[The object-oriented (OO) universe] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
The object-oriented (OO) universe
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Paul B. White
I didn't mention it in either of the papers I have posted in this forum, but the simple program developed in these papers is object-oriented (OO). To see this, look at table 3 on page 7 (or table 5 on page 20) in the "Particle Genetics and Expression" paper, posted here.
In effect, each level in the table specifies a "class" definition, which we might label as class 0, class 1, class 2, and class 3. The "variables" for a given class are the combinations of displacements that are available for that level; and we see in the tables that these correspond to "properties". When the different boundary conditions (dependence and independence relations) act on these variables they produce different "behaviors"; so a given set of boundary conditions acting on a given displacement combination is a "method".
Each class "inherits" the variables and methods of its parent class. So class 1 inherits from class 0; class 2 inherits from class 1; and class 3 inherits from class 2. That is, class 2 inherits d0 and the methods that act on it from class 1, and adds the variables d1 and d1d0 and the methods that act on them, thereby creating new behaviors. Class 3 similarly inherits variables and methods from class 2, and also adds some new ones.
The instantiation of any of these classes generates an "object", i.e. a particle. Different types of objects are created at each level (or from each class) due to the different variables and methods that are in effect at that level, but these objects also have properties and behaviors in common due to inheritance.
Accordingly, electrons created at SLAC and CERN are just separate instantiations of class 2; likewise, protons created at SLAC and CERN are separate instantiations of class 3. Though the objects created at these different locations are separate and distinct, the class definitions that generate them are one and the same.
A basic idea of NKS is that the universe is the result of computations performed by a simple program. If this idea is correct, then, just as humans use object-oriented programming (OOP) to achieve maximum coding efficiency, so also it seems likely that nature would use OOP in her Cosmic Code for the same purpose. The fact that the system which I have been explicating has OOP at its core is further evidence that this system may be the cosmic code that we are looking for.
Paul White
BS Physics
Posted by: MikeHelland
Hey Paul!
My research is completely OOP based, so I'm glad you posted this!
(Here's my paper:
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm)
A few comments.
If I understand correctly, your program contains protons as a subclass of more elementary objects.
Here's my suggestion:
Since the proton is made of three quarks bound by a nuclear force, is it possible that the simple program for the Universe doesn't have any code for the proton or even the electromagnetic force;
But instead only rules for quarks and electrons (electrons are more like a quark than a proton), and from the rules for quarks and electrons (quantum chromodynamics) the resulting complexity of those 4 interacting particles (3 quarks and 1 electron) yields composite particles like protons and the electromagnetic force.
In other words, in the program, there is no rule for electromagnetism, but the behavior emerges naturally from nuclear forces.
This of course would be consistent with the standard model of particle physics that stipulates the electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces are actually one in the same.
I use inheritance extensively in real programming work.
It's neat to consider how it can be used in a New Kind of Physics, but I don't think it is necessary here, and that the proper complexity will give the appearance of those different particle classes.
Posted by: Paul B. White
MikeHelland said:
If I understand correctly, your program contains protons as a subclass of more elementary objects.
You basically have the right idea, but actually a proton is an object, not a class. Here's how I would state it: The proton and other baryons are class 3 objects; i.e. they are instantiations of class 3. The electron, muon, and tau are class 2 objects; i.e. they are instantiations of class 2. The photon is a class 1 object; i.e. an instantiation of class 1.
So, yes, the class that yields the proton (and other baryons) is a subclass of the class that yields the electron. And the class that yields the electron is a subclass of the class that yields the photon.
Since the proton is made of three quarks bound by a nuclear force, is it possible that the simple program for the Universe doesn't have any code for the proton...
In my simple program for the universe the answer to that question is "no", because class 3 explicitly gives the code for the proton and other baryons. In that code there are variables and methods which produce three structures internal to the class 3 objects. These substructures are the "quarks". So quarks aren't really fundamental particles in my system, and we don't say that a proton is "made of" quarks; rather, quarks are just the internal structure (or substructure) of class 3 objects, of which the proton is one example.
Section 13 of my "Particle Genetics and Expression" paper introduces level 4, and thus class 4. For objects generated from this class, the quarks themselves should have internal structure; i.e., each quark should have seven subquarks. And if we extended the system to level 5, the subquarks would also have internal structure -- subsubquarks. And so on. Should we then call these subquarks and subsubquarks "fundamental", and say that "objects of class 4 are made of subquarks", and "objects of class 5 are made of subsubquarks"? You see the problem here.
My system does away with the whole concept of "fundamental particle", and replaces it with a hierarchy of fundamental classes, from which all particles are generated. It's these classes (consisting of variables and methods) that are fundamental, not the particles themselves. The particles are just instantiations of the fundamental classes.
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings