Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul N. Butler: on 4/6/11 at 19:03pm UTC, wrote Constantinos, You are ahead of most with your understanding that motion is...

Paul N. Butler: on 3/16/11 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote Peter; Sorry about the long paragraphs. I may not have mastered all of...

Dr. Cosmic Ray,aul N. Butler: on 3/16/11 at 20:28pm UTC, wrote Dr. Cosmic Ray, Position is a more fundamental property than motion. ...

Paul N. Butler: on 3/16/11 at 20:26pm UTC, wrote Rafael, Thank you for your comments and vote. I read your paper as you...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 3/15/11 at 4:17am UTC, wrote Paul, I totally agree that fundamental to everything in our physical...

Peter Jackson: on 2/27/11 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Paul A nice essay, I struggled with the lack of paragraphs breaks! but...

Ray Munroe: on 2/27/11 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote Hi Paul, I think that your essay would be a good introduction to my essay....

re castel: on 2/27/11 at 17:41pm UTC, wrote Paul, You say: "One very interesting aspect of motion is that motion in...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Anonymous: "Searching for a Quantum connection to your consciousness? Search no more,..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Ethics tells us what is good and what is wrong. Traditionally one considers..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

alex: "bạn đang tìm một địa chỉ bán các dòng máy photocopy RIcoh..." in Wrinkles in Spacetime

Gary Simpson: "Lorraine & Eckard, Why, I was completely unaware of my acronym ... gee,..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

James Putnam: "Sears and Zemansky 13th ed. Summary of Chapter ! (page 26): "Physical..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Isent this email: March 25, 2017 Ref: Simple reality Dear..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Steve Agnew: "These are operational definitions just as S&Z state in the 13th Ed. just..." in Alternative Models of...

jay grey: "Thanks for the link, I believe it will be very useful for personal..." in Santa Barbara Gravity...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi FORUM
March 30, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Is the Fundamental Nature of the Universe Knowable to Man on Earth at This Time by Paul N Butler [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 11:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay will concentrate on the basic nature of space and the structures that exist within space, with emphasis on whether it is currently possible for man to know whether the most basic level of structure of the universe is analog or digital in nature. It will look at how analog structures can generate digital effects, how digital structures can create analog effects, and man’s current abilities and limitations in the endeavor to trace all of these observable effects back to discover whether the nature of the most basic level of the universe is analog or digital.

Author Bio

The author has for a very long time been interested in understanding the actual structure and processes of operation of the world that we live in. He is now also interested in sharing the insights that he has gained in his studies over the years with others and has now been put into a position where that is allowable and where adequate time is available to pursue that goal. The enclosed essay is part of an endeavor to incrementally accomplish that desire.

Download Essay PDF File




basudeba wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear Sir,

Kindly forgive our asking some elementary questions. But these are essential for our understanding or rather due to lack of it.

You say: “Like atoms, particles can be broken down into other particles and, or, energy photons. Since it appears that all known particles can ultimately be broken down into energy photons, it would seem that matter particles are also digital constructs of a still simpler form (energy photons)”. Will you kindly guide us to some site which shows the mechanism by which all known particles including all the quarks and all the leptons have actually been broken down completely to energy photons and this effect has been verified in an experiment? Further, the theory should explain the charge of photons and how does it evolve to differently charged particles. It should also explain why gamma rays and x-rays originate from different areas with opposite charges.

You say: “It is obvious that the photon must have been composed of motion; so that when its motion was transferred to the electron in the atom it ceased (or at least appeared to cease) to exist”. But we do not understand it. What is a motion? It has no physical existence. We only refer to it by observing the effect of energy on some matter particle. Only similar energies are linearly additive like mass. Dissimilar energies co-exist, but are not linearly additive. For example, electric and magnetic energies co-exist. Transfer of motion means transfer of energy or energy and mass both. In this context, how do you justify your statement?

You say: the motion of the energy photon is “divided into two separate motions, one of which seems to be of an analog nature while the other one seems to demonstrate more of a digital nature”. How do you define analog and digital? What is the mechanism by which an analog energy photon becomes partly digital?

You talk about what is behind motion? But we could not decipher it. Would you kindly elaborate?

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
Hi Paul, I liked the way you talk about 'structure'. How about considering the Archimedes screw as an image of something which has both particle and wave properties? What do you think?

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your query. My access to the Internet has been very limited lately and other activities have prevented me from making frequent checks on this site. I hope it has not been too much of an inconvenience for you.

Elementary questions are perfectly in order as I have only given very basic elementary information...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Paul,

I read your essay. You say that "motion is the basic substance of all things that exist in the universe." I'd like to know what your impressions are regarding my own essay at www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/835. You might also want to read my discussions with the others here.

There was a Butler who was at BYU Provo. Any relation?

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
Paul,

You have my vote.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 17:05 GMT
Paul,

There are ideas that I do not agree with in your essay. But we have lots of common ideas.

I've concentrated on the general idea of motion transformations and what I call the genesis formula (presented in my essay but not called as the genesis formula).

