virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

Programming Planck units from a virtual (black-hole) electron; a Simulation

Hypothesis
Malcolm J. Macleod
maclem@platoscode.com

The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of reality is an artificial simulation. In this article I describe a
programmable simulation method that constructs the Planck units as geometrical forms derived from a virtual
electron fe ( fe = 4π2 r3 ; r = 26 3π2 αΩ5 , units = 1), itself a function of 2 unit-less mathematical constants; the
fine structure constant α and Ω = 2.0071349496... The Planck units are embedded in fe according to these
ratios; M 9 T 11 /L15 , (AL)3 /T ... units = 1; giving geometries mass M=1, time T=2π, velocity V = 2πΩ2 , length
L=2π2 Ω2 ... We can thus for example create as much mass M as we wish but with the proviso that we create
an equivalent space L and time T in accordance with these ratio. The 5 SI units kg, m, s, A, K are replaced by
a single unit u that defines the relationships between the SI units; kg = u15 , m= u−13 , s = u−30 , A = u3 ... The
units for u are sqrt(velocity/mass). To convert from base (Planck) geometries to their respective SI numerical
values requires 2 dimensioned scalars with which we can then solve the SI physical constants G, h, e, c, me , kB .
Results are consistent with CODATA 2014 (see table, numerical scalars k, v from mP and c). The rationale
for the virtual electron was derived via the sqrt of Planck momentum and a black-hole electron model as a
function of magnetic-monopoles AL and time T. In summary we can reproduce both the physical constants
G, h, e, c, me , kB and the SI units kg, m, s, A, K via a this virtual electron using 2 mathematical constants (α, Ω),
2 dimensioned scalars (whose numerical values depend on the system of units used) and 1 dimensioned unit u.

Table 1 Calculated∗ (α, Ω, k, v) CODATA 2014

Speed of light V = 299792458 u17 c = 299792458
Permeability µ0 ∗ = 4π/107 u56 µ0 = 4π/107
Rydberg constant R∞ ∗ = 10973731.568 508 u13 R∞ = 10973731.568 508(65) [15]
Planck constant h∗ = 6.626 069 134 e-34 u19 h = 6.626 070 040(81) e-34 [16]
Elementary charge e = 1.602 176 511 30 e-19 u−27
∗
e = 1.602 176 6208(98) e-19 [19]
Electron mass m∗e = 9.109 382 312 56 e-31 u15 me = 9.109 383 56(11) e-31 [17]
Boltzmann’s constant k∗B = 1.379 510 147 52 e-23 u29 kB = 1.380 648 52(79) e-23 [22]
Gravitation constant G∗ = 6.672 497 192 29 e-11 u6 G = 6.674 08(31) e-11 [21]

keywords: computer universe, virtual universe, mathematical universe, simulated universe, sqrt Planck
momentum, Planck unit, magnetic-monopole, fine structure constant alpha, Omega, black-hole electron;

1 Background t p , Planck length l p , Planck charge AQ , Planck temperature

The general universe simulation hypothesis proposes that all
of reality, including the earth and the universe, is in fact an
artificial simulation, analogous to a computer simulation, and
as such our reality is an illusion [2].
Mathematical platonism is a metaphysical view that there
are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is indepen-
dent of us [1]. 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 [3].
Max Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Our
external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is,
the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense,
and ”in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware
substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as
existing in a physically ’real’ world” [10].
Planck units (defined here Planck mass mP , Planck time
T P ) are a set of units of measurement also known as natural
units because the origin of their definition comes only from
properties of nature and not from any human construct.
2 The virtual universe
Mathematical universe hypotheses presume that our physical
universe has an underlying mathematical origin. The princi-
pal difficulty of such hypotheses lies in the problem of con-
structing physical units such as mass, space and time from
their respective mathematical forms.
This article describes a mathematical universe model that
is based on a virtual electron ( fe = 4π2 r3 ; r = 26 3π2 αΩ5 )
from which the Planck units can be derived as geometrical
forms. The fine structure constant α, π and a recurring con-
stant Ω are dimensionless mathematical constants, thus the
electron formula fe is also a mathematical constant, and as
such has a numerical solution that is independent of the sys-
tem of units used ( fe = 0.2389545x1023 ).

