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 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

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.

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


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

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Peter van Gaalen: on 3/2/11 at 11:28am UTC, wrote Dear Constantin, We make only models of reality in our head to describe...

Ray Munroe: on 2/27/11 at 3:40am UTC, wrote Dear Peter and Constantin, I think we are on convergent paths. It seems...

Constantin Leshan: on 2/26/11 at 22:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter van Gaalen, Thank you for visiting my page. In fact, we have...

Peter van Gaalen: on 2/17/11 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote Hi Ray, Nice to hear from you. There is no difference between G and c....

Ray Munroe: on 2/15/11 at 17:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, This looks like an interesting essay with a lot of...

Peter van Gaalen: on 2/15/11 at 11:22am UTC, wrote Essay Abstract This essay analyzes the dimensions of the physical...


Jason Wolfe: "There are two facts that have been established. First, the universe is..." in First Things First: The...

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

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Steve, It sounds like we have similar interpretations of quantum..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes indeed, a wavefunction represents a superposition of locations as well..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff,..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""But what do scientists hope quantum computers will be good for,..." in What Will Quantum...

Zeeya Merali: "Over the past couple of months there’s been renewed interest, and quite..." in What Will Quantum...

Jason Wolfe: "If I could write an unconventional model of reality, it would come with a..." in Alternative Models of...

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.

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.

November 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: How Simple Quantity Tables Elucidate the Digital Analog Question by Peter van Gaalen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Peter van Gaalen wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 11:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay analyzes the dimensions of the physical quantities. Planck units are used as identifyers of the physical quantities. Quantity tables reveal interesting patterns like alternating scalar and vector quantities. This essay advocates that Nature is fundamentally continuous and that phase is responsible for the fact that certain physical quantities can take only a countable set of discrete values. The introduction of phase leads from a relativistic classical mechanics to a relativistic quantum mechanics. In a somewhat broken analogy we can say that continuous media like water or gas also produce discrete physical objects like dropplets or bubbles. Interesting is the finding of a quadratic metric as the very essence of the Maxwell equations. If we 'throw' this pure electromagnetic metric into the pure gravitomagnetic metric then the result are the Maxwell equations. Also interesting is the finding that the fine structure constant is the ratio of two different planck constants. Because of the introduction of new quantities I often use the names of the quantities instead of their symbols.

Author Bio

My name is Peter van Gaalen. I studied biology at Leiden university in The Netherlands.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 17:33 GMT
Dear Peter,

This looks like an interesting essay with a lot of mathematical detail. I need to read it carefully. I agree that Quaternionic and Octonionic algebras could be part of a TOE. You have enumerated many different physical units of potential importance. I think that each distinct "unit" corresponds to a distinct "dimension".

You rewrote G as G/c, but I think that the more interesting ratio is the dimensionless Dirac Large Number of 10^41 ~ 2*pi/(G*h*c*m_p*m_e). Likewise. the Fine Structure Constant is dimensionless. These dimensionless combinations of physical units help define our Scale, and help define which units have a simple inverse (such as delta(E)*delta(t)~h) or reciprocal lattice (in my essay) relationship.

Check out my essay at topic #816. Our conclusions are different, but I think that our approaches are related.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter van Gaalen replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 12:01 GMT
Hi Ray,

Nice to hear from you.

There is no difference between G and c. Both are constants and therefore both display relativistic effects in the spacetime-massmomentum continuum as was shown by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity. c is the 'relativistic membrane' between time and length, but also between length and gm-flux and between gm-flux and burst. G/c is the 'relativistic membrane' between time and instant, between length and string, gmflux and mass, burst and momentum. The Dirac Large Number isn't like the contstants c and G.

The tables with the quantities have the purpose to visualize the mathematical quantities. In a simple manner you can see patterns between the different physical quantities.

One of the most important results is to recognize that there are only two pure electromagnetic quantities: electric charge and electromagnetic flux. All other electromagnetic quantities are derivations of those two. For example: the vector potential (in the table: electromagnetic vector potential A), the scalar potential (in the table the 'electric scalar potential' V. This quantity is analogous with the gravitational potential (in the table 'gravitational scalar potential')), the electric field (in the table 'electric fieldstrength'), the magnetic field (in the table 'magnetic induction') and magnetic fieldstrength H. All those 5 quantities are mixed quantities: combinations of the 2 pure quantities electric charge or electromagnetic flux together with quantities from the gravitomagnetic system: time and length.

vector potential = magnetic flux / length.

scalar potential = magnetic flux/time.

magnetic field = magnetic flux / area.

electric field = magnetic flux/(length x time).

magnetic fieldstrength = electric charge/(length x time).

The Maxwell equations use the magnetic field and the electric field. I think this is not elucidating the underlying pattern. it is better to write the Maxwell equations with the electric field E and the magnetic fieldstrength H. In this way we see the underlying pattern:

electric charge^2 plus electromagnetic flux^2 = 0.

Also interesting are the table in relation to the four-vectors, Four-vectors are composed of relativistic quantities. In this way all four quantities of a four vector have the same dimension. (On page 8 and 9 of my essay the difference between non-relativistic quantities and relativistic quantities are explained.) Electromagnetic four potential = (scalar potential, vector potential_xyz) or in the table (electric scalar potential, electromagnetic vector potential) four-vector in minkowski space = (time, length_xyz)

four velocity = (dimensionles, velocity_xyz)

four acceleration = (gravitomagnetic induction, acceleration_xyz)

four momentum = (mass, momentum_xyz)

four force = (gravitomagnetic potential, momentum_xyz)

I will check out your essay!

Bookmark and Share

Constantin Leshan wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT
Dear Peter van Gaalen,

Thank you for visiting my page. In fact, we have the different views about Nature, your essay advocates that Nature is fundamentally continuous, and my essay - discontinuous. Although, since you accept the existence of Planck units (Planck scale), you must accept also the discrete spacetime. Do you think the Planck scale (foam) is compatible with continuous description of reality?



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT
Dear Peter and Constantin,

I think we are on convergent paths.

It seems to me that Constantin's Hole Theory began as a Classical Vacuum, but we now recognize that a quantum hole is most logical (to exclude the infrared divergence, neutrinos, etc.). I think that a Spacetime lattice prevents the Black Hole mass from ever reaching the singularity, and one of Constantin's holes exists as a lattice defect at the anticipated location of the singularity. Can we use these spacetime holes for interstallar travel? I do not know...

Although Peter's analysis of units implies continuous values, the conflict between "wooden" and "marble" quantities, and the reality of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle implies something like my reciprocal lattices of dynamic variables (such as position and momentum) - where one lattice seems discrete and the other lattice seems continuous (remember that a very large number of overlapping discrete states can appear continuous).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter van Gaalen replied on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 11:28 GMT
Dear Constantin,

We make only models of reality in our head to describe empirical reality. Some physical models are continuous and some physical models are discrete and some models are both. To say that reality is continuous or that reality is discrete is useless. We only have our models of reality. And sometimes our models can predict some properties or some phenomena. The model that...

view entire post

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.