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

Jonathan Dickau: on 6/2/11 at 14:12pm UTC, wrote Thanks again to all. As the contest comes to a close, I am gratified to...

Alan Lowey: on 3/27/11 at 12:54pm UTC, wrote Okay, thanks, I'll bear that in mind. I need to read-up on it all in more...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/26/11 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote Not so fast.... Torsion gravity and torsion fields are not necessarily the...

Alan Lowey: on 3/25/11 at 9:48am UTC, wrote Okay, I did just that and read this in the first few seconds from...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/24/11 at 18:34pm UTC, wrote No time right now Alan. Please do a web search for 'torsion gravity' and...

Alan Lowey: on 3/24/11 at 13:28pm UTC, wrote Typing error: in the attachment I should have written...

Alan Lowey: on 3/24/11 at 13:23pm UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, The precession of Mercury can be explained via the...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/23/11 at 23:46pm UTC, wrote To the last comment; well, perhaps inclination of orbits can play a larger...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." 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...


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: The Best of Both Worlds: Why Reality Must Be Both Analog and Digital by Jonathan J. Dickau [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 08:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

When considering whether reality is fundamentally analog or digital, I can think of convincing arguments for each case, but feel that both answers are limiting, and that the fundamental nature of reality is far more interesting. I am firmly convinced reality is neither exclusively discrete nor solely continuous – as it must display both faces for either aspect to be manifested. The nature of reality is both analog and digital, rather than exclusively one or the other. Observable phenomena satisfy the constraints of both continuous and discrete natures at once. The attributes we observe appear discrete or continuous largely as a matter of choice. What information we choose to observe or preserve, and how we take in or process information, will affect what we see. Often the choice is automatic, as a single sub-atomic particle or atom acting as a localized observer can induce the appearance of classical variables and discrete entities, even though the global wavefunction remains coherent during local interactions. Nature is fundamentally unified however, regardless of all appearances, though any attempt to probe it finds discrete quanta of energy, information, and form. This paper proposes that reality is both analog and digital because nature finds the most effective or efficient means available to encode energy and information as observable form.

Author Bio

Jonathan is an aspiring Science writer, who has presented at international Physics conferences, and has lectured on a broad variety of Science related topics to mixed audiences. In addition, he has a number of papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals. He had dreams to become a scientist as a child, and did quite well in school, but with insufficient resources to pursue advanced degrees he found work in technical and engineering jobs instead. At the present time; Jonathan is again pursuing his childhood dream to be a scientist.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
Hello again to all my FQXi friends,

It is an honor to again be an entrant in the essay contest. I've had too much to do, in my everyday life, so my submission was hastily finished up at the last minute, even though I started writing back in November. I had begun writing a section entitled "It computes, therefore it is," which is my adaptation of the famous quote from Descartes. But when 11 o'clock on the night of the 15th rolled around, I stopped writing so I could finish putting the References section to bed, and submit my paper.

As is often the case; some of the most interesting stuff was in the section I had to leave out, and my concluding paragraph became a single brief sentence. But there is lots of interesting content to discuss. I apologize to my readers who come to the end and say 'huh?.' My last-minute difficulties left me with insufficient time to do better. According to the NIST time web-site, I finally hit the submit button fewer than 3 minutes before midnight.

I include as attachments, a photo of zeilinger lecturing at FFP11, and two illustrations of quantum experiments.

Figure 1 shows feeble light striking a single half-silvered mirror. Photons coming from the light source will either strike the detector or hit the wall at A, but the time-reversed version would have photons at B - which are not observed. This shows that when we force the wavefunction to decohere, by causing the photons to behave as particles, we observe discrete nature.

Figure 2 shows the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which preserves the wave-like aspect that drives quantum indeterminacy. When the wavefunction is allowed to remain in a coherent superposition of states, the wave-like aspect becomes the sole determiner of photon behavior - which results in only one detector (A, as I recall) receiving any photons at all. This demonstrates that the wave-like aspect creates or engenders 'quantumness.'

