I’ve always been a big fan of sunsets. I get some really nice ones most evenings in the summer from my current flat but with winter approaching I wanted to try and make something virtual and consistent. One of my goals was that after I got my quest 2 to try and sit coding with a sunset in the background. There are a number of issues on the road to realising that dream in its entirety however I got a long way with watching the sunset over the ocean. Bellow, I present a shader (Code dedicated to programing the shader section of the graphics card pipeline) for a sunset over ocean waves. Ocean waves in deep water are much easier to generate than shallow-water waves as you can get away modelling them as not interacting with anything. That permits an ontogenetic style where you can skip to the future without calculating the intermediate steps. The surface is based on the sums of sin waves which is not true to how water actually moves as it moves in  Gerstner waves . So I based the ...

I have been thinking a lot recently about relativity (Started drafting this post over a year ago). After having made my last post on black holes I have been watching a lot more on general relativity as well as reading lost in Math and The Fabric of the cosmos. The only reason I can consume so much is because audible allows me to listen at up to 3.5x which when played out loud feels very much like the information downloading from the matrix. One comment from this video was that as a result of special relativity, light trapped in a perfectly reflective massless box will act as if it has mass. I haven’t been able to explore this in enough detail to truly understand it but it seems that mass can be an emergent property of the energy. Clearly, this is shown in e=mc^2 but the idea that the mass form of the energy can emerge in the first place.  The other train of thought I have been playing with is the idea that light is the propagation of causality and that causality itself is time. Th...

I have always found the question of where particles come from hard to ignore. It’s a question Feynmen struggled to answer when his father asked him.* I recently read a book; Something Deeply Hidden, whose author, Sean Carroll advocates the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In his opinion, many-worlds satisfies Occam's razor by being the simplest interpretation. He argues that because the equations of quantum mechanics can be interpreted directly with no additions for the no collapse of the wave function by an observer. He argues that the many-worlds interpretation doesn't need to explain the observer problem because it isn't there. By requiring nothing more than the fundamental equations themself the interpretation is the simplest. You might question here that if there is no collapse of the wave function when an observation takes place, why do we see an experimental difference between when (taking the double-slit experiment as an example) we observe one slit ...

I recently got a request from a friend to write a post on why this is obviously silly. I’m actually not sure why it is that silly. So if you take two diagrams both showing circles orbiting circles and you are told that one is the thing that contains us and the other is the thing that makes us, it isn’t too hard a stretch of the imagination to point at a circle in one image and ask if there is an analogous circle in the other image. I believe this skill of analogy is one of the things that facilitates human ingenuity.  For, by analogy, you could then think; if one and another is alike perhaps the pattern continues. After all what are those circles in the diagram of an atom made of? Could they too be made of smaller things? This is similar to looking at the map of the world and asking “Did those two ever fit together?” It’s worth mentioning here a favourite quote of mine: (One of my fav quotes) “All models are wrong but some are useful”...

I must premise this post with the fact that my formal physics education ended at sixth form and that these topics are gathered from online articles, discussion with friends and a lot of youtube videos. I hope that if there are errors, they are with my axioms and not my logic but the statements I make and sources I reference should be taken with a pinch of salt. I have recently been reading about the entropic theory of gravity and the idea that gravity could be an emergent property is fascinating! I have thought for a long time, talking about it at school, that there might be some fundamental logical underlying physics. What I mean by that is that if you look deep enough into maths you can derive the laws of physics. That the constants have to be that way because they are derived from mathematical laws rather than observation. This is my version of the “ Mathematical Universe Hypothesis ”. That the universe isn’t just described by mathematics it is mathematics. I don’t believe ...