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

games Fans: on 11/12/18 at 20:13pm UTC, wrote I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this...

ethan smith: on 11/1/18 at 9:14am UTC, wrote it's a very nice topic about digital and analog, I like your post. Anyone...

adra7774: on 8/18/11 at 0:53am UTC, wrote JC: Por todo lo que pude observar y tratar de comprender hasta aqui, esta...

Russell Jurgensen: on 3/6/11 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Juan, I read your essay with interest and wanted to say hello and...

Juan Carlos Christensen: on 2/24/11 at 2:27am UTC, wrote Hi Alex, I've read your article and it is interesting because you are...

Alexander Lamb: on 2/23/11 at 6:04am UTC, wrote Hi again, Juan, Thank you for your clear and patient reply. It’s...

Juan Carlos Christensen: on 2/20/11 at 4:18am UTC, wrote Hi, There is an another important difference between quantum computation...

Alexander Lamb: on 2/19/11 at 2:33am UTC, wrote Juan, Thanks for taking the time to address my question. What I wonder is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Robert McEachern: "In the case of a polarized coin, the "matched filter" detector simply adds..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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...


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 15, 2019

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

Author Juan Carlos Christensen wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 08:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

To answer this question I propose a Universe that is explained in a digital way; quantifying mass, energy, distance, and time using Planck units and qubits, and unifying certain concepts and laws like Universal Gravitation and the Lorentz Transform under the quantum gravity theory. As examples of its consistency, the proton mass, the electron mass, the Hubble constant, and other observational measures have been calculated. All this is explained in the context of a proposed Theory of the Probability of the Histories.

Author Bio

Juan Carlos Christensen is an Electronic Engineer from Buenos Aires University; was owner and President of Standard Electric Co. (an ex ITT Company) in Argentina and in Brazil; his main interest has always been R&D (he had a grant at MIT in 1975 with profesor Gerome Lettvin); has patents in Argentina and USA; is currently studying Physics at the IAFE (Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio), and Philosophy at Buenos Aires University; and works as an independent researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alexander Lamb wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 17:52 GMT
Hi Juan,

Thank you for making your essay public. I enjoyed reading it. I have a question, if you have a moment.

In your essay, you say:

---------

Qubits are used instead of bits because 
it is a quantum computational Universe that gives a response in bits in every actualization
/refresh time. What we are/what we see, are bits, w
hat we process/what we don’t see are qubits. 

-----
----

I'm interested in this remark, but not sure I follow. Would you be interested in saying more about why you'd expect the universe to operate in qubits rather than bits? Why would it not be, for instance, simply a more complex system of bits doing the unseen processing, of which the information that any observer sees or experiences would be a subset? What do you see as the specific value-add of qubits?

My thanks in advance for any input you can provide.

Alex

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Carlos Christensen replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 20:45 GMT
Thank you Alex for your interest.

A bit processed as in a normal computer takes a much longer time than in a quantum computer, and this time difference increases as complexity is increased. The results of this quantum computations are in classical bits, but the process of

that computation is made in qubits, where it processes all the possible

alternatives simultaneously instead of in a sequence. That gives

the possibility of a real time actualization. JC

Bookmark and Share


James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 09:03 GMT
Juan,

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts regarding quantum computing benefits. I've been perplexed by several authors' comments indicating that quantum computing would offer some qualitative benefit not available using digital computing.

If I understand correctly, you envision that data represented by qubits could be processed in parallel whereas data represented digitally could not?

It seems to me that the ability to process information in parallel is more a function of the number of processing elements available than the method of encoding that information.

Certainly the scale of circuit elements is a critical factor in the processing speed of discrete circuits and likely make configuration of additional processing elements more feasible, but I suspect that, as you suggest, the benefit of quantum computing is primarily in performance rather than enabling new computing functionality. Perhaps I misunderstand something.

Thanks,

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Carlos Christensen replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 16:21 GMT
Thank you Jim for your interest,

Thats right, quantum computation processes simultaneously and is much faster.

We normally talk about hardware and software as two different things, but here they are the same thing, both are the result of qubits.

