... The Programmer God ...
A simulation universe hypothesis at the Planck scale

if we assign geometrical objects to mass, space and time,
and then link them via a unit number relationship, 
we can build a physical universe from mathematical structures.

Could a Programmer God have used this approach?

The mathematical electron

This website introduces a part of the source code for a Planck-scale simulation universe - this is the Programmer God hypothesis (that the universe, in its entirety, including life-forms, is a simulation programmed by an external 'hand'). Essentially it is a model of the universe based on the structure of the electron as this mathematical particle fe.

Our simulations define the constants; i.e.: speed of light c=299792458m/s (a letter c, a number and a unit m/s). We can use any letter, and the number depends on the unit, we will have a different number if we use miles/hr, and so the number has no meaning without the unit, and we can choose any unit - so we can simulate, but we cannot create. The Programmer God has solved this problem - how to create (the actual speed of light, and mass, space and time) - by using the following geometrical artifice.

We are familiar with opposites; plus charge and minus charge, waves of inverse phase ... and it is easy to see how these may form and/or cancel each other, however these are simply inverse properties.

A simulation universe however is required to be dimensionless (in sum total), for the simulated universe does not 'exist' in any physical sense outside of the 'Computer' (it is simply data on a celestial hard-disk). Our universe does not appear to have inverse properties such as anti-mass (-kg), anti-time (-s) or anti-space (anti-length -m), yet it is a requirement that our mass, space and time must be able to cancel - in order that the sum universe remain dimension-less.

Briefly, we begin by selecting 2 dimensioned quantities, here are chosen r, v such that;

These units (kg, m, s, A) cannot cancel each other, and so we have 4 independent units, however if 3 (or more) combine together, then we can cancel. For example;

Embedded within this fX are the units for mass, time and length (in the above ratio), but fX would be dimensionless, the r, v units have cancelled, units = 1 (i.e.: fX has no units by which it may be measured, it is a mathematical structure).

If the video doesn't load on your browser, open in a new tab video-link

By defining the dimensioned quantities r, v in SI unit terms;

Given that for fX units = 1;

In summary, the Programmer selected the 4 units such that individually they are stable, but when combined in certain ratios (of 3 or more units), they will overlap and cancel, forming a mathematical structure (represented by this fX). Conversely, we can reverse the above to extract physical mass, length, time and charge from a mathematical fX. This introduces the next problem our Programmer solved; how to store this dimensioned information in mathematical (fX) structures.

The electron is an example of an fX structure, it (fe) embeds the physical electron parameters (wavelength, mass, frequency, charge ...) but is itself a mathematical particle, there is no physical electron, units = 1. It can be divided into A-m = ampere-meters and time s (note: the ampere-meter is the unit for a magnetic monopole).

The formula for fe resembles the formula for the torus (2π2r3), in other words, the information of the electron is embedded within a geometrical formula.

From this formula we can extract the formula for length. This geometrical L is 1 unit of length, and so what we see as a straight line is, at the Planck scale (where our universe operates), a cluster of L's in series.

Electron mass M/fe = 0.91093823211 x10-30kg
wavelength 2πLfe = 0.24263102386 x10-11m.
... and so all the information needed to make an electron is embedded within the geometry of fe.

Because we know the values for alpha α, Omega Ω, r and v, we can demonstrate this relationship also applies to these constants (G, h, c, e, kB).

Physics defines the 'physical-ness' of our universe in terms of these physical constants. The speed of light is measured in m/s, the mass of the electron me is measured in kilograms (kg), electric charge is measured in amperes (A)... We cannot use the mass of the electron and the electric charge to derive the speed of light, and even if we could numerically, the units (m/s, kg, A) don't match.

However, there are anomalies (an apparent mathematical relationship) between these units (kg, m, s, A, K), which does permit us to exchange them with each other (as was demonstrated with the r, v, example above), furthermore these anomalies cannot be explained by a physical universe (for this requires that somehow mass exists, that mass is, time is, space is...).

If these anomalies are statistically valid (if the constants can be solved with the required precision, as with the electron mass and wavelength examples above), then they can be construed as evidence that we are in a simulation, and also therefore as our first evidence of a non-human intelligence, the Programmer.

For those familiar with the dimensioned physical constants and the SI units, I have listed those anomalies on this wiki site.

