Page **2** of **2**

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:25 pm UTC**

by **p1t1o**

quarkcosh1 wrote:You could call them coincidences but thats just another name for correlations..

Oh me yarm NO! That is

precisely, not science.

(ok why is "oh em gee", literally the 3-letter acronym, censored with "oh me yarm" which sounds like gibberish? I find my words being replaced with gibberish to be offensive, I am offended, can we censor "oh me yarm" (I mean

WTF [yeah...]), please.

/s)

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:41 pm UTC**

by **speising**

p1t1o wrote:quarkcosh1 wrote:You could call them coincidences but thats just another name for correlations..

Oh me yarm NO! That is

precisely, not science.

(ok why is "oh em gee", literally the 3-letter acronym, censored with "oh me yarm" which sounds like gibberish? I find my words being replaced with gibberish to be offensive, I am offended, can we censor "oh me yarm" (I mean

WTF [yeah...]), please.

/s)

you can complain to my friend Catherine.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:04 pm UTC**

by **doogly**

p1t1o wrote:quarkcosh1 wrote:You could call them coincidences but thats just another name for correlations..

Oh me yarm NO! That is

precisely, not science.

(ok why is "oh em gee", literally the 3-letter acronym, censored with "oh me yarm" which sounds like gibberish? I find my words being replaced with gibberish to be offensive, I am offended, can we censor "oh me yarm" (I mean

WTF [yeah...]), please.

/s)

Your invocation of "offense" as if you have figured out a magic charm is some straight up cream soda.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:45 pm UTC**

by **Weeks**

doogly wrote:Your invocation of "offense" as if you have figured out a magic charm is some straight up cream soda.

Well isn't science simply straight up cream soda?

Ever thought of that, genius?

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:54 pm UTC**

by **doogly**

It's not a completely pure endeavor but on the whole I am definitely down.

But it could use the benefit of more **misogyny not found**, I'll grant.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:14 pm UTC**

by **p1t1o**

1. who is Catherine?

2. is "cream soda" a good or bad thing?

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:17 pm UTC**

by **doogly**

These are both twerks. Wordfilters.

Cream Soda is good but it is a twerk for a thing which is not good.

Catherine is my friend.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:13 pm UTC**

by **Weeks**

doogly wrote:These are both twerks. Wordfilters.

Cream Soda is good but it is a twerk for a thing which is not good.

Catherine is my friend.

Some Asshole always has to ask what the meanieheads mean with their "code words"

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:43 pm UTC**

by **doogly**

this is why we* invented lurk moar

* someone else

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:16 am UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

p1t1o wrote:quarkcosh1 wrote:You could call them coincidences but thats just another name for correlations..

Oh me yarm NO! That is

precisely, not science.

(ok why is "oh em gee", literally the 3-letter acronym, censored with "oh me yarm" which sounds like gibberish? I find my words being replaced with gibberish to be offensive, I am offended, can we censor "oh me yarm" (I mean

WTF [yeah...]), please.

/s)

It counts as science because it is related to an unsolved problem in physics which is to explain where the values of physical constants come from. I found some more ways to generate physical constants from the j invariant but I am not sure if anyone will care. If anyone wants to see them let me know. I also kind of get the feeling that people here don't understand the j invariant either

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:48 am UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

Also I want to explain what makes this a theory. Since theories are just 2-categories (category theory) all I have to do is show it has the structure of a 2-category. Coincidences and correlations can also be described by mappings so you have:

Physical theory t -> measurement a, Physical theory t -> measurement b, etc and then the mapping that makes it a 2-category is t -> t

Now my theory has the same structure. It is:

J invariant -> fine structure constant, j invariant -> quark mass ratios, and the mapping that makes it a theory/2-category is j invariant -> j invariant

There are also 3-categories in physics which often deal with the symmetries of physical equations with the symmetries being the mappings

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:26 am UTC**

by **Xanthir**

None of what you just said is even remotely connected to reality.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:29 am UTC**

by **Eebster the Great**

What are the morphisms in this 2-category? I don't get it at all.

There is some actual physical reason the dimensionless constants have the values they do (though there might not be a good reason), but we can't figure that reason out just by looking at random lists of mathematical expressions until we find two that look similar. You might be interested to look at how physical values are actually derived theoretically. You don't start with a known number and perform a bunch of random calculations until you reach it. You start with physical assumptions which imply equations on their own, and then perform the calculations. If you are allowed to start with the result and just find what equations get you there, you will always be hopelessly lost.

Let's say I knew that π had the value of about 3.14159, but I didn't understand why it had that value or how to compute it. Clearly it would not be justifiable to simply stumble around in the dark until I came up with π = -W_{-1}(-e^{-20}) - 20. For one thing, the equality isn't even exact (it's about 0.001% off), and for another thing, it's totally unmotivated. Even if it somehow turned out to be true that my equation worked, I still wouldn't be able to prove it or understand it.

In your case, the calculations are even less precise and make no better sense. I mean, unless they do make sense to you. But so far, you haven't explained them at all, you just repeatedly point out that it uses the J invariant. Why?

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:55 am UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

Eebster the Great wrote:What are the morphisms in this 2-category? I don't get it at all.

There is some actual physical reason the dimensionless constants have the values they do (though there might not be a good reason), but we can't figure that reason out just by looking at random lists of mathematical expressions until we find two that look similar. You might be interested to look at how physical values are actually derived theoretically. You don't start with a known number and perform a bunch of random calculations until you reach it. You start with physical assumptions which imply equations on their own, and then perform the calculations. If you are allowed to start with the result and just find what equations get you there, you will always be hopelessly lost.

Let's say I knew that π had the value of about 3.14159, but I didn't understand why it had that value or how to compute it. Clearly it would not be justifiable to simply stumble around in the dark until I came up with π = -W_{-1}(-e^{-20}) - 20. For one thing, the equality isn't even exact (it's about 0.001% off), and for another thing, it's totally unmotivated. Even if it somehow turned out to be true that my equation worked, I still wouldn't be able to prove it or understand it.

In your case, the calculations are even less precise and make no better sense. I mean, unless they do make sense to you. But so far, you haven't explained them at all, you just repeatedly point out that it uses the J invariant. Why?

According to max tegmarks mathematical universe hypothesis all the universe is is just math so starting from math makes sense. Wolfram has also suggested that simple programs could be used to describe the universe. I guess I could include some more physics concepts in my theory so maybe that will make it better

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:50 am UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

Ok let me try something here. Instead of starting from physics we will start from dynamical systems which are a generalization of physics. This leads to this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants and then since it is approximately equal to pi + tan^-1(e^pi) you could say dynamical system generate e and pi.

I also have something else to post. Triangles can be interpreted as particle interactions in the following way. First you have 2 particles traveling toward each other and then colliding. This represents 2 lines of the triangle. The third line is represented as a particle emitting another particle (such as a electron emitting a photon) and the the other particle absorbing it. Also since hyperbolic triangles angles add up to less than 180 degrees those are in some sense simpler than regular triangles. Now the point of this is to give a physical interpretation of the following:

Cosh^2 (1) = 2.38 = down quark/up quark mass ratio

3Coth(1) = 3.93 = up quark/electron mass ratio

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:45 am UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

quarkcosh1 wrote:since it is approximately equal to pi + tan^-1(e^pi) you could say dynamical system generate e and pi

Yeah and you could say all kinds of ridiculous things. That doesn't make any of them true.

Triangles can be interpreted as particle interactions in the following way. First you have 2 particles traveling toward each other and then colliding. This represents 2 lines of the triangle. The third line is represented as a particle emitting another particle (such as a electron emitting a photon) and the the other particle absorbing it.

Not all particle-particle interactions result in a single particle being emitted, and Feynman already generalized this in a way that isn't completely fucking bonkers.

Also since hyperbolic triangles angles add up to less than 180 degrees those are in some sense simpler than regular triangles.

That doesn't follow, and in any case the angle isn't relevant to your vague triangle analogy in the first place.

Now the point of this is to give a physical interpretation of the following:

Cosh^2 (1) = 2.38 = down quark/up quark mass ratio

3Coth(1) = 3.93 = up quark/electron mass ratio

More meaningless approximate coincidences.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:06 am UTC**

by **Soupspoon**

On 21/Nov/2018 the

UK National Lottery draw produced the numbers 24, 35, 46 and 31, 42, 53. Which

obviously shows an underlying order to the drawn numbers.

Or is it possible, instead, that I just ran

all the results (a nice round 2400 of them, to date) through a rough check for things I thought might be interesting and this is the first instant of a tested draw result that meshed with one of my off-the-top-of-my-head ideas, that actually has no reasonable foundation in fact.?

