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


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

Jacek Safuta: on 3/21/11 at 17:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, Thank you for your comments. I have read your essay but once...

Edwin Klingman: on 3/15/11 at 0:55am UTC, wrote Dear Jacek Safuta, It is difficult to compare our ideas, since I do not...

Jacek Safuta: on 2/16/11 at 17:06pm UTC, wrote Oh, Walter, I would forgot: the original Darwin’s theory for many years...

Jacek Safuta: on 2/16/11 at 17:02pm UTC, wrote Hi Walter, I am glad that you have found my essay clear and accessible. I...

Walter: on 2/16/11 at 11:39am UTC, wrote Dear Jacek, I am not a professional physicist. I am Scientific American...

Jacek Safuta: on 2/15/11 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote Hi Alan, Thank you for your post. You have touched the graviton notion....

Alan Lowey: on 2/15/11 at 10:57am UTC, wrote Hi Jacek, I liked the style of your essay very much. I came to similar...

Jacek Safuta: on 2/14/11 at 13:05pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract I frame a concept that the reality has evolved from...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

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

Author Jacek Safuta wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 13:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

I frame a concept that the reality has evolved from an analog to the digital form we experience today. I apply the theory of Darwinism beyond its original sphere of organic evolution on Earth. The evolution theory is not so easy to understand for non-professionals, especially if we demand a technically correct scientific theory. Moreover there are alternative views on the physical reality notion. So before addressing the "ultimate" nature of reality we need to establish a common language. First of all I propose a new definition of the matter and energy (the physical reality) however not contradictory to current theories but totally contradictory to everyday experience. The new quality here is that the definition is supposed to be free of human being’s perception and as far as possible also free of our language and culture limitations. Then I suggest an explanation on how a primordial continuous Universe (starting before the Planck Era) has evolved to the discrete matter and energy we observe today. Finally I present some points of view on computability of the actual Universe and its evolution.

Author Bio

I have a background in engineering (M.Sc. – Silesian University, 1989) and in management (Silesian University, 2000). I developed my interest in physics a couple of years ago and decided to pursue theoretical physics as my future career. Now I work for the government and, as a hobby, study mathematics and physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 10:57 GMT
Hi Jacek, I liked the style of your essay very much. I came to similar conclusions myself incidentally. Regarding science, I have a major problem with the lack of a particle model for the force of gravity and think that anyone who uses the term "mass" is unwittingly subscribing to a spacetime continuum ideology. Do you understand what I mean by that statement Jacek? It's the mathematical formula left by Newton which is profoundly WRONG if one considers a simple helical screw as a model for a GRAVITON. This picture also incorporates the concept of ORIENTATION with the gravity force. There's a good reason to believe this is the case when one looks into it in more detail..

Nice essay and good luck in the competition,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 14:22 GMT
Hi Alan,

Thank you for your post. You have touched the graviton notion. In the Technical Endnotes (ii) of my essay I tried to clarify shortly my point of view on the gravity. Due to the limits (2 pages only) I could not develop the full concept. The gravity, according to my idea, is apparently a spacetime deformation. This seems to support the GR. But there are crucial differences. As I propose: a differentiation of forces depends only on average gradient and its changes, size and shape of the deformation. There are implications of the assumption:

1. The gravity is not a fundamental but emergent interaction. The reason of the gravity phenomenon is that the gravity force of e.g. a planet is a sum (wave packet) of many tiny spacetime deformations (elementary particles) resulting in far-reaching, but relatively weak interaction (the surrounding spacetime expansion). Continuing the reasoning: the size of the deformation is of an astronomical (very large) object radius. The average gradient is tiny (very weak spacetime deformation). The shape is complementary to the object and following the object. So the gravity emerges from the strong nuclear interaction. Let us consider as a similar example of the interaction between a star and a distant galaxy: The error arising from combining all the stars in the distant galaxy into one point mass is negligible. So-called tree algorithms are used to decide which particles can be combined into one pseudoparticle. These algorithms arrange all particles in an octree in the three-dimensional case [Barnes J. and Hut P. A hierarchical O (N log N) force-calculation algorithm. Nature, 324(4), December 1986]. So coming back to your post the gravity is discrete but it only seems to be continuous. I have not made a calculus yet (this is a fresh idea). But it seems not to be very hard to sum up the gravitational force of all particles (components of an astronomical object) using the a.m. algorithm and find out if I am right or wrong.

