We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

[Sarkus]

Seriously, I tried. I really did. But all you can do, Write4U, seems to be to explain and example how patterns of matter are observed throughout the universe, and how maths describes these patterns, which is not disputed, and never has been. You are constantly failing in your efforts to go beyond this, at least meaningfully. Maybe someone who can better decipher your comments will turn up, but until then I'm out as well.

 

[Write4U]

Lord help me.

What does that mean?

Yes you did and do at every turn. Luckily I can discuss the actual paper separately from this. I will bow out of this thread now and leave you to it.

And before you leave, why don't you tell me exactly what is wrong with that "description" of mathematical values at Planck Scale?

Ever heard of "nodes"?

Physics

• Node (physics), a point along a standing wave where the wave has minimal amplitude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node#


The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe
During the Planck era, the universe was so small that our laws of physics break down. To dive deeper back in time, we’ll need new scientific language.

The nature of time and spaceThe reason our descriptions of time and space break down near the Planck era is that the gravitational field at this time was so distorted and turbulent with its own quantum fluctuations, it is impossible to define a clock to measure time or a ruler to measure length.Apr 21, 2022

The temperature and density of the cosmos during the GUT era was unimaginably gargantuan: 1028 kelvins and 1080 grams per cubic centimeter. (For comparison, a neutron star has a density of about 1015 g/cm3.) Typical distances between particles were 10-26 cm or less. What’s more, particles simply popped in and out of existence in matter-antimatter pairs from out of their respective quantum fields. At this energy scale, where typical particle energies were above 1015 GeV — namely, those of the supermassive GUT particles — the familiar Standard Model particles were essentially massless by comparison. They behaved more like photons.

The comings and goings of the supermassive GUT particles tossed the gravitational field of the universe about like waves on a stormy sea. Space and time themselves were warped by the many sudden changes in this turbulent gravitational field.

The GUT era was indeed an incomprehensible, fluctuating, hot mess of interacting particles and fields. Physicists believe these messy conditions continued all the way down to a scale of 10-33 cm and time intervals of 10-43 seconds, called the Planck size and time. The Planck scale, whether referring to size, time, mass, or otherwise, is the smallest unit of the universe we can describe — or, perhaps, that even exists. Below these scales, our current theories about space and time completely break down.

If we try to describe the universe at a time before 10-43 seconds in its history — the Planck era — we discover that both time and space lose their conventional meaning.

Today, four fundamental forces exist: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. According to unified theories, early in the universe’s existence these forces began as a single force, with each separating out at a specific temperature as the cosmos cooled.
Roen Kelly

more....General relativity provides what physicists call a background-independent way to define space and time as a collection of fundamental events and the relationships between them.

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, requires the pre-existence of these coordinates to define fields, which means it is a background-dependent theory. To make general relativity and quantum mechanics play together, quantum mechanics must be rebuilt in terms of coordinates defined only by the gravitational field.

In string theory, Standard Model particles are represented as one-dimensional strings of energy that move and vibrate within an 11-dimensional arena called the Bulk. Strings can either be open with two ends, like a piece of spaghetti, or closed like a rubber band. Different vibrations of these strings in seven compact dimensions represent each type of particle in the Standard Model.

Loop quantum gravity (LQG) offers a way to break down space and time into their smallest possible pieces. In LQG, the basic ingredient of space is called a node. It is the size of the Planck volume: (10-33 cm)3. Nodes are the only physically detectable elementary ingredients of space and provide the coordinate network for space-time. They are connected to each other by links, but these do not physically exist in space or time.

Links are assigned integer numbers (their spins) that relate to the quantized area they represent in multiples of the Planck area (10-33 cm)2. And a collection of links and nodes at any given instant is called a spin network. For example, the volume of a single atom of hydrogen (10-8 cm)3 consists of a spin network described by 1075 nodes.

more..... The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe

 

[Write4U]

Seriously, I tried. I really did. But all you can do, Write4U, seems to be to explain and example how patterns of matter are observed throughout the universe, and how maths describes these patterns, which is not disputed, and never has been. You are constantly failing in your efforts to go beyond this, at least meaningfully. Maybe someone who can better decipher your comments will turn up, but until then I'm out as well.

I thank you for your kind indulgence. Trust me, I have learned from this exchange.

OK, then I shall post just 1 more and present an actual model of a mathematical Universe. And just see what the future brings.

In LQG, the basic ingredient of space is called a node. It is the size of the Planck volume: (10-33 cm)3. Nodes are the only physically detectable elementary ingredients of space and provide the coordinate network for space-time.Apr 21, 2022

The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe

Causal Dynamical Triangulation. (CDT)

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT), theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

[Sarkus]

OK, then I shall post just 1 more and present an actual model of a mathematical Universe. And just see what the future brings.
The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe

This does not do what you seem to think it does. Breaking down space into Planck lengths, or nodes, or anything else, allows us to model at that scale, and to perhaps then understand what is going on at that level. It does not even address, let alone support, the notion of the mathematical universe that Tegmark is arguing for in his MUH.
Every time you post such an example just seems to reinforce the perception that you don't comprehend at a basic level what Tegmark is arguing for.

