This is the final chapter of the book.

Topics discussed are:
Schrodinger's cat

Program used SHAKE and FGALAXY


The central theme of this book is to describe the reality as accurate as possible. The more accurate we describe the reality the better is our understanding i.e. an accurate description and improved understanding are equivalent.

A second theme of this book is that the reality is independent of human existence. The planet Mercury behaves the same if life exists, yes or not.

A third theme of this book is that it is possible to simulate the movement of the planet Mercury based on the following "assumptions":
Newton's Law
Propagation of gravity takes "time"
The influence of the other planets.
The eccentricity of the Sun.
The movement of Sun through space

The simulations reflect the movement of the planet Mercury in 3 dimensional absolute space at fixed intervals.

They don't show what an observer sees. To simulate what an observer sees (the view from an observer) you have to select a point in space (which identifies the position of the observer) and take the time that it takes for light (photons) to reach the observer into account. This time period is equal to the distance between the position of an object (i.e. Mercury) and the position of the observer divided by the speed of light. This is similar as the view of the train shown in yellow in thought experiment 1 and 2. What an observer sees is an image of his or her reality, not the reality.

The question of course is how true are the simulations. Are they an exact copy of the reality. i.e. what is the error between simulations and the reality. This prove is the most difficult question, much more difficult then the simulations. To answer that question you, must know the exact position of the Sun and the planets at fixed intervals i.e. the mass (or energy) distribution in absolute space. To find those positions you have to be careful.

Be aware of the following: In order to measure a position (distance) of an object you use light and a clock. i.e. you measure the time period (t) it takes to send a signal to the object and until you receive an echo. The distance is then:

c * t / 2
(forgetting the relative motion between the two)

Next what is the speed of light c and how do we measure t ? To measure the speed of light you must know a distance and you again need a clock. For the distance you must take a distance on earth. On the other hand: speed of light is a constant. As long as you take the same value within all your calculations you are okay.

What about the clock in order to measure t. Any clock will behave the same (i.e. its frequency will not change) as long as its speed will stay the same. This means if you do all your measurements with the same clock on Earth (at the same position) you are okay (assuming the Earth moves in a circle around the Sun).

For example a clock on Mercury is can not used, because the speed of Mercury changes.

The next step in your prove is to measure the distance between you the Sun and the planets (and possible all the other stars) at different instances necessary to create a three dimensional image (first from your position and then in absolute space ) of the movement of each of those objects. Using the "assumptions" at the beginning of this paragraph it then is possible to (back) calculate the mass of each of the objects.

In the final step you can do a simulation of the behaviour of the planet Mercury and "see" if and how the long axis behaves (moves forward) in centuries.


In this book computer simulations are used to make the reality visible. You can raise the question if it is possible with a (most powerful) computer to simulate the whole reality accurate using a computer.

One answer is No. The heat generated by the computer during the time that the computer calculates the reality invalidates this simulation.

In order to do such a simulation you must of course know an algorithm (or a set of algorithms or a set of laws) that describes the reality accurately.

The question then is: how do you prove those algorithms.

Perform the program: SHAKE.TXT


Put a dice in a box, close the box, shake the box and put the box on a table. The paradox is that the state of the dice is only known until you have opened the box and looked inside. Before that moment the dice could be in any state i.e. show a value between 1 and 6.

This is a modification of the paradox called "Schrodinger's cat". In the original version the physical effect is a chemical (nuclear or radio active) reaction. In the box there is a clock (Also a modification). As a result of the chemical reaction the clock will stop. The paradox is that the state of the clock is uncertain until you have opened the box and looked inside i.e. is running or has stopped, until you made an observation.

The problem with the paradox is to understand its significance.

What you have there are two things:

A physical effect
Knowledge, information (state of the system) known to the observer.

In my opinion there is (almost) no relation between the two. "Nature" does not care if I look inside the box or if I don't look.

Immediate after you have shaked the box and put the box on the table the value (state) of the dice is fixed. If the box is made of glass you can see the outcome immediate. All of this is independent of any observation.

In the case of a nuclear or radio active reaction this is slightly different. Radio active reactions depend on the amount of radio activity in the area, the amount of radio activity (or shielding) of the observer and the time between, when you put the clock in the box and when you open the box. The higher the radio activity of the surroundings and the longer you put the clock in the box the greater the chance that the clock has stopped.

But one thing is sure immediate after the clock has stopped for an observer opening or not opening of the box is independent of the outcome of the experiment.

All in all is there really a question of a paradox ?

In the original version there was a cat in the box, which can die. Maybe that is the important difference, but I have my doubts.


Take a tire of a car, put a ball in the inside the tire and start shaking the tire, such that the ball start rolling within the tire. The question is now what is the position of the ball. You don't know exactly. That does not mean that the position of the ball is uncertain. At each moment the ball has an exact position.

However there is more: if you want to know the position of the ball, it does not matter which method you use always you will disturb the object. If you press against the band to feel its position you will change the trajectory of the ball slightly.

It is like measuring the water temperature. When you put the thermometer in the water a little bit of the heat of the water will flow to the thermometer meaning that the water temperature will slightly drop.

The rule is even more general: what ever you want to know, you always have to disturb the object of which you want to know something, implying that you will never know something exactly.

For the ball inside a car tire this is true for both the position and the speed.

There are two additional problems with uncertainty.

The first one is to give a value to uncertainty i.e. to declare uncertainty as absolute. The only thing you can say (exactly) is that the ball is somewhere within the tire. When the ball has the same size as the inner size of the tire you can be more precise. The problem starts when you increase the radius of the tire and you want to know the position of the ball with the same accuracy, now uncertainty increases.

A second problem is to develop additional concepts based on uncertainty. (In most cases without defining uncertainty). One theory is to define (some type of) creation based on uncertainty. Particles can annihilate i.e. disappear from our observation, or appear and become visible (measurable), but that does not mean, that there is question of creation. The first step is to define creation. Maybe creation does not exist because there is always something.


At the beginning of thought experiment 4 "A duel in the mist" there exists chaos because the participants don't know where the others are i.e. they behave randomly. In order to reduce chaos they receive a bell, now each one knows approximate where the others are and the "experiment" can start equally.

In the program MERCURY and specific in the simulation of the Earth around the Sun it is explained how important initial conditions are. The reason is because the time of each revolution of the Earth around the Sun is independent in which direction the Sun moves and should always be the same (Assuming the Earth moves in a circle). The revolution time is specific independent of the start position of your simulation.

The first results of the simulation of the Earth around the Sun show, that start conditions (angle phi) have an influence on the revolution time. In the second part of the simulation, after modifications to the initial positions (calculations), the results show the same revolution time independent of the start conditions. As such "chaos" is reduced.

In the simulation of Mercury around the Sun the same start conditions (calculations) are used, in order to minimise the influence of wrong initial positions.

Many chemical processes are cyclic. With cyclic I mean that the process goes through a number of states and returns back to its initial state. Human life is such a process. It starts with birth and finishes with dead. Also the behaviour of the planets is cyclic.
For all those processes the initial conditions are important. But what is more important are the values of the parameters and the algorithms used in describing those processes. If the parameters, algorithms or equations are wrong, then the simulations based on those, are also wrong.

If the mass (distribution) of the Sun or any of the planets is wrong, then the simulation is wrong.

Perform the program: FGALAXY.TXT

Return back to INDEX.TXT