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

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/20/11 at 21:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Andy, Thank you for pointing me to the preprint Division Algebras and...

Andrey Akhmeteli: on 2/18/11 at 8:53am UTC, wrote I don't know about the specific "clarification" that you mention, but the...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/17/11 at 8:38am UTC, wrote Dear Andy, I am delighted. Thank you very much for your support. What...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/17/11 at 8:16am UTC, wrote Dear Andy, Yesterday I was short of time. I intended to ask you for help....

Andrey Akhmeteli: on 2/17/11 at 2:32am UTC, wrote Dear Eckard, Thank you for your comment. Some time ago I was quite...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/16/11 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrey, I got aware of your utterance that seems to confirm my own...

Andrey Akhmeteli: on 2/15/11 at 10:34am UTC, wrote Essay Abstract While it is obvious that no experiment can tell...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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...

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...


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: Discrete and Continuous: Can We Tell One From the Other? by Andrey Akhmeteli [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andrey Akhmeteli wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 10:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

While it is obvious that no experiment can tell discrete from continuous due to limited resolution, even within reasonably well defined quantum theories telling discrete from continuous or particles from waves can be less than trivial. For example, due to natural line width, it is not so obvious that atom spectra are discrete, and while it is believed that a measurement of a spin projection of a spin 1/2 particle can only yield values +1/2 or -1/2, the situation is not quite clear-cut due to the well-known measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Point-like particles could be another manifestation of discrete, but using some versions of electrodynamics, one can show that matter particles of quantum theory can be emulated by continuous fields. For example, matter field can be naturally excluded from the equations of scalar electrodynamics (the Klein-Gordon-Maxwell electrodynamics), and the resulting equations describe independent evolution of the electromagnetic field. These equations can also be naturally embedded into a quantum field theory. Some surprising new results for spinor electrodynamics (the Dirac-Maxwell electrodynamics) suggest that similar conclusions may be true for that theory, which is more realistic.

Author Bio

Andrey Akhmeteli obtained his PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics from Moscow University and has worked there, in other research and education institutions, and in industry.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Andrey,

I got aware of your utterance that seems to confirm my own reasoning:

"In principle, we can do without complex numbers in quantum theory."

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:32 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thank you for your comment. Some time ago I was quite surprised by Schroedinger's note that complex numbers are not necessary to describe charged particles. I was also quite surprised to find out last year that the Dirac equation can be rewritten as an equation for just one real function. But I guess you are not happy with real numbers either:-) And I agree with you, the notion of analytical signal, while very convenient, is really messy.

Best regards

Andy

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Andy,

I am delighted. Thank you very much for your support. What about real numbers, I am very happy with C as well as R, even if I am claiming that, in principle, R+ fits to reality without redundancy and without ambiguity. Training students to use R and C blackboard bold as to describe R and C in the sense of resistor and capacitor was my job for more than forty years.

What about the notion analytical signal, I am an EE, and we EEs like it. For us an analytic signal is a function of time in complex plane with Hermitian symmetry. We do not bother about negative frequencies. Why should we bother about a complex function of simultaneously positive as well as negative time. In contrast to many speculative physicist, engineers have at least in the end to know what they are doing.

Best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 08:16 GMT
Dear Andy,

Yesterday I was short of time. I intended to ask you for help. Doug Bundy told me that John Baez somewhere "clarified" the question whether the notion number should be understood as distance from zero or as usual since Dedekind like a point.

I consider this trifle crucial in connection with important implications, and I doubt that John Baez can contribute more than perhaps questionable mainstream excuses. I will read your essay, and I hope you can give me hints. Criticism is always welcome to me.

Best regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 08:53 GMT
I don't know about the specific "clarification" that you mention, but the following Baez' recent preprint may be relevant:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.5690v
2.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Andy,

Thank you for pointing me to the preprint Division Algebras and Quantum Theory. It refers to the Question R, C, H, or O and does not even mention R+. Mathematicians like John Baez do obviously not devote attention to the question of avoidable redundancy and ambiguity.

Meanwhile Doug Bundy pointed me to what he recalled as a "clarification" of the question whether the notion number should be understood as distance from zero or as usual since Dedekind like a point. According to my reasoning there is no point in the middle left over, provided the community of mathematicians is ready to jump over its own shadow and admit that real numbers are different from rational ones in that there is no trichotomy with the former. Brouwer already understood: the TND is only valid in case of countability. This means, within real numbers there is no difference between open and closed intervals and no singular points, just limits measured from zero.

Regards,

Eckard

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.