)?
Consider that, how air around us looks like empty space, but we know that, it is actually a (transparent) gas medium, created by atoms/molecules.
Imagine that, quantum-vacuum was also similar, a (transparent) gas-like medium, created by virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence everywhere!
But, if spacetime is actually quantum-vacuum, (when quantum-vacuum observed from macro-scale), then, what really is gravitational field?
What happens at micro-scale, to quantum-vacuum (medium of virtual particles), when we see (positive or negative) bent spacetime, at macro-scale?
To answer, imagine that, if we observe flat spacetime at macro-scale, then at (quantum-vacuum) micro-scale, average probabilities of, positive energy/mass virtual particles randomly coming to existence, and, negative energy/mass virtual particles randomly coming to existence, are equal/balanced!
But, can we really say, we have perfect/absolute/clear justification to define/accept a new Equivalence Principle, such as that?
To answer, I would ask, did Einstein and Newton, really had perfect/absolute/clear justification for theirs?
For example, how Einstein and Newton did it?
(Their success was really due to their superior (to everyone else) mathematical talents?)
I think, in Einstein's Special Relativity Theory case, a big experiment (Michelson–Morley Experiment) disagreed with Newton Physics.
And unlike other physicists, Einstein fully accepted the results/implications of the experiment, which (its mathematical expression(s)) led directly to Special Relativity Theory!
When it comes to Quantum-Gravity Theory problem, do we really have any big experiment disagreeing with Quantum Mechanics and/or Relativity?
I think the answer is no!
I think, in Einstein's General Relativity Theory case, on the other hand, Einstein started with finding/defining a new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle (equivalence of gravity and acceleration), which (its mathematical expression(s)) led directly to General Relativity Theory!
I think, what led Newton to success was also finding/defining a new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle (equivalence of force between, Earth and a falling Apple, and, Earth and (constantly falling) Moon)!
Can we really find/define a new Equivalence Principle, to led us to a (realistic/consistent) GUT of Quantum-Gravity?
A new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle that joins/bridges foundations of (General) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?
Can't we say foundation of (General) Relativity is spacetime?
Can't we say foundation of Quantum Mechanics is quantum-vacuum?
Then, what if, we define a new Equivalence Principle, such as, spacetime and quantum-vacuum are equivalent (same)?!
Or, spacetime is created by quantum-vacuum (which created by virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence everywhere)?
Consider that, how air around us looks like empty space, but we know that, it is actually a (transparent) gas medium, created by atoms/molecules.
Imagine that, quantum-vacuum was also similar, a (transparent) gas-like medium, created by virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence everywhere!
But, if spacetime is actually quantum-vacuum, (when quantum-vacuum observed from macro-scale), then, what really is gravitational field?
What happens at micro-scale, to quantum-vacuum (medium of virtual particles), when we see (positive or negative) bent spacetime, at macro-scale?
To answer, imagine that, if we observe flat spacetime at macro-scale, then at (quantum-vacuum) micro-scale, average probabilities of, positive energy/mass virtual particles randomly coming to existence, and, negative energy/mass virtual particles randomly coming to existence, are equal/balanced!
But, can we really say, we have perfect/absolute/clear justification to define/accept a new Equivalence Principle, such as that?
To answer, I would ask, did Einstein and Newton, really had perfect/absolute/clear justification for theirs?
20180215
What Black Holes Are Made Of?
https://www.patreon.com/posts/black-holes-must-16994748
Wikipedia says Planck particle "defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius".
Can we really think of Planck particles as tiny Black Holes themselves, as Wikipedia says? I think the answer is yes. Then, could we also really and truly call them Black Hole particles? I think the answer is yes. Would it be logically consistent to say, Black Holes are made of Black Hole particles? I think the answer is yes.
Would that be consistent with General Relativity? I think the answer is yes. Because, would it really make any difference from GR point of view, if we divided a single Black Hole into N smaller Black Holes? Would the total gravitational field around of that Black Hole, would really change then? I think the answer is no. (Actually, the total gravitational field around of that Black Hole would be locally different from the total gravitational field around of a single Black Hole, but it would become more and more similar/indistinguishable, as N increases toward infinity. And, if Black Holes are really made of Planck particles, then N would be an astronomically large number for any real Black Hole, and so the gravitational field around any real Black Hole (made of Planck particles) would be practically indistinguishable from the gravitational field around of a single Black Hole.)
Would that be also consistent with Quantum Mechanics? I think the answer is yes. Because, if we are assuming Black Holes are made of Black Hole (Planck) particles, then we are assuming Planck particle is real and so it is a (new) member of Standard Model. And if we are assuming that, then would it be consistent with Quantum Mechanics, if Black Holes are made of Black Hole (Planck) particles? I think the answer is yes.
And, if any theory of Quantum-Gravity (now/future) is really correct, would it not say that, all objects in the Universe (including Black Holes) must be made of particles? If so then, should not we consider, which theoretical elementary particle(s) we know about, could be really fully consistent with, what we know about Black Holes and GR and QM, altogether?
I think only a particle that is by itself a (tiny) Black Hole would be consistent with General Relativity, for BHs could be made of. Is there any other theoretically possible particle that is a tiny Black Hole itself? I think the answer is no. So if any Quantum-Gravity theory is correct, and so BHs are made of particles, then only valid possible option would be Planck particles.
So, I think the idea that "Black Holes are made of Planck (Black Hole) particles" is actually consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Can we say the same for the idea that "the center of any Black Hole is a singularity"? It is obviously consistent with General Relativity, but, is it really consistent with Quantum Mechanics, also? I think the answer is no. Because, Quantum Mechanics (Standard Model), does not, also cannot, have any elementary/composite particle that can represent a singularity!
So, it seems to me that, it is physically/realistically more plausible, Black Holes are made of Planck particles, compared to, Black Holes contain a singularity in their centers, which has infinite density and zero size and can have/hold any amount of mass/energy/information.
20180211
Proving Quantum Supremacy
What would be the simplest way to compare the power/capability of classical and quantum computers?
Assume a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor (each processor register is N bits). How its insruction set would need to change for it to become an N-bit Quantum RISC processor?
Actually most of the instructions would not need any change. For example, arithmetic and logic instructions would still be the same, but they would process qubit states (0,1,U) instead of bit states (0,1).
Maybe just load/store instruction(s) need to be modified (from a programmer point of view):
Assume that, if a LOAD instruction for a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor is:
LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1'
Then the LOAD instruction for N-bit Quantum RISC processor would be:
LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1/U' (U for Unknown/Undetermined states)
Quantum algorithm examples for such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor:
Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*B=C; A and B are known to be prime numbers; the value of C is given. What are the values of A and B?
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
MULT R0, R1, R2 # R0*R1 -> R2
LOAD R2, C # => A -> R0 and B -> R1 after this instruction! (C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value.)
Imagine that, when R2 is forced to have the value of C in the end, that causes states of R0 and R1 change from unknown to real values of A and B, thus solving the problem.
Quantum First Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*X+B=0. What is X if A and B are given? (Analytical solution: X=-B/A)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, A # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R2, B # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
MULT R0, R1, R3 # R0*R1 -> R3
ADDN R2, R3, R3 # R2+R3 -> R3
LOAD R3, '0'*N # => X -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!
Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, A # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R2, B # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R3, C # C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
MULT R0, R0, R4 # R0*R0 -> R4
MULT R1, R4, R4 # R1*R4 -> R4
MULT R0, R2, R5 # R0*R2 -> R5
ADDN R4, R5, R4 # R4+R5 -> R4
ADDN R4, R3, R4 # R4+R3 -> R4
LOAD R4, '0'*N # => X0 or X1 (with %50 probability for each) -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!
Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm 2:
Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. X0+X1=-B/A & X0*X1=C/A. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
ADDN R0, R1, R2 # R0+R1 -> R2
MULT R0, R1, R3 # R0*R1 -> R3
LOAD R2, -B/A # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R3, C/A # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value
=> X0 -> R0 and X1 -> R1 after these (which is the solution)!
Realize that such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor could also still work as a N-bit Classical RISC processor (by simply never setting any register qubits to unknown states)! Meaning, a quantum computer has at least the same power as a classical computer for any/all worst problem cases! Meaning, finding even a single problem that a quantum computer can solve faster, would mean a proof of quantum supremacy! And realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above uses only 4 instructions! Could there be any chance that the N-bit Classical RISC processor (which has the same instruction set as the N-bit Quantum RISC processor), could solve the same problem using an equal or less number of instructions? The answer is obviously no, which means we have a proof of quantum supremacy!
What are the advantages of quantum computers against classical computers, in general?
Realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above evaluates (in the end) all possible values of A and B instantly to find the (unique) solution.
(Imagine that whenever a problem has multiple possible solutions then a quantum computer randomly picks one each time.)
Assume a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor (each processor register is N bits). How its insruction set would need to change for it to become an N-bit Quantum RISC processor?
Actually most of the instructions would not need any change. For example, arithmetic and logic instructions would still be the same, but they would process qubit states (0,1,U) instead of bit states (0,1).
Maybe just load/store instruction(s) need to be modified (from a programmer point of view):
Assume that, if a LOAD instruction for a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor is:
LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1'
Then the LOAD instruction for N-bit Quantum RISC processor would be:
LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1/U' (U for Unknown/Undetermined states)
Quantum algorithm examples for such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor:
Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*B=C; A and B are known to be prime numbers; the value of C is given. What are the values of A and B?
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
MULT R0, R1, R2 # R0*R1 -> R2
LOAD R2, C # => A -> R0 and B -> R1 after this instruction! (C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value.)
Imagine that, when R2 is forced to have the value of C in the end, that causes states of R0 and R1 change from unknown to real values of A and B, thus solving the problem.
Quantum First Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*X+B=0. What is X if A and B are given? (Analytical solution: X=-B/A)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, A # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R2, B # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
MULT R0, R1, R3 # R0*R1 -> R3
ADDN R2, R3, R3 # R2+R3 -> R3
LOAD R3, '0'*N # => X -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!
Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, A # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R2, B # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R3, C # C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
MULT R0, R0, R4 # R0*R0 -> R4
MULT R1, R4, R4 # R1*R4 -> R4
MULT R0, R2, R5 # R0*R2 -> R5
ADDN R4, R5, R4 # R4+R5 -> R4
ADDN R4, R3, R4 # R4+R3 -> R4
LOAD R4, '0'*N # => X0 or X1 (with %50 probability for each) -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!
Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm 2:
Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. X0+X1=-B/A & X0*X1=C/A. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, 'U'*N # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
ADDN R0, R1, R2 # R0+R1 -> R2
MULT R0, R1, R3 # R0*R1 -> R3
LOAD R2, -B/A # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R3, C/A # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value
=> X0 -> R0 and X1 -> R1 after these (which is the solution)!
Realize that such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor could also still work as a N-bit Classical RISC processor (by simply never setting any register qubits to unknown states)! Meaning, a quantum computer has at least the same power as a classical computer for any/all worst problem cases! Meaning, finding even a single problem that a quantum computer can solve faster, would mean a proof of quantum supremacy! And realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above uses only 4 instructions! Could there be any chance that the N-bit Classical RISC processor (which has the same instruction set as the N-bit Quantum RISC processor), could solve the same problem using an equal or less number of instructions? The answer is obviously no, which means we have a proof of quantum supremacy!
What are the advantages of quantum computers against classical computers, in general?
Realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above evaluates (in the end) all possible values of A and B instantly to find the (unique) solution.
(Imagine that whenever a problem has multiple possible solutions then a quantum computer randomly picks one each time.)
20180121
Hawking Radiation vs Unruh Radiation
Equivalency Principle (which is the foundation of General Relativity) says gravity and acceleration are physically completely equivalent. Let's also consider that acceleration towards speed of light produces Unruh Radiation. Then one must conclude that, Black Holes also should produce Unruh Radiation, since their gravity (escape velocity) increases towards speed of light, when approaching near their Event Horizon.
But then, a BH produces both Hawking Radiation and Unruh Radiation?
IMHO, all physical mechanisms I read about for, how exactly Hawking Radiation is produced, seem lacking. So I think it is quite possible that, BHs actually produce only Unruh Radiation.
I think it is generally thought that, even if it is real, Hawking Radiation around any real BH, can never be actually detected by us, using any tech. What about possibility of detecting Unruh Radiation, instead? (I have no idea.)
But then, a BH produces both Hawking Radiation and Unruh Radiation?
IMHO, all physical mechanisms I read about for, how exactly Hawking Radiation is produced, seem lacking. So I think it is quite possible that, BHs actually produce only Unruh Radiation.
I think it is generally thought that, even if it is real, Hawking Radiation around any real BH, can never be actually detected by us, using any tech. What about possibility of detecting Unruh Radiation, instead? (I have no idea.)
20180115
World Energy Problem
I think, for the long term future of humanity, just having renewable clean energy (solar, wind, wave) is not really enough! If we really want to improve the future of our world, we need renewable clean energy but also astronomical amounts of it!
Why? Realize that, we could really transform our world, if we had astronomical amounts of energy to spend. For example, titanium is an extremely light, strong, durable material. And our world has plenty of it to use for anything. But mining it at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could build all our vehicles, buildings, homes, bridges, roads, infrastructure from titanium, for example. Then, they all would last pretty much as long as we want/need! Imagine how much maintenance costs would be saved in the long term!
Also keep in mind, titanium is just one example. Similar situation exists for aluminum, also. Aluminum is also an extremely useful dream material, and it is also plenty in Earth's crust, but it also requires a lot of electricity to mine. Another example is glass. Imagine, if we could produce glass bricks very cheap, then we could use them in all kinds of buildings (as walls), for example.
Also water desalinization (using sea water) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy, also moving water across continents (using pipeline networks) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could provide enough clean water to anywhere anytime, for cities, agriculture, even for creating new large forests!
Also realize that electricity is a big part of the total cost for pretty much anything we produce and use/consume. If we had really plenty electricity, price of pretty much everything would significantly drop (in different levels for different things) and also availability of pretty much everything would significantly increase (in different levels for different things).
And that is why, we as humanity need to keep researching/experimenting clean fission/fusion!
Why? Realize that, we could really transform our world, if we had astronomical amounts of energy to spend. For example, titanium is an extremely light, strong, durable material. And our world has plenty of it to use for anything. But mining it at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could build all our vehicles, buildings, homes, bridges, roads, infrastructure from titanium, for example. Then, they all would last pretty much as long as we want/need! Imagine how much maintenance costs would be saved in the long term!
Also keep in mind, titanium is just one example. Similar situation exists for aluminum, also. Aluminum is also an extremely useful dream material, and it is also plenty in Earth's crust, but it also requires a lot of electricity to mine. Another example is glass. Imagine, if we could produce glass bricks very cheap, then we could use them in all kinds of buildings (as walls), for example.
Also water desalinization (using sea water) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy, also moving water across continents (using pipeline networks) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could provide enough clean water to anywhere anytime, for cities, agriculture, even for creating new large forests!
Also realize that electricity is a big part of the total cost for pretty much anything we produce and use/consume. If we had really plenty electricity, price of pretty much everything would significantly drop (in different levels for different things) and also availability of pretty much everything would significantly increase (in different levels for different things).
And that is why, we as humanity need to keep researching/experimenting clean fission/fusion!
20180114
FUTURE OF AIRCRAFT
For large passenger and cargo (fixed-wing) aircraft (at least), what are must be our design goals?
I think:
1) Max fuel efficiency
2) Min mechanical complexity (for less breakdowns (more relilability) , less repairs and replacements, cheap production and maintenance)
3) Max safety
What if, all wings had no internal/external moving parts? (Where each wing joined to the body, the wing is actually joined to a rotatable circle, where circle diameter is the wing width.) (That means the pair of two large width main wings would need to be replaced by small width (and also small length?) multiple pairs of wings, located back-to-back (with an interval in between) and/or like biplane wings.) The rotatable circles would enable a flight computer to keep readjusting attack angle of each wing, for all kinds of flight control, and very fast, very often. It would also enable computer to always adjust the attack angles for max lift/speed/efficiency, depending on current speed, temperature, pressure, weather. I think it would also end icing problems for all such aircraft! (Also realize that this kind of aircraft would require engines to be joined to the body (not to any wings), to not increase mechanical complexity.)
I think:
1) Max fuel efficiency
2) Min mechanical complexity (for less breakdowns (more relilability) , less repairs and replacements, cheap production and maintenance)
3) Max safety
What if, all wings had no internal/external moving parts? (Where each wing joined to the body, the wing is actually joined to a rotatable circle, where circle diameter is the wing width.) (That means the pair of two large width main wings would need to be replaced by small width (and also small length?) multiple pairs of wings, located back-to-back (with an interval in between) and/or like biplane wings.) The rotatable circles would enable a flight computer to keep readjusting attack angle of each wing, for all kinds of flight control, and very fast, very often. It would also enable computer to always adjust the attack angles for max lift/speed/efficiency, depending on current speed, temperature, pressure, weather. I think it would also end icing problems for all such aircraft! (Also realize that this kind of aircraft would require engines to be joined to the body (not to any wings), to not increase mechanical complexity.)
AUTOMATION AND UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
I think it should be clear to almost anyone today that our technology is progressing really fast, and its progress speed was always keep increasing (in the long term), since the beginning of our human civilization. So the speed of our technological progress is exponential in general. Availability of higher and higher tech, for cheaper and cheaper, to more and more people, is also probably exponential. I think, as the complexity and ability of our tech increases exponentially, the result for humanity would be having harder and harder time, for keep adapting to our own technological progress!
I think, if nothing (effective) is done, we would be looking at a future world, where the general population share of poor people (who are below the income needed for their own basic needs), keeps increasing. (And where the general population share of rich people keeps decreasing but they also keep getting richer!) Unless a permanent solution is found, that is!
I think, the first solution possibility, would be that humanity also (hopefully) keep increasing its abilities (always at same speed as tech!), by means of extending STEM education to the whole population.
Second, each government could start (hopefully) providing Social Security Income and/or Food Stamps and/or Universal Basic Income, to its all poor people.
I think success would be always far from guaranteed for either of these kinds of solution attempts.
Even if they can be done successfully for a while, they both have their own natural limits. For example, where the continuous money for the poor will come from? Would there be always enough money, if the share of the poor in the population keeps climbing in each country? If the tax on the all rich(est) people is increased successfully, is economic balance/stability can always be preserved? What would be the max tax rate possible on the rich for still keeping economic stability? And, is it really guaranteed, that max tax rate, would always be enough to provide help to all poor? (Or always can be even successfully enforced against the rich?)
I think, if all other solution attempts failed someday, in the (hopefully distant) future, the last solution could be try to make a global law for everybody having less children. (If ever really made, I think that kind of law would need to be global (and approved by all countries), to really work, to prevent any country having/claiming any unfair population advantage/disadvantage against any other.)
I think, if nothing (effective) is done, we would be looking at a future world, where the general population share of poor people (who are below the income needed for their own basic needs), keeps increasing. (And where the general population share of rich people keeps decreasing but they also keep getting richer!) Unless a permanent solution is found, that is!
I think, the first solution possibility, would be that humanity also (hopefully) keep increasing its abilities (always at same speed as tech!), by means of extending STEM education to the whole population.
Second, each government could start (hopefully) providing Social Security Income and/or Food Stamps and/or Universal Basic Income, to its all poor people.
I think success would be always far from guaranteed for either of these kinds of solution attempts.
Even if they can be done successfully for a while, they both have their own natural limits. For example, where the continuous money for the poor will come from? Would there be always enough money, if the share of the poor in the population keeps climbing in each country? If the tax on the all rich(est) people is increased successfully, is economic balance/stability can always be preserved? What would be the max tax rate possible on the rich for still keeping economic stability? And, is it really guaranteed, that max tax rate, would always be enough to provide help to all poor? (Or always can be even successfully enforced against the rich?)
I think, if all other solution attempts failed someday, in the (hopefully distant) future, the last solution could be try to make a global law for everybody having less children. (If ever really made, I think that kind of law would need to be global (and approved by all countries), to really work, to prevent any country having/claiming any unfair population advantage/disadvantage against any other.)
20180113
CYPRUS PROBLEM
IMHO:
Each international problem that keeps going for a long time without a permanent solution is a failure for our whole human civilization. We need to be able to solve our problems ourselves, peacefully, permanently, quickly. I think all international problems have solutions, if we just apply objective and realistic reasoning on them and act on the results.
There are two sides of people at island of Cyprus, Southern Greek side and Northern Turkish side. After decades of negotiations, finally some years ago, UN prepared a very detailed joining agreement for the both sides. I think, first, the governments of both sides agreed in the terms of the agreement, and later both sides done their own public referendums for approval. Greek side refused the joining agreement but Turkish side accepted it. Since then the situation stays unresolved and no permanent solution could be seen for the future.
How they could move on towards a permanent solution for the both sides?
I think, objectively and realistically, solution of the both sides joining together, is pretty much looks dead. Then, next possible solution is the both sides becoming fully independent countries. I think from that viewpoint, Southern Greek side has no problem with international recognition from UN, but Northern Turkish side has a problem. Then, IMHO (as always), problem is already half solved. We just need a solution for the other side.
How to move on:
I think Northern Turkish side need to ask UN to vote on, whether accept it as a fully independent country, or not. If UN refuses to vote on it, or votes but decides no, then I would say, Northern Turkish side would need to accept the reality, that their dreams of becoming a fully independent country is pretty much dead, at that point. And if that happens, their only realistic option, for a permanent solution, would be to join Turkey. And then Northern Turkish side would need to do a public referendum to decide between two realistic options:
1) Full join (meaning, their internal government/laws would be canceled)
2) Half join (meaning, their internal government/laws would stay)
Choosing Option 2 would mean a relationship similar to the relationship between any state and federal government, of USA, if any a real-world working example is needed. (Of course, an example also could be chosen from the world history or today. Or they could try to create a new example of their own.)
But what if, Southern Greek side is claiming that Northern Turkish region is actually belongs to them? (And so only permanent solution they can accept is that Northern Turkish people leaving the island.) I think, to be able to solve big international problems of humanity, first, we need to be realistic and objective. How many countries, kingdoms, empires came and went from world history. How many times, each and every piece of land, exchanged ownership? If so then, who can really say which piece of land is really belongs to whom? Each land must belong to oldest known people who lived there? If so then, what would happen to USA, Canada, Australia, for example? IMHO, Southern Greek side need to see that only realistic way for them to get Northern Turkish side would be war. Because Northern Turkish people and Turkey are already proved that they are willing to make war for it. I certainly would like to think neither side really wants to start a new war, which would involve many countries, for sure. So how about we all try to be objective and accept the reality that we can see?
Of course, politics is a highly polarizing subject to talk about, same goes for religion. It should be known that I completely and absolutely respect any other views/opinions of anyone else. And I also always hope that everybody respect my own personal opinions are (only) mine. Also, ultimately, all political decisions belong to the official governments of the world, each for their own country.
So that clarified, what about Syria problem?
IMHO, what happened (and continuing for years) in Syria is a civil war. The country divided into two parts. The current situation (which is really going on for years) is a stalemate. I think, ideal solution would be similar to the solution I suggested above for Cyprus. Meaning, both sides would do their internal public referendums about how to join back. But, to be realistic, I am guessing that, after many years of making war with each other, and enduring a lot of losses from each other, neither side would accept joining back, in any way. Then my suggestion would be that, both sides accept to become a new independent country, and all land each side currently control would become the land of their new country.
And what about North Korea problem?
IMHO, best solution would be that North Korea government/public given these three options to choose one: (within a week/month for example)
1) North Korea joins South Korea
2) North Korea joins China
3) North Korea stays independent, but must also accept to give up on any, current or future, R&D on any kind of WMD, and must also accept periodical inspections by UN, US, and any/all other countries with WMD ownership, knowledge, experience. In return, all international trade restrictions must be lifted from North Korea, so to become the same as any other independent country in the world.
Of course, if option 1 or 2 is chosen by North Korea, then joining could be full or half (which would be best to decide by an internal public referendum). I personally think North Korea joining back to South Korea would be the best solution for the people of both sides/countries. (I think, how East and West Germany were reunited could be a good real world example.)
Each international problem that keeps going for a long time without a permanent solution is a failure for our whole human civilization. We need to be able to solve our problems ourselves, peacefully, permanently, quickly. I think all international problems have solutions, if we just apply objective and realistic reasoning on them and act on the results.
There are two sides of people at island of Cyprus, Southern Greek side and Northern Turkish side. After decades of negotiations, finally some years ago, UN prepared a very detailed joining agreement for the both sides. I think, first, the governments of both sides agreed in the terms of the agreement, and later both sides done their own public referendums for approval. Greek side refused the joining agreement but Turkish side accepted it. Since then the situation stays unresolved and no permanent solution could be seen for the future.
How they could move on towards a permanent solution for the both sides?
I think, objectively and realistically, solution of the both sides joining together, is pretty much looks dead. Then, next possible solution is the both sides becoming fully independent countries. I think from that viewpoint, Southern Greek side has no problem with international recognition from UN, but Northern Turkish side has a problem. Then, IMHO (as always), problem is already half solved. We just need a solution for the other side.
How to move on:
I think Northern Turkish side need to ask UN to vote on, whether accept it as a fully independent country, or not. If UN refuses to vote on it, or votes but decides no, then I would say, Northern Turkish side would need to accept the reality, that their dreams of becoming a fully independent country is pretty much dead, at that point. And if that happens, their only realistic option, for a permanent solution, would be to join Turkey. And then Northern Turkish side would need to do a public referendum to decide between two realistic options:
1) Full join (meaning, their internal government/laws would be canceled)
2) Half join (meaning, their internal government/laws would stay)
Choosing Option 2 would mean a relationship similar to the relationship between any state and federal government, of USA, if any a real-world working example is needed. (Of course, an example also could be chosen from the world history or today. Or they could try to create a new example of their own.)
But what if, Southern Greek side is claiming that Northern Turkish region is actually belongs to them? (And so only permanent solution they can accept is that Northern Turkish people leaving the island.) I think, to be able to solve big international problems of humanity, first, we need to be realistic and objective. How many countries, kingdoms, empires came and went from world history. How many times, each and every piece of land, exchanged ownership? If so then, who can really say which piece of land is really belongs to whom? Each land must belong to oldest known people who lived there? If so then, what would happen to USA, Canada, Australia, for example? IMHO, Southern Greek side need to see that only realistic way for them to get Northern Turkish side would be war. Because Northern Turkish people and Turkey are already proved that they are willing to make war for it. I certainly would like to think neither side really wants to start a new war, which would involve many countries, for sure. So how about we all try to be objective and accept the reality that we can see?
Of course, politics is a highly polarizing subject to talk about, same goes for religion. It should be known that I completely and absolutely respect any other views/opinions of anyone else. And I also always hope that everybody respect my own personal opinions are (only) mine. Also, ultimately, all political decisions belong to the official governments of the world, each for their own country.
So that clarified, what about Syria problem?
IMHO, what happened (and continuing for years) in Syria is a civil war. The country divided into two parts. The current situation (which is really going on for years) is a stalemate. I think, ideal solution would be similar to the solution I suggested above for Cyprus. Meaning, both sides would do their internal public referendums about how to join back. But, to be realistic, I am guessing that, after many years of making war with each other, and enduring a lot of losses from each other, neither side would accept joining back, in any way. Then my suggestion would be that, both sides accept to become a new independent country, and all land each side currently control would become the land of their new country.
And what about North Korea problem?
IMHO, best solution would be that North Korea government/public given these three options to choose one: (within a week/month for example)
1) North Korea joins South Korea
2) North Korea joins China
3) North Korea stays independent, but must also accept to give up on any, current or future, R&D on any kind of WMD, and must also accept periodical inspections by UN, US, and any/all other countries with WMD ownership, knowledge, experience. In return, all international trade restrictions must be lifted from North Korea, so to become the same as any other independent country in the world.
Of course, if option 1 or 2 is chosen by North Korea, then joining could be full or half (which would be best to decide by an internal public referendum). I personally think North Korea joining back to South Korea would be the best solution for the people of both sides/countries. (I think, how East and West Germany were reunited could be a good real world example.)
20180105
GUT 2
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-aim-to-classify-all-possible-phases-of-matter-20180103/
"While classifying emergent particle behaviors might not seem fundamental, some experts, including Xiao-Gang Wen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, say the new rules of emergent phases show how the elementary particles themselves might arise from an underlying network of entangled bits of quantum information, which Wen calls the “qubit ocean.”"
To everybody (especially physicists) who think, elementary particles could be really quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium at Planck scale, maybe this is the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT you are looking for, if you could consider the ideas below, for just few minutes:
This is the GUT problem really:
All the physical experiments and observations in history are telling us that Universe acts,
according to Quantum Mechanics (which is discrete and probabilistic) at smallest scales,
and according to Relativity (which continuous and deterministic) at largest scales.
Is there a more fundamental theory that combines both QM and Relativity into one?
Here is an answer proposal to consider:
Whenever we want to solve a really big and complicated problem, how about first we try to simplify it as much as possible? Is there any known simple analogy (toy model) for the GUT problem?
What if really there is?
There is a known (by computer scientists) simple 2d/3d Cellular Automaton called FHP. It is used for (basic) 2d/3d fluid simulations. It creates a toy universe (matrix) of cells. Each cell can be empty or contain a particle or (a particle size part of) an obstacle. Later computer software tracks all particle movements and collisions (with each other and/or any obstacles present). In this kind of fluid mechanics simulations, at smallest scales/resolutions (close to particle size), physics of the toy universe looks discrete and probabilistic (which is similar to Quantum Mechanics), and at largest scales, physics of the toy universe (which is Navier-Stokes physics), looks continuous and deterministic (which is similar to Relativity).
If so, then realize that those kind of (CA) fluid simulations actually create a new layer/level of reality/physics, as an emergent property! So if a very simple toy model can do that, why not our big and complicated Universe also could?
Okay but where is the GUT in above ideas one may ask:
Let's first assume, all elementary particles are quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium (at Planck scale). Then we can assume further that our theory (GUT) explains (all of) Quantum Mechanics and what is matter/antimatter. But even if so, then how we can explain Relativity (and what is spacetime)? Remember how FHP creates a new layer/level of reality/physics, as an emergent property? (And that it creates a continuous and deterministic universe (at largest scales) from discrete and probabilistic universe (at smallest scales).) Then what if the continuous and deterministic universe (at largest scales) of Relativity is created by the discrete and probabilistic universe (at smallest scales) of Quantum Mechanics?
Then one may still ask:
Okay, matter at largest scales can be explained by QM, but how spacetime can be explained from QM? What is spacetime is made of (at smallest scales), according to QM? This is what it really says, isn't it? Spacetime is made of quantum vacuum, which is made of virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence, everywhere in our Universe. Then isn't that really means, our perception of spacetime (and all of its properties according to Relativity), must be created by quantum vacuum? (Which would mean that virtual particles are creating spacetime, just like real particles are creating matter.) (Also realize if spacetime is quantum vacuum then Casimir Force is artificial gravity!)
Now realize that, if these above are assumed/accepted to be true, then finding the answers for many other big problems in physics is really not that hard to work out:
For example, what is the true nature of time, what is a Black Hole is made of, what is Dark Matter?
I think FHP model can answer a lot about true nature of time!
Only thing BHs could be really made of is Planck particles! (But if they are not made of any particles then they could be only pure balls of max dense spacetime!)
And what is Dark Matter is also simple, if someone just assumes this GUT ideas above are true and also consider what all DM experiments/observations are really telling us!
I think what all DM experiments/observations are really telling us is that DM is not made of particles (matter). Now remember that our GUT above tells us that everything in the Universe is matter or spacetime! And if so, then, isn't that mean, if DM is not any form of matter/particle, then it must be made of spacetime! Then what if, DM filaments of the Cosmic Web of our Universe, are really higher density regions of spacetime?
Okay then what really is gravitational field?
If spacetime is an emergent property medium created by virtual particle medium of quantum vacuum,
and since gravitational fields modify spacetime curvature, then what we call gravitational field must be a previously unknown type of vacuum polarization!
Okay if we really defined a full GUT above for unification of QM and Relativity, is that mean we really have a TOE here?
No, because remember these chains of reasoning all started by assuming, all elementary particles are quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium (at Planck scale).
That is the missing part to have a full TOE candidate here, otherwise it is a GUT!
Also where is the explanation for Dark Energy and expansion of Universe?
If we look at our Universe at largest scales, we see the cosmic web of Dark Matter expanding.
If Dark Matter is higher density regions of spacetime, then expansion of Universe maybe kind of like the surface of a boiling soup, or the inside of a rising dough. So what maybe causing our Universe to expand could be a currently unknown internal energy conversion process (like how a dough rise), or it could be because of addition of (negative) energy to our Universe (like a boiling soup) from outside of it (if really exists).
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-find-wrinkle-in-famed-fluid-equations-20171221/
One of the 7 Millennium Prize math problems is about completely understanding behavior of Navier-Stokes. I think it is not because of pure luck that one of the greatest problems in math is related to at least two of the greatest problems in physics. Realize that, whether fluids in the real world, or fluids created by CA like FHP, the continuous world of Navier-Stokes created by a discrete world of particles, from lower scale, as an emergent property. So that means Navier-Stokes problem is really about fully understanding how exactly an emergent property world is created mathematically.
Realize that whether real world fluids made of atoms, or computer world fluids made of particles in a matrix of cells, fully continuous world of Navier-Stokes could really only happen, if particle size making a fluid is zero. So fully continuous world of Navier-Stokes is always the limit case for infinite resolution fluid dynamics/simulation. Since FHP is much more simple than real world fluids, how about we try to understand Navier-Stokes using FHP CA, instead of real world fluids?
Imagine if we started with an FHP matrix of N by N with M particles and described them mathematically as a set of discrete particle equations, later, we assumed N and M values goes to infinity and that gives us the continuous Navier-Stokes equations in 2d. Realize that continuous Navier-Stokes equations are really the boundary condition of a math problem, asking exact mathematical explanation, for how they are created from a (simplest possible, like FHP) discrete particle world, as an emergent property. Also realize that Quantum-Gravity GUT problem also could seen as a mathematical emergent property problem, use continuous equations of (General) Relativity as the boundary condition at infinite resolution, start from discrete equations of Quantum Mechanics.
Further realize that TOE problem also could seen as a mathematical emergent property problem,
that asks, use continuous mathematical structure descriptions of elementary quantum particles as the boundary condition (at infinite resolution), start from discrete equations of particles/qubits at Planck scale. Realize then the TOE emergent property problem naturally mathematically must harder than the GUT emergent property problem. That is because, in the GUT problem, we have the set of boundary conditions for both ends (discrete at left vs continuous at right, where resolution increases from left to right) of a mathematical emergent property problem. (Realize it is also the same problem situation for Navier-Stokes emergent property problem. If we use FHP then we have the set of boundary conditions for both ends (discrete at left vs continuous at right, where resolution increases from left to right) of a mathematical emergent property problem.) But in the TOE problem realize, we have only the set of boundary conditions for the right side (equations of continuous mathematical structure of elementary particles), and asked to find the left side, discrete equations of particles/qubits at Planck scale.
Also realize that, in the mathematical setup of the GUT and the TOE emergent property problems, for the GUT, QM is the boundary condition for the left (discrete) side, and for the TOE, QM is the boundary condition for the right (continuous) side. That means for the GUT problem, QM needs to be mathematically defined as a set of discrete particle dynamics (movement and collision rules) equations (which are fully known today?). That means for the TOE problem, QM needs to be mathematically defined as a set of continuous elementary particle structure equations, which would be the set of elementary particle definition equations of Standard Model. (Standard Model would really have no choice but mathematically define structure of each elementary particle as continuous, since it does not assume existence of a deeper level of reality at an even smaller scale (Planck scale).
Of course currently it is unknown whether set of elementary particles in Standard Model is really complete or not. (My prediction is a least one more elementary particle waiting to be discovered: Planck particle, which BHs are maybe made of.) (How about gravition: I think if it really exists, it must be a quasiparticle of quantum vacuum that creates spacetime as an emergent property, not really an elementary quantum particle of Standard Model.)
Also realize that, in the general mathematical setup of emergent property problems, like the Navier-Stokes problem, the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT problem, the TOE problem, in the general case, there are three different problem setup cases:
1) The set of discrete particle mechanics equations are provided for the left (discrete math) side, as a boundary condition, and we are asked to find the set of continuous field mechanics equations for the right (continuous math) side.
2) The set of continuous field mechanics equations are provided for the right (continuous math) side, as a boundary condition, and we are asked to find the set of discrete particle mechanics equations for the left (discrete math) side.
3) Both sets of equations (a set of discrete equations for left and a set of continuous equations for right) are provided, as the boundary conditions, and we are asked to find (mathematically), how the set of discrete equations at left side creates the set of continuous equations at right side, as its emergent property, and vice versa.
Also realize that, we have (at least currently), no standard mathematical notation system that can express any kind of particular emergent property problem (so that we could try to find general solution equation(s)/algorithm(s)).
I think, to better understand Big Bang, expansion of Universe, Dark Energy, we can further use 2d/3d FHP/LBM CA fluid simulations as simplified models/analogies. I think they are mostly used for fluid flow simulations, not for static fluid in a container. Realize, if the GUT CA and the TOE CA ideas are really correct, then our Universe also could be like a fluid flow simulation. In fluid flow simulations, using CA, there is a continuous incoming flow of new particles to be simulated. What if, each (stable) elementary quantum particle is always stable, even if it is a virtual particle? Imagine, if each elementary particle always can either have full necessary positive/negative energy to continuously exist (as told by Standard Model), or it would stay as same (stable) elementary particle, but as virtual. (And, if it is virtual, then it pops-in-out of existence (actually just appears and disappears, from our view/measurements), with a certain random uniform probability.) (And, imagine, when real (also virtual?) particles, collide and get destroyed (or decay), their total available positive/negative energy gets shared, between (always existing) virtual particles closest nearby, to get charged/absorbed to become real particles.)
And, if those above are correct, it would imply that our Universe could be really like a CA fluid flow simulation. Imagine, new quantum (stable/unstable) particles are uniformly and randomly keep getting fed (somehow) into our Universe/reality ball of real/virtual quantum particles, starting from the time of Big Bang. Imagine, if the incoming flow of particles (all/mostly) were real particles, for a certain time duration, at the beginning, which created matter later. Imagine, if the incoming flow of particles (all/mostly) were virtual particles, afterwards, until today and keep going (so they keep creating new spacetime!).
I think it is also possible that each and every virtual particle keeps appearing and disappearing from our reality in periodical oscillations, kind of like how any Neutrino oscillate. And if so, it could be that each virtual particle increases its frequency of periodical oscillations as it encounters and absorbs positive/negative more energy available from its local environment. (And if its frequency ever reaches a certain threshold (resonant?) value then it turns into a real particle.)
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-makes-the-hardest-equations-in-physics-so-difficult-20180116/
How do we know if Navier-Stokes equations are always stable (fluid velocity never could go to infinity anywhere anytime)?
Remember (from above) that Navier-Stokes problem is an emergent property problem, and FHP CA and LBM CA are its special and general (valid) solutions (at infinite resolution/scale limit) (which is already known/proven). And realize that, one thing common, in both FHP CA and LBM CA, is that (all) particle velocities are always bounded!
Okay but how is that mean Navier-Stokes equations are always stable (fluid velocity never could go to infinity anywhere anytime)? That is because both in the real world and in computer fluid simulations, resolution (scale) is always finite! That is why fluid (particle) velocities can never add up to infinity anywhere anytime, since (all) particle velocities are always bounded (finite) numbers! (Keep in mind that, in the real world, all fluids are made of atoms/molecules, and in the computer simulations, all fluids are simulated grids of certain finite resolution.)
"While classifying emergent particle behaviors might not seem fundamental, some experts, including Xiao-Gang Wen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, say the new rules of emergent phases show how the elementary particles themselves might arise from an underlying network of entangled bits of quantum information, which Wen calls the “qubit ocean.”"
To everybody (especially physicists) who think, elementary particles could be really quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium at Planck scale, maybe this is the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT you are looking for, if you could consider the ideas below, for just few minutes:
This is the GUT problem really:
All the physical experiments and observations in history are telling us that Universe acts,
according to Quantum Mechanics (which is discrete and probabilistic) at smallest scales,
and according to Relativity (which continuous and deterministic) at largest scales.
Is there a more fundamental theory that combines both QM and Relativity into one?
Here is an answer proposal to consider:
Whenever we want to solve a really big and complicated problem, how about first we try to simplify it as much as possible? Is there any known simple analogy (toy model) for the GUT problem?
What if really there is?
There is a known (by computer scientists) simple 2d/3d Cellular Automaton called FHP. It is used for (basic) 2d/3d fluid simulations. It creates a toy universe (matrix) of cells. Each cell can be empty or contain a particle or (a particle size part of) an obstacle. Later computer software tracks all particle movements and collisions (with each other and/or any obstacles present). In this kind of fluid mechanics simulations, at smallest scales/resolutions (close to particle size), physics of the toy universe looks discrete and probabilistic (which is similar to Quantum Mechanics), and at largest scales, physics of the toy universe (which is Navier-Stokes physics), looks continuous and deterministic (which is similar to Relativity).
If so, then realize that those kind of (CA) fluid simulations actually create a new layer/level of reality/physics, as an emergent property! So if a very simple toy model can do that, why not our big and complicated Universe also could?
Okay but where is the GUT in above ideas one may ask:
Let's first assume, all elementary particles are quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium (at Planck scale). Then we can assume further that our theory (GUT) explains (all of) Quantum Mechanics and what is matter/antimatter. But even if so, then how we can explain Relativity (and what is spacetime)? Remember how FHP creates a new layer/level of reality/physics, as an emergent property? (And that it creates a continuous and deterministic universe (at largest scales) from discrete and probabilistic universe (at smallest scales).) Then what if the continuous and deterministic universe (at largest scales) of Relativity is created by the discrete and probabilistic universe (at smallest scales) of Quantum Mechanics?
Then one may still ask:
Okay, matter at largest scales can be explained by QM, but how spacetime can be explained from QM? What is spacetime is made of (at smallest scales), according to QM? This is what it really says, isn't it? Spacetime is made of quantum vacuum, which is made of virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence, everywhere in our Universe. Then isn't that really means, our perception of spacetime (and all of its properties according to Relativity), must be created by quantum vacuum? (Which would mean that virtual particles are creating spacetime, just like real particles are creating matter.) (Also realize if spacetime is quantum vacuum then Casimir Force is artificial gravity!)
Now realize that, if these above are assumed/accepted to be true, then finding the answers for many other big problems in physics is really not that hard to work out:
For example, what is the true nature of time, what is a Black Hole is made of, what is Dark Matter?
I think FHP model can answer a lot about true nature of time!
Only thing BHs could be really made of is Planck particles! (But if they are not made of any particles then they could be only pure balls of max dense spacetime!)
I think what all DM experiments/observations are really telling us is that DM is not made of particles (matter). Now remember that our GUT above tells us that everything in the Universe is matter or spacetime! And if so, then, isn't that mean, if DM is not any form of matter/particle, then it must be made of spacetime! Then what if, DM filaments of the Cosmic Web of our Universe, are really higher density regions of spacetime?
Okay then what really is gravitational field?
If spacetime is an emergent property medium created by virtual particle medium of quantum vacuum,
and since gravitational fields modify spacetime curvature, then what we call gravitational field must be a previously unknown type of vacuum polarization!
Okay if we really defined a full GUT above for unification of QM and Relativity, is that mean we really have a TOE here?
No, because remember these chains of reasoning all started by assuming, all elementary particles are quasiparticles of a qubit-based medium (at Planck scale).
That is the missing part to have a full TOE candidate here, otherwise it is a GUT!
Also where is the explanation for Dark Energy and expansion of Universe?
If we look at our Universe at largest scales, we see the cosmic web of Dark Matter expanding.
If Dark Matter is higher density regions of spacetime, then expansion of Universe maybe kind of like the surface of a boiling soup, or the inside of a rising dough. So what maybe causing our Universe to expand could be a currently unknown internal energy conversion process (like how a dough rise), or it could be because of addition of (negative) energy to our Universe (like a boiling soup) from outside of it (if really exists).
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-find-wrinkle-in-famed-fluid-equations-20171221/
Realize that whether real world fluids made of atoms, or computer world fluids made of particles in a matrix of cells, fully continuous world of Navier-Stokes could really only happen, if particle size making a fluid is zero. So fully continuous world of Navier-Stokes is always the limit case for infinite resolution fluid dynamics/simulation. Since FHP is much more simple than real world fluids, how about we try to understand Navier-Stokes using FHP CA, instead of real world fluids?
Imagine if we started with an FHP matrix of N by N with M particles and described them mathematically as a set of discrete particle equations, later, we assumed N and M values goes to infinity and that gives us the continuous Navier-Stokes equations in 2d. Realize that continuous Navier-Stokes equations are really the boundary condition of a math problem, asking exact mathematical explanation, for how they are created from a (simplest possible, like FHP) discrete particle world, as an emergent property. Also realize that Quantum-Gravity GUT problem also could seen as a mathematical emergent property problem, use continuous equations of (General) Relativity as the boundary condition at infinite resolution, start from discrete equations of Quantum Mechanics.
Further realize that TOE problem also could seen as a mathematical emergent property problem,
that asks, use continuous mathematical structure descriptions of elementary quantum particles as the boundary condition (at infinite resolution), start from discrete equations of particles/qubits at Planck scale. Realize then the TOE emergent property problem naturally mathematically must harder than the GUT emergent property problem. That is because, in the GUT problem, we have the set of boundary conditions for both ends (discrete at left vs continuous at right, where resolution increases from left to right) of a mathematical emergent property problem. (Realize it is also the same problem situation for Navier-Stokes emergent property problem. If we use FHP then we have the set of boundary conditions for both ends (discrete at left vs continuous at right, where resolution increases from left to right) of a mathematical emergent property problem.) But in the TOE problem realize, we have only the set of boundary conditions for the right side (equations of continuous mathematical structure of elementary particles), and asked to find the left side, discrete equations of particles/qubits at Planck scale.
Also realize that, in the mathematical setup of the GUT and the TOE emergent property problems, for the GUT, QM is the boundary condition for the left (discrete) side, and for the TOE, QM is the boundary condition for the right (continuous) side. That means for the GUT problem, QM needs to be mathematically defined as a set of discrete particle dynamics (movement and collision rules) equations (which are fully known today?). That means for the TOE problem, QM needs to be mathematically defined as a set of continuous elementary particle structure equations, which would be the set of elementary particle definition equations of Standard Model. (Standard Model would really have no choice but mathematically define structure of each elementary particle as continuous, since it does not assume existence of a deeper level of reality at an even smaller scale (Planck scale).
Of course currently it is unknown whether set of elementary particles in Standard Model is really complete or not. (My prediction is a least one more elementary particle waiting to be discovered: Planck particle, which BHs are maybe made of.) (How about gravition: I think if it really exists, it must be a quasiparticle of quantum vacuum that creates spacetime as an emergent property, not really an elementary quantum particle of Standard Model.)
Also realize that, in the general mathematical setup of emergent property problems, like the Navier-Stokes problem, the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT problem, the TOE problem, in the general case, there are three different problem setup cases:
1) The set of discrete particle mechanics equations are provided for the left (discrete math) side, as a boundary condition, and we are asked to find the set of continuous field mechanics equations for the right (continuous math) side.
2) The set of continuous field mechanics equations are provided for the right (continuous math) side, as a boundary condition, and we are asked to find the set of discrete particle mechanics equations for the left (discrete math) side.
3) Both sets of equations (a set of discrete equations for left and a set of continuous equations for right) are provided, as the boundary conditions, and we are asked to find (mathematically), how the set of discrete equations at left side creates the set of continuous equations at right side, as its emergent property, and vice versa.
Also realize that, we have (at least currently), no standard mathematical notation system that can express any kind of particular emergent property problem (so that we could try to find general solution equation(s)/algorithm(s)).
(If we had a standard mathematical notation that can express any emergent property problem, then someday maybe we could use advanced quantum computers, to extremely fast search between all possible sets of solution symbols, and try to find solutions (expressing valid, discrete or continuous equation sets), containing the minimal number of symbols (of our (future) standard mathematical notation). Meaning, then, we would be looking for minimal length strings, made of our standard mathematical notation symbols, which are valid mathematical solutions, for the problems we have, like the Navier-Stokes, the GUT, the TOE emergent property problems.)
Also realize that, in the emergent property problem case 3, since we have both boundary conditions (discrete and continuous sets of equations), and the solution (discrete or continuous set of equations, whichever we want), depends on what resolution (scale level) we choose. For example, if the mathematical emergent property problem setup is the GUT, and if we choose a scale any close to an average human size, we should expect to get the discrete equations of Quantum Mechanics which are approximating the continuous equations of Newton Physics at that scale, or the continuous equations of Relativity which are approximating the continuous equations of Newton Physics at that scale.
Then realize that, the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT (emergent property problem) is already solved:
Because we have the both sets of (discrete and continuous) equations defined as boundary conditions (at left discrete Quantum Mechanics (Particle Dynamics) equations, and at right continuous Relativity equations (at infinite resolution scale limit)). We also know that at intermediate scales (like close to human size scales), equations of Quantum Mechanics reduce to an approximation of Newton Mechanics, and equations of Relativity also reduce to an approximation of Newton Mechanics, just as we would expect based on all the physics we experimented/observed at those scales (and that is actually how we (including Newton) discovered Newton Mechanics. So it can be said that we already know, as we look at how the reality/Universe physically/mathematically works, in different size scales, going from average size of elementary particles to average size of the galaxies for example, we can theoretically/experimentally/observationally show that, at lowest scales, reality works following purely/perfectly discrete rules of Quantum (Particle) Mechanics, and at the highest scales, reality works following purely/perfectly continuous rules of Relativity (Field) Mechanics. And, at any size scale, in between the both extreme limit cases, we already know that the physics at that selected size scale depends only on, if that size scale is closer to pure/perfect, Quantum physics side at left, or the Relativity physics side at right. So it should be possible to determine how exactly the scale variable value determines the exact mathematical nature of physics at that (any selected) scale.
Is the scale variable of the GUT emergent property problem, operate like a linear weight variable like: Physics(scale)=scale*Relativity+(1-scale)*Quantum, where scale is between 0 and 1 (after normalized from being in between average particle size scale and average galaxy size scale).
(Or normalization scale could be chosen to be between smallest particle size (Planck particle size) and size of the whole Universe. So the choice of the normalization scale, determines the scale range of the emergent problem, and what scales its solutions would apply.)
Then some important questions:
Is the scale really works linearly, like in above equation, in our real Universe? (Or it works a non-linear way (currently unknown)?
Is the scale works the same way for all kinds of mathematical emergent property problems?
One way to answer would be, if we setup many simple emergent property problems, each with both boundary conditions given, and try to find out how scale changes the physics, at different scale values, and try to find a fitting curve, from those scale point physics. Then in the end, we could clearly see if scale changes the physics always linearly or non-linearly, and with always the same general equation (curve), or not.
One such simplified emergent property problem is clearly FHP. Imagine, if we analyzed the physical behaviors (mechanics) of FHP fluid simulations, going from single particle scale resolution to large scale, nearly continuous looking, fluid dynamics. And if we checked/determined the physics is what share (of the whole) discrete particle physics and what other share (of the whole) is continuous field (Navier-Stokes) physics.
For example, if the scale variable really works the same linear way, for all emergent property problems, as the way suggested for the GUT problem above, then it would mean, this is the general equation for it:
Physics(scale)=scale*B+(1-scale)*A, where scale is normalized to be between 0 and 1.
A: discrete (particle) physics/mechanics/dynamics
B: continuous (field) physics/mechanics/dynamics
Of course, if someday we can define/express all mathematical emergent property problems in a standard general way, then it maybe possible to find the general equation of scale, applying to any emergent property problem (physical system), if really exists, (instead of trying to do curve fitting).
I think General Emergent Property Problem is quite possibly the greatest unsolved problem in all of mathematics, physics, computer science. (Realize its utmost importance in physics and realize solving even a special (maybe the simplest) case of it, is a Millennium Problem!)
Realize that, it is actually a Cellular Automaton problem. For example, in the case of TOE, at right (continuous) side, we have the set of elementary particle (continuous) structure definitions of Standard Model. We are asked to find, the unknown set of discrete equations (maybe zero or any number of valid solutions possible), that would create the right side perfectly as an emergent property, at infinite resolution. So in special case of the TOE problem, we are asked to find any/all/simplest/shortest (Planck scale) Cellular Automaton definition, that would be able to create all elementary particles of Standard Model perfectly, at infinite resolution limit. Also realize that any such Cellular Automaton would need to be qubit-based, because of quantum nature of elementary particles of Standard Model! (For that Cellular Automaton what we need is the full set of all possible cell states and the full set of cell state transition rules.) (Why it needs to be Planck scale, because that is where (the scale) our known physics equations breakdown and become invalid solutions! And our basic laws of physics indicate Planck Units are the base measurement units of our Universe!)
What if we done that and created a quantum computer simulation of our (any solution we can find) Cellular Automaton and discovered it does not look like really matching to our Universe, what then? I think that would mean Standard Model is incomplete?!
Also realize that, even though it could be said the GUT problem is already solved, for a true test of it, and also to establish validity of the whole Emergent Property idea, we would need to convert all known quantum elementary particle mechanics/dynamics (movement and collision rules) into a Cellular Automaton definition form. Later, we would need to do, either mathematically show that our CA would recreate full General Relativity at infinite scale resolution limit, and/or create a computer simulation, and look at the action, at as large scales (at as large resolutions) possible, and try to determine, if the action, really matches to General Relativity (field mechanics/dynamics), or not! (The action would also need to match Newton Mechanics at its valid scales!) (Also realize that any such Cellular Automaton would need to be qubit-based, because of quantum nature of elementary particles of Quantum Mechanics!)
Also realize that, in the case of the GUT problem, our Cellular Automaton (CA) solution, would need to include mechanics/dynamics of all elementary particles, including both matter and antimatter, including both real and virtual, including both negative and positive energy versions!
(Similarly in the the TOE problem, the set of continuous particle structure definitions (Standard Model) would need to be able to express all elementary particles, including both matter and antimatter, including both real and virtual, including both negative and positive energy versions!)
Obviously, if we solved both the GUT and the TOE emergent property problems, and showed their validity thru simulations, experiments, observations, then it would mean our reality created by a quantum cellular automata operating at Planck scale, and it creates QM at higher scales, and it creates Relativity at even higher scales, in our Universe!
And since the TOE CA is would need to be based on a crystal-like solid matrix of cells (which creates elementary quantum particles as its quasiparticles), and if we also consider expansion of our Universe, it would mean our Universe/Reality is like an expanding bubble/sphere of information, essentially! (But what if fluid/gas-based (no solid (ordered/random) matrix/grid) CA solutions are also possible?)
Do we really have the complete solution for the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT emergent property problem? It actually still depends. If we look at CA (FHP/LBM) used for fluid simulations, which we now know are actually physical models, capable of numerically solving the Navier-Stokes emergent property problem, they require a full set of movement and collision rules to handle mechanics/dynamics of their particles. In the GUT problem, we need the full set of discrete equations defining movements of all kinds of elementary quantum particles (would composite particles use the same rules or require their own set of rules?), and also need the full set of discrete equations defining collisions of all kinds of elementary quantum particles (would composite particles use the same rules or require their own set of rules?) (Amplituhedron?).
Is beauty really important in mathematics, physics, computer science? Can beauty really guide us towards the truth? I think it really depends on the sense of beauty of a scientist. Personally for me, if our Universe/Reality is really created by a very advanced Planck Scale CA-based Quantum Computer, I think it would be absolutely beautiful! (For the TOE CA, my sense of beauty tells me, it would be best, if each Planck Scale cell state represented by a Sedenion (16D number) (which is also can be seen/used as 2 Octonions (8D numbers), or 4 Quaternions, or 8 Complex Numbers, or 16 Real Numbers).)(And imagine, if each of those 16 real numbers was a physical qutrit (using Balanced Ternary (-1, 0, 1) state values).) (Why Universe would want/need to use qutrits (using Balanced Ternary), instead of qubits (using Binary)? Because both the TOE CA and the GUT CA would need to be able to represent both positive and negative energy particles or fields, and also neither.) (Why Universe would want/need to use Sedenions and all the others? Because, I think, when number of dimensions of numbers/variables/constants, used in mathematical/physical equations/formulas, increases/doubles, their expressive/computational/solution powers also increases/doubles. Think about how much mathematical/physical progress was made because of discovery of Complex Numbers. And also I think many experiments and observations show that our Universe does not really disappoint, when it comes to realizing even most extreme conditions/possibilities :-)
(20180113)
So, if, both 2d/3d FHP CA and LBM CA (particle physics) are creating Navier-Stokes (field physics) as their emergent property, they are both valid solutions for the Navier-Stokes emergent property problem, and there is no difference between them? (Also, both FHP CA and LBM CA algorithms have many different versions for simulating different fluids/gases.) Actually, each different version would create a different version of 2d/3d general Navier-Stokes equations/physics, as its emergent property! For example, if LBM CA is considered, values of its free parameters (constants) selected, determine, values of the global constants of the fluid/gas created, as the emergent property.
And I think, that means, in general, global constants of each emergent property (at right side of the problem setup) is determined by global constants of the CA (at left side of the problem setup). This would imply, for example, it must be possible to calculate any global constants in (General) Relativity equations, using the global constants in Quantum Mechanics equations (when it redefined as a CA). And, similarly, it must be possible to calculate any global constants in Quantum Mechanics equations (when redefined as an Emergent Property (EP)), using the global constants in the TOE CA.
I think, there are big mathematical questions waiting to be answered about General Emergent Property Problem, for example:
Since, we can always calculate the constants at right side, from the constants at left side, can we also always calculate the constants at left side from the constants at right side? (Is the relationship always one-to-one; can it be one-to-many; can it be many-to-one?)
As the resolution/scale goes to infinity, are the values of constants for the emergent property, always converge to constant values? Can they diverge to +/- infinity? Can they change periodically, chaotically, or like a fractal (deterministic/non-deterministic) curve?
(20180114)
If spacetime is an emergent property created by virtual particles of quantum vacuum,
what is the total energy in unit volume of quantum vacuum?
I think, that must be the total energy of all elementary particles currently in existence in that volume in any given moment in time. (Also think that calculating it, would require knowing creation probabilities, and average durations, for all virtual elementary particles (assuming Standard Model is complete).)
If quantum vacuum is always creating positive energy elementary particles (always as matter-antimatter pairs?), then it would mean quantum vacuum energy is positive.
If quantum vacuum is always creating both positive and negative energy elementary particles (always as pairs?), then it would mean quantum vacuum energy is zero (neutral/signless).
If quantum vacuum energy is positive, then Dark Energy (which causes expansion of Universe), also must be positive. (Because, if it was negative, then it would cancel out quantum vacuum energy and make Universe contract, instead of expand.)
And, if quantum vacuum energy is neutral, then Dark Energy must be a neutral form of energy, also. (If it was really zero then it would mean Universe will expand forever to infinite size! But, I think, if our reality is created by a CA Quantum Computer matrix/grid of Planck scale cells, then our Universe is really an expanding ball of information. Meaning, all forms of matter and energy are just information. And, all our experiments and observations show that energy is always conserved. Meaning, information must be always conserved by the CA Quantum Computer matrix/grid creating our reality. (All known conservation laws would be also, ultimately, because of the conservation of information law of our reality.) And, if information is always conserved, it would mean, information would not be created out of nothing by our reality (so it must be provided initially for Big Bang to happen).) So, if quantum vacuum energy is calculated to be zero, it would not mean quantum vacuum has no energy (and so it can be created infinitely), but it would mean quantum vacuum energy and Dark Energy are neutral/signless forms of energy.
Also realize that, in the emergent property problem case 3, since we have both boundary conditions (discrete and continuous sets of equations), and the solution (discrete or continuous set of equations, whichever we want), depends on what resolution (scale level) we choose. For example, if the mathematical emergent property problem setup is the GUT, and if we choose a scale any close to an average human size, we should expect to get the discrete equations of Quantum Mechanics which are approximating the continuous equations of Newton Physics at that scale, or the continuous equations of Relativity which are approximating the continuous equations of Newton Physics at that scale.
Then realize that, the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT (emergent property problem) is already solved:
Because we have the both sets of (discrete and continuous) equations defined as boundary conditions (at left discrete Quantum Mechanics (Particle Dynamics) equations, and at right continuous Relativity equations (at infinite resolution scale limit)). We also know that at intermediate scales (like close to human size scales), equations of Quantum Mechanics reduce to an approximation of Newton Mechanics, and equations of Relativity also reduce to an approximation of Newton Mechanics, just as we would expect based on all the physics we experimented/observed at those scales (and that is actually how we (including Newton) discovered Newton Mechanics. So it can be said that we already know, as we look at how the reality/Universe physically/mathematically works, in different size scales, going from average size of elementary particles to average size of the galaxies for example, we can theoretically/experimentally/observationally show that, at lowest scales, reality works following purely/perfectly discrete rules of Quantum (Particle) Mechanics, and at the highest scales, reality works following purely/perfectly continuous rules of Relativity (Field) Mechanics. And, at any size scale, in between the both extreme limit cases, we already know that the physics at that selected size scale depends only on, if that size scale is closer to pure/perfect, Quantum physics side at left, or the Relativity physics side at right. So it should be possible to determine how exactly the scale variable value determines the exact mathematical nature of physics at that (any selected) scale.
Is the scale variable of the GUT emergent property problem, operate like a linear weight variable like: Physics(scale)=scale*Relativity+(1-scale)*Quantum, where scale is between 0 and 1 (after normalized from being in between average particle size scale and average galaxy size scale).
(Or normalization scale could be chosen to be between smallest particle size (Planck particle size) and size of the whole Universe. So the choice of the normalization scale, determines the scale range of the emergent problem, and what scales its solutions would apply.)
Then some important questions:
Is the scale really works linearly, like in above equation, in our real Universe? (Or it works a non-linear way (currently unknown)?
Is the scale works the same way for all kinds of mathematical emergent property problems?
One way to answer would be, if we setup many simple emergent property problems, each with both boundary conditions given, and try to find out how scale changes the physics, at different scale values, and try to find a fitting curve, from those scale point physics. Then in the end, we could clearly see if scale changes the physics always linearly or non-linearly, and with always the same general equation (curve), or not.
One such simplified emergent property problem is clearly FHP. Imagine, if we analyzed the physical behaviors (mechanics) of FHP fluid simulations, going from single particle scale resolution to large scale, nearly continuous looking, fluid dynamics. And if we checked/determined the physics is what share (of the whole) discrete particle physics and what other share (of the whole) is continuous field (Navier-Stokes) physics.
For example, if the scale variable really works the same linear way, for all emergent property problems, as the way suggested for the GUT problem above, then it would mean, this is the general equation for it:
Physics(scale)=scale*B+(1-scale)*A, where scale is normalized to be between 0 and 1.
A: discrete (particle) physics/mechanics/dynamics
B: continuous (field) physics/mechanics/dynamics
I think General Emergent Property Problem is quite possibly the greatest unsolved problem in all of mathematics, physics, computer science. (Realize its utmost importance in physics and realize solving even a special (maybe the simplest) case of it, is a Millennium Problem!)
Realize that, it is actually a Cellular Automaton problem. For example, in the case of TOE, at right (continuous) side, we have the set of elementary particle (continuous) structure definitions of Standard Model. We are asked to find, the unknown set of discrete equations (maybe zero or any number of valid solutions possible), that would create the right side perfectly as an emergent property, at infinite resolution. So in special case of the TOE problem, we are asked to find any/all/simplest/shortest (Planck scale) Cellular Automaton definition, that would be able to create all elementary particles of Standard Model perfectly, at infinite resolution limit. Also realize that any such Cellular Automaton would need to be qubit-based, because of quantum nature of elementary particles of Standard Model! (For that Cellular Automaton what we need is the full set of all possible cell states and the full set of cell state transition rules.) (Why it needs to be Planck scale, because that is where (the scale) our known physics equations breakdown and become invalid solutions! And our basic laws of physics indicate Planck Units are the base measurement units of our Universe!)
What if we done that and created a quantum computer simulation of our (any solution we can find) Cellular Automaton and discovered it does not look like really matching to our Universe, what then? I think that would mean Standard Model is incomplete?!
Also realize that, even though it could be said the GUT problem is already solved, for a true test of it, and also to establish validity of the whole Emergent Property idea, we would need to convert all known quantum elementary particle mechanics/dynamics (movement and collision rules) into a Cellular Automaton definition form. Later, we would need to do, either mathematically show that our CA would recreate full General Relativity at infinite scale resolution limit, and/or create a computer simulation, and look at the action, at as large scales (at as large resolutions) possible, and try to determine, if the action, really matches to General Relativity (field mechanics/dynamics), or not! (The action would also need to match Newton Mechanics at its valid scales!) (Also realize that any such Cellular Automaton would need to be qubit-based, because of quantum nature of elementary particles of Quantum Mechanics!)
Also realize that, in the case of the GUT problem, our Cellular Automaton (CA) solution, would need to include mechanics/dynamics of all elementary particles, including both matter and antimatter, including both real and virtual, including both negative and positive energy versions!
(Similarly in the the TOE problem, the set of continuous particle structure definitions (Standard Model) would need to be able to express all elementary particles, including both matter and antimatter, including both real and virtual, including both negative and positive energy versions!)
Obviously, if we solved both the GUT and the TOE emergent property problems, and showed their validity thru simulations, experiments, observations, then it would mean our reality created by a quantum cellular automata operating at Planck scale, and it creates QM at higher scales, and it creates Relativity at even higher scales, in our Universe!
And since the TOE CA is would need to be based on a crystal-like solid matrix of cells (which creates elementary quantum particles as its quasiparticles), and if we also consider expansion of our Universe, it would mean our Universe/Reality is like an expanding bubble/sphere of information, essentially! (But what if fluid/gas-based (no solid (ordered/random) matrix/grid) CA solutions are also possible?)
Do we really have the complete solution for the (Quantum-Gravity) GUT emergent property problem? It actually still depends. If we look at CA (FHP/LBM) used for fluid simulations, which we now know are actually physical models, capable of numerically solving the Navier-Stokes emergent property problem, they require a full set of movement and collision rules to handle mechanics/dynamics of their particles. In the GUT problem, we need the full set of discrete equations defining movements of all kinds of elementary quantum particles (would composite particles use the same rules or require their own set of rules?), and also need the full set of discrete equations defining collisions of all kinds of elementary quantum particles (would composite particles use the same rules or require their own set of rules?) (Amplituhedron?).