Now I'm definitely out (although moths and lights etc :/).

 

[Write4U]

Every time you post such an example just seems to reinforce the perception that you don't comprehend at a basic level what Tegmark is arguing for.

C'mon, be gracious.

If I told you that I understand Tegmark better than you do, how would you prove me wrong?

 

[origin]

If I told you that I understand Tegmark better than you do, how would you prove me wrong?

All we have to do is read your posts, that is proof enough.

 

[exchemist]

What does that mean?

And before you leave, why don't you tell me exactly what is wrong with that "description" of mathematical values at Planck Scale?

Ever heard of "nodes"?

Physics

• Node (physics), a point along a standing wave where the wave has minimal amplitude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node#

Anyone who has done 6th Form physics will be familiar with nodes.

 

[Seattle]

I'm not that interested in Max Tegmark or this thread but since this seems to be the most popular thread at the moment, I'll post.

I read his book about this years ago. As I recall the first 3/4 of the book was just standard physics and then he gradually went off the deep end at the end of the book.

I know I'm not summarizing it 100% correctly but isn't he essentially arguing that mathematically, anything that can happen, did happen. So in essence isn't this similar to arguing for string theory, for multiverses, or infinite outcomes?

I know specifically he argues for "levels" and for mathematical structures that could take place even with a different set of physics laws (in theory). In other words, it isn't scientific, isn't falsifiable and is largely just a way to get more public attention (and possibly funding).

I hesitated to post, since I'm not a bookkeeper and therefore probably not qualified to post.

 

[Write4U]

Anyone who has done 6th Form physics will be familiar with nodes.

So, why should I not be familiar with the term or what it describes? It's the geometry of the Universe and it is mathematical in essence, no?.

Everybody always complains that individual theories are always incomplete. Duuh..
My approach is to compile "hard facts" (known universal properties) and find "common denominators" that may eventually point to an underlying universal logic That is entirely mathematical in structure and function.

 

[Write4U]

I'm not that interested in Max Tegmark or this thread but since this seems to be the most popular thread at the moment, I'll post.

I am glad you did, looks to me that we are very much on the same wavelength.

I hesitated to post, since I'm not a bookkeeper and therefore probably not qualified to post.

LOL, that's funny.

Even as I was never in advanced mathematics, the beauty of maths is that they are logical. As are wave functions. A symphony is a mathematical structure and as ex-musician (7 years on the road) I appreciate Pythagoras' perspective on the fundamental properties of the universe.

Pythagorean theorem

In mathematics, the Pythagorean theorem or Pythagoras' theorem is a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry between the three sides of a right triangle. It states that the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides.
The theorem can be written as an equation relating the lengths of the sides a, b and the hypotenuse c, sometimes called the Pythagorean equation:[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

and the
Pythagoras tree (fractal)

The Pythagoras tree is a planefractal constructed from squares. Invented by the Dutchmathematics teacher Albert E. Bosman in 1942,[1] it is named after the ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras because each triple of touching squares encloses a right triangle, in a configuration traditionally used to depict the Pythagorean theorem. If the largest square has a size of L × L, the entire Pythagoras tree fits snugly inside a box of size 6L × 4L.[2][3] The finer details of the tree resemble the Lévy C curve.

The Pythagoras tree with an angle of 25 degrees and smooth coloring

consisting of

This is the simplest symmetric triangle. Alternatively, the sides of the triangle are recursively equal proportions, leading to the sides being proportional to the square root of the inverse golden ratio, and the areas of the squares being in golden ratio proportion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animated_self-resembling_Pythagoras_tree_(fractal).webm

Which all translates into regular patterns forming in all areas of cosmology.
The Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence

In this section, we will discuss a very special number called the Golden Ratio. It is an irrational number, slightly bigger than 1.6, and it has (somewhat surprisingly) had huge significance in the world of science, art and music. It was also discovered that this number has an amazing connection with what is called the Fibonacci Sequence, originally studied in the context of biology centuries ago. This unexpected link among algebra, biology, and the arts suggests the mathematical unity of the world and is sometimes discussed in philosophy as well.

https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/College_of_the_Canyons/

We "discovered" natural mathematics, codified them, and symbolized them to explain the axiomatic observations of an infinite variety of pattern expressions based on simple themes.

What humanity learned from the Universe, enabled the Universe to produce Mozart, Einstein, F.L. Wright, Oppenheimer in humanity .

I like the concept of a dynamic, self-referential, self-ordering, mathematically functioning, fractal spacetime object.

It seems to me the natural logic of emergent existence (becoming).
After all, on Earth, Life in all its abundant variety is another expression of mathematical dynamics.