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

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/13/11 at 16:49pm UTC, wrote Jim, There is one reality for all universes. There might be very different...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/13/11 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote Thank you for your comments. Looking back, the Ptolemaic system with...

Edwin Klingman: on 3/12/11 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote Jeffrey, I enjoyed the way you started off with Magritte's "This is not a...

James Hoover: on 3/8/11 at 4:45am UTC, wrote "A Universe that is not analog or digital might be beyond human ...

Augustus Bacigalupi: on 3/7/11 at 19:12pm UTC, wrote Your title caught my eye; I love the dada reference, and what it says about...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/7/11 at 17:37pm UTC, wrote Juan, Thank you for your comments. I do have a little diagram showing...

Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud: on 3/7/11 at 3:46am UTC, wrote Jeffry: As promised on the thread of my essay, here is a comment on your...

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/5/11 at 23:12pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thank you for the kind words. Best best way to improve skills of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,so lol you speak to God or it has send you this information lol ?..." in First Things First: The...


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 13, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Not A Pipe by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 10:45 GMT
Essay Abstract

Does our current understanding of Physics say more about us than about the Universe? Current discrete and continuous systems are re-examined and a new approach is which could resolve the issue of locality is offered.

Author Bio

Jeffrey Schmitz has his Masters in Physics from the University of Tennessee. He has taught Astronomy, Physics and Physical Science as an adjunct instructor at seven different colleges in and around Chicago.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Chris Kennedy wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 00:49 GMT
Jeffrey,

I enjoyed your essay. It is mind-blowing that more physicists do not discuss or further investigate this point you make:

"A fundamentally discrete universe will have a scale level where energy or

position can have a level of one or two units, but not one and a half. The

problem with this is that a particle will be in one position then be in a

different position the next moment moving faster than the speed of light

for that small step."

I am glad you brought it up. Is the shift instantaneous? Is it not, but at least faster than light? How exactly does the shift occur? One of Bohm's ideas that I mention in my essay is interesting - that the electron can momentarily disappear and reappear nearby. Almost as if it goes into solution and re-precipitates elsewhere.

These are the questions that we need answers to!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 21:41 GMT
Chris,

Glad you enjoyed my essay. Thank you for your comments.

Some models have multi-dimensions, where an electrons do go elsewhere and travel at less than the speed of light in a straight line. This line appears like "popping" in and out to us like a pin going through a folded sheet of paper. The problem with this model is does the electron still have mass and charge (gravity and electric field) when not in our three dimensional "plane"? Why do we not see the macro-scopic effects of these dimension?

I think the problem of "locality" can be solved without using added dimensions. There are problems with thermal conductivity of super-conductors and superfluids that can also be solved by having time as a function of enthropy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
Jeffrey

I very much enjoyed your essay, sitting here looking at Magritte's floating 'Castle of the Pyrenees' in Vignale's article in the current new Scientist. butof more import is page 16 'Molecules Bounce of Nothing', which, with the page 18 article on plasma last week has offered strong evidence for a unification model of SR/GR an QM outline in my own essay, avoiding Bell in providing Locality and Reality. It has a logic too complex to follow just by scanning over, but I'd value your views and criticism if you can find time to look.

Many thanks, and best of luck with yours.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 22:47 GMT
A Universe that is not analog or digital might be beyond human

understanding. I have no way of proving or disproving this last point, but I

hope it is not the case.

Michael,



Are you referring to a Universe that is both "analog and digital" or just "something else" that is beyond human understanding?

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 16:03 GMT
I do not know if it is beyond human understanding, but "analog and digital" (I used those terms to match the theme we were given) are just ways of viewing this problem. Quantum Mechanics works, most of the time, but it will be replaced by something (who knows what) and that new model will be itself replaced. This is Science, ever changing. Will this process one day stop not because of lack of better data, but because of ourselves. I hope not.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:10 GMT
Jeffrey

Thanks for your post on my string, which I replied to, and I appreciate your seemingly rare conceptual skills in taking aboard the concept. How on earth do we improve those skills in others? Though short I think your essay is right to the heart of the matter, well written and worth more than it's lowly 'community' rating position. It'll get a good score from me. I hope you may agree about mine, if only to help get the validity of the concept noticed. I got into the top 10, then immediately dropped out like a stone, consistent with dark tactical voting. I'm used to higher professional ethics!

Best of luck. And if you can see any mathematical angles to help me do let me know! Did you read the 'axis of evil' paper link? It may be rather fun.

Thanks again, Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 23:12 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for the kind words.

Best best way to improve skills of communicating concepts is to teach at a city college. I do not know how some of these students graduated from high school! I also teach at an art school (Columbia College Chicago) once again you have to rethink a subject to present it in a way that works with your students.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Enrique Ramos Beraud wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 03:46 GMT
Jeffry:

As promised on the thread of my essay, here is a comment on your essay.

Yours is very easy to read essay, it points out several interesting issues on Math, Physics and Science.

In particular, I fully agree on your statement "Put another way, the representation is not the thing."

Unfortunately science and humanity in general do not work that way. As general director of a company I have to deal a lot with marketing and sales, there you learn that truth might be important, but perception is more important. Reality is reality, but all we have is representation, science is nothing but representation.

Your browsing over several representations of reality is quite good.

The main difference with almost all other essays (not good or bad, just different) is I don´t see you taking some posture.

To your essay´s ending I might comment as stated on my essay: I think we can only grasp things when we digitize them, so science is the process of digitizing reality. Will we ever digitize everything? ...

I really hope not.

Best..

Good luck.

Juan Enrique

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT
Juan,

Thank you for your comments.

I do have a little diagram showing how a quantized universe is impossible, but I did not make it a clear main point. Speaking of perception - Chris Kennedy in an earlier thread, saw that as the only thing he wished to comment on. I am learning a lot about how to write an essay from those comments!

Right now we are trying to digitize everything because that is our current state of technology, it was not true in the past and might not be true in the future.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Augustus Bacigalupi wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
Your title caught my eye; I love the dada reference, and what it says about our representational perceptions of reality.

I haven't had time to read your article yet, but one commenter quoted your no 1-1/2 step in discrete model point, which I, too, question. In essence, either infinite energy is required to manifest a perfectly discrete boundary, or the order of a discretely partitioned substrate had to exist from the beginning. Either prospect has severe ontological problems. At the very least, they lack parsimony and beg Dualism.

Cheers,

Augustus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 04:45 GMT
"A Universe that is not analog or digital might be beyond human

understanding. I have no way of proving or disproving this last point, but I

hope it is not the case."

Jeffrey,

Some interesting points. I can't help wondering if we can equate reality and the universe. If there are multiple universes, is the reality for each universe different or is there one reality for all?

Best regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 16:49 GMT
Jim,

There is one reality for all universes. There might be very different rules (laws?) for each universe, but there is a limit to what these laws are. Reality exists, but we might never know true reality. In a sense, "Reality", the overview of all overviews is unimportant. What is important is the current best fit model and finding its problems.

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
Jeffrey,

I enjoyed the way you started off with Magritte's "This is not a pipe". I often quote Alfred Korzybski, in 'Science and Sanity', who said "The map is not the territory." He seems to think that recognition of this is the key to sanity. I do believe that, in today's physics, there is more confusion between reality and representation than perhaps ever before. So I applaud your focus, in your title and your opening paragraph.

I also like you point, "A fundamentally discrete universe will have a scale level where energy or position can have a level of one or two units, but not one and a half."

I was not quite sure about the diagram until I read your comment to Juan above, that "I do have a little diagram showing how a quantized universe is impossible, but I did not make it a clear main point."

And I agree that teaching is the best way to learn. When I used to teach I could tell by their eyes that the students did not understand, so I found another way to explain. If this didn't work, I looked for another way. Often, I had never seen the third way myself, so at least one of us learned something.

You may like to read my essay. It agrees with you that the fundamental nature of the universe is analog, with thresholds such as Planck's constant and the speed of light that provide separation and hence a degree of discreteness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Schmitz replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
Thank you for your comments.

Looking back, the Ptolemaic system with spheres within spheres seems absurd, but it was used for over a thousand years. A model that works well will always be viewed as reality by some. Students do help me. I will talk about an electron doing this or a photon doing that and a student will ask "does it really look like that?" and I will reply "No, it is just a model." Teaching concepts in Physics to non-science majors keeps you grounded.

When this is over, I might rewrite this essay. These comments have helped me see what changes it needs.

Jeff

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.