Are these physical constant anomalies evidence we are in a simulation?
wiki: Physical constants (anomalies)

This model suggests a geometrically autonomous universe, electrons orbit protons for example, not due to any inbuilt laws of physics, but according to geometrical imperatives (the respective geometries of the electron and proton).


This page gives a general overview of the model. The articles (i.e.: the mathematics of this model -see articles) have also been translated onto wiki sites as these use familiar formats. Links are given. Some tables list time object T=2π, they should read T=π.

Are we in a simulation?

The simulation hypothesis posits that our reality is an artificial reality, such as generated in a computer simulation. The idea was popularized in the 1999 sci-fi film 'The Matrix'. The ancestor simulation proposes that an advanced civilization could simulate our universe to the degree that we can observe (as with VR helmets today). This version however presumes a base reality, the physical planet of the original programmers. Conversely, a deep-universe (Programmer God) simulation begins with the big bang and constructs the universe in its entirety, down to the smallest detail (see Planck scale).

As the language of mathematics appears to be the language used by the universe, any simulation model that can construct a physical deep-universe has these constraints;

a: the model must be able to construct physical units (of mass, space, time) from dimensionless mathematical structures from within the simulation (for the simulation itself is simply data on a celestial hard disk and has no physical dimensions). 

b: the model cannot use dimensioned constants such as G, h, c, e ... as they are a measure of physical units (see a), and so are emergent properties (generated from within the simulation) and not fundamental (not embedded into the source code itself). 

c: the model must be independent of any system of units such as kg, m, s, A ... (see a, b) and of any (artificial) numbering system.

This (the mathematical electron) model describes how the above points are resolved.


The Programming God

As a deep-universe (see 'the Planck scale') simulation hypothesis model is programmed by an external intelligence (the Programmer God), we cannot presume a priori knowledge regarding the simulation source code, other than from this source code the laws of nature appear (and from which the laws of physics are derived). 

Furthermore, although the source code may use mathematical forms we are familiar with (as it would be the origin of these familiar forms), this code would have been developed by a non-human intelligence, and so we may have to develop new mathematical tools to decipher the underlying logic. 

This code uses a geometrical base-15 for example, the logic behind this is unknown, neither our physics or our mathematics have any corollary.

By implication therefore, the presence of a 'source code' that fits the above criteria could be considered as our first tangible evidence of an external intelligence (external to the universe).

We must also consider that mathematics may simply be a programming language (as with C or Basic or Java ...), and so therefore not an absolute concept in, and of, itself. Although mathematics is the language of physics, and by extension the universe, it may be amiss to assign to mathematics a greater significance.


The Planck Scale

The science vs. God debate exists primarily because God (the 'external' hand) does not appear in the formulas of physics. There is no E = God.c2 for example, and so science has no practical use for a God. As God has no measurable parameters, God is an untestable hypothesis.

Physics is principally divided into studies of the quantum world and the macro world (of planets and stars). These are separated by 2 successful yet incompatible theories; quantum mechanics and relativity. However there is a deeper world, a theoretical world* that is far below the quantum world, and this is called the Planck world. The quantum scale is to the Planck scale as our planetary scale is to the quantum scale.

It is posited here that in a deep-universe simulation, the (fundamental) mathematical laws of nature would operate at this Planck scale, and so to understand both the quantum world and the macro world, we must first begin with the Planck world. In the Planck world we find discrete units; Planck mass is a unit of mass, Planck time is a unit of time, Planck length is a unit of length ... and in this model we have geometrical objects for mass M, time T, length L ... and it is submitted that these are the origins of the Planck units.

And so it is at the Planck scale where we may find the 'hand' of the Programmer.

*Physics has no tools that can investigate much below the quantum world (the testable laws of physics mostly end around the quantum level), and so this Planck scale remains a theoretical world.


Planck vs. quantum

It is premised here that the simulation operating system works at the Planck scale, with each increment to the simulation clock-rate adding 1 unit of (Planck) time. This is similar to how we program our digital computers.

  initialise parameters
  FOR age = 1 TO the-end
       time = time + 1 (add 1 object T)
       conduct certain processes
  NEXT age

In this example, age is the incrementing counter (age = 1, 2 3...), it is also the origin of time (for each increment to age the dimensioned time (Planck time as object T; T=π) also increments, and so the universe gets older, but the variable age itself is just a dimensionless counter. There is this distinction between dimensionless age and dimensioned T (see Time).
age = 1 is the simulation start (a little big bang)
age = the-end is when the simulation ends

We could therefore consider the Planck scale to be incrementing in discrete units of (Planck) time.