1 2 The virtual universe

 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

From this electron formula we can derive the Planck units 2πQ2 q2
Fp = , units = (5)
as geometrical forms; mass M=1, time T=2π, velocity V = tp s
2πΩ2 , length L=2π2 Ω2 ... (4.1).
3.2. The charge constants in terms of Q3 , c, α, l p ;
The 5 SI units kg, m, s, A, k are replaced by a single unit
u (5.0) which defines p the relationships between the SI units. 8c3 m3 q3
The units for u are velocity/mass. The functionality of each AQ = , unit A = 3 3 = 3 (6)
αQ 3 q s kg
(Planck) unit is embedded into its α, Ω geometry.
To solve the physical constants in SI terms also requires 8c3 2l p 16l p c2 q3 s
2 scalars to convert from these base geometries to their re- e = AQ t p = . = , units = A.s = 3 (7)
αQ c
3 αQ 3 kg
spective SI values (4.2), i.e.: using the following values for
α, Ω, k, v gives the results in the table (p1) for G, h, c, e, me , kB ; AQ c 8c3 c 8c4 q5
Tp = = . = , units = (8)
k = mP = .2176728175...x10−7 u15 (kg) π αQ3 π παQ3 kg4
v = (2πΩ2 )/c = 11843707.9... u17 (m/s) E p π2 αQ5 kg3
α = 137.035999139 CODATA mean (4.4) kB = = , units = (9)
Tp 4c3 q
Ω = 2.0071349496...; (4.5)
Thus we may construct our physical mass, space and time 3.3. As with c, the permeability of vacuum µ0 has been as-
using 2 dimensionless constants (α, Ω), 2 dimensioned scalars signed an exact numerical value so it is our next target. The
and a single unit u using mathematical forms derived from a ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two
virtual electron. straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible
circular cross section, and placed 1 meter apart in vacuum,
3 Sqrt of Planck momentum would produce between these conductors a force equal to ex-
actly 2.10−7 newton per meter of length.
In this section I introduce the sqrt of momentum as a distinct
Planck unit and use this to link the mass and the charge con- Felectric Fp 1 2πQ2 αQ3 2 παQ8 2
= . 2 = .( 3 ) = = 7 (10)
stants. From the formulas for the charge constants I derive AQ2 α AQ αt p 8c 64l p c5 10
a formula for a magnetic monopole (ampere-meter AL) and
from this a formula for an electron fe . I then argue that fe π2 αQ8 4π kg.m kg6
is dimensionless as the monopole and time units are not in- µ0 = = , units = = 4 (11)
32l p c5 107 s2 A2 q s
dependent but rather overlap, collapsing within the electron
according to this ratio; fe = (AL)3 /T , units = 1. Being di- 3.4. Rewritting Planck length l p in terms of Q, c, α, µ0 ;
mensionless and so independent of any system of units, this
π2 αQ8 q2 s
electron formula is a mathematical constant. lp = , unit = =m (12)
Note: for convenience I use the commonly recognized 32µ0 c5 kg
value for alpha as α ∼ 137.036 3.5. A magnetic monopole in terms of Q, c, α, l p ;
The ampere-meter is the SI unit for pole strength (the
Defining Q as the sqrt of Planck momentum where Planck product of charge and velocity) in a magnet (Am = ec). A
momentum = mP c = 2πQ2 = 6.52485... kg.m/s, and a unit q magnetic monopole σe is a hypothetical particle that is a mag-
whereby q2 = kg.m/s giving; net with only 1 pole [12]. I propose a magnetic monopole σe
from α, e, c (σe = 0.13708563x10−6 );
Q = 1.019 113 411..., unit = q (1)
3α2 ec q5 s
Planck momentum; 2πQ , units = q ,
2 2 σ e = , units = (13)
2π2 kg4
Planck length; l p , units = m = q s/kg,
2