Is like to have an special hardware computer that runs a software that makes it change. Then that computer is his hardware and his software.

JC

Bookmark and Share



Alexander Lamb wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 02:33 GMT
Juan,

Thanks for taking the time to address my question. What I wonder is whether the 'efficiency' of the universe makes a difference in this context. If, as you propose, each observer's experience is defined by some well defined subset of the number of bits that could emerge from the underlying universal process, won't that experience be the same regardless of how efficient the underlying computation is? Surely the subjective of experience won't be changed.

I am both interested and skeptical about the difference between quantum computing and the vanilla variety. Particularly given results like the one below:

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/12/102144-qip-pspac
e-breakthrough/fulltext

In this respect, I think I have similar questions to those that Jim has raised.

All the best,

Alex

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Carlos Christensen replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 04:18 GMT
Hi,

There is an another important difference between quantum computation and classical computation, and that is logic. With classic logic it is not possible to emulate a superposition state.

For example, two polarizers at right angles don't allow light go through independently if there is another polarizer in between, that is classic logic, but with quantum logic some light goes through, as the polarization of this third polarizer changes, as it happens in reality.

And to emulate quantum logic using bits in a classic computer it is needed a much bigger memory, bigger than the number of particles of the universe, then it is impossible to emulate the Universe in a classic computer or using bits. JC

Bookmark and Share



Alexander Lamb wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 06:04 GMT
Hi again, Juan,

Thank you for your clear and patient reply. It’s certainly true that an ordinary computer can’t capture the continuum array of values that we normally associate with an uncollapsed quantum state. However, is this necessary if a quantum state always collapses to a single state when observed?

What I would argue that it *is* possible to do is build a working discrete...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Juan Carlos Christensen replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 02:27 GMT
Hi Alex,

I've read your article and it is interesting because you are modeling particles with sets related with proximity weighted nodes expressed in dimension s. In my article a particle is a sub set defined by its relation with the rest of the universe (nodes) and it moves depending on the more probable histories (and the Lorentz transform shows the change in probability). We are talking about something simmilar. Now the subject is if we quantify our nodes with bits or qubits.

My position is that if you use Occam´s razor with qubits you loose possible combinations, then you can´t count some histories. I think that with your self interference soft you are already choosing one particular of them.

I simulated double slit experiment with photons, actualizing all the possible amplitude waves with its phase, arriving to the detector plate with interference and at this point the photon is potentialy in many places at the same time. The place where it is detected is where it is manifested. I dont see with God's Eye a traveling particle in one way, what I see is an actualizing amplitude, qubits, that with an interaction appear, to my normal eyes, as bits. The particle appears on the screen, it doesn´t go throught the slits.

Thank you for your ineterest,

All the best,

JC

Bookmark and Share



Russell Jurgensen wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Juan,

I read your essay with interest and wanted to say hello and thank you for writing your ideas down. Your analysis of qubits seems insightful, and I most enjoyed your discussion of time. When things get small and hard to measure, it seems like a good definition for time and change is very helpful. Thanks again for an interesting essay.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


adra7774 wrote on Aug. 18, 2011 @ 00:53 GMT
JC:

Por todo lo que pude observar y tratar de comprender hasta aqui, esta teoria ha superado cualitativamente la original, la que yo conocia sobre El tiempo y la Informacion....

Noto enorme crecimiento intelecto, espiritual, y cientifico.

Una pregunta por favor; Tienes alguna informacion sobre Los Genios y Las Inteligencias Multiples.....

Aguardare con entusiasmo tu respuesta, cuado puedas...

Mis Felicitaciones al Proyecto,

Y un gran saludo a Ti...

AC7774

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ethan john smith wrote on Nov. 1, 2018 @ 09:14 GMT
it's a very nice topic about digital and analog, I like your post.

Anyone face printer issue click here https://www.hpsupporthelpline.com/blog/tag/printer-not-activ
ated-error-code-20/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


games Fans wrote on Nov. 12, 2018 @ 20:13 GMT
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article.

Mutilate A Doll 2

Online Games

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.