Is beauty really important in mathematics, physics, computer science? Can beauty really guide us towards the truth? I think it really depends on the sense of beauty of a scientist. Personally for me, if our Universe/Reality is really created by a very advanced Planck Scale CA-based Quantum Computer, I think it would be absolutely beautiful! (For the TOE CA, my sense of beauty tells me, it would be best, if each Planck Scale cell state represented by a Sedenion (16D number) (which is also can be seen/used as 2 Octonions (8D numbers), or 4 Quaternions, or 8 Complex Numbers, or 16 Real Numbers).)(And imagine, if each of those 16 real numbers was a physical qutrit (using Balanced Ternary (-1, 0, 1) state values).) (Why Universe would want/need to use qutrits (using Balanced Ternary), instead of qubits (using Binary)? Because both the TOE CA and the GUT CA would need to be able to represent both positive and negative energy particles or fields, and also neither.) (Why Universe would want/need to use Sedenions and all the others? Because, I think, when number of dimensions of numbers/variables/constants, used in mathematical/physical equations/formulas, increases/doubles, their expressive/computational/solution powers also increases/doubles. Think about how much mathematical/physical progress was made because of discovery of Complex Numbers. And also I think many experiments and observations show that our Universe does not really disappoint, when it comes to realizing even most extreme conditions/possibilities :-)
(20180113)
So, if, both 2d/3d FHP CA and LBM CA (particle physics) are creating Navier-Stokes (field physics) as their emergent property, they are both valid solutions for the Navier-Stokes emergent property problem, and there is no difference between them? (Also, both FHP CA and LBM CA algorithms have many different versions for simulating different fluids/gases.) Actually, each different version would create a different version of 2d/3d general Navier-Stokes equations/physics, as its emergent property! For example, if LBM CA is considered, values of its free parameters (constants) selected, determine, values of the global constants of the fluid/gas created, as the emergent property.
And I think, that means, in general, global constants of each emergent property (at right side of the problem setup) is determined by global constants of the CA (at left side of the problem setup). This would imply, for example, it must be possible to calculate any global constants in (General) Relativity equations, using the global constants in Quantum Mechanics equations (when it redefined as a CA). And, similarly, it must be possible to calculate any global constants in Quantum Mechanics equations (when redefined as an Emergent Property (EP)), using the global constants in the TOE CA.
I think, there are big mathematical questions waiting to be answered about General Emergent Property Problem, for example:
Since, we can always calculate the constants at right side, from the constants at left side, can we also always calculate the constants at left side from the constants at right side? (Is the relationship always one-to-one; can it be one-to-many; can it be many-to-one?)
As the resolution/scale goes to infinity, are the values of constants for the emergent property, always converge to constant values? Can they diverge to +/- infinity? Can they change periodically, chaotically, or like a fractal (deterministic/non-deterministic) curve?
(20180114)
If spacetime is an emergent property created by virtual particles of quantum vacuum,
what is the total energy in unit volume of quantum vacuum?
I think, that must be the total energy of all elementary particles currently in existence in that volume in any given moment in time. (Also think that calculating it, would require knowing creation probabilities, and average durations, for all virtual elementary particles (assuming Standard Model is complete).)
If quantum vacuum is always creating positive energy elementary particles (always as matter-antimatter pairs?), then it would mean quantum vacuum energy is positive.
If quantum vacuum is always creating both positive and negative energy elementary particles (always as pairs?), then it would mean quantum vacuum energy is zero (neutral/signless).
If quantum vacuum energy is positive, then Dark Energy (which causes expansion of Universe), also must be positive. (Because, if it was negative, then it would cancel out quantum vacuum energy and make Universe contract, instead of expand.)
And, if quantum vacuum energy is neutral, then Dark Energy must be a neutral form of energy, also. (If it was really zero then it would mean Universe will expand forever to infinite size! But, I think, if our reality is created by a CA Quantum Computer matrix/grid of Planck scale cells, then our Universe is really an expanding ball of information. Meaning, all forms of matter and energy are just information. And, all our experiments and observations show that energy is always conserved. Meaning, information must be always conserved by the CA Quantum Computer matrix/grid creating our reality. (All known conservation laws would be also, ultimately, because of the conservation of information law of our reality.) And, if information is always conserved, it would mean, information would not be created out of nothing by our reality (so it must be provided initially for Big Bang to happen).) So, if quantum vacuum energy is calculated to be zero, it would not mean quantum vacuum has no energy (and so it can be created infinitely), but it would mean quantum vacuum energy and Dark Energy are neutral/signless forms of energy.
I think, to better understand Big Bang, expansion of Universe, Dark Energy, we can further use 2d/3d FHP/LBM CA fluid simulations as simplified models/analogies. I think they are mostly used for fluid flow simulations, not for static fluid in a container. Realize, if the GUT CA and the TOE CA ideas are really correct, then our Universe also could be like a fluid flow simulation. In fluid flow simulations, using CA, there is a continuous incoming flow of new particles to be simulated. What if, each (stable) elementary quantum particle is always stable, even if it is a virtual particle? Imagine, if each elementary particle always can either have full necessary positive/negative energy to continuously exist (as told by Standard Model), or it would stay as same (stable) elementary particle, but as virtual. (And, if it is virtual, then it pops-in-out of existence (actually just appears and disappears, from our view/measurements), with a certain random uniform probability.) (And, imagine, when real (also virtual?) particles, collide and get destroyed (or decay), their total available positive/negative energy gets shared, between (always existing) virtual particles closest nearby, to get charged/absorbed to become real particles.)
And, if those above are correct, it would imply that our Universe could be really like a CA fluid flow simulation. Imagine, new quantum (stable/unstable) particles are uniformly and randomly keep getting fed (somehow) into our Universe/reality ball of real/virtual quantum particles, starting from the time of Big Bang. Imagine, if the incoming flow of particles (all/mostly) were real particles, for a certain time duration, at the beginning, which created matter later. Imagine, if the incoming flow of particles (all/mostly) were virtual particles, afterwards, until today and keep going (so they keep creating new spacetime!).
I think it is also possible that each and every virtual particle keeps appearing and disappearing from our reality in periodical oscillations, kind of like how any Neutrino oscillate. And if so, it could be that each virtual particle increases its frequency of periodical oscillations as it encounters and absorbs positive/negative more energy available from its local environment. (And if its frequency ever reaches a certain threshold (resonant?) value then it turns into a real particle.)
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-makes-the-hardest-equations-in-physics-so-difficult-20180116/
How do we know if Navier-Stokes equations are always stable (fluid velocity never could go to infinity anywhere anytime)?
Remember (from above) that Navier-Stokes problem is an emergent property problem, and FHP CA and LBM CA are its special and general (valid) solutions (at infinite resolution/scale limit) (which is already known/proven). And realize that, one thing common, in both FHP CA and LBM CA, is that (all) particle velocities are always bounded!
Okay but how is that mean Navier-Stokes equations are always stable (fluid velocity never could go to infinity anywhere anytime)? That is because both in the real world and in computer fluid simulations, resolution (scale) is always finite! That is why fluid (particle) velocities can never add up to infinity anywhere anytime, since (all) particle velocities are always bounded (finite) numbers! (Keep in mind that, in the real world, all fluids are made of atoms/molecules, and in the computer simulations, all fluids are simulated grids of certain finite resolution.)
20180101
Bitcoin Scam
Is Bitcoin (or any other cryptocurrency) really a Ponzi Scheme (PS)?
How a PS works really?
Imagine a PS Master offering you a deal and says:
If you invest, as much as your money (all you can afford), to buy shares of my company, I guarantee that, the value of your investment will keep increasing (exponentially), in the long term, and completely risk free. You can sell your investment shares anytime, fully or partially, for their current price. So a PS works this way but isn't this also how Bitcoin trading works? You buy as much as Bitcoin you can afford as initial investment; you wait as long as you can, to make your investment value increase as much as possible, for you.
Realize that since the value of Bitcoin would keep exponentially increasing in the long term, how much money you can make from Bitcoin investment depends on just the total value of your initial investment and how long you wait! (Wikipedia says Satoshi Nakamoto owns about one million bitcoins with current value around 19 billion dollars!)
If Bitcoin is a PS, how it would end (if it is not stopped by law everywhere)?
Imagine, as the value of Bitcoin is nonstop increasing exponentially, it would get attention of more and more people, everywhere in the world! Imagine yourself as an average person who really likes easy and risk free money making opportunities, anywhere in the world! Imagine you bought Bitcoin(s), its value kept increasing, but sooner or later you wanted/needed the money, and sold your Bitcoin(s), for a much better price! You are happy that you made lots of money from your investment! But what if the value of the Bitcoin(s) you sold, kept increasing exponentially afterwards? How long it would take before you decided to invest in Bitcoin(s) again? And if you decided to invest again, wouldn't you want to invest even (much) more money, if you can, in order to get an even bigger return, sooner?
Realize that as the value of Bitcoin(s) keep(s) increasing, mining it would be a more lucrative business all the time, meaning a positive feedback system!
Realize that as the value of Bitcoin(s) keep(s) increasing, more and more people would invest all they have, and more and more people would become ready to offer all their money to buy Bitcoin!
How long it would take for an average Bitcoin investor to realize, in order to get most money, one must invest as much as money possible as initially, and wait as much as possible, unless the price of Bitcoin reaches the highest possible level earlier, and sell back. Now try to imagine a future world where the price of Bitcoin is reached highest possible level, so that all the invest-able money in the world is invested in Bitcoin! Realize that in those times, whoever still has any Bitcoin to sell would be incredibly rich! So real winner(s) of Bitcoin (scam) will be those people who still has any Bitcoin(s) to sell when its price reached the its ultimate limits, globally! (Since there will be about 21 million Bitcoins in the end, and if Satoshi Nakamoto owns about one million bitcoins, and if all investment money globally is invested in Bitcoin in the end, isn't that mean the value of Bitcoins of Satoshi Nakamoto will be equal to 1/21 of all investment money globally? If so, wouldn't that make him the richest person ever lived, by far?)
Realize that, as the value of Bitcoin(s) keeps increasing exponentially, more and more people from all over the world, would invest all their life savings in Bitcoin! Realize that, those people would do probably anything to protect the value of their Bitcoin investments! Realize that, eventually, so many people in each and every country in the world, would be heavily invested in Bitcoin(s), and they would have enough power to prevent any government ban against Bitcoin trading!
In conclusion, Bitcoin is probably the biggest scam in world history, and if it is not banned globally, it would end in global financial collapse! It needs to be banned by each and every country in the world, while each still can!
Also keep in mind, if Bitcoin is really a PS, then so are all other cryptocurrencies!
Also I think lots of people are buying other cryptocurrency coins because of thinking they lost the biggest opportunity with Bitcoin. But is that really true?
If the price of Bitcoin is bound to keep increasing, until almost all invest-able money of everyone in the world is invested in Bitcoin, nobody left who wants to sell anymore, and so the Bitcoin price market contains only a (max) number of waiting buyers, then wouldn't any investment in Bitcoin (no matter if small), eventually would reach astronomical values? And if so then, isn't in a smart person's best interest, to just buy as much as Bitcoin possible (and keep buying as much as possible), until such time, the total value of the Bitcoins bought, surpasses anything that person would want to buy/have in his/her life? Then why try to tell everyone it is the biggest scam in world history, instead of taking advantage of it? It maybe really easy to make so much money from Bitcoin, by someone who understands its true nature, but doing so also would be extremely unethical behavior! Because it would be really just taking advantage of all the naive Bitcoin investors in the world, many who invested all their life savings!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns
What I discovered is that Bitcoin is a global Ponzi Scheme, for sure:
Customer buys a certain amount of shares from Ponzi Scheme Master.