2. A gravitational wave (graviton) is commonly defined as a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from the source. My concept gives quite different outlook. In brief: every “massive” object e.g. the earth is a gravitational wave itself. And the wave is not traveling outward from the source. There is no source e.g. the Earth is a gravitational wave orbiting the Sun along the geodesics.

Jacek

Bookmark and Share



Walter wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Jacek, I am not a professional physicist. I am Scientific American reader. So I like your article as it is one of those in the contest that stick to the evaluation criterion to be "Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature." With some help on the Internet I think I can get your idea.

But this is a bit dangerous idea because it could lead to a very simple unification theory. Assuming that you incorporate some maths that will be then too complicated to mere SciAm reader? Abd what about a predictive power?

Good luck!

Walter John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi Walter,

I am glad that you have found my essay clear and accessible.

I do not agree that simplicity is a dangerous approach to physics especially when we are discussing a foundational issue. The simplicity is highly appreciated and usually the most wanted by scientists.

As you see my essay frames a concept but not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is based on “thought experiments” and not on a calculus. I guess the equations will not be simple similarly as the existing ones e.g. the mathematics of GR (the metric tensor that describes the local geometry of spacetime) or non-linear dynamics.

You have asked about predictions. I can give you some predictions however I declared my essay is not a hypothesis yet. A theory or hypothesis requires testability, simplicity, predictive power you demand (or generating new theories) and some conservatism (not to be contradictory to existing theories). My concept seems to be very simple at least for someone who is acquainted with geodesics in GR, Darwinism and dissipative systems.

Let us come back to predictions.

There are predictions related to the spacetime deformations concept: there is no WIMP and SuperWIMP particles and no gravitons. Both gravity and dark energy are reformulated.

There are predictions related to the evolution concept: constants are not really constant. The example is the fine structure constant.

And finally my first concept was the spacetime deformations and it generated the evolution concept.

That’s all at the moment. But you have inspired me to work harder. Thank you.

Good luck to you.

Jacek

Bookmark and Share


Author Jacek Safuta replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 17:06 GMT
Oh, Walter,

I would forgot: the original Darwin’s theory for many years generated no predictions. Now scientists can find a little. The evolutionary science refers to the history.

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Jacek Safuta,

It is difficult to compare our ideas, since I do not know what equations you use as the basis, but you make a number of interesting statements that seem to indicate that we see some things the same way. For example you state that: "a primordial continuous Universe ... has evolved to the discrete matter and energy we observe today."

I begin with the same assumption.

We may differ in that I believe that the gravity field actually 'defines' space-time. But with this caveat, we agree that:

a) the spacetime is continuous, i.e. not perforated, not torn

b) the spacetime has elastic properties

c) the elastic properties of spacetime are [locally] isotropic

d) any spacetime deformation is unlimited

Actually, I do find a limit to deformation, but it is just this limit that gives rise to material particles. This seems to be what you are referring to when you say: "the matter is only a spacetime deformation (a contraction type)."

You say: "The fine structure constant alpha has several physical interpretations". It may interest you to know that I derive the fine structure constant from the above (local) limit on spacetime deformation. I believe this is compatible with your statement that "The observable objects have been originated due to the spacetime deformations self-organization" and that the evolution of such objects is a "special case of a more general law of survival of the stable".

So it is always difficult to know whether what your words say and what I think they mean are really the same, but I invite you to read my essay and determine for yourself.

I enjoyed your essay, and hope that you enjoy mine.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jacek Safuta replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your comments.

I have read your essay but once is not enough. That is a pity that I cannot rate it. It would be very high.

My essay was addressed to a layman reader like that of Scientific American. That was my understanding of the contest. So there is no equations. And honestly I am not ready yet to show them. Still working.

Jacek

Bookmark and Share



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.