(Note, also, that nobody matched all six. Now

that I find amazing, though I'm not sure if I'm right to do so, by my own logic that follows.)

Even just "looking for two pairs of three offset-by-eleven numbers" gives… a possible 625¹ results in the current 1…59 range, or 330 in the 1…49 range that it apparently switched from around about draw 2070, give or take a handful. If I'm not too fussy about the gap (but still just two triples, all four gaps the same) 14877 and 8272 respectively. Extend to other patterns (as I did) and you get to the realms of a racing certainty that

one of the patterns (statistically irrelevant, individually, and without any factual standing as a 'truth' above any other) will leap out at you

if you look hard enough. And had I not limited myself to just the one drawing agency, then…?

Consider how many ways you have to combine how many 'fundamentals' together. If you

only used e and pi and only used +, -, * and / in a single pairing, then I think that's an effective group of 12 (unique) results, none of which mean much (except the 0 and 1 results from x-x and x/x for x={e|pi}?) to the real world. But once you start to add extra complexity (including, but you likely never limited yourself to, the j invariant, trigonometrical/etc functions, multiple nested and parallel stages in your conversions) you're going to start to spot x≈y relationships against

the while gamut of 'mysterious values' you are willing to consider (fine structure constant, big-G, vacuum permittivity/permeability, Higgs Field potentials, you name it!), with or without obvious anthropcentricity to their valuation.

¹ Including (in this range only!) 8 possibilities of the two sequences rendering themselves with the same gap between the most adjacent members, as the 4 "sequence of six all spaced by eleven" results.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:08 pm UTC**

by **elasto**

quarkcosh1:

For an example of why you can't just work backwards from the answer, take a look at

this numberphile video where it demonstrates you can generate

any integer using just four 4's and standard arithmetical operators.

As Eebster says, the only hope of generating any insight is to start with some equations that

themselves imply how reality operates and see if the constants of the universe just fall out naturally.

(It still might be a meaningless coincidence but, assuming the equations also make testable predictions, at least there's some chance of light being shed on proceedings...)

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:53 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

Ok in an attempt to make this more physically meaningful I think I will try to connect the j invariant to the feynman path integral but I can't find a way to do it without making the numbers too large. Anyone have any ideas?

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:30 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

Soupspoon wrote:On 21/Nov/2018 the

UK National Lottery draw produced the numbers 24, 35, 46 and 31, 42, 53. Which

obviously shows an underlying order to the drawn numbers.

Or is it possible, instead, that I just ran

all the results (a nice round 2400 of them, to date) through a rough check for things I thought might be interesting and this is the first instant of a tested draw result that meshed with one of my off-the-top-of-my-head ideas, that actually has no reasonable foundation in fact.?

(Note, also, that nobody matched all six. Now

that I find amazing, though I'm not sure if I'm right to do so, by my own logic that follows.)

Even just "looking for two pairs of three offset-by-eleven numbers" gives… a possible 625¹ results in the current 1…59 range, or 330 in the 1…49 range that it apparently switched from around about draw 2070, give or take a handful. If I'm not too fussy about the gap (but still just two triples, all four gaps the same) 14877 and 8272 respectively. Extend to other patterns (as I did) and you get to the realms of a racing certainty that

one of the patterns (statistically irrelevant, individually, and without any factual standing as a 'truth' above any other) will leap out at you

if you look hard enough. And had I not limited myself to just the one drawing agency, then…?

Consider how many ways you have to combine how many 'fundamentals' together. If you

only used e and pi and only used +, -, * and / in a single pairing, then I think that's an effective group of 12 (unique) results, none of which mean much (except the 0 and 1 results from x-x and x/x for x={e|pi}?) to the real world. But once you start to add extra complexity (including, but you likely never limited yourself to, the j invariant, trigonometrical/etc functions, multiple nested and parallel stages in your conversions) you're going to start to spot x≈y relationships against

the while gamut of 'mysterious values' you are willing to consider (fine structure constant, big-G, vacuum permittivity/permeability, Higgs Field potentials, you name it!), with or without obvious anthropcentricity to their valuation.

¹ Including (in this range only!) 8 possibilities of the two sequences rendering themselves with the same gap between the most adjacent members, as the 4 "sequence of six all spaced by eleven" results.

It is true that many simple programs don't have much physical significance but the point is to find ones that do and then use them to construct a theory. It is just like what is done in statistics when you try to use a polynomial to fit some data set. Also your e and pi example has the following:

pi - e = 0.42 = up quark/down quark mass ratio

e^(1/pi) = higgs boson/z boson mass ratio

There are also not even that many fundamental mass ratios to consider. There are only 12 fermions (4 generation 1 fermions) and 5 bosons (2 of which have 0 mass)

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:05 pm UTC**

by **p1t1o**

quarkcosh, you know the bible is strongly believed to be encoded within the digits of pi? And all of shakespeares works? And actually this comment I am typing right now? It can be proven to have an exceptionally high probability.

But guess what? It means precisely nothing, like the vast [VAST] majority of coincidences.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:22 pm UTC**

by **quarkcosh1**

p1t1o wrote:quarkcosh, you know the bible is strongly believed to be encoded within the digits of pi? And all of shakespeares works? And actually this comment I am typing right now? It can be proven to have an exceptionally high probability.

But guess what? It means precisely nothing, like the vast [VAST] majority of coincidences.

Those aren't connected to any unsolved problem in physics though. You would also need to compute a large number of digits of pi before you got those patterns where I am focused on simple programs. If the vast majority of coincidences mean nothing then how come they are frequently used in neural networks. Also there seems to be common misconception that just because of determining where the value of physical constants come from is unknown that it must be random but in reality only certain things in quantum mechanics are random.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:25 pm UTC**

by **speising**

more to the point, it means nothig if it doesn't help you create new knowledge. A physical theory must be able to predict the outcome of new experiments to be of any value.

I fail to see any predictive (or other) value in any mathematical construction of nature's constants (or rather, approximations thereof).

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:58 pm UTC**

by **p1t1o**

quarkcosh1 wrote:I am focused on simple programs.

Formula to calculate digits of pi:

pi = C/d

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:14 pm UTC**

by **Flumble**

p1t1o wrote:quarkcosh1 wrote:I am focused on simple programs.

Formula to calculate digits of pi:

pi = C/d

But hold on, that formula is actually

correct. quarkcosh1 seems to want approximations that

deviate after a few digits.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:56 pm UTC**

by **Eebster the Great**

Again, trying formulas at random because you feel like some of the special functions could be connected to the topic in some way is not science. The actual way these formulas are discovered is by creating mathematical models that are meaningful on their own and then finding that the model's predictions also match observation. You have to start with the formula and then perform the experiment to test it. You can't start with the experimental data and ask "How many clever ways can I generate this data?" If you do, you will soon find that the answer is "loads of ways," no matter what the data are.

Mathematical modeling and the scientific method are not elementary, but your mistake here is. You should really listen to the ones here (everyone in the thread) who are telling you that.

And please stop defending your ignorance by randomly bringing up other topics you are also ignorant of, like neural networks. They do not use "mathematical coincidences." If you are interested in programming with surprising (seemingly coincidental) numbers, maybe Quake's fast inverse square root function is more your thing.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:45 pm UTC**

by **gmalivuk**

quarkcosh1 wrote:p1t1o wrote:quarkcosh, you know the bible is strongly believed to be encoded within the digits of pi? And all of shakespeares works? And actually this comment I am typing right now? It can be proven to have an exceptionally high probability.

But guess what? It means precisely nothing, like the vast [VAST] majority of coincidences.

Those aren't connected to any unsolved problem in physics though.

Every solution to unsolved problems in physics is also probably somewhere in the digits of pi.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:39 pm UTC**

by **Soupspoon**

The true ratios (that we currently don't even know) of quark masses, not just the up/down one, will² feature in Pi.

By stating that (pi - e) is the first ratio¹ can you then, @qc, logically extend that to a prediction of charm to strange (hovers loosely around 13.5, or its inverse if there's reason to reorder them) and top to bottom (41.5ish, or likewise).

If, maybe, you could say that ratio(1st to 3rd pairing)=(f_{n}(pi) - g_{n}(e)) for the given n for f_{1}(x)≈g_{1}(x)≈1 and second, third(, maybe fourth or onward, for as-yet undiscovered quark-pairings?!?) iterations of the function returning something like observations (and continuing to, in advance of experimental refinements narrowing down the unknowns to more definite values), then you might have something worth hanging your hat on.

But you likely won't do this.