As particles (and photons) have a frequency, they do not exist at any 1 unit of time, the electron, for example, is an (oscillating) event that occurs over time. Time is 1 of the dimensions of the electron.

For example, if 1 unit of time (1 increment to age) is a 'frame', then the electron is a 'movie'. It takes about 1023 units of time (increments to age) to make 1 electron (1 frame does not a movie make).

The quantum scale is the scale at which we find our electrons and photons. This also means that we cannot interpret the Planck scale using quantum theories, rather the reverse, we must add a time dimension to Planck scale events to interpret the quantum scale.

If electrons are events that occur over time (they have a frequency), then we too do not exist at unit time, we too are the sum of many (discrete Planck scale) events averaged over time.

Gravity is an example (see Gravity), at the Planck scale there is no gravity (just rotating orbital pairs), the gravitational orbits that we observe are also the averaging, over time, of events that occur at the Planck scale. There is no need for a gravitational force as we understand it, furthermore there cannot be a bending of space-time as a prerequisite if 'gravitational' events occur at unit time.


Links - The Programmer God

A general introduction to the Programmer God thesis that expands on this section.

The model covers much of physics for I have tried to show that a Planck scale universe model is feasible, that it can explain subjects such as gravity, relativity ... The eBook is an attempt to give a non-mathematical overview of the complete model.


Physical units from Mathematical structures

The biggest problem with any mathematical universe approach is constructing a physical reality (the physical dimensions of mass, space and time) from mathematical structures. Our computer games may be able to simulate our physical world, but they are still simulations of a physical reality. The 1999 film The Matrix and the ancestor simulation both still begin with a physical level (a base reality), the planet earth. The following describes how the Programmer God approach may resolve this crucial problem.

It is proposed that the basic constructs of our universe; Mass M, length L, time T and charge A, could be geometrical objects at the Planck scale (i.e.: these objects do not simply represent these units, they are these units, the function; mass, length, time ... is built into the geometry itself).

Furthermore, these objects are not independent, for example, M exhibits mass-ness in conjunction with L length-ness and T time-ness. This arrangement means that, for example, the length object L can combine with the time object T to form a complex object V which is velocity (V = L/T), while still maintaining the underlying attributes of length and time, and so we can construct a universe Lego-style by combining simple geometrical objects to form more complex geometrical objects (such as electrons and planets).

This however necessitates that the object for length L be able to interact with the objects for time T and mass M and charge A ..., which infers that there must be some relationship between their respective geometries, and indeed we can find what appears to be a numerical relationship (kg equates to 15, s to -30 ... see unit number in the table below). 

Physics has a set of parameters used to define the universe; such as the speed of light, the strength of gravity ..., these are often referred to as fundamental constants as they cannot be reduced to more fundamental structures.

The 26th General Conference on Weights and Measures (2019 redefinition of SI base units) assigned exact numerical values to 4 physical constants (h, c, e, kB) independently of each other (and thereby confirming these as fundamental constants), and as they are measured in units (kgmsC, ...) these units must also be independent of each other (i.e.: fundamental units).

However, if these constants are interrelated via this unit number relationship, then they cannot all be fundamental constants, and so science cannot independently assign them numerical values. 



The numerical value of mass object M = 1, the SI equivalent is Planck mass = 2.18 x10-8 kg. Therefore to convert from M to Planck mass we can use a scalar k = 2.18 x10-8 kg where M*k = Planck mass.
M * k = 1 * 2.18 x10-8 kg = 2.18 x10-8 kg

We can assign to each object a scalar; mass k, time t, length l, velocity v, ampere a. The scalars have both the numerical conversion factor (for k = 2.18 x10-8) and the units (for k = kg). The unit number is denoted by θ.

The speed of light c = 299792458 m/s or c = 186200 miles/s ... i.e.: the numerical value of the speed of light depends on the units we use, kilometers or miles.

Likewise, if we were to meet aliens, they would write the speed of light in terms of their units, according to their numbering system, and so the numbering system and units are simply measurement systems, light continues to travel at the same velocity regardless of how we, and the aliens, measure it.

It is proposed that these geometrical MLTVA objects are used by the universe itself, they are built into the simulation source code, and so are 'universal' and independent of any numbering system or units. As example, the reason we can use c = 299792458 m/s or  c = 186200 miles/s to measure the speed of light is because embedded within our c is this geometrical object V, which is the real speed of light. Because this V is the geometry of Omega, and Omega has a numerical solution, Omega = 2.007134949, we can assign a numerical value to V = 2πΩ= 25.312....

To this V, we then add scalar v;

v = 11843707.905 m/s such that 

c = V*v = 299792458 m/s

or scalar v = 7356.08 miles/s such that
c = V*v = 186200 miles/s.

Aliens will also have a value for the speed of light but in alien units, and so their scalar v will not resemble our v (in miles or meters). But for aliens and humans alike, object V will be the same. 

The premise is that these MLTVA geometrical objects are used by the universe itself, they are the constructs of mass, space and time. The V term doesn't measure the speed of light, it is that quantity that bestows what we measure as the speed of light, the scalar v is just a conversion factor that we (and aliens) can use. We need a conversion factor because objects such as L or T are too small for daily use, the units that we use, such as seconds or feet or meters, are much more practical than these MLTA units (i.e.: 1 meter, a human size unit, is 6200000000000000000000000000000000 units of length L).

If we set our scalar v = xxx m/s then our c = V*xxx m/s. If the aliens set their scalar v = 1@#$/^%$ then their c = V@#$/^%$. If we could eliminate the scalar v then c = V, this would apply for humans and aliens alike, this we can do, and so with this common language, we now have a means to communicate with aliens.


Can we use these objects to communicate with Aliens

Arrival is a 2016 American science fiction film in which extraterrestrials communicate using patterns.

Speed of light c = object * scalar v. Planck mass = object M * scalar k ... and so on. If we simply add scalars to each of our MLTA objects then we have achieved nothing of value. However each scalar is not just a numerical value, but also includes a unit (v has units m/s or miles/s), and so they follow that unit number relationship, i.e.: the scalar v unit number θ = 17, k unit number θ = 15 ... and this is how the Programmer constructs a physical universe.

This is because, via this unit relationship, we can define each scalar in terms of other scalars, and then we find that we need only 2 scalars to define all other scalars. For example, the unit number for a = 3, l = -13 and t = -30, and so 3*3 + -13*3 = -30 = t, this then means that if I know the numerical values for scalar a and scalar l then I know the numerical value for scalar t, and if I know t and l then I know the value for k etc.

This means that we need only 4 numbers (α, Ω and any 2 scalars) to derive the Planck units (for that system of units defined by the scalars). In this table we derive scalars k, t, l, a in terms of r and v, and so if we know the numerical values for r and v (α, Ω have fixed values), then we can solve the Planck units, and from these the constants G, h, c, e, me, kB for any chosen set of units.

We can go 1 step further, and find combinations of the constants where the scalars (r, v) cancel. This would then leave us with only the 2 dimensionless constants α and Ω, which means that these combinations are also dimensionless fX structures, and so solving these combinations will return the same numerical values whether we are using terrestrial units or alien units, because of course, sans scalars, we are simply combining the MLTVA object equivalents, without scalars the MLTVA objects are the system of units we, the aliens, and the universe itself, are all using. The electron, a dimensionless combination of MLTA objects, is an example.

This then can be applied as a test of our MLTA objects, if they are in fact the units used by the universe itself, then the numerical values will be the same whether we are using our SI constants or the MLTVA equivalents, and as we see in the table below, they are.

In column 1., I use the values taken from CODATA (the generally accepted values) and in column 2., I solve using MLTVA geometries. As the scalars have cancelled, the values are the same thus confirming the validity of the MLTA objects (column 1 is column 2). The least precise results are obtained when using the least precise constants; G and kB. Tables taken from the wiki site (physical constant anomalies, link below).

Are these physical constant anomalies evidence we are in a simulation?
wiki: Physical constants (anomalies)

However we may wish to solve dimensioned constants, and for this we will need the 2 dimensioned scalars. Here are the constants solved using alpha, Omega and scalars r, v.

We can test with different sets of units. The following calculator uses as inputs scalars for the speed of light v and Planck mass k; 2 fundamental units. It then solves the fundamental physical constants based on those 2 scalars. If we feed in the alien scalars for (v, k), then the calculator will return the alien values for those constants.


Do the physical constants embed evidence we are in a simulation?

In summary, at our macro-level, the dimensions of mass, length (distance), time and charge (amperes), represented by the units kg, m, s and A, are independent of each other (we cannot measure the distance from Tokyo to London using pounds or kilograms or amperes). The units appear to be distinct (mass cannot be confused with length or time), the independence of these units then becoming an inviolable rule, as every high school science student can attest (the units must always add up!). 

