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

Steve Dufourny: on 3/3/11 at 14:01pm UTC, wrote Hi all, Interesting ! if the thermodynamicla proportionalities of degrees...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 2/25/11 at 14:22pm UTC, wrote The appearance of degrees of freedom can potentially be an illusion. A...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/25/11 at 4:13am UTC, wrote Lawrence, you seem to be tying the notion of entanglement and de coherence...

Lawrence Crowell: on 2/25/11 at 2:00am UTC, wrote I think it is important to get away from these notions of assigning degrees...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/24/11 at 21:33pm UTC, wrote The fact each degree of freedom provides a "gateway" from a prior to the...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/24/11 at 20:21pm UTC, wrote You got the essence of my point. Quote: And then you would be saying...

andrew Beckwith: on 2/24/11 at 19:47pm UTC, wrote N can be as large as it can get. I.e. it can go up to 1 million. It is left...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/23/11 at 2:54am UTC, wrote Hello again, I read it through. It appears that you mean N to represent...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

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

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:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


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: Is Nature Fundamentally Continuous or Discrete, and How Can These Two Different but Very Useful Conceptions Be Fully Reconciled? by Andrew Walcott Beckwith [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andrew Walcott Beckwith wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our contention, is that reality is actually analog, but that at a critical limit, as when the Octonian gravity condition kicks in, that for a time it appears discrete. This due to al phase transition at the start of the big bang. Our second consideration is, that symmetry breaking models, i.e. the Higgs boson are not necessary for the formation of particles with mass just before Octonionic gravity which could arise in pre Planckian physics models without a potential. Finally, the necessity of potentials for pre Octonionic gravity physics can be circumvented via Sherrer k essence physics

Author Bio

Andrew Beckwith, Born December 15, 1954. Affiliated with Chongquing University Dept of physics, institute of theoretical science. Specialization in theoretical modeling for GW astronomy. PhD at U of Houston, 2002. Frequent conference attendee , last conference of note Dark Side of Universe, 2010, Leon, Mexico, Beyond the Standard Model 2010, Capetown, S.A. invited speaker at Dark 2009, Cantebury, New Zealand, and contributor to DICE 2010, Italy, and was a cotnributo of the Erice Nucleare Physics, 2009. Will attend Rencontres De Moriond, representing China, PRC in experimental GW astronomy work, for Chongquing, PRC.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 01:16 GMT
Hello Andrew,

It is good to see you in the contest. Your paper is highly technical, and may lose some folks, but since I've been around the block with you on some of the formalism and its derivation - I will likely have a few interesting questions. I'll have to give it a more thorough reading, but for now I'll ask this.

In the section on extending Penrose's cyclical universe theory, you state that "there are no fewer than N universes undergoing Penrose's infinite expansion," and you use N in equation 46 without explaining how it is defined. What does N quantify, and how large might it be?

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 02:54 GMT
Hello again,

I read it through. It appears that you mean N to represent the degrees of freedom which arise during the Planck epoch. We have privately discussed how spatial dimensions are traded for degrees of freedom as one approaches the Planck scale from the macroscopic realm and how the degrees of freedom may go to 1000 or more, in the initital phase of the universe, shortly after the Planck time has elapsed.

Your explanations are not quite adequate to the subtleties you attempt to describe in this essay, but is is a nice 'tour' of those cosmological scenarios which are strongly influenced by the choice of N, or by its evolution. Although I'm not totally happy with this as an essay on analog vs digital, however, it is a fine Physics letter, in terms of briefly describing the basis for your current work, and spelling out different directions you can go with it. A nice job overall, though as I say it's a bit scattered.

It would have been better, had you taken more time to explain why the sub-Planckian realm is like the calm center of a cyclone, which allows for a smoothly-varying fluid phase. Presumably this would exist between iterations, in a cyclical universe scenario such as that proposed by Penrose.

And then you would be saying that each degree of freedom provides a 'doorway' between prior and currently evolving universes. An interesting thought!

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 19:47 GMT
N can be as large as it can get. I.e. it can go up to 1 million. It is left indefinite as a test case.

Andrew Beckwtih

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
You got the essence of my point.

Quote:

And then you would be saying that each degree of freedom provides a 'doorway' between prior and currently evolving universes. An interesting thought!

end of quote

I should have put this in, as you did.

Andy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 21:33 GMT
The fact each degree of freedom provides a "gateway" from a prior to the present universe would lead to enable a chaotic mixing mapping. The existence of the chaotic mixing would lead to an analog description, de facto. Since such a mapping is NOT digital at all.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 02:00 GMT
I think it is important to get away from these notions of assigning degrees of freedom to space or spacetme. In a lattice picture this amounts to N^3 or N^4 degrees of freedom for space and spacetime respectively. However, the boundary of spacetime, or horizons, if they contain degrees of freedom then there are only 2^N. This is a significant reduction in the amount of entropy one assigns to spacetime. This is one reason LQG has a hard time recovering a classical limit.

There is an interesting paper by Davies, where he argues there are 10^123 bit flips in the entire universe. There are 400 to 500 bits and possible 10^123 entangled bit flips corresponds to the total number of elementary particles, or string modes possible. The E_8xE_8 has 2x248 = 496 particle states. The implication is that the universe may only contain one of every type of elementary particle. So the electrons running around the circuit board in my computer, is the same as all the electrons in the entire universe. This holographic projection of fields onto the AdS boundary, or equivalently the cosmological boundary, is a form of Feynman’s original concept of the path integral where a particle in effect covers the entire universe.

I could go on with this, but is sounds utterly insane to say that there are only 496 particles in the universe. There is an associated quantum entanglement entropy and information in the universe which is considerably larger. This gives rise to decoherent classes or sets which is why we perceive there are so many particles or “atoms” in the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT
Lawrence, you seem to be tying the notion of entanglement and de coherence classes as a replacement for degrees of freedom arguments. If this is what you mean, please let me know via an e mail

Andy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 14:22 GMT
The appearance of degrees of freedom can potentially be an illusion. A measurement of a quantum system is ultimately an entanglement process. You entangle a system with another, which removes the superposition of the original system and puts it into an entanglement. So if you measure a two state system with another two states system, which I break out below, a naïve assumption is there are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 14:01 GMT
Hi all,

Interesting ! if the thermodynamicla proportionalities of degrees of freedom are really and truly respected of course.Don't forget that the ubiquity of a particle and all mass in fact is just an illusion, that's why the hidden vraibles and actions at distance have no sense respecting the real interpretation of our physicality in EVOLUTION OF MASS.Now if a real Occham Razor is applied , that can be interesting.

Dear Lawrence, could you develop a virtual 3d computer, or holographe in 3D, I have some ideas for a perception of this 3D topology really.Whith of course a spherical field and inside the codes topological and the pictures.You imagine the 3D pictures just in front of our eyes.The ergonomy can be optimized adapted to the body.It's possible you think?I think you can make it,you play easily with maths.The topological coded frequences spherical seem very relevant for the reencoding of informations for the pictures and its continuity.But all that seems difficult.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.