c, units = m/s = q2 /kg; I then use this monopole to construct an electron frequency
3.1. In Planck terms the mass constants are typically defined function fe ( fe = 0.2389545x10 );
23

in terms of Planck mass, here I use Planck momentum; 28 33 α3 l2p c10 33 α5 Q7

σ3e q15 s2
fe = = = , units = (14)
2πQ2 tp π6 Q9 4π2 µ20 kg12
mP = , unit = kg (2)
c
3.6. The most precisely measured of the natural constants is
kg.m2
q 4 the Rydberg constant R∞ (see table) and so it is important to
E p = mP c2 = 2πQ2 c, units = = (3) this model. The unit for R∞ is 1/m. For me see eq(22);
s2 kg
2l p me e4 µ20 c3 25 c5 µ30 1 kg13
tp = , unit = s (4) R∞ = = , units = = 17 3 (15)
c 8h 3 3 πα Q
3 8 15 m q s

2 3 Sqrt of Planck momentum

 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

This however now gives us 2 solutions for length m, see eq(1) most accurate constants; R, c, µ0 , α. I first convert the con-
and eq(15), if they are both valid then there must be a ratio stants until they include a Q15 term which can then be re-
whereby the units q, s, kg overlap and cancel; placed by eq(25). Setting unit x as;

q2 s q15 s2 q17 s3 q15 s2 kg12

m= . 12 = ; thus =1 (16) unit x = =1 (26)
kg kg kg13 kg12 q15 s2

and so we can further reduce the number of units required, for Elementary charge e = 1.602 176 51130 e-19 (table p1)
example we can define s in terms of kg, q;
16l p c2 π2 Q 5 q3 s
6 e= = , units = (27)
kg αQ3 2µ0 c3 kg3
s= (17)
q15/2
π6 Q15 4π5 kg3 s q3 s 3
e3 = = , units = = ( ) .x (28)
kg 6
8µ30 c9 33 c4 α8 R q6 kg3
µ0 = = q7/2 (18)
q4 s
Planck constant h = 6.626 069 134 e-34
3.7. We find that this ratio is embedded in that electron func-
tion fe (eq 14), and so fe is a dimensionless mathematical 4π4 αQ10 q4 s
h = 2πQ2 2πl p = 5
, units = (29)
constant whose function appears to be dictating the frequency 8µ0 c kg
of the Planck units;
4π4 αQ10 3 2π10 µ30 kg21 q4 s 3 2
h3 = ( ) = , units = = ( ) .x
σ3e 15 2
q s 8µ0 c5 36 c5 α13 R2 q18 s kg
fe = ; units = =1 (19) (30)
tp kg12
Boltzmann constant kB = 1.379 510 14752 e-23
Replacing q with the more familiar m gives this ratio;
π2 αQ5 kg3
24 kB = , units = (31)
kg.m 30 kg.m 15 kg 4c3 q
q2 = ; q =( ) = 4 (20)
s s s
π5 µ30 kg21 kg3 3
kg s 9 11 k3B = , units = = ( ) .x (32)
units = =1 (21) 33 2c4 α5 R q18 s2 q
m15
Gravitation constant G = 6.672 497 19229 e-11
Electron mass as frequency of Planck mass:
c2 l p παQ6 q6 s
mP G= = , units = 4 (33)
me = , unit = kg (22) mP 64µ0 c2 kg
fe
π3 µ0 q6 s 5 2
Electron wavelength via Planck length: G5 = , units = kg4 s = ( ) .x (34)
2 36 α11 R2
20 kg4
q2 s
λe = 2πl p fe , units = m = (23) Planck length
kg
π22 µ90 kg81 q2 s 15 8
Gravitation coupling constant: p =
l15 , units = =( ) .x (35)
235 324 c35 α49 R8 90
q s kg
me 2 1
αG = ( ) = 2 , units = 1 (24) Planck mass
mP fe
225 π13 µ60 kg39 1
3.8. The Rydberg constant R∞ = 10973731.568508(65) [15] m15 = , units = kg15
= . (36)
P
36 c5 α16 R2 q30 s4 x2
has been measured to a 12 digit precision. The known preci-
sion of Planck momentum and so Q is low, however with the Electron mass me = 9.109 382 31256 e-31
solution for the Rydberg eq(15) we may re-write Q as Q15 in
terms of; c, µ0 , R and α; 16π10 Rµ3 kg27 1
m3e = 6 8 7 0 , units = kg3 = 30 4 . 2 (37)
3 cα q s x
25 c5 µ3 kg12
Q15 = 3 8 0 , units = 2 = q15 (25) Ampere
3 πα R s
Using the formulas for Q15 eq(25) and l p eq(12) we can re- 210 π33 c10 α3 R q30 s2 q3 5 1
A5Q = , units = = ( ). (38)
write the least accurate dimensioned constants in terms of the µ30 kg27 kg3 x