Indeed, what characterizes a physical universe as opposed to a simulated universe is the notion that there is a fundamental structure underneath, that in some sense mass is, time is and space is … thus we cannot write kg or s in terms of m.

To do so would totally render our concepts of a physical mass, space and time meaningless.

A simulation universe however is required (in sum total) to be unit-less (units = 1), for the simulated universe does not 'exist' in any physical sense outside of 'the computer'.

Evidence therefore that the units do overlap and in certain defined combinations cancel, rendering our sum universe unit-less (as described above in the section on scalars), could therefore be construed as evidence that we are in a deep-universe (Programmer God) simulation.

This is because, in a physical universe there cannot be such a unit number relationship, indeed, as noted above, it is for this very reason that these physical constants (G, h, e, me, kB) can be designated as fundamental.

J. Barrow and J. Webb on the physical constants; 'Some things never change. Physicists call them the {constants of nature}. Such quantities as the velocity of light, c, Newton's constant of gravitation, G, and the mass of the electron, me are assumed to be the same at all places and times in the universe. They form the scaffolding around which theories of physics are erected, and they define the fabric of our universe. Physics has progressed by making ever more accurate measurements of their values. And yet, remarkably, no one has ever successfully predicted or explained any of the constants. Physicists have no idea why they take the special numerical values that they do. In SI units, c is 299,792,458; G is 6.673e-11; and me is 9.10938188e-31 -numbers that follow no discernible pattern. The only thread running through the values is that if many of them were even slightly different, complex atomic structures such as living beings would not be possible. The desire to explain the constants has been one of the driving forces behind efforts to develop a complete unified description of nature, or "theory of everything". Physicists have hoped that such a theory would show that each of the constants of nature could have only one logically possible value. It would reveal an underlying order to the seeming arbitrariness of nature.'
-J. Barrow, J. Webb, Scientific American 292, 56 - 63 (2005)


The electron that isn't

This model is based on a formula for the electron fe. This formula (fe = 4π2r3) resembles the geometrical formulas for the surface area of a 4-axis hyper-sphere or the volume of a torus. The π term embeds time object T (T = π = 3.14159...) and the radius embeds the objects AL (Ampere * Length). Note, the unit for AL is the ampere-meter, and this is the unit for the magnetic monopole.

The Up quark carries 2/3rd equivalence of an electron charge, the Down quark carries 1/3rd. An AL magnetic monopole carries 1/3rd of an electron charge - by adding the exponents (AL)(1+1+1). We could therefore speculate on the resemblance between quarks and magnetic monopoles, however the electron formula denotes a perfectly spherical geometry, and without fracture points it would be difficult to break it up in order to expose any underlying 'quark/monopole' sub-structure.

If we could put a positron (anti-matter electron) inside a (geometrical) cage, then we could turn them into protons. If so, then there would be exactly the same number of protons as electrons in the universe, and the proton would have an identical charge to the electron, albeit of inverse sign. It would also solve the missing anti-matter problem (its not missing).

Solving this formula (fe = 0.2389 x 1023), suggests that after 0.2389 x 1023 units of (Planck) time, the AL objects (the magnetic monopole electric state) intersects with the time object T, and they cancel. We can call this the mass state, the object for mass M = 1 (it is a point, but without size for there is no length L).

And so for this 1 unit of time, the 'electric' electron is gone. Instead we have 'mass'.

The universe clock ticks (age increments) and the AL (electric state) returns. The electron is an event that oscillates over time between this magnetic monopole AL electric (wave) state (duration dictated by fe) to a mass (point) state (duration 1 unit of time).

This formula fe (the 'electron') therefore contains all the information needed to give us the electron parameters, those Planck units (which are embedded within) and their frequency (this wave-state to point-state oscillation).

Notably also, mass is not a constant property of the particle, rather the electron mass that we measure is the frequency of occurrence of these units of Planck mass when averaged over time. This means that we can measure the energy of the electron by the frequency f of the wave-state using E=hf or the frequency m of the mass state using E=mc2, however as for each wave-state there is a mass point-state; hf=mc2.

Electron parameters as a function of fe and the Planck unit objects MTLA.

