Search FQXi

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.

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 4/6/18 at 1:53am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Brendan Foster: on 6/6/11 at 13:02pm UTC, wrote The winner announcement now has an official blog entry here.

Georgina Parry: on 6/6/11 at 4:38am UTC, wrote Sir Issac does get about a bit. "I like to tell this story. Once, in the...

Anonymous: on 6/5/11 at 23:09pm UTC, wrote Essay Contest Winners were announced on a link off of the main page rather...

James Putnam: on 6/5/11 at 20:31pm UTC, wrote Congratulations to the essay contest winner Jarmo Makela. Thank you to...

Philip Gibbs: on 6/3/11 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Will the results be announced at the world science fair this week as...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 4/26/11 at 18:19pm UTC, wrote Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. This is how...

Steve Wilbourne: on 4/26/11 at 17:45pm UTC, wrote Brendan, I read that FQXi will announce contest winners at the World...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Dr Rinkus, like I am very curious lol I d like to know your general..." in A Physical Theory based...

Steve Dufourny: "Maths is a tool but the physics seem the chief orchestra. Of course the..." in The Nature of Time

John Cox: "Tom, good to hear. I haven't been productive mathematically, I'm still..." in The Nature of Time

Gerard Rinkus: "Tom, Ok, good to clarify our defs of superposition. And thanks for..." in A Physical Theory based...

Steve Dufourny: "I know that I am not known and a celebrity and so I cannot utilise the..." in Global Collaboration

Sociallyview: "very nice" in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Lorraine Ford: "I might add that: Clearly, most people are not aware that the symbolic..." in Interview: Information...

Lorraine Ford: "2. More generally, NO system can exist without the system being able to..." in Interview: Information...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi BLOGS
July 24, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Digital V. Analog: Essay Contest 2010/2011! [refresh]

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Nov. 1, 2010 @ 18:30 GMT
After many months of careful preparation, we are now pleased to announce the beginning of the next Essay Contest! We want to thank our contest partners The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and Scientific American for helping reach this point.

The question you all want to know is, What is the question? Well, The Answer is:

Is Reality Digital or Analog?

"While classical physics - as well as the mathematics of calculus at its foundation - is based on real numbers with a continuous set of values, quantum mechanics indicates that certain physical quantities can take only a countable set of discrete values. Consequently, many current approaches to foundational questions in physics and cosmology advocate novel discrete or "digital" pictures of nature. This essay contest asks, then: is Nature fundamentally continuous or discrete, and how can these two different but very useful conceptions be fully reconciled?"

We think this question intersects many threads of research in foundational physics, is broad in range but specific in focus, and is just plain interesting. Not to mention, it was the top choice in our blog poll.

The Contest is open for submissions starting now, and continuing until 11:59 PM Eastern Time, February 15, 2011. Winners will be announced at the World Science Festival in New York in early June 2011 (and posted on our site and Scientific American's).

The contest structure is very similar to our previous contest, but there have been some changes to the rules and procedures. Make sure to read the full rules carefully.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

James Putnam wrote on Nov. 1, 2010 @ 19:22 GMT
Thank you and others for doing this.

James

report post as inappropriate
PLATO replied on Nov. 15, 2010 @ 21:36 GMT
Brendan -- important contest advice: Reality is not only visual. Visual is opposites and inherently limited/contradictory (visible and invisible). Thought is not vision. Feeling is central to everything -- think inertia and gravity, for starters. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 1, 2010 @ 19:57 GMT
Given that quantum mechanics is no different from rolling dice, it must be that our measurements are dependent upon discrete quantities of photons that are trying to describe analog (continuous) features.

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 2, 2010 @ 18:15 GMT
Lawrence,

It's good to hear from you.

Have you ever heard of percentile dice? Usually two ten sided dice are used. Wave functions are used to calculate the percentages for each eigenstate. Once percentages are established, nobody knows which eigenstate is going to be measured. I can simulate that with percentile dice.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 2, 2010 @ 18:22 GMT
Dear Jason,

You would have to arrange it such that your dice could also yield and manipulate complex numbers...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 2, 2010 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Ray,

Once the wave functions are combined into bracket notation, and normalized, that yield values between 0 and 1 to each possible eigenstate. The total of eigenstates, of course, sum to 1. There just probabilities as percentages. Percentages can be simulated with dice. In other words, the dice simulate real probabilities.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 2, 2010 @ 17:36 GMT
Hi all,

Interesting subject indeed.The difference between them is the key.

Discontinuity or continuity....the limits seem an other key.

We arrive at the Planck scale where the ultim information exists,that's why we see all its conversions in time space evolution.

Let's take the sound, which is an energy for example....at my knowledge

a digital recording is created by a convertion of the physical properties of the original sound into a sequence of numbers....it's the base of this difference.If the numbers are correlated with the real universal fractal of sphere....we see the correlations.This number is finite.

In fact it's a real, spiritual and universal question.The main central sphere seems on the road of a specific serie in time.

It's relevant this subject, even for the external cause of mass versus the gravitational intrinsic code of evolution.

The duality also can be inserted with rationality.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Nov. 2, 2010 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Brendan,

fantastic Essay Contest, thank you very very much.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Nov. 2, 2010 @ 22:46 GMT
Interesting, but very hard topic, because the main question was settled by non-commutative geometry and is hard to come up with genuine new contributions, except in tangent topics.

I do have a general question: what is the preference for FQXi: technical depth, or general readability? Thank you.

report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 14:12 GMT
If you think the question is settled, you should write an essay explicating that belief.

Regarding preferences --- I can only point you to the rules, which are the only instructions we will give to the judges. It's up to you to decide what balance of depth vs readability.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 00:21 GMT
There are I think there are some topics to consider. How does noncommutative geometry connect to holographic principle in such as way that Lorentz symmetry violations are prevented? Does this imply a discrete time, or even further a discrete sort of time operator that does not fall into the probme Pauli outlined?

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 03:09 GMT
Interesting article in last weeks, New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827830.900-constant-
change-are-there-no-universal-laws.html

"In other words, alpha seems to be small on one side of the universe and large on the other. Earth sits somewhere in the middle. "If we didn't violate the laws of physics in our previous results, we're certainly violating them now," says Michael Murphy at Swinburne University of Technology in Hawthorn, Australia, who works with Webb.

Murphy is only half joking. Back in 2002, Alan Kostelecky, Ralph Lehnert and Malcolm Perry showed that any spatial variation in alpha would break Lorentz symmetry. This is a golden rule of Einstein's special theory of relativity. It says that the laws of physics apply in the same way in all directions in the universe, and are not sensitive to the speed at which you are moving.

-----------------------------------------------------
-----------

Alignments aren't the only source of corroboration. Further examinations of the amounts of helium and lithium in the early universe may reveal evidence of variation in other constants, such as those associated with the strong force that holds nuclei together.

In fact, evidence of variation in any of the dozens of constants of physics could help explain a varying alpha; it is generally agreed that if one constant varies, they all will. "I couldn't imagine a unified theory of the universe where alpha varies and other constants don't," says Victor Flambaum, one of Webb's colleagues at UNSW."

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 04:11 GMT
John,

I wasn't able to get into the article. But it sounds very interesting from your description. But what if the physics constants were different in the past? So what. What does that mean for us now? Like I was telling James, alot of this news physics gets a big "So What!" unless it can do something for us. If somebody comes along and says that can come up with a new capability, something that we couldn't do before, something that is useful, then I'm interested. But if Doctor Joe Blow says that such and such constant might have varied in the past, what does that do for us now?

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 10:22 GMT
Jason,

Unless physics develops a way to turn magical money into real wealth, or create perpetual motion machines with few environmentally destructive side effects, we are just grasping at straws in the wind.