Those shares gains value exponentially in the long term.
Only differences in Bitcoin are these when compared to the first Ponzi Scheme by Ponzi himself:
There is no human master(s) running the scheme. The physical ledger of Ponzi himself, replaced by a general public ledger without any human owner(s). If there was human master(s) of Bitcoin with a well known (giant) amount of Bitcoin (share) ownership, and the master is not selling (yet), sooner or later general public and all world governments, all world banks/companies would start to realize that, the total value of Bitcoins of the Master(s) reaching truly astronomical levels! Then they would have to choose either to fight against the master, or try to buy as much as Bitcoin to also make a lot of money for themselves? (Imagine more and more people realizing that there is no way to lose when somebody invests all his/her money in Bitcoin and just waits as long as possible to decide when to sell and make an astronomical profit!)
Imagine a future world, Bitcoin was never banned, almost everyone invested all their money/wealth in Bitcoin, and currently the total value of each of their Bitcoin investments are truly astronomical!
Would anyone want Bitcoin gets banned globally, and the value of all their amazing wealth waiting invested in Bitcoin, instantly drops to zero?!
Regardless of Bitcoin is really a Ponzi Scheme or not, and unless it is banned globally and completely at any time in the future, its price will/must keep increasing exponentially in the long term. Then it is obviously the best investment ever seen in world history! (Its long term price chart (since it started) is already a perfectly exponential curve, and not because of luck but because of basic economics of a limited supply investment (true buying frenzy would start when all mining comes to an end eventually)!)
As its price drops back (as a percentage) less and less over time, (because of more and more people trying to hold on to their Bitcoins as long as possible), it will be seen by the public to be an amazing investment opportunity! Imagine it turns into a true global frenzy that everyone tries to sell everything they own to buy any number of Bitcoins (or any other popular cryptocurrency) they can!
20180125:
IMHO, Bitcoin is just a new, previously unknown, modified form of Ponzi Scheme. To be exact, Bitcoin is a decentralized Ponzi Scheme with a variable long-term interest rate. But then, what is the proof for Bitcoin being a Ponzi Scheme, such as described above? How about these?
Bitcoin is a decentralized Ponzi Scheme, because it uses a public ledger (that managed by Bitcoin exchanges/"banks"), instead of a private ledger (that managed by a human master). (The founder of Bitcoin, who keeps the initial one million Bitcoins, could be seen as the "secret master" of Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme, though.)
Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme with a variable long-term interest rate, because its value must always increase in the long term, because of basic rules of investment economics, because of its limited availability. Meaning, any investor of Bitcoin would get an extra return in the long term, guaranteed!
So it is really equivalent of getting a guaranteed but variable interest payment in the long term! (Is there any other (real/physical) investment that can do the same?! If not, why not?! So, what would be the consequences, for the whole world economy, if no real investment can match Bitcoin?!)
(Realize that, all of these also apply to all other so-called "crypto-currencies", not just to Bitcoin!)
(Also, I think calling them "currency" is wrong. Notice that, as Bitcoin price kept increasing exponentially, people stopped using it as a currency, and started using it as an investment. This was no luck! Since the price of Bitcoin would climb exponentially in the long term, in any case, it would sooner or later would be impossible to use as a currency, and it already happened, as would be expected! So I think a better name for them could be "crypto-investment" or "token-investment" or "abstract-investment".)
20180706:
Are (any) fiat-currency and (any) cryptocurrency really equivalent, as cryptocurrency fans claim?
For example, US Dollar and Bitcoin are really equals?
Value/validity/authorization of US dollar is provided/guaranteed by US Government (and in-turn whole US Public)!
Also, not to mention, US Dollars in any US Bank is insured by US Government!
What authorization/guarantee/insurance is behind Bitcoin? Nothing!
Sorry but that is the end of discussion then!
Why do you think Satoshi Nakamoto is really hiding his identity, if Bitcoin is really such a great innovation?
He is just someone does not like media/fan attention?
Or, could it be really because Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies followed it) are actually Ponzi Schemes?
(So he knew very well that law enforcement would come after him sooner or later?!)
If so-called cryptocurrencies are really good innovation, why they attract so many criminals/criminal activity?
Could it really be because, all cryptocurrencies themselves are scams, and that is why they attract all kinds of criminals/criminal activity?
If so-called cryptocurrencies are really currency, why no company/store can use Bitcoin as currency anymore?
Because the price of Bitcoin proved to be extremely unstable to use as a currency?
Would the result be different, if Bitcoin replaced by any other "cryptocurrency"?
Aren't all work the same way?
If so-called cryptocurrencies are really money; isn't people issuing their own money, illegal already, in all countries?
If so then, why they are still not banned in all countries?
Or, they are not actually virtual currency but virtual investment?
But, if they are actually investment, why we need/want them?
What would happen to world economy, if people invested in virtual investments, instead of real investments?
Or, all so-called cryptocurrencies are actually just a modified (made decentralized and paying variable interest) Ponzi Schemes?
(Price of cryptocurrencies would keep increasing in the long term (by their design), so it is equivalent of paying variable interest to all long term investors.)
Also, since all so-called cryptocurrencies are actually financial scams (Ponzi Schemes), that means, they cannot be the solution for any of existing financial problems of our world!
As more and more people invest in cryptocurrencies, it will become harder and harder to ban their trading everywhere (because people invested in cryptocurrencies, would try to stop anyone trying to ban cryptocurrencies)!
All cryptocurrencies need to be banned globally before it is too late!
20190630:
IMHO, all cryptocurrencies are just a new kind of scam, similar to Ponzi Scheme!!!
Isn't printing & issuing your own currency and/or stocks illegal & for really good reasons???
But isn't that what exactly cryptocurrencies really are doing???
Why do you think "Satoshi" took first 1 MILLION BITCOINS for himself & disappeared into hiding???
(Instead of proudly coming-out, if Bitcoin is really a great financial innovation!!!)
Maybe to make sure law enforcement cannot catch him, if/when BITCOIN SCAM fails/uncovered???
Maybe to sell his 1M Bitcoins all @ once, when Bitcoin price reaches its top limits???
Just THINK it!!!
20191022:
Would be a really good idea for government central banks to issue their own cryptocurrencies?
IMHO, the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
We need to remember that, how BITCOIN price/value was keep increasing exponentially in the past!
(& it was pulling up behind all other cryptocurrency prices/values!)
& general public of whole world was starting to notice!
But, very thankfully, most of general public woken up from the spell later!
& price of BITCOIN dropped fast & stayed low for a long time!
& it is obvious, @ least 2 me, since those times, BITCOIN shills/promoters were keep trying to pump BITCOIN price/value, again & again, hoping to jumpstart exponential increase back again!
& it is obvious, @ least 2 me, it does not really work, because most of general public still think BITCOIN is a scam!
IMHO, BITCOIN shills/promoters thought long & hard about how to gain back trust of general public!
& they found a solution: What if their own government(s) issued its own cryptocurrency?
(& they started lobbying politicians & central bank officials, no doubt!)
Realize that, then it would become easy to say/argue to general public that
"If cryptocurrencies are scam, then how come your own government(s) issuing cryptocurrency?"
What is the danger of general public trusting BITCOIN (& all other cryptocurrencies)?
Imagine that BITCOIN price starts to keep increasing exponentially again!
& this time there is absolutely nothing left to stop it!
& all public, all over the world, starting to invest all their money to BITCOIN (& all other cryptocurrencies)!
& # of people still investing any/all other legitimate investments decreases exponentially!
Realize then, whole world economy would collapse, sooner or later!!!
& IMHO, the danger of allowing FB etc large global companies to issue their own cryptocurrencies is also very similar!
Such a thing would also provide/mean a lot of official legitimacy/approval/support to BITCOIN (& all other cryptocurrencies)!
& also consider that, how each government controls/manages supply/value of its own currency, based on needs of their own economy!
& try to imagine, what would happen to each/all economy, if no such government control left/possible anymore (sooner or later)!
ONLY GOVERNMENT(S) SHOULD/MUST HAVE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CURRENCY & NOBODY ELSE!!!
& that is also why ALL CRYPTOCURRENCIES SHOULD/MUST BE BANNED, GLOBALLY, ASAP!!!
20201213:
Ransomware problem is keep growing non-stop all over the world & providing massive income to criminals!
We need to realize that what really enables ALL RANSOMWARE is easy availability of cryptocurrencies like BITCOIN which are untraceable!
& by the way, there is absolutely no need for cryptocurrencies like BITCOIN for anything!
They were promoted as virtual currency but later proved to be impossible to use for shopping because their values are completely unstable!
& by the way, cryptocurrencies like BITCOIN are causing massive amounts of other financial scams & crimes all over the world all the time!
& we seriously think that government central banks creating their own cryptocurrency is a good idea??? Do we really want to massively increase all kinds of financial crimes done using cryptocurrencies??? BITCOIN & ALL OTHER CRYPTOCURRENCIES ARE NOTHING BUT SCAMS!!!
Printing money out of thin air!!! We need to globally ban BITCOIN & ALL OTHER CRYPTOCURRENCIES to stop all ransomware etc!!!
20210418:
Crowds of people rushing to buy essentially worthless stuff for huge money is like the very definition of a financial bubble!
NFT craze is just a modern Tulip Mania!
Not to mention, NFTs can be easily/quickly stolen (by hackers/malware), just like happens all-the-time w/ bitcoin/cryptocurrency (which is based on the same (blockchain) tech)!
Also realize that as soon as "Satoshi" sells his 1 million bitcoins, everybody would rush to sell all their bitcoin/cryptocurrency/NFT!
& so they all would suddenly/quickly become absolutely worthless!
(202110214) About stablecoins:
Never be so naive to think that stablecoins are really 100% backed, as said/claimed!!
There are already known past incidents proving their value can suddenly collapse, just like any other cryptocurrency!
Why not we just use way more stable USD, instead any "stablecoin"???
(202201027) Here are (IMHO) some examples of very common/widespread logical fallacies about Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency:
"Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency cannot be a scam, because millions of people (or majority of people) think so!":
This is actually a logical fallacy called "argumentum ad populum ("argument to the people")"!
It is just like believing/claiming many millions of people who believe in astrology cannot be wrong!
"Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency cannot be a scam, because so many professors/academics/politicians/officials/CEOs think so!":
This is actually a logical fallacy called "argumentum ab auctoritate ("argument from authority")"!
I have absolutely no doubt that, if throughly/properly researched, it would be found that victims of so many known/uncovered scams were professors/academics/politicians/officials/CEOs!
Also, a scam getting really popular w/ big/institutional investors and/or lasting for so many years, do(es) not mean it cannot be a scam!
For example, massive Ponzi Scheme done by Bernie Madoff also had lasted so many years & got extremely popular w/ big/institutional investors!
Also, thinking/believing that "if Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency was a scam, it would be surely noticed/uncovered by professors/academics/politicians/officials/CEOs, because all its details are known/public knowledge" is a logical fallacy, too!
For example, back in the 90s in Turkey, there was a company which described itself as a "mathematical profit system" which was actually a Pyramid Scheme!
The important thing is, full details of how exactly its system worked (how the money provided by new members was shared by the old members & the company people/organization) were publicly known, right from the beginning!
& yet, appearently pretty much nobody from the public/academia/government/media nor the business world realized that it was a scam, for years, until too late!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)