* In standard physics the electron is a subatomic particle ... but it is not clear to physics what a particle is, we find the following definitions;
a particle itself could be a collapsed wave function or a quantum excitation of a field or an irreducible representation of the Poincaré group or a vibrating string or a thing measured in a detector (-wiki).

** In the vision of quantum mechanics (in the formulas physics use), the electron is considered as a point particle with no volume and no size (-google).

*** ChatGPT (AI chatbox): According to current scientific understanding, the electron is a point-like particle, meaning that it is a very small object that is effectively a point in space and has no size ... While it is possible to imagine such an object in a purely theoretical sense, there is no evidence to suggest that objects without size actually exist in the physical world ... it is possible that the electron could be considered a mathematical particle. This is because, if it is indeed a dimensionless point, then it would have no physical size or shape, and its properties and behavior would be described by mathematical equations rather than physical characteristics.

And so, although the parameters of the electron are well studied, the existence of the actual electron itself cannot be measured, or tested. Science cannot say what the electron itself is, and so it is inferred (by its parameters). For physics, the existence of the electron, like God, is a matter of faith.


Links - mass, space, time

Planck units from a mathematical electron



There are 3 modes of time.
1) Universe time, the simulation clock-rate. It is a dimensionless incrementing counter, here this variable is labeled age.

   initialise parameters
   FOR age = 1 TO the-end
     conduct certain processes
   NEXT age

2) The second. For every increment to the universe clock, a dimensioned object T is generated. This T is analogous to 1 unit of Planck time and so can be measured in seconds. And so the universe clock (that dimensionless incrementing counter age) numerically equates to, but is not the same as, the dimensioned Planck time object T (whose unit is the second).

   initialise parameters
   FOR age = 1 TO the-end
     create 1 object (time T = π, unit = s)
   NEXT age

3) Observer time. For the observer, time equates to a change in state, if life was a movie then the incrementing counter age would indicate the number of frames, object time T would represent each physical frame, but we, as actors in this movie, would only be able to detect motion (a change of state). If the Gods pressed the pause button on our movie, our time would stand still, although we could not know this. If for several frames (increments to age) there was no movement (null frames), then we would not register time passing. Only when the frames have different information can we register time.

wiki: Simulation time


Gravitational and atomic orbitals

According to conventional wisdom, the moon orbits the earth, this is called a gravitational orbit, and it can be calculated precisely. There is a problem however, no one knows what gravity is. Actually there are more problems, how to reconcile with quantum theories ... Of course, as with the electron, physics is also assuming there is a gravity.

I have argued that particles such as electrons are characterized by an (electric) wave-state to (mass) point-state oscillation. One of the dimensions of the electron therefore is time, the electron is an event that occurs over time (this oscillation). And as planets are made of particles, then planets too are events that occur over time.

The particle mass point-state has defined coordinates, the particle wave state not, and so if we could freeze time, we would not see a solid earth, but instead a series of points concentrated around a certain region of space (the waves might blur our picture). At the next unit of time we will see a different set of points, but also in that defined region of space (our planet earth). This is because, at any unit of Planck time, some particles are in the wave state and some in the mass state, and this keeps changing (as particles oscillate between the 2 states). What we perceive as a solid earth is the averaging over time of all these events that are occurring at the Planck scale.

This means that there is no gravity force between the earth and moon, because at the Planck scale there is no earth or moon, just points and waves concentrated around 2 regions of space. At unit (Planck) time, all the points in the earth form a link with all the points in the moon, and so we have a network of point-to-point (particle-to-particle) pairs which then rotate 1 unit of Planck length (per unit of Planck time). The observed orbit of the earth and moon is the sum of these gravitational particle-to-particle orbital pairs when averaged over time.

The points are particles in the mass state and so gravity is associated with mass. In the atom we use the wave state, however the formulas are the same for atomic orbitals as they are also gravitational orbitals. There is no need to reconcile gravity with the quantum for at the Planck scale there is no distinction. The mass point state seldom occurs, most of the time the particle is in the wave-state, and so gravity appears weak accordingly, actually per unit time, gravity is stronger, it is equivalent to the strong force.

As there is no earth-moon orbit per se, we don't need Newton's gravitational constant G, and we don't have a center of mass so we don't have a barycenter. We just have this n-body universe wide network of particle to particle orbital pairs. If we plot these over time, then we will see moons orbiting planets and planets orbiting suns.

Our world does not exist at Planck time.