Hopefully; these inclusions will make my ideas easier to accept or understand.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

attachments: Figure1.gif, Figure2.gif

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Hello yet again,

This post has the photo of Anton Zeilinger I mentioned above. I did not remember I'd get only two attachments per post. If I am not mistaken, the slide being projected behind him contains the mention of Professor Einstein's letter to the book's author.

Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: AntonQuote.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT
Jonathan, I'm glad you got your essay in on time so that you can be a part of this contest. Your essay is very well written, reading it was a pleasure. I like you comparison with the left/right nature of the brain which mimics the discrete/continuous nature of physics. This gives a very clear picture of what you are trying to say.

I have often thought about whether physics can be purely discrete at some level. It is an attractive idea but ultimately I agree with you (and many other authors here) that both are fundamental. A system of qubits embodies the duality because it describes discrete bits but with a continuous wave-function and continuous symmetries.

I think a wide range of people will appreciate your essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 05:03 GMT
Thanks Phil,

I look forward to reading your essay. It is a pleasure being in the contest once again myself, and getting to interact with 'old' friends. Glad that you and I are likewise part of the 'both are fundamental' mind-set. It looks like a very well rounded field of entries, however.

The best of luck to you!

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 01:53 GMT
Jonathan,

I'm glad you made it! And I agree with much of your essay. We both start off looking for an explanation of a unified reality, that is, Nature is a unified whole.

Having been closely associated with Zeilinger, it is not surprising that you are focused on the non-locality currently implied by 'entanglement'. Since you remarked that you've been very busy, I would like to make you aware of Joy Christian's approach to Bell's inequality.

My selfish purpose is to note that locality may not be dead yet, and I have a local model that I believe is otherwise compatible with your approach.

I also have mentioned Jill Bolte Taylor's exceptional book in other forums, as I view it as a major contribution to the literature of consciousness. In particular, I see her report as supporting the position that consciousness does not emerge from matter. If you take her seriously, and I do, it is hard to find a Darwinian 'survival'-based reason for the development of such universal awareness. In fact, this awareness, whether that of a new-born, a stroke victim, or an LSD trip, is probably 'anti-survival' as the awareness of the absolute unity of it all suppresses the separation into parts that is necessary to pay attention to the tiger creeping up on you. I express this as 'topological' awareness as opposed to the 'metric' awareness whereby we separate and map distances, so that we can pick the apple from the tree, but not waste the afternoon trying to pick the moon from the sky.

There seems little appreciation in fqxi discussions of consciousness just how radically different these two modes of awareness are. The 'metric' mode has survival value and as we develop this mode of awareness in the first year or so of life, the 'experience of being one with the universe' is suppressed, until, finally, the best metric thinkers don't even believe in it's reality, although Abraham Maslow, in 'The Peak Experience' found that this awareness was not at all that uncommon among 'ordinary' people (non-physicists and non-mathematicians?)

Anyway, I'm happy to see you treating these issues as relevant to physics.

As you point out, "The act of observation is itself founded on the possibility of separation" although without the unified awareness this tends to lead to naive reductionism.

I hope you can effect a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in non-locality long enough to read my essay with an open mind. I think we are very close in our goals.

Best of luck in this contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 05:17 GMT
Hello again Edwin Eugene,

I am happy to see that you are also in the contest. I most certainly will suspend both belief and disbelief, while reading your paper. Sometimes the most fun can be had by taking your own work to task, but why bother when there are so many genuine experts who will vigorously defend their views here.

I will also check out Joy Christian's alternative formulation.

And I am thankful that you have also found Jill Taylor's book remarkable. It is definitely a little gem, full of practical wisdom as well as some excellent intellectual insights. My belief is that there must be some survival value to the right-brain's outlook, for laterality to develop, and that it bears further discussion.

I have a paper pending publication, addressing this topic. But in the meanwhile; thanks for your kind observations and good wishes.

Best of Luck to you!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 13:53 GMT
Hello Jonathon, I liked the readability of your essay and the lack of complicated formulae. You write very well and it's nice to see someone from another discipline taking part. I have a simple idea which I've been spreading in order to bring attention to a very effective new idea. It's the visualisation of a GRAVITON being modelled by an Archimedes screw. Give this mechanical idea a chance. If it travelled around a wraparound universe then it re-emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. DARK ENERGY! It's too good to ignore for any longer imo. What do you think?

Best of luck.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 16:57 GMT
Hello Alan,

Thanks for your kind remarks. The Archimedes screw graviton is a new one on me. I once had the idea that an electron might be like the seam of a baseball, but one of my profs informed me that was probably erroneous, as it would give the electron a quadrupole moment which is not observed.

Ergo; I would have to consider what the induced effects of your proposed model might be, before I pronounce it sound or unsound. On the other hand; it has been said that if one cannot explain something to a bartender - or at least to the average librarian - then one has not truly understood it.

So I wish you the best of luck.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
Thanks for the consideration of the idea, you won't regret it I'm sure. As to the bartender analogy, I have a friend who works as a greenkeeper (Runty), and he's my sounding board for the man-in-the-street. Best of luck.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Albert wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 14:02 GMT
Hello,

Do you think then that the law of excluded middle does not apply in the case of analog vs. digital reality? I would think such a denial would require a formal answer of some kind. Can we say that space is both analog and digital or both? Wouldn't any such claim throw most of our mathematics down the drain?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 17:48 GMT
Thank you Albert,

It is my observation that the first experimental disproofs of Aristotelian logic and the excluded middle principle appeared more than 100 years ago now. The excluded middle principle is only a law for some limited subset of real events, in any case.

My everyday experience would suggest that the middle can hardly ever be completely excluded, and that people are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Ray Munroe wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 20:16 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Welcome to the essay contest! I agree that reality must be comprised of both natures: discrete and continuous, in order for us to observe reality these ways. I agree with your description of the (possible?) Multiverse. I agree that any possible extra Universes must be discrete rather than a continuum smear, and I think that Scales (and possibly Lucas numbers) explain and demand this feature.

I also liked your mention of the buckyball - it is one of my prefered geometries for the Black Hole "singularity", and the buckyball has some similar symmetries with Lisi's E8 Gosset lattice approach to a TOE. Also, two nested buckyballs have a smooth homotopy with a lattice-like near-torus that may model the "singularity" of a rotating Black Hole. I stare at my soccer ball on a regular basis. One of these days, I should get two identical soccer balls, cut them up, and reattach them into a torus...

I enjoyed your comparison with the human brain. I guess that means that my left-side prefers a Bottom-Up approach to understanding reality, and my right-side prefers a Top-Down approach to understanding reality. My wife is an artist, and I always thought that she was more right-brained than left. It is funny how some of my abstract articulations of nature and mathematics look a little bit like art...

I have fun working on both the Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches, its the union in the middle that confuses me...

Good Luck in the contest and Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
Thanks so much Ray!

I still have to get to your essay. There are a bunch of good ones this time. Knowing your past work, your contest paper is likely to be a lot of fun to read, and promote deep thought at the same time.

Yes; it's pretty much clear that in any multiverse scenario the congealing of a universe out of the quantum soup sets up wavefunction periodicities which span the islands of form.

Thanks for Buckyball commendation, but I think it was Zeilinger's choice. A natural one though, as it has wavefunction periodicities too, and therefore a lot of 'quantumness' available to detect.

I like the Buckyball/E8 connections. Way cool stuff!

Bottom-up vs top-down is how the authors (MacNeilage, et al.) of the Scientific American article on the evolution of lateral brains describe the split. There is a lot to say on that one, however.

Good luck to you!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 16:18 GMT
HIHIHI Jonathan in fact you like all, it is that, a real gentlemen..it is well, lol ...and of course dear thinkers(Ray and you)forget these supidities of multiverses and otehrs computing pseudos ideas.

Similarities yes of course and of course a string is a sphere, the extradim are spheres and the multispheres also ....it is that the strategy.....pseudos similarities.Please are you real rationalists or what ???? what are your books, really I ask me if you make sciences sometimes.I am frank, all that becomes ironic.

You bad superimpose dear friends, really. it is incredibly incredible to see these extrapolations, it is not a lack of knowledges, no a lack of generality simply.Skillings but lost in an ocean of confusions.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT
I become crazzy dear friends,be sure .I see small green people in my small garden.You know I become tired by the net thus REVOLUTION BEFORE HIHII

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Willard Mittelman wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 21:59 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

I very much enjoyed reading your paper. It's refreshingly different and highly readable. Thanks for your kind words over at my paper.

Best Wishes,

Willard Mittelman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 17:41 GMT
Thank you Sir!

It is a pleasure to be able to share my thoughts here. I look forward to reading your paper, and I'll be sure to share some thought on it too.

Good luck!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Ulla Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 10:12 GMT
Hi, Jonathan

I liked your essay, and there are infact many things that are common for both of us. You point to only a few basic things, but I try to link in more facts in my essay, /topic/938.

In biology there exist many wievs of the lateralization,and that is the reason I am a bit cautious about talking too much of it. This example given by Jill Bolte Taylor shows however in a beautiful way onthe specialization of the hemispheres, shown also in their structure. This point, that function is seen in the structure is an important one. Histologically we have the Broadmans areas, that all are different structurally, thus also functionally,AND PHYSICALLY. This should be obvious to everyone.

I like your analogy - 'surfing the wave'.I have used the same:) Thanks also for the links to quantum descreatness (Zeh),I have looked for those facts.

I see the Nature as having different solutions for different kinds of matter or energy (Einsteins formula), but the material paths are split. Thus we get quantum 'matter' as waves and non-locality, classic matter as fixed waves mostly, that is particles, and living, reactive matter as intermediate, consisting of both classic, decoherent matter, and coherent quantum 'matter'.

In theorethical physics of today the unique charachters of living matter should be recognized, so this highly interesting bransh of physics can be properly evolved. It can contribute much to the vision of what is our proper reality, and also in the hunt for the Higgs boson. Living matter is not just complexity and decoherence.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 17:52 GMT
Thanks so much Ulla,

I greatly look forward to reading your paper. And I think you are right, that there will be many common ideas to highlight and discuss. I've read some of H. Dieter Zeh's papers several times now. I'm slowly developing some proficiency with the applicable Maths, and the wild idea of the pure form of decoherence theory is finally soaking in.

When first I read the 2 Zeh papers I cited early on, I thought they were tongue in cheek exercises to show that the extreme case is workable. But correspondence with Zeh and Joos has strongly disabused me of this notion, and I am convinced instead that "discreteness is an illusion" is a core idea of their thesis.

I must get on with things now, but I will leave some comments after reading your essay.

The best of luck!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Ulla Mattfolk replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 09:06 GMT
I think the discreateness is a result of entanglement. Classic matter would then be quantized waves or energies. This means the matter is regulated from entanglement, and the matter itself is an illusion:)

There should be much more discussion on the quantization and the descreateness. After all 'all the physics is seen in the double slit experiment'?

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 05:17 GMT
Hello Again All,

Thanks for your further comments, Ulla.

Thank you for stopping by Steve. Be assured that I do not just sit on fences. I take up one view, or one side of an argument, then vigorously argue the opposite sometimes. I tend to argue the opposite of anyone's strongly polarized view, just to see what they will say, but in this contest they asked a question where only an encompassing answer would do.

However, your comments are always welcome.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 05:40 GMT
A special added note..

Some of you may be aware of my interest in aiding the Environment, saving the Earth from Climate disasters, and the like.

I have recently joined something called the Azimuth Project which was founded by FQXi's John Baez. If you have ideas or skills which might benefit a group of scientists and engineers who are trying to find ways to save the planet, please consider joining that conversation too.

I share the notion of others there, that if enough bright people toss some of the difficult environmental problems around, we might come up with some good solutions that haven't been tried yet. However; so many problems today, like the recent oil spill in the Gulf, demand a multi-disciplinary approach to fully solve. But corporations and governments are way too insular to invite collaboration.

Please check out how the Azimuth Project is trying to help.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Owen Cunningham replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
Hello Jonathan! I haven't read your paper yet but definitely will soon. I had hoped to participate in this year's contest but other things got in the way. In any case, I'm replying because I am very interested in the Azimuth Code Project after reading about it, but the forum link where would-be contributors are told to sign up doesn't seem to work. So if you could let me know some other way to signal interest I'll do so. Good to be in contact with you again, Owen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 04:38 GMT
Hi Owen,

Great to hear from you! I just sent an e-mail to John Baez recommending he approve you for Azimuth forum membership. Follow the link here to get a MathForge account. Then follow the rest of instructions on this page, from step 3 on. Good Luck!

I'll come back here with more detailed instructions on the morrow, if you need them.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



John Merryman wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT
Jonathan,

I have to say we have some very similar ideas, but yours are more professionally presented, so how did I get an 8 rating in the public voting and you get a 2? Life ain't fair.

Most of these essays tie my brain up in knots, so it is nice to read one which does present a coherent overview and not tightly wound around a particular observation.

You do make a few...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 04:42 GMT
Wow! Thanks John..

I'll have to read your detailed comments on the morrow. A bit too bleary-eyed right now. But I appreciate the time taken to read and to share your thoughts. I shall give them some consideration when I am again awake.

All the best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 00:59 GMT
Thank you very much John Merryman!

I found your comments engaging, and many of them were right on. Yes energy (as radiation) expands, while mass contracts. That is a wonderful dichotomy, to which I alluded but did not make explicit. One must be careful, however, to say - as radiation - because some folks are quite adamant that mass-energy and radiant energy are the same.

I like what you have to say on left-right and top-down vs bottom-up processes. It's interesting to note, though, that the bottom-up story is normally associated with sub-atomic particles linking up into nuclei, then atoms, molecules, and so on. Your comments about linear time vs timeless perception is dead on. That is precisely what creates the 'digital' perspective.

I have a friend Evan Pritchard who wrote a book called "No Word for Time," speaking about the traditional Algonquins. Evan's Mic Mac Elder friend Albert talks about clock time as White Man's craziness. Is he wrong? They argue that things take as long as they take. And we call it Turing's theorem. In any case; I'll be sure to take in your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


John Merryman replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 04:21 GMT
Jonathan,

Thanks. When I look back over what I write, it always seems I could have done a better job of explaining myself, but I only do this for entertainment, so time is limited. I might live in the here and now, but the people around me are more goal oriented. The irony is that I probably spend more time actually considering the nature of goals in general.

You mention that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 20:01 GMT
Jonathan,

I guess I don't have much to add, without starting the thought process over again and taking it in a slightly different direction. We run into this dichotomy of motivating energy and defining information in every aspect of life and reality. It's a relationship that would go a long way toward explaining what is going on in the Middle east, with top down structures breaking down under the pressure of the energy they try to suppress, yet whatever happens that social pressure will eventually coalesce into some form, hopefully more flexible, but still subject to the same pressure that invariably builds up between static form and dynamic energy, for better or worse.

Much as we test the limits of current physical models.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 04:20 GMT
Jonathan,

Readable and enjoyable. It covered the universe of science in a way that will make others think they may want to join it.

I think you had a very good time in Paris!

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 15:26 GMT
Thanks Don!

I'm glad you enjoyed my essay. I hope it gets people to think, as that is its real purpose.

If by 'a very good time in Paris' you are suggesting I had the pleasure of a lot of fun lectures and conversations at FFP11, that are fascinating to people who love Physics but didn't get to that excellent conference, then I agree; I had a great time. It was both educational and fun for me. Plus; they even let me talk, which is something I do well - at least for prepared lectures.

I hope you have a very good time, wherever you are.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 22:30 GMT
Johnathan

Thanks for your essay.

What do you mean by radiation expands and matter contracts ?

It makes me think of the negative pressure hypothesis at the start of inflation.

Can you be a bit more explicit?

Andy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 01:25 GMT
OK Andrew,

Thanks for coming by. The comment you refer to is my response to John Merryman's comment. One must click the tab that say 'view entire post' in John's Feb. 14 comment to actually see it, though.

John Merryman said:

Now consider your point about everything being energy. This is true, but energy expands! What is the balance? Mass contracts. Energy is analog, while mass is digital. Consider light. It expands out as a field effect, waves, if you prefer, but when we measure it in relation to a physical detector, it has collapsed to a definable unit, a photon.

And I comment:

All energy tends toward motion, rather than stasis. As I say in my essay, it is motive, and to some extent non-local. Any concentration of energy tends to disperse over time, if it is unconstrained. According to Frank Lambert, this tendency is the basic mechanism of all 2nd law entropy.

John's comment was that while he agrees energy tends to expand, the mass-bearing aspect of matter causes a contraction, which draws in matter in the surrounding space. So there is an assertion there that mass-energy exerts a force in the reverse direction of radiant energy emanating from the same point.

This question is definitely connected to the negative pressure hypothesis in inflation, and with the predicted vacuum energy and observed dark energy discrepancy. I've often wondered if the expanding and contracting force once pointed in the same direction, and if the fabric of space was perhaps turned inside out, at the time of decoupling.

Much food for thought with that.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Joseph Markell wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 04:20 GMT
Hello Jonathan,

I enjoyed your essay and particularly liked the sections regarding Dr. Taylor, "Instead, the energy of everything blended together," and the notes about how children think.

My essay also gives a different view of how energies could interact.

Good luck to you!

Joseph Markell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 01:41 GMT
Thanks Joseph,

I can report that Jill Taylor actually wrote a thoughtful note back when I e-mailed her speaking of this essay, among other things. But some of the insights in her book are priceless. Thanks for reading my essay. I'll read yours if I don't run out of time.

Kind Regards, JJD

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Jonathan

I greatly enjoyed your essay, thank you. I both agreed with almost all you said, and applaud your writing style. Your 'throwaway' line on universe recycling was interesting, as I recently archived a pre-print paper on Phil's viXra site which actually derives that very thing as a logical conclusion of the discrete field model (DFM) I discuss in my essay, which I hope you'll find a chance to read. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

The concept outlined in the essay is both unbelievably simple yet initially a great test of cognitive powers in handling multiple variables, only about one in 5 seem able to achieve it, but I suspect you will, (if you don't try to just 'scan' it). It's also partly because it deviates from mainstream assumptions that most trained physicists find it hard to follow. If you can't find the link to the short recycling (etc.) paper on the string and would like it just ask. I'd also greatly value any comments.

But back to yours, thank you for the very refreshing read, worth a good score, and I wish you luck, both in the results and your aspirations.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 01:43 GMT
Thanks Peter,

I appreciate the kind remarks and lead-in. I look forward to some good reading if time allows.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 07:58 GMT
Jonathan,

"While it is nice to realize that nature is unified, it is important to acknowledge that Physics is the study of observable reality and its causes, rather than an open-ended exploration of realities which cannot be observed"

Definitely one can argue reality is both and you do it well.

Are you describing a reality that is observed when you say it could be either discrete or analogue?

My reality is independent of observers, though I must say I use model views to support it as analogue.

I would be interested in how convincing others think my argument is.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 01:54 GMT
We can view the waves from the air, far at sea, and we'll see coherent patterns of moving waves. But when they strike the shore or a vessel, they are broken into individual waves. It's not as though there is a halting of continuous natures which provides discreteness, but instead an interaction of wave-like or cyclical phenomena with localized objects or environments.

Thus a fixed frame of reference causes continuous phenomena to appear to be unique and complete units - discrete form.

I shall read your paper, which I have downloaded, if time does not run out.

Thanks, JJD

Bookmark and Share



Author Yuri Danoyan+ wrote on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Your view close to Penrouse http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 01:58 GMT
Thanks for the compliment, Yuri.

I like Penrose's work a lot. We agree on a good many things, but not all.

Regards, JJD

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
Jonathan,

I'm interested in the Azimuth discussion on the Muller paper w.r.t inclination orbit instead of eccentricity. I don't seem to be able to access it very easily, could you supply a direct link for me please?

In addition, I have some new thoughts and insights which should be illuminating. See my essay comments for more info.

Cheers,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:02 GMT
Hello Alan,

If you go to the Azimuth Forum page, you should find it - but it may be down on the stack. Berkeley group was in the topic title as I recall.

I'll read yours if I can.

Regards, JJD

Bookmark and Share



Donatello Dolce wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear Jonathan J. Dickau

I believe that the connection between quantum mechanics and the brain mechanics are very interesting. I'll suggest you to read works of Fortunato Tito Arecchi (see for instance link:http://www.solvayinstitutes.be/Activities/Workshop_Bits
-Quanta/Talks/30-04/P21_Arecchi.pdf]link[\link] and citations thereby).

Best regards,

Donatello

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:06 GMT
Thanks for the kind words, Donatello, and the link.

There is much to say about QM and the brain, but I'll take that up elsewhere. I attended a wonderful forum with 3 brain experts, less than 2 weeks ago.

Your paper is close to the top of my list to read, so I'll get on with that.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT
Thanks for the well wishes, Joseph, Peter, James, Yuri, Alan, and Donatello!

I apologize to all of my readers for being away from these forums so long. I have been dealing with some difficult matters on the home front, so I have not had very much time to read and comment. I still hope to read about a dozen more papers, and to comment where there is something important to say.

I may make a few remarks about comments above, but this bit of writing happens before that. I wish everyone the best of luck, and I intend to check back here more frequently, between now and midnight tomorrow, for last minute comments and questions. Thanks again to all!

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 23:55 GMT
Thanks also to Steve Dufourny - whose post I missed earlier.

May you have spheres within spheres, and may our spheres intersect somewhere down the road.

Regards, JJD

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 11:04 GMT
You are welcome,

You know all roads go to the sphere....thus of course the synchro are relevant.

All the best

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:18 GMT
In case anyone is interested to know more,

I have done a little editing to Quantum decoherence on Wikipedia, adding some plain-language descriptions and extending the metaphor I explored in my contest essay. A friend had looked that subject up on the Wiki, after reading my paper, and found it very tough to comprehend.

I thought it was pretty lucid technical writing, to start with, but I did notice the tag saying the descriptions were too technical for some readers. So I hope I have helped make it an easier topic for some to understand. That was my hope, in writing the essay too, but I was more concise on the wiki.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



basudeba wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for the brilliant analysis.

You say: “This generalized statement of the principle of least action is also an explanation for conservation laws, as such.” While we agree with the principle of least action and conservation laws, we do not admit that they are related as cause and effect. The principle of least action is related to linearity of behavior...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 05:11 GMT
Thank you so much, basudeba

Your detailed comments deserve some thought, so I will reflect on them. The thoughtful and enlightened commentary of a fellow truth seeker is always appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 05:08 GMT
I wish to thank all of my readers, and especially those who responded thoughtfully to my paper, and have thus placed me in the finals. You have been gracious to me, and I hope I have likewise helped some deserving souls to move up in the standings, as well.

There were so many fine papers in the contest this year. And many deserved great respect. I am glad you all thought so highly of mine.

I wish you all good will.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 03:19 GMT
For what it is worth,

I shall be checking in on this page from time to time, to read and address any comments I find. I do invite continued interaction from the other contest authors and the public, regarding the topics discussed in my essay.

I wish all of the other finalists the best of luck, and I thank FQXi, Scientific American and the Gruber foundation for making the contest possible.

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:16 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes and I hope you win something,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 04:09 GMT
Yes Alan,

A simple shape, a geometric analogy if you will, can help us to understand through symbological or metaphorical means what reductionist thought patterns could never reveal. But perhaps it is more about the essence of what makes an Archimedes screw work, rather than the simple shape itself.

Is gravitational reality inside-out from the sense of EM forces? Well maybe gravity is actually an expansive force, but the fabric of the universe is inside out. I think when Lawrence talks about a Kleinian duality, what he means is that the universe is Mobius shaped.

I like the idea of a spiral universe and graviton. But for the screw action to work, there has to be a down direction, an inside and an outside, and other things that are hard to imagine having an exact analogy for gravitons or the universe itself. But I don't mind turning my mind inside out trying.

All the best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share


Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
Jonathan,

yes, there's still much to be done to expand upon the initial ideas. I've just seen these amazing pictures which reminds me of increased gravity on the rotational plane! Saturn's UFO moons: Bizarrely-shaped Pan and Atlas baffle scientists

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 13:00 GMT
Jonathan,

I just realised that the orbit of Mercury quandry can also be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis'. No fabric of spacetime needed!

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 23:46 GMT
To the last comment; well, perhaps inclination of orbits can play a larger role in dynamics than we would expect, but if true this would imply some torsional element to gravity. I know this possibility is being explored, but I don't know how those theories stack up against other models.

About the moons of Saturn; they are pretty cool but perhaps not entirely baffling. One could imagine that a rapidly rotating dense object plowing through the debris-rich rings would tend to accrete in somewhat of a disc shape, until the rotation is slowed by its own mass.

I'm not saying that I know for sure there are no unidentified spacecraft orbiting Saturn. But it's far more likely the 'UFO moons' are balls of rock and dust, perhaps with just enough water to be like wet clay early on. Very cool photos though.

All the best, JJD

Bookmark and Share



Author Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 14:12 GMT
Thanks again to all.

As the contest comes to a close, I am gratified to see my work featured on the FQXi Forum page, as one of the top essays this week. I also see my friends Lawrence Crowell - who is on the editorial board with me at Prespacetime - and Ray Munroe - with whom I am writing what is shaping up to be a most excellent paper on Octonions. I apologize for my absence from the Essay discussions, throughout so much of the process, but I have been rather busy - academically and otherwise.

Of course; a subject like Octonions demands more than a little study for me, but our paper has made Ray do his homework too. I submitted three abstracts for FFP12 in Udine, this November; one on how we need whole-brain thinking to understand Quantum Mechanics, one asking if folks in Physics are responsible to help inform the public, and a third asking what the Mandelbrot Set can teach us about Cosmology. The first covers a lot of material from my FQXi essay, the second introduces people to the Azimuth project, and the third talks about a subject I've been exploring for quite a while.

I got to serve as Administrator for viXra, during a recent period of Phil Gibbs' absence, and that was quite educational. For those who don't know; he and I were guest editors for what turned into a two issue special feature on Cosmology for Prespacetime, last year. But I have also been assisting Floyd Holt, who was once 'America's Teacher of the Year,' to prepare his presentation for Udine. Floyd is planning to build a Science and Technology Center nearby, and I want to introduce him to B.G. Sidharth, who is one of the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference organizers, and who also founded a Science Center.

I wish the best of luck to all the finalists, and I thank all who visit this page for coming.

My thanks also to FQXi, Scientific American, and the Gruber Foundation.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

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.