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

Don Limuti: on 3/18/11 at 14:24pm UTC, wrote Hi Anon, Thanks for the feedback. I do not get much and appreciate it. ...

Anonymous: on 3/17/11 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Excellent reasoning.I just disagreed with your final caveat that it is only...

Don Limuti: on 3/7/11 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Hi Arjen, Thanks for your question. The short answer is that for this...

Arjen Dijksman: on 3/6/11 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote Hi Don, It's good to read your 3rd FQXi essay in row. I remembered the...

Don Limuti: on 2/28/11 at 5:42am UTC, wrote Peter, Thank you for your support, and your reminder that I should vote...

Peter Jackson: on 2/27/11 at 20:56pm UTC, wrote Don I was surprised to see you out of the top area of the community list...

Don Limuti: on 2/23/11 at 5:01am UTC, wrote Jonathan, You made it in time! And with an excellent essay that mere time...

Don Limuti: on 2/23/11 at 3:24am UTC, wrote Anton, I have read your paper and find several novel ideas that have not...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve, Please try to understand that infinite surface am not a..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Agnew: "Supposing the universe is infinite is simply another way of supposing the..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Colin Richardson: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Peter Morgan: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

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.


FQXi FORUM
June 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Making Waves by Don Limuti [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 09:58 GMT
Essay Abstract

Reality in physics consists of the things that can be measured. And all the things that can be measured are objects that consist of particles and photons. Particles and photons are known fundamentally by their wave properties. And since waves are digital, all objects are fundamentally digital. Is there anything analog in all this digital wave like stuff in the universe? The answer is yes, even though waves are digital and come in lumps, the values for a waves wavelength (space) and period (time) are analog magnitudes and can be taken out to as many decimal places as can be measured. So, space and time are analog continuums in nature. 
 This makes for the conclusion: The objects of reality are digital on a space-time continuum that is analog. But what about space and time? They are not objects by themselves, so what are they? The essay presented here will explore space and time as something that is built up from objects with wavelengths. In this process the digital underpinnings of gravity will be exposed.

Author Bio

Don Limuti is the president of Communication Panels Co. and creator of www.zenophysics.com also known as www.digitalwavetheory.com He obtained a BSEE degree from The City College of New York and has presented several technical papers at IEEE events. He has been awarded three patents and has several in process.  His FQXi essays on theoretical physics are: 1. Making Time with Pretty Girls and Hot Stoves 2. Gravity from the Ground Up Paper presented in PreSpaceTime Journal: Exploration: Mercury’s Precession Reconsidered. http://prespacetime.com 
e-mail: don.limuti@gmail.com

Download Essay PDF File




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 12:57 GMT
Don

Beautiful Essay, proving science can indeed be intuitive if our intuition is adequate, also very clearly written, and I found it useful indeed, including the excellent PP link. Having previously looked at your site and not agreed with or understood much of it I was astonished how exceptionally good this was, and how much it agreed with my own model, which is also consistent with Georgina, and Edwin, Willard. (see also the string under mine - 2020 Vision..)

The best part was it helped clarify my own 'grey area' of superposed waves, and 'confirm' my thoughts about waves patterns becoming 'externalised' when atoms are formed, and into macro waves. There are a few areas to discuss, but I must stress the agreement first.

Particles do indeed do the job of space time, Waves, as fluctuations of a quality, are indeed externalised and are a key component of gravity, Light and gravity are indeed very closely related, and the accelerated golf ball will indeed send out gravity waves. I can extend this as being due to Inertial and gravitational mass equivalence, and I supply the simple quantum mechanism of condensed particles to provide this mass, while also modulating em wave transmission.

This extends to pre big bang conditions - (see my string). I definately feel a high mark will be in order. Do please comment on mine, particularly on how easy it is to form a picture of the core mechanism. Describing it in words is very difficult, I need a movie!

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:37 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thank you for the positive remarks about this essay and my web site. I basically followed the logic of two people Zeno and Louis deBroglie and wrote about it. My conclusions differ with much of quantum mechanics and some of general relativity, so I don't get a lot of "credence" with many physics professionals. This is why I appreciate your positive comments.

I do agree that our essays are similar and are going after the same fundamentals. I particularly like your phrase "reconnecting 'Locality' with realism".

Best of Luck in this contest and your work.

Don Limuti




Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 13:29 GMT
Thanks Peter,

Good to hear from you. It was a bit of a rush

to get the essay out. I would have liked to make it better.

I am in process of looking at your entry. will get back.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 09:53 GMT
Hi Don, I like the way you think w.r.t gravity, particles and waves. I have a question which you might be interested in:

Q: why can't an Archimedes screw be used as a visualisation of how a particle can also have a wave property and how this helical wave can act as an attractive force when interacting with another particle? If the imagined 'screw' travelled around a wraparound universe then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. Why has no-one grasped this simple idea?

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Don,

You write:

---"The mass of the Universe is 1.8x1054 kg. The radius of the Universe is 0.95x1026 meter."---

As far as I know the standard kilogram and/or meter is/was kept in Paris, Europe. I wonder what the significance of these numbers might be if there's noting outside the universe with respect to which it can have any property. This question is the subject of my essay.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 16:23 GMT
1. This is a great contest, it makes my head spin like a carnival ride. I have been trying to look at all the entries.

2. Alan, I like the Archimedes screw visualization, but do not know how to proceed with it. I also like Archimedes lever with which he can move the universe, but finding a place to stand is the hard part.

3. Anton: I like your wadding into the highest of philosophy, but it is an easy place to get lost. I personally like the Advaita Vedanta ideal of "One without a second", but it is a hard place to practice physics. As soon as you postulate a Universe your are stuck with an outside of the universe. or a universe not. I believe that when the universe and not universe are equal in magnitude it is a good time to have lunch.

Physics is like playing golf, you swear allegiance to the rule book, and then proceed to cheat as much as you can without getting caught. I learned that from reading "Goldfinger" by Ian Flemming.

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
This indeed is great, everybody philosophing and calculating , I learn every day from the other contestants, thanks a lot, in my essay I created the TOTAL SIMULTANEITY, a sort of fifth dimension , pls advise , it is for me the first time that I take part in a contest of this high quality, I saw yor site Don, and it is wonderful, there are very interesting pages, good luck with the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Thank you, I do not get a lot of feedback about my site. So, your positive review is very much appreciated.

I am very much like you in that I think these contests are wonderful, and I learn a lot from the other contestants.

Your phrase TOTAL SIMULTANEITY resonates with me, it summarizes "reality" from a personal perspective in just two words.

Best of luck,

Don Limuti




Lev Goldfarb wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Don,

Good to see you participating in the contest!

Just one "little" comment on your

"Reality in physics consists of the things that can be measured. And all the things that can be measured are objects that consist of particles and photons."

Precisely because "objects ... consist of particles and photons" the most important thing about "objects", i.e. their structure, cannot be "measured" (in the conventional sense). ;-)

My best wishes to you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:10 GMT
Lev,

As usual you get to the heart of the matter. And it fascinates me completely that physical reality involves the physical measurement of objects on the classical scale. And yet "objects" have internal structure, which cannot be "measured" (in the conventional classical sense).

I expect you (judging by your fine essay) will help with the heavy lifting on this.

Wishing you the best of luck in the contest and in getting all those particles and photons aligned in your remodeling project.

Don Limuti



Lev Goldfarb replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:22 GMT
Thanks, Don!

However, keep in mind that I'm not a magician (I'm just his apprentice. ;-)) )

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Don,

You write

---"As soon as you postulate a Universe you are stuck with an outside of the universe [..] I believe that when the universe and not universe are equal in magnitude it is a good time to have lunch."---

As to my reason to insist that it has no outside, doesn't exist as a whole but only to an inside observer who's part of it: If there would be only one single...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 03:24 GMT
Anton,

I have read your paper and find several novel ideas that have not been entertained before.

The essay is stimulating and breaks out of conventional thinking.

Thanks,

Don Limuti




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 01:29 GMT
Hi Don

Good to see you here. I've downloaded your essay. Looks interesting, so far. I'll comment once I've had a chance to read the whole thing.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 05:01 GMT
Jonathan,

You made it in time! And with an excellent essay that mere time cannot improve.

Don Limuti




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 20:56 GMT
Don

I was surprised to see you out of the top area of the community list and hope my rating helps. My essay also needs all the points I can get and hope you may return the compliment if you still like it and haven't yet done so.

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 05:42 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your support, and your reminder that I should vote for the essays that I liked, yours was among them.

Don Limuti




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Hi Don,

It's good to read your 3rd FQXi essay in row. I remembered the lambda-hopping.

I have a question. You write about a first distance related to the object which is the distance to itself (because all objects have extent). How do you represent this extent? Is it a wavelength or just a length?

I like the idea of the photons to be carriers of gravity as well as of electro-magnetic force. This is also one of my hypotheses. There need to be some adjustments in theory but I haven't found any experimental evidence that would disprove it.

I wish you all the best.

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 05:12 GMT
Hi Arjen,

Thanks for your question. The short answer is that for this essay I only considered distributed objects that were uniform density spheres (the earth and the universe). In this case the wavelength is the radius of the spherical mass.

The reasoning goes like this:

1. Self-gravity is a reasonable postulate because the equation F=Gm2/r2=ma works accurately for the earth. (calculation done in essay)

2. Self-gravity also is part of the solution of the force between two objects (stars). Only now the self gravity is F=Gm2/d2 (shown in essay)

3. When the distance d is equated to the concept of a wavelength the self-gravity has only one form F=Gm2/(wavelength)2. And the wavelength between stars is d and the wavelength produced by a spherical object with uniform mass distribution is r.

Now why make our everyday ordinary straightforward distance between objects into a wavelength? Because:

1. Because the energy in the wavelength (photons) connecting the objects accounts accurately for dark matter and dark energy. (shown in essay)

2. It has gravity as a quantum phenomena with the quantum of mass being the Planck Mass. (shown in essay).

3. It dovetails with the concepts presented in the previous essay "Gravity from the Ground Up".

I think of two stars (or any two masses) as a very low level laser resonator with a standing photon wave between the mirrors (stars). If the stars should accelerate with respect to each other a photon (aka ripple) is sent down the standing wave.

It does not surprise me that we both think that gravity is photonic, we have a lot in common starting with our respect for Louis deBroglie.

Glad to see you in the contest.

Best of luck,

Don Limuti




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
Excellent reasoning.I just disagreed with your final caveat that it is only a modeling and no representation of actual reality; or is it the usual PR necessary to do physics? Even General Relativity is said not to represent reality,so why bother!

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Hi Anon,

Thanks for the feedback. I do not get much and appreciate it.

"Why Bother?" I think would make a good essay question for the next contest and is as fundamental as it gets. Personally I wonder why I dapple as an amateur in physics. I think it is a mixture of ego, wanting to help others, and it just comes with the package that is human.

As I see it we humans seem to make models of "what is" and then defend these models against the models of "others". This seems to enhance our survival as a species. And "why bother" is a very good question.

"Is PR needed to do Physics?" is also an excellent question. I think so, but many do it without a sense of ethics and give PR a bad name. As an example I would point out the current essay contest in which a lot of self promotion goes on, some of it skillful some not.

Thanks again,

Don L.




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.