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Paul,

You say: "One very interesting aspect of motion is that motion in this world does not appear to have a true opposite. Two motions may travel in opposite directions, but when they meet they do not cancel out and cease to exist or get turned into something else other than motion. They merely interact with each other in specific allowed ways that preserve the total amount of motion. The true basis of motion seems to exist in some other place and motions just use the dimensional structure of our space to play out their interactions..."

Brilliant!

You say: "Two motions may travel in opposite directions, but when they meet they do not cancel out and cease to exist or get turned into something else other than motion. They merely interact with each other in specific allowed ways that preserve the total amount of motion."

Exactly! Motion may become mass, energy, or a part of the void. Motion never ceases to exist - they may become less observable like the void, but they are there.

You say: "The true basis of motion seems to exist in some other place and motions just use the dimensional structure of our space to play out their interactions..."

I have a pretty good idea how motion emerges and becomes observable - the physics answer is kinematic relativity (the other answer, which is really the same as the first is that domains 'flow without compulsory means')...

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT
Hi Paul,

I think that your essay would be a good introduction to my essay. You emphasize motion moreso than position, but I think that they are reciprocally-related scales, and thus equally important as indicated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle delta(p)*delta(x)~h-bar.

You imply a fifth dimension, but I think there are multiple scales, each with multiple dimensions, and therefore more than 5 dimensions. However, if you want to approximate all of the unknown dimensions with one dimension (say along the lines of the old Kaluza-Klein Theory), then that may be a good start. My model currently uses 28 dimensions, although I didn't put all of that complexity into my essay, because I wanted my essay to be more readable than that.

Have Fun & Good luck in the essay contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 18:52 GMT
Paul

A nice essay, I struggled with the lack of paragraphs breaks! but particularly agree with your concept of motion, which I use as a foundation for energy and consequently condensed matter. In this way it suggests a consistent explanation of the basic nature and configuration of space and the structures that grow from it (or 'exist within it' as you perhaps better describe). You desereve a better position, and I shall wave my wand....

If you really are interested in "understanding the actual structure and processes of operation of the world that we live in" I do hope you're able to read, evaluate and comment on my own essay. It is very empirically based, finding local reality, but does need careful and skilled thought at the key points.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 04:17 GMT
Paul,

I totally agree that fundamental to everything in our physical universe is 'motion'. Space and time are human abstractions. In my opinion both space and time arise in our human cognition developmentally as we learn to balance ourselves upright. I do not accept as a physical fact the 3 spacial dimensions plus time. I should quickly add, however, that I don't believe in extra physical dimensions! But my point is that any fundamental and more comprehensive understanding we have of physical nature should lead us to 'prove' the necessity of three spacial dimensions plus time.

Like you, I too don't believe that we can know 'what is'. Any claim of knowing 'what is' in my humble opinion is 'metaphysical'. All mathematical models of the universe are premised that we can know 'what is'. I find these the modern version of 'metaphysics'. And as before, any metaphysical claims, including “The Metaphysics of Physics” is flawed and will ultimately fail.

We can only know our 'measurements' of what is. A mathematical foundation of Physics therefore should be based on mathematical identities that describe measurement. The Pythagorean Theorem is one such identity. In my essay I show that Planck's Law of blackbody radiation is also a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. This Law provides an identical calculation (A=A) of 'energy intensity' with the 'energy absorbed' at a given temperature. This is the reason why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

In a recent post, I give a very simple and elegant mathematical proof of the proposition, “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. Interestingly, The Constant Speed of Light Postulate of SR contradicts the Photon Hypothesis that has lead to QM!

Paul, these are significant and iconoclastic results. You can only imagine the obstacles and 'knee jerk rejections' these have received. This contest for me is a rare opportunity to get these results in my essay before the panel for review and careful consideration. But I need your help and support!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 20:26 GMT
Rafael,

Thank you for your comments and vote. I read your paper as you requested and here are some of my observations about it.

I like your division of thoughts or concepts of the mind (noumena) into those that are true or represent reality or actual existence and those that are false or unreal in that they do not conform to actual existence or reality.

The time dimension...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Dr. Cosmic Ray,aul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Dr. Cosmic Ray,

Position is a more fundamental property than motion. Position is one of the fundamental properties of the dimensional system (at least two positions are necessary for motion to occur because motion is the transfer from one position to another position, so no motion can occur in a zero dimensional world as it could only contain one position). Motion, on the ether hand, is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 20:30 GMT
Peter;

Sorry about the long paragraphs. I may not have mastered all of the local language structure yet. As an example, when I am answering a post I am not sure if it is better to try to keep my answers to one of the post’s paragraphs within one paragraph, so it can be easily compared with the paragraph that it is in response to or to make several paragraphs if the response covers more...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Apr. 6, 2011 @ 19:03 GMT
Constantinos,

You are ahead of most with your understanding that motion is fundamental to everything in the physical universe (every thing is composed of motion) and that time is merely a relationship between motion and spatial distance and not a basic entity in itself (i.e. T=D/M where T=time, D=distance traveled, and M=motion amplitude (or speed etc.)). Space, however, does exist as a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'I' and 'K':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.