Gravitational and atomic orbitals
wiki: Quantum gravity (Planck)


The singularity and the celestial hard disk

A black-hole has a surface in 3-D space but no physical interior - this is defined as a singularity, it is where the laws of physics break down. This singularity is characterized by mass, a Planck size black-hole would therefore include a unit of Planck mass.

Characters in our computer games are simply 1's and 0's. They may be able to study the physics of their 1's and 0's world (which is the software that defines the game), but they would have no means to study the hard disk upon which their game resides, for that is an electro-magnetic device independent of their data world. A data address on that hard disk would be the interface - the region where their game world ends and the hard-disk begins.

If a particle oscillates between an electric wave-state to Planck mass point state, then the particle has mass. A photon has only the wave-state and so no mass. The photon travels at the speed of light whereas the particle doesn't move (unless pushed). We could then propose that this mass point-state is the center of the particle, around which that wave-state revolves. A particle would have a single unit of Planck mass = 1 data address, a massive black hole would be akin to an entire hard disk sector.

And so could this particle Planck mass point-state be a singularity, a single data address on the celestial 'hard disk' upon which our simulation universe resides, the interface between our mathematical 'data' simulation world with its laws of physics and the 'electro-magnetic hard disk' world of the Gods?


The geometry of particle half-life

Can particle half-life be explained by the particle geometry?


Relativity as the mathematics of perspective

The mathematics of perspective is a technique used to project a 3-D image onto a 2-D screen (i.e.: a photograph or a landscape painting), using the same approach here would implement a 4-axis expanding hyper-sphere super-structure within which 3-D space is the projection.

An expanding 4-axis hyper-sphere can be used to replace independent particle motion (momentum) with motion as a function of the expansion itself. As the universe expands, it pulls all particles along with it. This means that all particles and objects (including us) are travelling at, and only at, the speed of this expansion, which is the speed of light (in hyper-sphere co-ordinates). There is only velocity c (the universe expands 1 unit of Planck length lp per unit of Planck time tp per increment to the simulation clock age whereby c = lp/tp).

As photons (the electromagnetic spectrum) have no mass state, they cannot be pulled along by the universe expansion (consequently they are date stamped, as it takes 8 minutes for a photon to travel from the sun, that photon is 8 minutes old when it reaches us), and so photons would be restricted to a lateral motion within the hyper-sphere.

As the electromagnetic spectrum is the principal source of information regarding the environment, a 3-D relative space would be observed (as a projected image from within the 4-axis hyper-sphere), the relativity formulas can then be used to translate between the (expanding in Planck increments) hyper-sphere co-ordinates and our 3-D space co-ordinates.

Programming relativity using the mathematics of perspective
wiki: Relativity_(Planck)


The little Big Bang

The big bang presumes that the entire universe was concentrated into a single point, time began with the big bang and the universe has been expanding since, but it is still a closed system.

The dimensionless electron formula embeds all the information it needs, that includes the Planck units themselves. Let us suppose there is a dimensionless Planck 'particle' formula funiverse which also embeds the Planck units, along with any other information as required. Let us further suppose that with each increment to the clock-rate, 1 Planck funiverse 'particle' is added to our universe. This formula then breaks up and the Planck units emerge (as we find with the electron formula), forming a Planck unit scaffolding to our universe.

   initialise parameters
   FOR age = 1 TO the-end
     add 1 funiverse 'particle'
         extract 1 object (time T = π)
         extract 1 object (mass M = 1)
         extract 1 object (length L = 2π2Ω2)
   NEXT age

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, this equates to 1062 units of Planck time and so age = 1062 (for each increment to age the universe adds 1 object T (1 unit of Planck time).

As mass and length units are also added proportionately, from age we can also calculate the mass and size of the universe (the universe must grow in size and mass accordingly as we are simultaneously introducing objects M and L with every object T and so the universe is not a closed system).

When we calculate the CMB (cosmic microwave background) parameters for a 14.6 billion year old Planck unit universe (we haven't included particles yet), we find it resembles our 13.8 billion year old universe.

The electron particle fe not only embedded the Planck units, it also determined the wavelength and frequency of the electron (as the electron oscillates from point (no size) to wavelength (maximum size in space) back to point. If we can draw an analogy with this funiverse 'particle', it will not only include the instruction set for our universe (as fe includes all necessary information for the electron), but will also determine the universe wavelength (maximum size of space) and when the universe will end (frequency).