¹ Which it isn't, particularly. By using some accepted uncertainties, (2.3±0.7±0.5) / (4.8±0.5±0.3) gives ranges of (1.1…3.5)/(4.0…5.6) or values from 0.19642857 to 0.625, with median of 0.47916667, compared with π−e=0.42331083. Unless you know more about the true masses (or, indeed, mathematical constants) that nobody else knows

²Umm, except for if they're entirely irrational and don't conveniently overlap-to-infinity with everything else, I suppose. But to arbitrary precision well beyond any usefulness they pretty much will.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:14 pm UTC**

by **Xanthir**

Soupspoon wrote:↶²Umm, except for if they're entirely irrational and don't conveniently overlap-to-infinity with everything else, I suppose. But to arbitrary precision well beyond any usefulness they pretty much will.

Eh, I'm sure you can just come up with some arithmetic progression dictating the digits you need to choose to make the arbitrary irrational overlap with pi.

(Or rather, assume that such a progression exists.)

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:09 am UTC**

by **Soupspoon**

Xanthir wrote:Soupspoon wrote:↶²Umm, except for if they're entirely irrational and don't conveniently overlap-to-infinity with everything else, I suppose. But to arbitrary precision well beyond any usefulness they pretty much will.

Eh, I'm sure you can just come up with some arithmetic progression dictating the digits you need to choose to make the arbitrary irrational overlap with pi.

(Or rather, assume that such a progression exists.)

It was more overlapping with other pi-found sequences, really. Though

eventually you can even fit an infinite number of infinitely-sized coach parties into Hilbert's fully-occupied hotel.

What is interesting is the possibility that, starting N digits down Pi and thence every Mth digit, you might find just 2,2,2,2… forever. For arbitrary, possibly transfinite, N and M, that mesh nicely into every

other sequence being looked for.

Where they coincide,

that sequence has a 2, so obviously cannot be a similar sequence of 3s-alone, which suggests something regarding prime factors/remainders that keep the 2-sequence and 3-sequence serieses from coinciding

ever. Or it's as simple as having identical Ms and differing starting Ns (at possibly >>M separation), meaning that there's a selective series (of perhaps alternating stride lengths) that would give us 2,3,2,3,… and further all

other infinitely recurring finite sequences. And yet all without making the core strand of Pi repeating, because betwixt all these uncountable patterns there's an

at least uncountable number of off-sequence digits that don't conform in any such way.

Or so a trivial thought experiment suggests. There's probably something against that, with but a few

more moments' thought, but as far as OP is concerned it's probably a theoretical overkill to even propose to examine the principle to this extreme…

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:53 am UTC**

by **PM 2Ring**

BTW, if the digits of pi contain every finite sequence of digits, then pi is a

normal number. That may be true, but we currently don't know how to prove that a given real number is normal.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:01 am UTC**

by **Zamfir**

quarkcosh1 wrote:Ok in an attempt to make this more physically meaningful I think I will try to connect the j invariant to the feynman path integral but I can't find a way to do it without making the numbers too large. Anyone have any ideas?

The crucial step, for your style of approach, is to define the "space" of formulas that you are willing to try. Do this in advance!

Write down which operations you are considering. Addition, multiplication, division, trigonometric functions, a complete list. Write down which additional constants you might introduce. Integers from 1 to 10, e, pi, extra physicals constants beyond the ones you are trying to explain. Write down how many operations you will accept in the formula, at the most.

Next, write down a goal. Some ratio of masses, whatever fancies you. How close can you get with the space that have defined before?

Then, and I haven't seen you do this yet: try the same approach, with the same limitations, on other numbers! How close can you get to an arbitrary goal? Even better, ask how close can someone else get to an arbitrary goal given the same limitations. Or try some automated procedure.

Your approach might be interesting, if it creates much better formulas for meaningful targets than for arbitrary targets.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:32 pm UTC**

by **Soupspoon**

I like that summary. But also I am

reminded of this, which may or may not have relevance.

### Re: quarkcosh1's miscellaneous science posts

Posted: **Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:22 pm UTC**

by **Eebster the Great**

Soupspoon wrote:What is interesting is the possibility that, starting N digits down Pi and thence every Mth digit, you might find just 2,2,2,2… forever. For arbitrary, ~~possibly transfinite~~, N and M, that mesh nicely into every other sequence being looked for.

Every digit of a real number is at a finite position.