In this case I tried the 'Lambda' formula and found some awesome patterns that are reminiscent of a massive, infinite network of nodes connected to each other against a background of weak connectivity.
This reminded me of the model for the self-organization of space in an information-theoretic model of physics called Process Physics developed by Reg Cahill from Flinders University in South Australia.
The main difference of course is that in Process Physics there is no space assumed beforehand - patterns of strong connections form in a previously dimensionless matrix of connection weights. The approximate 3-dimensionality of the network has to be established later on by analysis of the connectivity.
I find PP very compelling, but the mainstream physics community seems to just completely ignore it. Possibly because it challenges some of the core beliefs that people have based their careers upon.
I can't much of the PP papers because they get very technical, but I wholeheartedly recommend giving them a try.
Also these fractals look kind of like choice black dandylion seeds:
I'm a physicist and I've never heard about process physics. All I can tell that when some unknown guy comes with a physics theory he developped by himself, which mentions Gödel theorem and claims to solve all the problems of contemporary physics, it's most likely a crackpot. But you can evaluate it by yourself with this:
ReplyDeletehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
:)
Hey Sam, I think it would be worth giving some of the papers a read before assuming that it's crackpot stuff. I have found Process Physics to be solemn and sincere, appeals to common-sense and has not a whiff of anything mystical or egotistical about it.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I think Process Physics goes extremely well on the crackpot index.
I am open to the idea that the mainstream is not necessarily the best way of thinking. In physics as well as in almost every public arena (the fractal scene for example?).
The evolution of physics memes (which is the replicator that physics is made from) would be prone to the same issue that biological replicators face: the ones that proliferate are the ones that are best at replication in the current environment, not necessarily those with the best model of reality.
Ultimately I think we should expect our current ideas to be overthrown, no matter how much we believe in them. This implies that it is good to always be on the lookout for new ideas that might have the potential to be the next leap in understanding. I think that it's clear that at this time physics needs such a leap in order to progress.
It is also true in evolution that the successors to the current leaders do not generally come from within the mainstream but from the fringes where variation is biggest.
Using an immunological metaphor this means that all new ideas are generally reacted to as if they were pathogenic. This makes it take a long time for the genuinely new and interesting ones to take hold.
All that is fairly obvious though I suppose and it's only my opinion that Process Physics is not a crackpot idea.
There is also support for the information-theoretic approach to physics from other areas including Wolfram and various other researchers that are heading down this route.
Thanks for the comment! it's a very interesting topic :)