The End

When we calculate the temperature of the universe, we find that it reaches absolute zero (it cannot become colder) when age = 10123, and so the universe cannot grow larger or older. By this time the universe will be uninhabitable, presumably the simulation will be shut down long before this, but the point is that the formula funiverse will include this information as well (if we solve this formula the answer will be 10123, in comparison fe = 1023).

Essentially therefore, we can consider the universe as a particle, with wavelength and frequency, if we can decode this funiverse 'particle' formula, then continuing this analogy, we will anticipate finding embedded within it the electron formula fe along with the information necessary to form protons, neutrons ... and life itself. Furthermore, as it must also be dimensionless, its formula will include the Omega term whereby Ω15*n (where ''n'' is an integer). This is because, as noted earlier, the universe uses a geometrical base-15 instead of binary numbers.


Programming cosmic microwave background parameters for Simulation Hypothesis modeling
wiki: Black-hole_(Planck)

General notes on the physical constants

In the “Trialogue on the number of fundamental physical constants” was debated the number of fundamental dimension units required, noting that "There are two kinds of fundamental constants of Nature: dimensionless alpha and dimensionful (c, h, G). To clarify the discussion I suggest to refer to the former as fundamental parameters and the latter as fundamental (or basic) units. It is necessary and sufficient to have three basic units in order to reproduce in an experimentally meaningful way the dimensions of all physical quantities. Theoretical equations describing the physical world deal with dimensionless quantities and their solutions depend on dimensionless fundamental parameters. But experiments, from which these theories are extracted and by which they could be tested, involve measurements, i.e. comparisons with standard dimensionful scales. Without standard dimensionful units and hence without certain conventions physics is unthinkable".
-Michael J. Duff et al JHEP03(2002)023.

At present, there is no candidate theory of everything that is able to calculate the mass of the electron.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-of-everything (02/2016)

Planck units (m_P, l_p, t_p, ampere A_p, T_P) are a set of natural units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five constants take on the numerical value of G = hbar = c = 1/4pi epsilon_0 = k_B = 1 when expressed in terms of these units. These units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Max Planck wrote of these units; "we get the possibility to establish units for length, mass, time and temperature which, being independent of specific bodies or substances, retain their meaning for all times and all cultures, even non-terrestrial and non-human ones and could therefore serve as natural units of measurements...".
-Uber irreversible Strahlungsforgange. Ann. d. Phys. (4), (1900) 1, S. 69-122

In 1963, Dirac noted regarding the fundamental constants; "The physics of the future, of course, cannot have the three quantities hbar, e, c all as fundamental quantities, {only two of them can be fundamental, and the third must be derived from those two}."
-Dirac, Paul; The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature, June 25, 2010

In the article "Surprises in numerical expressions of physical constants", Amir et al write ... In science, as in life, `surprises' can be adequately appreciated only in the presence of a null model, what we expect a priori. In physics, theories sometimes express the values of dimensionless physical constants as combinations of mathematical constants like pi or e. The inverse problem also arises, whereby the measured value of a physical constant admits a `surprisingly' simple approximation in terms of well-known mathematical constants. Can we estimate the probability for this to be a mere coincidence?
-Ariel Amir, Mikhail Lemeshko, Tadashi Tokieda; 26/02/2016, {Surprises in numerical expressions of physical constants} arXiv:1603.00299 [physics.pop-ph]

"The fundamental constants divide into two categories, units independent and units dependent, because only the constants in the former category have values that are not determined by the human convention of units and so are true fundamental constants in the sense that they are inherent properties of our universe. In comparison, constants in the latter category are not fundamental constants in the sense that their particular values are determined by the human convention of units".
-Leonardo Hsu, Jong-Ping Hsu; {The physical basis of natural units}; Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2012) 127:11

A charged rotating black hole is a black hole that possesses angular momentum and charge. In particular, it rotates about one of its axes of symmetry. In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength. This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.
-Burinskii, A. (2005). {"The Dirac–Kerr electron"}. arXiv:hep-th/0507109

The Dirac Kerr–Newman black-hole electron was introduced by Burinskii using geometrical arguments. The Dirac wave function plays the role of an order parameter that signals a broken symmetry and the electron acquires an extended space-time structure. Although speculative, this idea was corroborated by a detailed analysis and calculation.

Mathematical Platonism is a metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us.
-Linnebo, Øystein, {"Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics"}, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/platonism-mathematics

Mathematical realism holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it. Triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy-of-mathematics (22, Oct 2017).