Further from the article:

"The violations of Lorentz symmetry have other implications, too. If the laws of physics depend on your orientation in the universe, it takes...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 3, 2010 @ 13:09 GMT
In the quantum mechanics of infinite dimensional separable Hilbert spaces, there's no distinction between discrete and continuous. For instance, for the simple harmonic oscillator, the spectrum of the position and momentum operators are continuous, but the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is discrete.

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 4, 2010 @ 14:59 GMT
But of course, maybe the physical Hilbert space of the universe is finite dimensional, as in the causal patch hypothesis.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 07:10 GMT
But even if the physical Hilbert space is finite dimensional, the wavefunction components are still complex numbers, which are continuous.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 6, 2010 @ 05:06 GMT
A very important question any theory involving discrete space and/or time has to answer is how such a discreteness can be compatible with Lorentz transformations. Do Lorentz symmetries have to be broken, or modified, or are they somehow compatible with a discrete spacetime? This is especially true for large rapidities.

report post as inappropriate

Don limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Nov. 4, 2010 @ 04:06 GMT
Brendan,

It was worth the wait. Very respectable sponsors and a good topic.

I am spreading the word and I expect to see many entries.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 4, 2010 @ 15:24 GMT
The only reason we got the idea that the universe might be digital (quantized) is because of photons,particularly, a frequency of visible light times a Planck constant. Photons were the answer to: what is the quantity of energy we can measure. We can measure frequency very accurately with our atomic clocks. However, momentum, position, etc., only as accurately as the Uncertainty Principle. I

Is blurry considered continuous?

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2010 @ 20:48 GMT
Jason,

I suppose the question might be; Is light continuous and are photons simply the smallest measurable quantity of it? Therefore a consequence of our measuring devices and their interaction with light, rather than exclusively a property of light.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 02:22 GMT
John,

Here is a question. Is there a natural phenomenon that occurs as a result of photons with less than E = hf of energy? The answer is: Yes. Electromagnetism is mediated by virtual photons. Do we see or detect those virtual photons? No, not usually. Why? Because they're virtual photons which don't last long enough to become real.

...or is it because these photons are wandering around some Kaluza Klein labrynth hidden inside of ten dimensional space-time and invisible to the naked eye?

Darn it!!! I thought we beat down string theory. Where are those photon mediators that are supposed to implement electromagnetism? Why is physics so hard??!!!

OK, I can't believe that such an insidiously complicated universe occured naturally. It had to have been created by some exquisitely brilliant mind who is, no doubt, laughing at us, watching us flounder around inside of His/Her puzzle box.

This insidiously clever Creator created inertial reference frames for every velocity/momentum, and then interconnected them with Time Dilated fibers. One end of the fiber is time Delta t. The other end is Delta t'. They look like,

$\Delta t$

What kind of Intelligence creates a puzzle box (space-time) out of time dilated fibers? We think it's gravity, but it's a sadistically clever puzzle box we live in.

OK, ha ha ha!!! It's not funny anymore. Are you listening, God?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 02:25 GMT
Equation editor mistake...

$\Delta t$

Anyway, it's supposed to be the relativistic time dilation equation.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 05:43 GMT
At the risk of blogging too much, I have one more physics idea. It might be an easy way to work with relativistic inertial frames. I call it:

Thread has two ends. Time Dilation thread has \Delta t' on one end and \Delta t * gamma on the other end. The idea is to run the Time Dilation thread between any two inertial frames. This TD thread will tell you how much red or blue shift will occur when a photon moves from one inertial frame to another. The length of the thread is arbitrary. However, photons will always travel at velocity c between two inertial reference frames (even if they have to induce length contraction/time dilation). In principle, there is a Time Dilation thread running between any two inertial reference frames. They have a quasi-existence very much like wave-functions.

Time Dilation Thread obeys conservation of energy.

Time Dilation Thread is a simple way to make sense out of the Equivalence Principle.

Time Dilation Thread works for relativistic motion as well as gravity. In fact, for a photon that travels either between two inertial frames, or through a gravitational potential, that photon will travel along a Time Dilation Thread. The Time Dilation will automatically red/blue shift the photon in order to obey conservation of energy.

One could also make sense of space-time "curvature" by using the Time Dilation thread as the x or r axis, and the y-axis is gravitational potential energy.

Anyway, is there a chance that this might make SR and GR a little bit easier to do?

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 18:15 GMT
Jason,

When light gets bent around a gravity field, it is magnified and blueshifted.

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PLANCK/
Tour/Tour.html

As this light passes through a lensing effect, it is compressed. When you hold a magnifying glass over a surface, the light is focused at the center, while it is bent away from the edges. So the amount of light going through the lens is conserved, but concentrated at the center. Now say there are photon detectors on this surface. As the ones in the center start clicking faster, the ones on the edge click slower. Basically the time interval between them changes. Now if you try to deduce a wave pattern from this, the light at the center is being blue shifted, because the wave effect of the clicking detector is getting faster and more closely spaced. On the other hand, the photon detectors on the outside of the lensed area are clicking more slowly, since the time between each click gets longer, so the wave pattern formed by this effect is being redshifted.

Now say these photon detectors are clocks. The ones getting more energy and clicking faster are recording a faster rate of change, thus time, than those getting less energy.

But, you say, they are just photon detectors, not clocks! "What is a clock?" I ask. It is a device for measuring a constant rate of change. How do we know what is constant, unless we measure it against something else? If your constant is a photon, ie. the amount of light required to make the photon detector click, then those photon detectors are clocks!

So now we have two sets of clocks, under one magnifying lens and they are measuring different times, since our universal constant is the photon. That isn't a very long time dilation thread.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 19:56 GMT
John,

Wow! That is an awesome website. I'm trying to clean up my time dilation thread concept. It bifurcates into gravitational time dilation and relativistic time dilation (high velocity). I'm trying to figure out both of these for two satellites. It's all a lot more complicating than I initially realized.

I still think that the photon is the universal standard for space-time. There are 3 ways to track it's journey through space.

a. Red/blue/Doppler shift which is interconnected to time dilation, gravity and gravity equivalents.

b. Number of photons per square meter, aka intensity. This tells you distance from its source assuming 4piR^2 spread.

c. Changes in wavelength tell you about the medium it's traveling through; this inevitably slows it down to c/n.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 20:18 GMT
John,

Help me. What does a Lagrangian T-V (kinetic minus potential energy), have to do with the difference between time dilation do to relativistic velocity versus time dilation due to gravity potential?

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 14:37 GMT
Brendan,

Unfortunately, in the instructions for the essay, there are no indications as to the text size, e.g. 12 pt. Does that mean that we are free to choose any size? ;-)

report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
They did specify 25,000 characters, though. Clever chaps. :-)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Nov. 5, 2010 @ 18:10 GMT
Thanks, Tom! I missed that. ;-)

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Nov. 8, 2010 @ 23:18 GMT
Lev, you do seem to have trouble understanding numbers, and what they're good for. LOL

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 14:45 GMT
Brendan,

I have a problem regarding what technical endnotes are, since they allow for two extra pages. ;-)

For example: Do footnotes count as technical endnotes and if not what does?

report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 22:09 GMT
Good question. Let me talk to the other organizers and make sure we all agree on what this means, then I'll post an answer.

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 12, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Brendan,

First, thanks for choosing the 'most voted for' topic.

Second, I seem to remember an earlier remark that the technical end-notes could be for 'out-of-line' derivations, figures, graphs, tables, etc. I hope you make it as broad as possible.