3 3 Sqrt of Planck momentum

 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

√ p9/2
3.9. (r = q) TV
L= = (2π2 Ω2 ) 5 , unit = u16∗9/2−17∗5=−13 (53)
There is a solution for an r2 = q, it is the radiation density 2 v
constant from the Stefan Boltzmann constant σ; 8V 3 26 π3 Ω3 v3
A= =( ) 3 , unit = u17∗3−16∗3=3 (54)
2π5 k4B 4σ αP 3 α p
σ= , rd = , units = r (39) √
3
15h c 2 c For convenience here I assign r = p, unit u16/2=8

33 4π5 µ30 α19 R2 kg30 1 kg6 V2L r5

rd3 = , units = 36 5 . 2 = 6 = r3 (40) G∗ = = 23 π4 Ω6 2 , u34−13−15=8∗5−17∗2=6 (55)
3
5 c 10 q s x q s M v
4 Base units r13 15+17−13=8∗13−17∗5=19
h∗ = 2πMV L = 23 π4 Ω4 , u (56)
4.1. The formula for the electron fe incorporates dimension- v5
ful quantities but itself is dimensionless. This means that its AV 27 π3 Ω5 v4 3+17=17∗4−6∗8=20
numerical value is a mathematical constant, independent of T P∗ = = , u (57)
π α r6
which set of units we may use; fe = .23895453...x1023 units
= 1. For example we can write the formula for fe in terms of 27 π4 Ω3 r3 3−30=3∗8−17∗3=−27
e∗ = AT = , u (58)
T= t p , A = eT , V = 2l p /T ; α v3
πV M α r10 17+15−3=10∗8−17∗3=29
2
3α AT V 3 1 k∗B = = 5 , u (59)
fe = ( ) = 0.239x1023 , unit = 1 (41) A 2 πΩ v3
2π2 T
πV 2 M α
µ∗0 = = 11 5 4 r7 , u17∗2+15+13−6=7∗8=56 (60)
Because the numerical value is fixed and units = 1, we can αLA 2 2 πΩ
look for other, non SI sets of ATV (AL) units which can also α
0 = 9 3 v2 r7 , u34+56=90
∗−1
(61)
be used to solve fe . In this section I describe the base units 2π
MLTA in terms of a geometrical component constructed from
8π5 k4B α
2 fixed dimensionless mathematical constants; the fine struc- rσ∗ = ( ) = 29 r, u29∗4−19∗3−17∗3=8 (62)
ture constant alpha and a proposed Omega (4.5), from 2 vari-
3
15h c 3 2 15π14 Ω22
able unit-dependent scalars (from the list ktlvpa), and a rela- me 1 v5
R∗ = ( ) = 23 3 11 5 17 9 , u13 (63)
tional unit u that replaces the SI units (kg, m, s, A, k). 4πl p α mP
2 2 3 π α Ω r

M = (1)k, unit = u15 (mass) (42) Scalars r, v were chosen as they can be determined directly
from c, µ0 (eq 49, 60), see table p1;
T = (2π)t, unit = u−30 (time) (43) c
v= (64)
P = (Ω)p, unit = u 16
(sqrt o f momentum) (44) 2πΩ2
V = (2πΩ2 )v, unit = u17 (velocity) (45) 26 π6 Ω4
r7 = (65)
L = (2π2 Ω2 )l, unit = u−13 (length) (46) 57 α
I suggested ratios where units = 1 (eq21). Setting SI Planck
2π Ω 6 3 3
A=( )a, unit = u3 (ampere) (47) unit values whereby M = mP , T = t p , L = l p , A = AQ (4.1);
α
4.2 In the previous section I used 2 base units to define the L15 l15
p (2π2 Ω2 )15 l15
others. In this example I use P, V (p units = u16 , v units = u17 ) 9 11
= 9
= . = 24 π19 Ω30 (66)
M T 11
mP t p (1)9 (2π)11 k9 t11
to derive MLT A and then the physical constants. Scaling p, v
to their SI values gives M=mP , L=l p , T=t p , V=c, P=Q l15 (.20322087−36 )15 u−13∗15
= =1
k9 t11 (.217672818−7 )9 (.171585513−43 )11 u15∗9 u−30∗11
P = (Ω)p, unit = u16 (48) (67)
A3 L3 A3Q l3p (26 π3 Ω3 )3 (2π2 Ω2 )3 a3 l3 220 π14 Ω15
V = (2πΩ2 )v, unit = u17 (49) = = . =
2 2
T tp (α)3 (2π) t α3
2πP p (68)
M= = (1) , unit = u16∗2−17=15 (50)
V v a3 l3 (.1269185923 )3 (.20322087−36 )3 u3∗3 u−13∗3
= = 1 (69)
P9 t (.171585513−43 ) u−30
T 2 = (2πΩ)15 (51)
2πV 12 If we then define MLTA in terms of PV in these ratios, we
p 9/2 find that P and V themselves cancel leaving only the dimen-
T = (2π) , unit = u16∗9/2−17∗6=−30 (52) sionless components. Consequently these ratios are unit-less,
v6

4 4 Base units
 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

it is via this Ω15 configuration that the Planck units may be There is a close sqrt natural number solution for Ω;
constructed.
πe 
r
L30 2180 π210 Ω225 P135 218 π18 P36 2154 π154 Ω165 P99 Ω= = 2.0071 349 5432... (85)
= / . e(e−1)
M T18 22 V 150 V 18 V 132
(70) 4.6. We can numerically solve the physical constants by re-
L30 2 placing the mathematical (c∗ , µ∗0 , R∗ ) with the CODATA mean
= (24 π19 Ω15 ) (71)
18
M T 22 values for (c, µ0 , R) as in section 3.8. We then find there is a
combination of (c∗ , µ∗0 , R∗ ) which reduces to h3 using the for-
6 6
A L 2 V 2 π Ω P 2 π Ω P
18 18 36 42 45 27 14 14 15 9
= . / (72) mulas in 4.2.
T2 α6 P18 V 30 V 12 13
3 4 4r
h ∗
= 2 π Ω , u19 (86)
A6 L6 220 π14 Ω15 2 v5
= ( ) (73)
T2 α3 2π10 (µ∗0 )3
(h∗ )3 = , unit = u57 (87)
4.3. The electron function fe is both unit-less and non scalable 36 (c∗ )5 α13 (R∗ )2
v0 r0 u0 = 1. It is therefore a natural (mathematical) constant.
Likewise with the other dimensionful constants, we note that
2
3α AL 3 these equations are equivalent to section 3.8;
5r
σe = = 2 7
3π 3
αΩ , u −10
(74)
π2 v2 4π5
(e∗ )3 = , unit = u−81 (88)
3 (c∗ )4 α8 (R∗ )
σe3
(u )−10 3 3
fe = = 4π (2 3π αΩ ) , units = −30 = 1
2 6 2 5 3
(75)
T u
π5 (µ∗0 )3
(k ∗ 3
) = , unit = u87 (89)
5v
2 4
3α T P B 3 2(c∗ )4 α5 (R∗ )
σtp = = 2 3π αΩ 6 , units = u
6 2 20
(76) 3
2π r
π3 (µ∗0 )
(u 20 3
) (G ∗ 5
) = , unit = u30 (90)
fe = t2p σ3tp = 4π2 (26 3π2 αΩ5 )3 , units = 30 2 = 1 (77) 220 36 α11 (R∗ )2
(u )
16π10 (R∗ )(µ∗0 )3
4.4. The Sommerfeld fine structure constant alpha is a di- (m∗e )3 = , unit = u45 (91)
mensionless mathematical constant. The following use a well 36 (c∗ )8 α7
known formula for alpha; 33 4π5 (µ∗0 )3 α19 (R∗ )2
(rd )3 = 3 (c∗ )10
, unit = u24 (92)
5
2h 32l p c 5
α 2
Q 6
1
α= = 2.2πQ2 2πl p . 2 8 . . =α (78)
µ0 e2 c π αQ 256l2p c4 c 5 Unit u
Here I assign a hypothetical β; unit = u and in this example
α 128π4 Ω3 2
α = 2(8π4 Ω4 )/( )( ) (2πΩ2 ) = α (79) use as scalars (r, v).
2 πΩ
11 5 4 α √
2πΩv 2πΩ 2πΩ v
r13 1 v6 1 β = 2πΩa1/3 = 2 = 2/15 1/5 = √ ..., unit = u
scalars = . . . =1 (80) r t k k
v5 r 7 r 6 v (93)
u19 1
units = =1 (81) i= , unit = 1
u56 (u−27 )2 u17 2π(2πΩ)15
4.5. I have also premised a 2nd mathematical constant which r17 u8∗17
j= , unit = =1
I have denoted Omega. We can find a numerical solution us- v8 u17∗8
ing the precise c∗ , µ∗0 , R∗ ; 23 26 π3 Ω3 v3 3
Ω = 2.0071349496...; A = β3 ( )= , u (94)
α α r6
(c∗ )35 (u17 )35 β6 r5
, units = =1 (82) G= ( j) = 23 π4 Ω6 2 , u6 (95)
(µ∗0 )9 (R∗ )7 (u56 )9 (u13 )7 2π3 2 v
√
R = β ( i j) = Ω r, u8
8 8
(96)
(c∗ )35 α 1
∗ 9 ∗ 7 = (2πΩ ) /( 11 5 4 ) .( 23 3 11 5 17 ) (83)
2 35 9 7
1 v5 13
(µ0 ) (R ) 2 πΩ 2 3π α Ω L−1 = 4πβ13 (i j) = , u (97)
2π2 Ω2 r9
(c∗ )35 r4 15
Ω225 = , units = 1 (84) M = 2πβ15 (i j2 ) = , u (98)
2295 321 π157 (µ∗0 )9 (R∗ )7 α26 v

5 5 Unit u
 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

P = β16 (i j2 ) = Ωr2 , u16 (99) 6 Virtual universe

V = β (i j ) = 2πΩ v, u
17 2 2 17
(100) The electron formula fe can be constructed from ampere-
2β 3 20
2π Ω v
7 3 5 4 meters AL and time T and yet it is a dimensionless (math-
T P∗ = (i j2 ) = , u20 (101) ematical) constant;
πα α r6
fe = (AL)3 /T = 0.239x1023 , units = 1
1 v6 30
T −1 = 2πβ30 (i2 j3 ) = , u (102) This formula has 3 space dimensions L3 and 1 time dimen-
2π r9 sion T . We could then speculate that if the vacuum of our 3-D
π3 αβ56 4 7 α space is electro-magnetic in nature such that it is also a con-
µ∗0 = (i j ) = 11 5 4 r7 , u56 (103)
23 2 π Ω struct of an ampere-meters (AL)3 ‘ether’ instead of an empty
π3 αβ90 6 11 α void measured in L3 meters, then the sum universe may also
0∗−1 = (i j ) = 9 3 v2 r7 , u90 (104) be a dimensionless (mathematical) constant (aka a virtual uni-
23 2π
In SI units; verse) [27];
√ funiverse = X(AL)3 /T , units = 1
v 1 v In the “Trialogue on the number of fundamental physical
a1/3 = = = √ ... = 23326079.1...; unit = u
r2 t2/15 k1/5 k constants” was debated the number, from 0 to 3, of dimen-
(105) sionful units required [5]. Here the answer is both 0 and 1; 0
r17 k17/4 u17∗8 in that the electron, being a virtual particle, has no units, yet
= k t = 15/4 ... = 0.813x10 , units = 8∗17 ... = 1
2 −59
v8 v u it can unfold into the Planck units and these can be decon-
(106)
structed in terms of the unit u = sqrt(velocity/mass), and so in
Combining these unit=1 x, y ratios with unit u, we can derive
terms of the physical universe, being a dimensioned universe
the SI unit equivalents;
(a universe of measurable units) the answer is 1.
r r
M 9 T 11 kg9 s11
x= , units = =1 (107)
L15 m15
7 Notes
y = M 2 T, units = kg2 s = 1 (108)
r In 1963, Dirac noted regarding the fundamental constants;
r
V m ”The physics of the future, of course, cannot have the three
u, units = = (109) quantities ~, e, c all as fundamental quantities. Only two of
M kg.s
them can be fundamental, and the third must be derived from
m3
u3 = = AQ (eq.6) those two.” [25]
q3 s3
u6 ∗ y = m3 /s2 kg (G) In the article ”Surprises in numerical expressions of phys-
ical constants”, Amir et al write ... In science, as in life, ‘sur-
(u8 ∗ y)2 ∗ x = q
prises’ can be adequately appreciated only in the presence
u13 ∗ x ∗ y = 1/m (l−1
p ) of a null model, what we expect a priori. In physics, theo-
u15 ∗ x ∗ y2 = kg (mP ) ries sometimes express the values of dimensionless physical
constants as combinations of mathematical constants like pi
u16 ∗ x ∗ y2 = q (Q) or e. The inverse problem also arises, whereby the measured
u17 ∗ x ∗ y2 = m/s (c) value of a physical constant admits a ‘surprisingly’ simple ap-
proximation in terms of well-known mathematical constants.
u20 ∗ x ∗ y2 = q5 /kg4 (T P , eq.8)
Can we estimate the probability for this to be a mere coinci-
u30 ∗ x2 ∗ y3 = 1/s (t−1
p ) dence? [24]
u56 ∗ x4 ∗ y7 = kg6 /q4 s (µ0 , eq.11)
J. Barrow and J. Webb on the fundamental constants; ’Some
u90 ∗ x6 ∗ y11 = u56 ∗ u17 ∗ u17 (0−1 ) things never change. Physicists call them the constants of
(u13 ∗ x ∗ y)3 nature. Such quantities as the velocity of light, c, Newton’s
T/(AL)3 ; units = =x (110) constant of gravitation, G, and the mass of the electron, me ,
u9 ∗ (u30 ∗ x2 ∗ y3 )
are assumed to be the same at all places and times in the uni-
(u20 ∗ x ∗ y2 )3
T 2 T P3 ; units = = 1/x (111) verse. They form the scaffolding around which theories of
(u30 ∗ x2 ∗ y3 )2 physics are erected, and they define the fabric of our uni-
(u15 ∗ x ∗ y2 )9 ∗ (u13 ∗ x ∗ y)15 verse. Physics has progressed by making ever more accu-
M 9 T 11 /L15 ; units = = x2
(u30 ∗ x2 ∗ y3 )11 rate measurements of their values. And yet, remarkably, no
(112) one has ever successfully predicted or explained any of the
constants. Physicists have no idea why they take the special

6 6 Virtual universe
 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis
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 fol-
low 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 uni-
fied description of nature, or ”theory of everything”. Physi-
cists have hoped that such a theory would show that each of
the constants of nature could have only one logically possi-
ble value. It would reveal an underlying order to the seeming
arbitrariness of nature.’ [6].
At present, there is no candidate theory of everything that
is able to calculate the mass of the electron [23].
”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 fundamen-
tal parameters and the latter as fundamental (or basic) units.
It is necessary and sufficient to have three basic units in or-
der to reproduce in an experimentally meaningful way the di-
mensions of all physical quantities. Theoretical equations de-
scribing the physical world deal with dimensionless quanti-
ties and their solutions depend on dimensionless fundamental
parameters. But experiments, from which these theories are
extracted and by which they could be tested, involve measure-
ments, i.e. comparisons with standard dimensionful scales.
Without standard dimensionful units and hence without cer-
tain conventions physics is unthinkable” -Trialogue [5].
”The fundamental constants divide into two categories,
units independent and units dependent, because only the con-
stants in the former category have values that are not deter-
mined by the human convention of units and so are true fun-
damental constants in the sense that they are inherent prop-
erties 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” -L. and J. Hsu [4].
A charged rotating black hole is a black hole that pos-
sesses angular momentum and charge. In particular, it ro-
tates 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 [26].
The Dirac Kerr–Newman black-hole electron was intro-
duced by Burinskii using geometrical arguments. The Dirac
7 7 Notes
wave function plays the role of an order parameter that sig-
nals a broken symmetry and the electron acquires an extended
space-time structure. Although speculative, this idea was cor-
roborated by a detailed analysis and calculation [8].
Max Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Our
external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is,
the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense,
and ”in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware
substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as
existing in a physically ’real’ world” [10].
Note: This article is an extension of an earlier article [26]
which has been incorporated as section 3.
References
1. Linnebo, Øystein, ”Platonism in the Philosophy of
Mathematics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos-
ophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/platonism-
mathematics
2. Nick Bostrom, Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):243–255
(2003)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy-of-mathematics
(22, Oct 2017)
4. Leonardo Hsu, Jong-Ping Hsu; The physical basis of nat-
ural units; Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2012) 127:11
5. Michael J. Duff et al JHEP03(2002)023 Trialogue on the
number of fundamental constants
6. J. Barrow, J. Webb, Inconstant Constants, Scientific Amer-
ican 292, 56 - 63 (2005)
7. M. Planck, Uber irreversible Strahlungsforgange. Ann. d.
Phys. (4), (1900) 1, S. 69-122.
8. A. Burinskii, Gravitation and Cosmology, 2008, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp. 109–122; Pleiades Publishing, 2008.
DOI: 10.1134/S0202289308020011
9. Feynman, Richard P. (1977). The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, vol. I. Addison-Wesley. p. 22-10. ISBN 0-201-
02010-6.
10. Tegmark, Max (February 2008). ”The Mathematical Uni-
verse”. Foundations of Physics. 38 (2): 101–150.
11. planckmomentum.com/calc/ (online calculator)
12. Magnetic monopole
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-monopole (10/2015)
13. Fine structure constant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure-constant (06/2015)
14. Burinskii, A. (2005). ”The Dirac–Kerr electron”.
arXiv:hep-th/0507109
15. Rydberg constant
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ryd
 virtual black-hole electron and the simulation hypothesis

16. Planck constant

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ha
17. Electron mass
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?me
18. Fine structure constant
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alphinv
19. Elementary charge
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e
20. Vacuum of permeability
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0
21. Gravitation constant
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg
22. Boltzmann constant
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-of-everything
(02/2016)
24. Ariel Amir, Mikhail Lemeshko, Tadashi Tokieda;
26/02/2016
Surprises in numerical expressions of physical constants
arXiv:1603.00299 [physics.pop-ph]
25. Dirac, Paul, The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of
Nature, June 25, 2010
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-
evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/
26. Macleod, Malcolm, A virtual black-hole electron and the
sqrt of Planck momentum,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v9.pdf
27. Macleod, Malcolm; 2017 edition (online), God the Pro-
grammer, the philosophy behind a Virtual Universe,
http://platoscode.com/

8 7 Notes