Thanks again for your time managing these issues. You are much appreciated by all of us.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 12, 2010 @ 22:36 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I find the topic choice to be far more challenging than the first two. That is for three possible reasons. One is that I do not know enough empirical evidence. Another is that I may be wrong in what I think. The third is that the first and second may both be true. However, I am working on my essay. What I really want to see is how you handle the topic question. I eagerly look forward to reading it. I believe a new kind of thinking is necessary, and, you definitely have a new kind of thinking. Thank goodness that you have a PHD in physics.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
FYI --- http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28445 --- a most important discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 04:15 GMT
Interesting question, but ambiguous. The title question is: Is REALITY digital or analog? But the text describing the meaning of the question ends with yet a different question: Is NATURE fundamentally continuous or discrete, ... ?"

Reality is what physics has access to and what it questions in order to deduce what Nature is about. Reality and the underlying universe (aka Nature) are two distinct concepts. Reality is what we make out of nature via our senses and intellect. Without us to effect this perception and associated transforms,... there is just nature out there.

We create our reality. So, finding out about reality really belongs to psychology, biology etc. And to be precise about how we effect these transformations they need to know what nature is like before we picture it the way we do.

On the other hand, finding out about Nature is the ultimate goal of physics. First, by finding the laws that govern elements of our reality. Then, by deducing from these laws the elements of the underlying reality, nature as it is. Alas, without philosophical discernment, this task is fundamentally out of reach. That is the only fundamental aspect of this question; a fundamental lack of philosophical discernment. No wonder we have been stuck here for so long....

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
Eckard replied on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 18:00 GMT
Marcel,

I do not see restrictions to how participants will adopt the topic. To me, your distinction between reality and nature is one option and a rather futile one. Nonetheless I hope there will be other experts too, who will have something important to say and do not bother much about different interpretation of the rather synonymous notions world, nature, universe, reality, a creator's creation, the surroundings, the actually existing, the object of physics, etc.

Let me add my certainly unwelcome to some members attitude concerning the notion fundamental:

I do not consider unnecessary and unfounded speculation fundamental. A created reality reminds me of Cantors infinitum transfinitum sive creatum in his reality. Instead of his aleph_2 I prefer ideals, which are indispensable in practice and so often used that we do not get aware of their basic role even if modern theories do belittle them as outdated. Euclid's axioms are still fundamental while Cantor admitted having got his CH directly from God. Are strings fundamental? To my knowledge, this might only be the case so far for even more hypothetic work.

Imagine an existing building and knowing alls claiming they did just create its foundation after the process of building was finished for long, as did the Bourbaki's.

In other words, I do not see the main root of a tree at its leafs. In my understanding, a truly foundational effort has to focus on deficits on the very root instead of endlessly creating new leafs, i.e., extrapolating from possibly questionable basics.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 22:06 GMT
This sounds like the beginning of an excellent essay.

James Putnam replied on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
Dear Eckard,

While my opinion is not a professionally qualified opinion, I want you to know that I like very much what you have said:

"Imagine an existing building and knowing alls claiming they did just create its foundation after the process of building was finished for long, as did the Bourbaki's.

In other words, I do not see the main root of a tree at its leafs. In my understanding, a truly foundational effort has to focus on deficits on the very root instead of endlessly creating new leafs, i.e., extrapolating from possibly questionable basics."

We may not agree on our approaches; but, I feel certain that unity must be present at the beginning of theory. You say something different; but, I feel that we are aiming at the same target. What do you think? If you are saying something different from what I think you are saying, then please take this opportunity to say more about what you think.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 9, 2010 @ 21:07 GMT
It occurs to me what the topic of Digital vs. Analog really means, to me.

In law, it's what you can prove.

In science, it's what you can measure.

In reality, it's what experience.

you, me and everyone have thoughts, feelings and experiences that cannot be scientifically verified or proven to have occurred. But they are still real, still are factual and believable by others who have experienced it as well.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 10, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
Reality AND nature both are generally real to the extent or degree that they pertain to, or involve, what is the integrated and natural extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Thoughts, feelings, and emotions are real and natural.

The body is visible and invisible. Everything is not visual in relation to to both the understanding and experience in general.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Jason, Eckard, Saeid.

Does nature not shroud, disguise and 'throw curved balls' to confound our assumptions? Is it not those rigid assumptions we have to open fro question?

Do we assume that rainbows don't suddenly reverse themselves as soon as they're out of our sight? Red and Violet photons, or are they waves? doing a switch the moment they're outside our visible spectrum? Is it logical to assume so with any certainty? Would we not cling on to the belief that they do not if we were told they did?

So is light, and Fresnel's refractive co-efficient 'n' continuous or discrete? Does it continue on, up and down, into Infrared and Ultraviolet? or does it dive back down and up as soon as it's out of visible range of one of the creatures on a planet near the sun?

What nonsense it would be if it did that, just to confound any logical theory.

Yet this is what it does.*

We should never stop informing ourselves from reality, to defeat assumption and find the patterns based on real evidence, maths has a supporting role as one way of testing models of reality.

And Saeid

I agree, but "we don't yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature HAS revealed to us." (AE). So, in those immortal words;

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Peter

*Absorption lines are the short bandwidths between IR, Visible, UV, Xray etc. light where chromatic dispersion is dramatically reversed, only to reverse agin climb gently again, creating discrete regimes. It is referred to as 'anomalous dispersion' and attributed to oscillatory resonance of particles propagating light waves through a dielectric medium, consistent with Huygens Principle & Fourier optics. So if the process discrete or continuous?

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 22:06 GMT
I agree also we know 0,000000000000000000001% of our reality.

All this universal sphere in 3D is so complex resting in 3D.

The real difficulties are in the two sense, quant or cosm.

Because we are very far of the walls.The distances are very far but all rests in 3D.It's the rotations and the universal and spherical fractal the secret.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

PLATO replied on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 20:40 GMT
Steve is right that all is basically 3D. The 4th space dimension is FUNDAMENTALLY stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened (space) on balance, thereby generally averaging space at the gravitational AND inertial middle/center.

And there we have it all, as I have explained in my posts. The definitive unification of gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, and quantum gravity.

report post as inappropriate

sTEVE dUFOURNY replied on Nov. 16, 2010 @ 14:18 GMT
Indeed indeed it's essential and foundamental for our datas, experiments, technologies....

In fact the realtivity is very simple and complex.That permits a good taxonomy of our evolution, because we can see our real topology in analyzing the datas .

We can see thus the real dynamic of evolution,the spherisation of evolution, relativistic.In this line of reasoning, we can know where we are inside this universal sphere, in fact we turn around the universal center .For an optimization, an improvement,......

Wer are perhaps more near than we can imagine, we see our past and if we see the rotating spheres since the begining, we can see whare we are at this present and how will be the universal sphere in its pure equilibrium between all intrinsic spheres(quant.or cosm.)

Steve

The 3D UNIVERSAL SPHERE IS ESSENTIAL.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 11, 2010 @ 21:04 GMT
John,

I wanted to let you know that I agree that events do pass from future to present as you have been saying and not past to present. It is not just a matter of preference, as I have been saying, but is actually a better description of what is happening physically.

I do not want to go in to long or detailed explanations of the reasoning here as It will all be in the essay where there is the opportunity to be more thorough. It might temporarily annoy Eckard but it is not a change of heart about what is occurring, just the description of it. I am still advocating what I suppose might be called a presentist 4 dimensionalism

I have drafted my essay already. I Have had to reevaluate my terminology and overcome the confusion of speaking in temporal terms about non temporal events while also not forgetting to answer the essay question! Allows; free will, non determinism, causality, events to be over and finished, and solves the grandfather paradox. I am currently very pleased with myself. Though I will keep on reviewing it.

I also have the experiment!!! I know how to do it and have started to prepare it. Just don't know how many observers I need, so it may be trial and error to perfect the technique. I hope it will be the clincher as it can show that this -is- how it works, whereas multiverse or (concrete) eternalism struggle for experimental proof.

!!!!!

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 12, 2010 @ 00:17 GMT
Georgina,

Good luck with it!

I've got a title and a vague outline, but it will probably take some time to fill in the details.

report post as inappropriate

Chris Kennedy replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 01:06 GMT
Well John - If you're in, I guess I'm in too.

Good Luck!!!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 02:35 GMT
Thanks, Chris. I'll need it. Fortunately I have thick skin.

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach wrote on Nov. 13, 2010 @ 17:12 GMT
It's a great pleasure for me to see the next essay contest coming up - with a very exciting issue - Thanks to the organizers and to FQXI!

And i am happily looking forward to meet again all the creative people of the last contest and to have exchanges of exciting ideas!

report post as inappropriate

Philip Janes wrote on Nov. 14, 2010 @ 22:31 GMT
This is a topic I can sink my intellectual teeth into. I think I will modify the question slightly; "Can Nature be Fully Described by a Discrete Model?"

As the author of the Fractal Foam Model of Universes, there should be no doubt as to which side I shall argue. It remains to be seen to what extent I shall be able to resist the temptation to bring my own model into my argument.

report post as inappropriate
Steev Dufourny replied on Nov. 15, 2010 @ 11:53 GMT
Hi dear Philip,

very interesting , the 3D is essential.

the universal polarization of evolution is fascinating.

Ps the Universal sphere has a center, a sphere also, the biggest volume.The fractal is universal and the number is finite.

I liked the complexification of evolutioon in your works.all has a rule of complemenatrity.

the quantum spheres and their combinations of rotations, spinals and orbitals more the volumes....give the real building of the Universal sphere and its spheres quant or cosm.

The SDSS is relevant about the toplogy.a center is essential and the rotations around also,relativistic of course.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 15, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
As plato has pointed out, fundamentally, quantum entanglement involves an AVERAGING of space that he seems to have correctly provided for.

report post as inappropriate

PLATO wrote on Nov. 15, 2010 @ 21:56 GMT
Gravity is key to distance in space. You will never understand the union of inertia, gravity/accel., and electromagnetism until you all understand this.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 15, 2010 @ 23:52 GMT
Hi Florin,

I hope you will be entering this next contest as I am really interested in your opinion on this question. Although I will no doubt struggle to even partially understand your answer. I'm have been struggling with the truth idea in your last prize winner since I read it. Though that is good because it has clarified my own opinions.

I really want to thank you for the discussion we had on socks and faster than light communication. I didn't understand the problem, as was obvious, but I do now in part because of that discussion and further reading inspired by that discussion.You are very good at explaining clearly with out belittling the uninitiated. Thank you

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 16, 2010 @ 20:38 GMT
For a space-time created out of wave-functions and photons, what does it take to curve space-time around a spaceship in such a way that the space-ship becomes isolated from the rest of space-time? Any comments? I will even accept criticisms and potshots if you see problems with my ideas. Please take your best shot.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 16, 2010 @ 21:16 GMT
Jason,

the space time is a model of an image of reality created by the interception of the photons, not the underlying reality. Wrapping the image around the space-ship might act as a cloaking device, useful in itself, but will not isolate the space ship from the underlying space. There is current research ongoing on such light bending materials.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 16, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I am concerned that the idea that space-time is made out of photons/wave-functions, a grand trick of light, might be unnerving to some people. What could be more unsettling than to discover that good solid reliable logic is overrun by waves, cycles and photons at the quantum level.

I actually don't know what wrapping light around a space-ship might do. I would use artificial gravity (shift photons) to do it. Cloaking is one possibility. In the move, the Philadelphia Experiment, the ship slipped into hyperspace (superluminal space). I don't know if that could really work, but it's a starting place for me to try to figure out how a hyper-drive would really work. I am vaguely aware that the light is just a necessary tool to make the wave functions themselves somehow disconnect from the rest of space-time and wrap around the ship.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 17, 2010 @ 03:05 GMT
Jason,

I don't think anyone here finds too many ideas unnerving. If we think they make sense, there would be no problem and if we don't agree, then they don't affect our worldview. The question for you, if you wish to unnerve people, is to find ways to pick apart their worldview, not just repeat your own.

Both Georgina and I seem to be of the mind that while spacetime models aspects of how light functions, it is not the basis for it.

As you say, "space-time is made out of photons/wave-functions." It the photons/waves which are the basis for the spacetime model.

Energy manifests information, while information defines energy.

Think of this in terms of the dichotomy between the academic, who is concerned with the form of information, vs the businessman, who is concerned with the flow of energy/money. For the academic, it is all about understanding how all the information is put together and so there becomes this focus on the extremes, in order to tease every bit of clarity out of every area of fuzziness.

For the businessman, information is only a tool to facilitate the flow of energy and often too much information, even that which points to larger concerns, such as depleted resources, feedback loops of lower wages resulting in less income in the hands of consumers, government regulation of safety, pollution, etc. only impedes the flows of energy and thus is actively reduced.

So now we have academics concentrating on multiverses and businessmen destroying the environment and society, because the academic thinks energy must follow the information, wherever it leads and the businessman thinks information is incidental to the flow of energy, whatever it might be trying to tell him.

So underneath those spacetime wave functions, are more levels of very real energy telling them what to do, just as any energy is creating information whether it cares to or not.

This little diatribe might seem off topic to your focus on FTL, but I'm giving you a dose of my obsessions and seeing if you want to try poking holes in them.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 16, 2010 @ 21:14 GMT
Space-time could also be described as space-energy in the following way. For a train of photons of frequency f, one photon is the same as one cycle and has energy E=hf. Since wavelength equals

$\lambda = \frac{c}{f}$

a train of n cycles that is one meter long has an energy

$E_T = nhf$

When performing the time dilation derivation, try using a blue argon ion laser for the proper time. When the train (satellite, whatever) is observed by the observer, plug in a velocity of v = 0.82c. Yes, the observer will see the argon ion laser trace out a hypotenuse pattern. The observer will be astonished that the speed of light is the same for all observers. The observer will be even more astonished that he/she observes a "red" laser coming out of the argon ion laser.

I haven't done the calculation, but my guess is that the total energy of the blue argon ion laser beam, which bounces back to the mirror, a distance 2L, will have some energy E_T. By guess is that the observer will observe the same energy E'_T, only it will be spread out over a longer distance and at a larger wavelength (lower frequency).

Does anyone find this useful in understanding space-time?

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Nov. 16, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT
Brendan, I have a question. On the rules page it says, "Successful essays will...keep as their central focus the theme of the ultimately possible or fundamentally impossible."

Is this text an accidental holdover from the previous contest? Or, are you asking that we frame the Analog/Digital question within the context of what is possible/impossible? Please clarify, thanks.

report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 15:56 GMT
Hello Karl -- I don't see that text on the rules page. Possibly you have a browser with a really long memory and need to clear the cache?

Anonymous replied on Dec. 11, 2010 @ 11:08 GMT
As a matter of fact, I've seen myself on the page with the rules of the contest what Karl Coryat saw. Now you eliminated this passage. This is not a cache problem, because it was not the entire old page, just the new page with remnant passages from the previous one. I would suspect some copy-paste job was done wrong.

Here is the previous version of the page, as it was before the correction:

http://write-jobs.blogspot.com/2010/11/free-contest-is-reali
ty-digital-or.html

I would recommend that if the page with the rules gets changed, this should be signaled somehow, so that the contestants read them again.

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Dec. 12, 2010 @ 00:35 GMT
I think another administrator may have seen my post and made the correction, because a day or so after I asked that question, I noticed that the rules page had been corrected (or at least the version that my browser was showing me).

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 19, 2010 @ 04:05 GMT
2010-11-18

Dear Eckard,

When you look at the standard metre you see it all at once; that is space. On the other hand you know that any two particles making this metre require some time in order to interact because you know that nothing is instantaneous. And because of this absolute requirement, you know that, in fact, no two particles of this metre are at the same moment, thereby invalidating the very concept of space it represents in our reality. If you grasp any of this, you know that reality and the real universe are not the same and that the distinction is not as futile as you think.

“Science never makes an advance until philosophy authorizes it to do so.”

— Thomas Mann

(I mean, a serious conceptual advance)

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 19, 2010 @ 17:27 GMT
Marcel,

How close is our understanding of reality to this real universe?

Our minds function like a movie camera, in that they create a series of images, rather than recording a constant flow of information. Consider the alternative: Think of a camera where the aperture is always open and the film just moves constantly past it. The result would not be clear images in motion, but a constant blur of light.

The difference between reality and our experience of it is a bit like these two versions of a moving/movie camera. All that light moving about doesn't have a sense of serial time, but only of motion. The notion of a "moment in time" is as meaningless as temperature would be to a single particle. So it is equally meaningless to say two particles don't exist at the same "moment," especially if they happen to interact, since it is that interaction which creates the concept of an "event" and thus the importance of a "moment." Just as the averaging of the combined activity creates the effect of temperature.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 19, 2010 @ 06:08 GMT
Now that I've gotten a chance to look at the essay contest rules, maybe I should be directing my efforts there. I wonder how many people will read our essays.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 15:00 GMT
John,

It is simpler than that and maybe small particles invite the example of temperature..

So, lets go big now. "What is the weather like on planet Mars right now?".

You know that Mars is away in time and that there is no "now" shared between Earth and Mars.

In your mind you can think of many ways to go around the problem and answer the question; like receive a few hours long set of weather data and go back to the time you called "now".

We may think and do all sorts of things to answer our question. But nature does not have those choices. For nature, there is no "now" and what separates Mars from Earth is not distance but time.

It is a pain to remind people of these details, but anyone uttering the

words "fundamental" and "Nature" together better be prepared for weird answers to the important questions they ask & don't realize they are asking.

.. and it is all in good fun! The Copenhagen school said there was nothing

out there (underlying reality) worth our attention; and yet, it is what really exists! SO, my question is always the same; are we so romantically attached to this reality or just plainly scared to look out the window?

all the bests,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 19:48 GMT
Marcel,

"what separates Mars from Earth is not distance but time."

Uhmm. I understand the point you are trying to make, but you might want to reconsider this part of it.

I live in Baltimore County, Maryland and there are the graves of quite a few ancestors scattered among various graveyards in the area. What separates me from their lives is not distance, but time.

What separates Earth from Mars is distance, just like what separates London from New York is distance. Yes, if I want to transmit information or travel between them, it would take time. Do I absolutely know they exist, if I'm not currently there. No, but then I don't have proof anything exists outside of this room, in that regard.

The great irony of modern physics is that it started off by saying nothing exists that cannot be measured and now it's mostly focused on a bunch of ideas that can never be measured, from multiworlds and multiverses, to string theory and Inflation. Maybe it needs to reincorporate a little basic logic.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 22:46 GMT
John Merryman said: "The great irony of modern physics is that it started off by saying nothing exists that cannot be measured and now it's mostly focused on a bunch of ideas that can never be measured, from multiworlds and multiverses, to string theory and Inflation. Maybe it needs to reincorporate a little basic logic."

Excellent John, Well said!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 22:14 GMT
John,

I admit from your remark that it is a conceptual challenge. But space is about considering all at once the travel between two points. The mind can do it but Nature cant. I think Nature is right.

As for logic, well.... Logic dictates that the universe has to be entirely made of a single dynamic substance which time variations make up Everything; with the big “E”. This is not a picture most people want or accept to see. But if we are willing to leave the rose and rainbow behind for a moment and remove our own footprint from our knowledge we have a chance to understand this universe’s fundamental makeup.

And the graves of ancestors ....!! Poor tavern logic of the type that gave metaphysics a bad name.

Just try to consider this universe without the concept of space...

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 20, 2010 @ 23:19 GMT
Marcel,

So the fundamental makeup of the universe is that the planets don't co-exist in their individual orbits?

Maybe the physicists don't go for a drink at their local tavern, but they must be taking something hallucinogenic.

If the vacuum fluctuates, what is the vacuum, if it's not space?

It would seem you would say the fluctuation creates the vacuum, but if I may describe the vacuum as equilibrium and the fluctuation as disequilibrium, wouldn't it be more logical to consider the equilibrium as central to the disequilibrium, rather than saying it's the disequilibrium creating the equilibrium?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 00:23 GMT
Marcel

You said "The mind can do it but Nature cant." With respect I think that statement is incorrect. It can not do it -if- we insist that nature can only do space-time and time is regarded as something other than an absolute universal spatial change. It is most definitely spatial imo. From tick to tick on the clock the whole universe has changed its arrangement. Take away the human measuring device and you are left with spatial change. Even if everything appears to be in the same position on the macroscopic scale within a local frame of reference.

Everything exists in space and just space,imo. We observe space-time because of the way our senses work.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
John, Peter, all,

I stated: "...that intelligence is fully developed to the point that we, mere tiny pieces in terms of physical size of the universe, are ready to comprehend the universe that gave us this ability. The universe expresses itself through us. We were its goal. We resulted from its properties. We are the major effect. We are a great achievement. So, because of our existence, effects can now be studied to understand how we may make use of them."

It appears that this was not received well by others. So, since I am not the final authority on anything, I ask: If intelligence changed, what might it do that is new. This question is not meant to suggest that learning cannot continue, it certainly will. Everything we experience brings some level of learning with it. From my perspective, learning is an effect of intelligence.

"Then reading the discussion with James about intelligence, on the assumptive basis that we already ARE intelligent, which was fine, until the view arose that we were about finished. (take that how you may!) as 'evolution' had just about finished it's work."

My point is that human beings are the goal of the evolution of the universe. Evolution is not finished. There will be ongoing changes in life forms. However, the human being that is capable of comprehending the universe has arrived. Our brains may change some, and, we may change some. But, what could be added to more fully develop human intelligence? The brain could become larger, although it is my understanding, that this possbility has serious developmental problems to overcome. Even if it did enlarge, how might human intelligence change? In other words, what can be added new to make intelligence more advanced or more complete?

James

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 02:11 GMT
James,

"learning is an effect of intelligence."

There is a certain dichotomy here. Learning and intelligence would be like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. As most people seem to understand the concept of intelligence, learning is a prerequisite to acquiring it. I will certainly agree the possession of a flexible and dynamic intelligence is also a prerequisite for further learning, but it is the very understanding of the current limits of one's knowledge that facilitates further learning and intellectual growth. How can we expand our knowledge, if we insist we know all there is to know? I have a very smart and motivated teenaged daughter who thinks I'm an unmotivated old coot because I prefer to observe society than participate in it. The problem is that each true advance in our awareness must be a paradigm shift that takes what we thought we knew and puts it in a different context. Think about the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric understanding of the universe. For someone with a geocentric view, what could be a more logical and basic fact of life than the sun rising in the east and setting in the west? How would you even go about putting that basic fact of reality in another context? To say it was a physical constant for all of human history, up to that point, would be a supreme understatement.

So now you say we are at the apex of knowledge and awareness. Currently we can mass produce electronic devices that can communicate with the other side of the planet at light speed. What if, after the various ups and downs of the next few centuries, or even millennia, we developed that ability as a biological function of our brain? In prehistoric times, when people existed as small tribal groups and thought of the tribe as primary, it seems quite likely they a had far better sense of telepathic communication than we have in our economically atomized society. If it is possible that we could again think of ourselves as part of a larger, fundamentally benevolent whole and not just cogs in the machine for the benefit of those who are perched on top, could we redevelop that skill and even learn to control it in a fundamental way? Would that amount to increased intelligence, by your measure?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 03:15 GMT
John,

"Learning and intelligence would be like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. As most people seem to understand the concept of intelligence, learning is a prerequisite to acquiring it."

In my viewpoint, learning cannot occur until we complete the process of discerning meaning from incoming data. That meaning was already our property or it could never be realized. It...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT
I guess I should make it clear that in my opinion intelligence is not the result of learning. In other words, our level of learning is not a measure of our intelligence, it is only a measure of our learning. Our intelligence is a measure of that which we are capable of learning.

James

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 04:16 GMT
John,

“So the fundamental makeup of the universe is that the planets don't co-exist in their individual orbits?”

Even meant as a joke ... you are getting there...but so slowly! Every tiny bit of every individual planet don’t co-exist! You think of a planet as whole in one moment when it is not! Your mind cheats on scale factors! Alpha centauri does not co-exist in our moment of time; the sun does not co-exist with us on Earth (8min away). Why would the rest of the universe be any different at other scales? Your computer screen does not co-exist with you! Atoms in the same molecule do not co-exist! Portions of the same sub-atomic particle do not co-exist also. It is in us to think differently for different scales, but if the consequences of the laws of physics are true at one scale they should be at any scale, even if the laws change; us as usual, being the only real problem in this understanding.

Your Vacuum equilibrium spaghetti? I go to court and also do mock trials and this is one of my favorite questions; the non-sensical one! Lets see what the expert witness will say and how he will react! Man! I might try the desequilibrium thing the next time I have a pint ..... at the tavern ;-)

Georgina,

Put yourself in the place of a particle (!) somewhere in space above Earth. Do you know, need to know or can even know how far you are from Earth? Not at all! You react to where you are; period. You react to your immediate environment, the way it is shaped by other celestial bodies.

As humans, we need to assume a third party position and establish a space tool between Earth and the particle in order to make equations, and laws and so on... Remove your footprint from the subject matter! Space is an almost absolute requirement for us to understand things according to our own experience. But that does not mean Nature needs it at all in order to be and happen. It would be our typical anthropocentrism to think so. It would be, somehow, like again thinking that we are at the center of the universe ... We all had good laugh with this one and yet, this is the same thing!

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 09:46 GMT
Hi Marcel,

If you throw out space, then the wavelength of light becomes irrelevant. Wavelength and frequency, characteristic of photons, create space-time. To throw out space is to throw out photons and space-time.

Then you have nothingness... which actual sounds very relaxing.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 11:32 GMT
Marcel,

I think we can all appreciate that particles, waves, light, etc. function according to whatever factors affect them, to whatever proportion they are affected, but there is that larger context of other particles, waves, etc, in their own context. How do you propose they interact, if their is no co-existence? Where was that light, eight minutes ago, that I would currently be perceiving as the sun, if it were up yet?

"You think of a planet as whole in one moment when it is not! Your mind cheats on scale factors!"

You don't seem to understand scale. We could say a point particle is the frame, or the entire universe is the frame. These are scales. As such they exist as one. Think of a building made of bricks. You can look at each brick as a frame, in which case the entire building is a bunch of separate bricks. This is your understanding of space. On the other hand, if you look at the building as the frame, it is the one unit and the bricks are the equivalent of entangled particles, all tied together as one big particle.

Now think of the solar system as one big particle. Would any part of it, such as life on this planet, be what it is, if the sun were not an integral part of this entangled whole?

1+1=1, if you actually add them together, much like adding two piles of sand equals one larger pile of sand.

As for the expert witnesses, I'll leave you to debate how many multiverses can dance on the head of a pin.

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 12:46 GMT
UNIQUENESS OF THE UNIVERSE.....AS A QUIET DANSE AROUND , IN AND ABOVE THE perception of the reality.

We are all inside a beautiful sphere in optimization.UNIQUENESS.

As a beautiful meconopsis betonicifolia, and its color of sky,do you see the creations of this Unique Universe, do you see the danse of a hymenoptera,and the fly around these circles.A Hybiscus syriacus blue bird on the melody,sings and waits the symphony.

Do you like these creations turning around the center,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 15:50 GMT
Jason,

You got it! Take the wave length; is it an alignement of points all at the same moment? No! Therefore it is not space. On the other hand, it is an alignment of points Not at the same moment and in sequence. You’ve got most likely the only real time duration in the universe. In other words, use the period T.

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 17:07 GMT
John,

"How do you propose they interact, if their is no co-existence?"

They both exist but not at the same moment which is why it takes an absolute minimum amount of time for the interaction.

"Now think of the solar system as one big particle. Would any part of it, such as life on this planet, be what it is, if the sun were not an integral part of this entangled whole? "

Nothing you say is made impossible by having the Sun sitting 8 minutes away from us... I know what you are saying; the Sun is out there now and yet it is the wrong way to think about it. I am trying to train your mind in letting go the "now" view which is how it is out there ... and you don't have any choice about it.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 18:30 GMT
Marcel,

If the sun does not co-exist, where does the light that will be warming me in eight minutes come from?

I realize information cannot travel instantly and the light making up my visible perception of reality at any one moment has to travel various distances and thus take varying amounts of time to do so, but that doesn't mean these sources of light do not exist independent of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
John,

The event is always ahead of perception of it, so it is in the future relative to experience of it. Between formation of the data and its interception and processing it is still in the future relative to the present experience.Though the event is past, no longer happening in concrete reality.

This means that for distant events there is determinism because the events leading to present experience have already occurred in concrete reality and can not be changed but near to the observer just minutely ahead of experience the future is open. This gives a partial determinism, not a fully determined universe as set out by block time. Allowing free will but also allowing events to be over and done with, only being viewed as their images.

Which solves all of the time paradoxes because the past does not have concrete reality. It is an image of former events. The future ahead of those events that are currently occurring does not exist as a concrete reality either.

Free will, partial non determinism and solution of the time paradoxes in one fell swoop! If the single co-existing concrete reality without temporal spread is accepted then causality is explicable too, as relativity does not apply to this reality only to the image reality that is observed instead.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 21:55 GMT
Relativity and the space time model pertains to the Image reality that is observed and Newtons physics with absolute space and time pertains to the underlying concrete reality,imo.

Passage of absolute time being progression of the whole universe from one spatial arrangement to the next, absolute Now to absolute Now -not- experienced present to experienced present. The experienced present always being a composite sensory experience spread over a sequence of absolute spatial change, therefore with with temporal spread

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 17:25 GMT
Jason,

It is a cold and dark universe where beacons of radiation send vibrations shaking in the distance to the point where opportunity and chance mixe to produce assemblagse of matters to self propel and follow trails of floating molecules,..

I also prefer your picture of it. But, if we cannot bring ourselves to stair even for a brief moment at what the universe is really like, we may never understand it.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 21, 2010 @ 23:03 GMT
The “cold dark universe” ... was a reply to Steve .. not Jason. Sorry for the mix.

John,

Let us you do (!) a little exercise. Here is a short list of the few concepts mentioned in your last post. Sun – light – minutes – information – visible – space- perception – distance – dimensions – configuration – activity – future – time - past – now – potential – earth - .... etc.

Let's assume (since your are not convinced) that the whole real universe is made of only ONE stuff or substance (in the metaphysical sense). So, your task is to pick one candidate “universal stuff”, from the list above or elsewhere, and choose wisely and according to the following basic requirements:

a) It has to be dynamic because it must be able to assume a wide diversity of dynamic states while remaining the same stuff of the same nature (additive under logic or any other logical operation) in order to explain the complex and evolving universe as we know it.

b) This stuff being a “substance”, is NOT an “experience” and therefore it must be something we can’t/cannot perceive directly or measure directly but that we can only/only infer from or know about as deduction from experience.

c) Since it makes everything, under a variety of forms, we most likely already know about it under one form or another and have a name for it ( pick from widely known concept/name but that is still not understood i.e. not well defined concept (see list)

Give it a try!

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 02:58 GMT
Marcel,

Space.

Remember every force, every action, all matter requires its opposite. If you add them together, you have nothing, so nothing is this "substance."

Now what is space? Nothing. It has no substance, no boundaries, no center.

So if at the core of everything we have nothing, is it possible that at the heart of nothing we have everything?

If we have no boundaries, we have infinity. If we have no motion, we have equilibrium.

As much as we try to create boundaries around hermetic theories of everything, energy keeps leaking out and leaking in. Other universes pop up in the equations. Even this singular universe keeps expanding out into nothing.

What is motion, but disequilibrium? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Space, as nothing, is everything. Absolute and infinite.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 03:15 GMT
John,

"So if at the core of everything we have nothing, is it possible that at the heart of nothing we have everything?"

Repeating a part:

"...at the heart of nothing we have everything?"

I am not clear. Is this your view? Do you think that nothing can also be everything?

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 04:18 GMT
John,

You have to remember to take note of how a Divine Creator creates things. The Creator gets it from nothingness, a something and an anti-something. But the anti-something decays very quickly into a something.

I would say that's pretty clever.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 04:08 GMT
John,

Wrong answer. Space can be experienced as represented by say, the standard meter.

This contravene requirement b) that as a metaphysical substance it cannot be experienced directly (it is not an experience).

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 04:13 GMT
Marcel,

What thread is this message in response to?

James

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
Marcel,

You have no experience of space? Wow. I guess you are still living in a singularity of some sort. I always though they were just mathematical devices, but since you seem to have direct experience of one, they must be real. How do you manage to communicate with us tiny earthling on this little planet, floating in an infinite cosmos?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 13:59 GMT
Always false answer dear John,you confound all as some people on FQXi.

I agree with Marcel, we have an international language and some laws.

PS THE MASS IS THE ENERGY SIMPLY ! nothing and everything no but we dream there also ????

If for you the lattices between spheres have nothing between,it's serious there really.

Well if you imagine the entanglement and the evolution you shall see what these lattices evolve proportionaly with spheres.

If you do not understand what are these lattices thus the real space where are we going???

The infinity appears with our adds and calculations, domains ....but never our fractal universal is infinite.AND IT HAS A CENTER THIS UNIVERSE(as all particles) ,the space in a cosmological point of vue is necessary for the evolution.and in the quantum world also.The lattices permit the rotations and the evolution of polarization between mass/light.

The space is without energy, because the spheres do not turn,the evolution permits with the density to imply the contraction, and the space decreases,we increases in energy becuse the space becomes mass with light due to the contraction and thus the density imply a pression which implies the rotations of this space.In this logic the space is mass in wait and the pression implies the rotations and the evolution.It's thus logic to see the mass proportional with energy and the space without energy due to the system without rotation implying mass.But as all is complemenatry and the same we see thus the light, the mass and the space identically the same WITHOUT ROTATION.BEC .....

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 22, 2010 @ 05:31 GMT
Dear Marcel,

M:"... was a reply to Steve .. not Jason. Sorry for the mix."

Long answer: it will be in my essay.

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 12:29 GMT
ahahah ,

FTL INTELLIGENCER YES !

Have you contacted the NRA Jason .ahahah for your "non utile in a humanistic point of vue"experiments.

Wawww Jason ,congratulations.

ahaha

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 25, 2010 @ 23:30 GMT
Jason,

I suppose there is always the temptation to take models or ideas to the extreme of their capabilities and see what happens.I'm guilty too. Some people just like pushing the boundaries of what is considered possible. Doing it because it can be done, out of curiosity or for adventure or fame. It happens in all sorts of bizarre ways, even extreme ironing. Just look at some of the Guinness world records!

I don't understand the mathematics but I appreciate that it is very complicated and clever. Being complicated and clever is not the same as being a realistic representation of something or relevant to what happens outside of those extreme conditions. Each to their own.I'd actually rather drag my ironing board up a mountain than contemplate the mathematics of a black hole.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 26, 2010 @ 00:01 GMT
Jason ,

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
- John,

Maybe I wasn't clear... Space IS an experience and for that reason it does not qualify under B)because the substance sought cannot be perceived directly i.e as an experience . BTW, it would not qualify also under A) as it is not "dynamic".

- James,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

Ok, I fooled around a bit searching. I think I will not pursue your messages, that appear to be responses, if they are not connected to the thread that they respond to. I'm sure that you will still be able to correspond with those who are expecting your reply. So, my lack of response should not be missed.

James

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 01:50 GMT
Hi James,

I certainly experience the same length of time seeming to be longer or shorter according to circumstance. However if the interval ticked out by my clock is constant then my personal experience of reality is wrong or time can be variable at the same time as being constant.So I don't really have a problem with cognitive dissonance in relation to time dilation. It can be both stretched and not stretched simultaneously, according to relative perspective.

Yes i do intend to enter though I am actually going to have to spend some time on editing what I have down into something succinct but still worthwhile,and readable. The character limit is very restrictive but a mercy for the people who have to read the essays.

I am hoping to find time to carry out an experiment that will support what I am saying and overcome the argument that it is just philosophy and not science.I intend to say something about causality at the sub atomic scale and suggest further pre existing supporting experimental evidence. I hope it will be something new and interesting rather than just the same old stuff that I talked about here for years now.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 03:45 GMT
Marcel,

Ok, something dynamic. I'll go along with Jason and pick light, but with the caveat that gravity is the anti-light.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 01:57 GMT
Inertia is the key to a unified theory. When inertia and gravity are ultimately linked and balanced, there is balanced attraction and repulsion.

Gravity/accel. and inertia are central to fundamentally balanced distance in space. There is quantum gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 05:19 GMT
Another way to look at gravity is to look at the time dilation equation. Delta t' is the observer, Delta t * gamma is the source/emitter. The two times can represent periods T' and T. What happens if we call this a time dilation THREAD? Time Dilation Thread works like a wave-guide along which a photon travels. It is the path of the photon as it frequency shifts along a gravity field.

In the limiting case that the frequency shift is nill, then a Time Dilation Thread is just a wave function. Empty space is filled with wave functions. We know this because of the Casimir Effect.

For a photon of frequency f, perhaps we could imagine a gravitational frequency shift operator something like f' = GR(f). The definition of a gravity operator could be something like

E'=hf'=hf-V_G, where V_G is the gravitational potential along a path gL where g is the gravity field 9.8m/s^2 and L is some distance along this path.

OK, I'll keep working on it.

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 15:00 GMT
Acceleration/gravity and inertia are both key to stable and balanced distance in space. Add this with/to generally balanced attraction and repulsion, and there we have it. Resistance to accel. and accel./grav. balanced and fundamentally equivalent. This centers, balances, and extends space. Position in space then relates to distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 14:55 GMT
Physics is not getting the big picture, not at all.

report post as inappropriate

PLATO wrote on Nov. 23, 2010 @ 17:20 GMT
You all fail to understand that when inertia and gravity/acceleration are balanced/equivalent, repulsion and attraction are generally balanced, and here is the fundamental union of gravity and electromagnetism/light. This provides fundamental, centered, and generally stable distance in space in keeping with limited and averaged distance and motion.

I demonstrated all of this.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 03:12 GMT
News story:http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101125_galaxies
.htm

Some of the biggest galaxies may have formed billions of years earlier than prevailing scietific models predict, suggesting something is wrong with the models, astronomers are reporting.

“We have found a relatively large number of very massive, highly luminous galaxies that existed almost 12 billion years ago when the universe was still very young, about 1.5 billion years old. These results appear to disagree with the latest predictions from models of galaxy formation and evolution,” said astrophysicist Danilo Marchesini of Tufts University in Massachusetts, lead author of a report on the findings published online Nov. 24 in the Astrophysical Journal.

The galaxies, estimated to be five to ten times more massive than our own, were among a sample of galaxies studied by his Marchesini’s group and said to be 1.5 billion to 2 billion years old. The ages were gauged based on the galaxies’ distance and the time their light would take to reach us.

These estimates might be somewhat off, but it’s not clear whether any such error could be large enough to explain the findings, the researchers said. Either way, they added, the discovery of such massive, old galaxies would it self be no table, since such a galaxy population has never been seen.

The scientists said they got a fuller view of galaxies at this early stage than was previously available by combining existing data with deep images obtained through a new system of customized light filters. The galaxies glow in infrared light, which is in­visible to the unaided eye, in an effect thought to be caused by their vast distance combined with an ongoing expansion of the universe.

More than four in five of these massive galaxies were also very bright in infrared light, showing that they were either under going violent activity, rapidly growing or both, the investigators added. The violent activity would probably be due to black holes at the centers of the galaxies eating vast amounts of material, which is drawn to their intense gravity.

“It is clear that our understanding of how massive galaxies form is still far from satisfactory,” said Marchesini. He didn’t venture an explanation for the findings, but added that “the existence of these galaxies so early in the history of the universe, as well as their properties, can provide very important clues on how galaxies formed and evolved shortly after the Big Bang,” the moment when physicists believe the universe was born.

I predict Big Bang theory will have been flushed down the memory hole by the end of the decade.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 03:47 GMT
Anyone not a career scientist has little chance against the pros. They take their time and validate and get validated by peers, every baby step, and they are good at it. They probably all know the final answer but, unlike us, they have no desire to rush things up. Scientists have their own questions to which to devote all their attention.

But to me, they appear awfully slow and even late....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 06:53 GMT
Marcel,

In your opinion metaphysics tells us the whole universe was made at some time out of nothing but time, answering the what is it made of question.You have told us so. Having asked "why" you presumably also have a purpose for that miraculous occurrence, giving what you call understanding. Or will it take another 3000 years of deep thought. Nothing against meta physics ... the brain a jar does keep raising its ..I was going to say head but it can't can it!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 10:20 GMT
That should be brain in a jar. Which makes me think of the film "Man with two brains" Which is funny, tragic and rather sweet.

Marcel ,

you said "They probably all know the final answer but, unlike us, they have no desire to rush things up." Really? All very well but from what I hear old mother Earth isn't feeling too well and thats just the half of it. Why don't they just squeeze in a scientific renaissance before the end of the world as we know it?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 21:35 GMT
Marcel,

You wrote: "Assuming the universe does exist (!), it has to be made of something." Really? Do you believe in someone who made it and someone else who made this creator and was made on his part by a third maker, and so on ad infinitum? I prefer reasonable science that is clearly separated from speculative belief.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

PLATO wrote on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 19:38 GMT
This is the unification of gravity with inertia: Inertia relates to immobilization, and this fundamentally relates to distance in space/scale. Inertia is key to generally balanced attraction and repulsion.

Gravity relates to mobility ultimately. So, we seek the middle to unify them.

Gravity is key to distance in/of space.

Full gravity=full mobility. Full inertia=full immobility.

Semi-immobilized in dreams is balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity/acceleration.

Accordingly, both gravity and inertia are equally reduced in dreams, so that they meet in the middle. The semi- (or half) inertia/immobility in dreams is a relative increase in inertia, however, that balances with/offsets reduced gravity and provides generally stabilized and fundamental distance in/of space in conjunction with generally balanced attraction and repulsion.

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Nov. 30, 2010 @ 20:54 GMT
More useless gibberish.

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
Georgina,

All I am exposing is a split in the acquisition of knowledge; a sort of uncertainty principle. One can't ask why and how in the same breath because the answers, although valid in their own system, are incompatible within a single sentence.

As for Mother Earth, a metaphysical/ontological approach may give us the pragmatism required to clearly see where we are heading...

Eckard,

You are not scoring any points in continually trying to ridicule this approach with your sad recursive god question ... It only shows a certain insecurity on your part. Too bad! There is much to do here.

Marcel,

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 10:21 GMT
Hi Marcel,

Yes, how and why are rather different.. Science is good at how but why lies outside of its domain.

To answer why one has to frame the question within a belief system of some kind. If the answer is consistent with the belief it may appear to be true and sufficient. However if the belief changes then the answer may be untrue and not sufficient. Science is sometimes treated as a belief system and then expected to supply those why answers, but scientific ideas change and different beliefs, of all kinds, yield different answers.

Without observer or believer it is not possible to find answers to why. All answers are constructs by the observer or believer and can be rejected on the basis of lack of impartiality or inevitable influence on the answer given, imo. The rabbit does not need to ask why carrots exist. They exist for rabbits to eat.

report post as inappropriate

johanna wrote on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 05:18 GMT
In generally controlling for motion/mobility DeMeglio has demonstrated fundamentally equivalent inertia and gravity in conjunction with generally balanced attraction and repulsion this unifys gravity and electromagnatism. Why are his ides ignored and denied??

report post as inappropriate
Eckard replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 14:08 GMT
Marcel,

I am not "trying to ridicule this approach". I consider my objection serious, and I am sorry if someone who mistook me feels hurt in his religious belief. When I got confirmed I got formally accepted as a member of a Christian church. In preparation for this confirmation I was told a convincing argument: There are questions that can definitely not at all be answered by science. Later on I dealt with science; and I decided to not believe in anything except for what is reasonably real.

For instance, the grandfather paradox is obviously something that evades any reasonable explanation. I rather suspect wrong reasoning behind it. Hopefully you will agree that belief in god and physics must be strictly separated from each other. If I recall correctly, Hawking reported interest in his work by those who are believing in a creation, if not of Adam, then at least of the world. They hoped science will confirm their belief. Do you share their hope? Who "made" the universe?

Eckard

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Dec. 1, 2010 @ 17:40 GMT
Eckard,

A large portion of the population believes in some version of God or the paranormal. Quite a few sane and rational people, like me, have personally experienced phenomena that plays tricks with light and perception. It is a phenomenon that makes its presence felt, but does not violate conservation of energy. Such things should be called Quasi-real.

Simultaneously, physicists are stumped by quantum mechanics and relativity. I tell them that the laws of physics are implemented by photons and wave functions. I get back blank stares. Wave functions are also Quasi-real phenomena because they make their presence felt, but cannot be observed directly.

Explanations that violate conservation of energy are BAD... Quantum mechanics averages out energy violations so it's OK. Many Worlds Interpretation flagrantly violates conservation of energy, so it's BAD...

Time travel flagrantly violates conservation of energy and Thermodynamics so it's BAD...

Quasi-real phenomena is very subtle and can be easily overlooked, yet, it makes its presence felt, so it's OK.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Dec. 2, 2010 @ 17:31 GMT
Marcel,

Perhaps you overlooked my reply because I did not manage putting it into the correct thread.

Jason,

I guess, stumped means almost the same as worried, and blank stares mean what we in Germany are calling big wide open starring eyes. My view is a bit different. I am also convinced that energy is conserved. However, this is not my primary conviction. What about phenomena, I dealt in depth with hearing, and I tried to understand subjective perception, not just tinnitus but also so called hum. What phenomenon do you suffer from?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate