Essay Abstract

In 1990, the physicist John Archibald Wheeler suggested that every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself can be described as being derived as part of an apparatus or machine which handles binary data. This means that the entire universe could be nothing more than an elaborate digital computer - God's computer. This paper explores the idea that it is possible to break down all of the complex physical observations we see in the world to actions which are only binary in nature. This will be done by postulating a digital space which runs with minimal rules and reproduces the behavior of empty space and positrons and electrons. From there, the rest of the particles and fields of force are derived.

Author Bio

Franklin Hu graduated from MIT in 1986 with a degree in computer science. Since 2003 he has been investigating physics questions. He lives in the Seattle, WA area.

Download Essay PDF File

Mr. Hu,

Hi. While I don't agree with everything in your essay, I totally agree with the way you start with minimal rules and assumptions and try to build a universe from them using logic and common sense. I think this bottom-up approach, which I also use in my essay, will yield more and faster results in humanity's attempts to figure out the universe than in using the current top-down approach. From my layperson's point of view, neither physicists nor philosophers seem to use this strategy. Another essay, by Kjetil Hustveit, also used this approach.

On specifics, if one starts out with an existent state as the fundamental building block of the universe, then it seems clear that the universe, as perceived from within the universe, will be digital, as you assume, too. But, I think it's possible that a hypothetical, infinite sized observer could view this universe as continuous. It all depends on the perspective (or size scale) of the observer relative to the thing being observed.

When you say "In order for there to be any movement in this system, there must something that "moves" or "changes", I totally agree, but this doesn't seem to register with a lot of other people who never say how this change can occur in a physical, mechanistic way.

I also like the way that you try to explain why charges can repel or attract each other. I'm probably unaware of it, but I've never seen physicists provide a physical mechanism for this. They just say they do it by the exchange of photons, but I've never understood how throwing a "ball" back and forth would cause repulsion or attraction. One nice thing about biochemistry, the field I'm in, is that biochemists try to provide a physical, mechanical mechanism for everything that happens. I think too much mathematics has pulled physicists away from this type of thinking.

Anyways, good essay!

Roger

Respectfully Mr. Hu,

I found your essay to be quite informative about computer science. If I may, I would just like to make one comment about it.

As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, one real unique Universe could only be occurring in one real unique infinite dimension, once. Length, breadth and depth are limited aspects of the same unique infinite dimension. Abstract 1 and 0 are not unique; therefore, the real occurring Universe cannot possibly be binary coded.

    Dear Franklin

    Congratulations for your paper which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I also looked at some of your other papers and presentation on your website. Your research fits rather nicely in the framework of the It-Bit paradigm. A bottom-up research for a new physics theory is really necessary because the piecemeal and sometimes conflicting grand theories now being used simply do not make physical sense.

    As you can see from my Beautiful Universe Theory and also from the current fqxi contest essay, I too have long been working on a bottom-up model. I have chosen a qubit spherical building block with units of Planck's constant as the building block because it describes spin and also provides a mechanism (dielectric - forces) for the exchanges of momentum between the building blocks. Other interactions such as gravity and inertia, etc. therefore differ from those in your model, but the essential idea is the same. I know that there are others' models based on a single type of block - for example a tetrahedron.

    I hope that our approach will be taken seriously by the mainstream and because they can explains so much.

    I think your other papers and experiments about electrostatics and gravity are very important I will need to study them more - they are also in line with my model where I have spin the basic 'cause' of gravity something that I think you also hinted about in your work.

    I am now trying to simulate my model but the "Basic!" program I am using on my iphone is buggy. I need to study python but at my age these activities take a bit more effort than they used to!

    Best wishes

    Vladimir

    Dear Sir,

    You start with the assumption with a digital space like grains of sand. But does it correspond to reality? In between the sands, there is an interval (we call it space). What is in the interval between the grains of space? If there is no interval, then how can it be called digitized? Your Figure 1 shows one surface of a cube. But Fig. 2 cannot be 1 dimensional, as anything "surrounded" by 2 points can either be in a 1 dimensional line or 2 dimensional plane. Since your picture does not show a line but a plane, it cannot be 1 dimensional. Hence the basic foundation of your Essay is wrong.

    It is true that electron and positron exist. But "what" is an electron? You cannot find its position, but only tell the probability of its being detected within certain regions of space. So what is it? It is always seen in the region near protons, i.e., atoms. But the positron behaves differently. Anti-protons are extremely rare. But in comparison, positrons are detected more frequently. So what are electrons and positrons?

    You say: "a cell could be turned from zero to -1 to represent the appearance of an electron" and "we need to add another simple action to the system which is that the value of the electron spreads out from the electron. So the -1 value will spread left and right to the adjacent zero cells". Since the position of a single electron cannot be known precisely, why do you assume that it will be spread left and right and not in any other direction? A domino effect then will flip the values from zero to -1 in all directions and it progresses as a sphere and not as a wave. All along it is 3 dimensional and not 1 dimensional. In any case, a wave that has troughs and crests and wavelength in perpendicular directions cannot be 1 dimensional. You also admit it when you call these "bricks", which are three dimensional structures. Thus, your basic assumption is wrong again.

    You say: "The digital space has positrons and electrons which are attracted and repelled from one another." It is not true. The oppositely dominated charges attract each other only when their masses are unequal - such as proton and electron. The particles with equal mass, but opposite charge annihilate each other. Thus, almost everything you say does not stand scientific scrutiny. Will you please explain how you can build a theory based on such wrong assumptions?

    Regards,

    basudeba

      Dear Hu,

      You wrote "Digital space is made out of a sea of closely spaced poselectron particles.", this reminds about Dirac sea. Do you mean this is analogous to Dirac sea, please explain further.

        Hello Franklin,

        I agree with most commenters that your effort is fundamental in approach. You may wish to compare your efforts with those of Stephen Wolfram, Edward Fredkin who propagate Digital Philosophy (check their websites) and have done much in this regard. You can also google Cellular Automata.

        RE: In order for there to be any movement in this system, there

        must something that "moves" or "changes".

        Yes. I agree but I propose a more economical form of 'digital motion' in my essay 'On the road not taken'. In that way parts of space need not change features to that of the moving object.

        Then Basudeba asks you, "In between the sands, there is an interval (we call it space). What is in the interval between the grains of space? If there is no interval, then how can it be called digitized?"

        There is no way to escape this and you will end up describing a continuous space not a digital one. As I have suggested in my essay, "time" is what separates the grains and recovers the digitality of space. In my contribution the good old 'monad' is the "grain of sand".

        All in all I believe we both are on the same road and your computer expertise would come in useful to unravel more truths.

        Cheerio,

        Akinbo

        Dear Sir,

        We think scientists should face questions on their theories and answer them precisely. This is a forum for finding the truth and not scoring points or advertising oneself. We have justified whatever we have written in our essay. Hence we are waiting for a response from Dr. Hu.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Why would "abstract 1 and 0" not unique? I would agree that the universe is only occurring "once". Patterns of 1's and 0's create unique patterns and I see no problem with a binary coded universe.

        In a digital world, there would be no "interval" defined between the digital cells of space. I do not understand your assertion that this couldn't be digitized. Everything I explained could be implemented in a digital computer. Speaking of "intervals" that exist between the computer memory bytes seems irrelevant. What intervals appear between the bytes in your personal computer? None, of course. All that is requited is that space come in some smallest dimension and this is easily implemented digitally. Only if you think space is infinitely divisible do you run into theoretical problems. I don't think space is ever continuous.

        As for what is a positron and an electron, this is where the digital world comes to the rescue in that these are merely defined as numeric states within the computer. If you read some of my other papers like "The Real God Particle", you see that I postulate but do not explain what a positron and electron are. But the digital explanation shows exactly what they are - a numeric property of a memory cell. This may be why we cannot figure out what a positron and electron really are because they are ultimately - non physical.

        In my explanations, I start out as 1 dimensional in order to show how waves interact. But I do extend this to 3 dimensions and show that the intensity drops of as 1/r^2. Also, in a digital world, you would be able to precisely locate an electron and so far as the macroscopic world is concerned the Heisenberg uncertainty doesn't make a speck of difference. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only applies and makes sense if you treat particles as waves. Now, you can assign a volkswagon beetle a frequency, but I don't think that makes it right. Nether should you over apply the Heisnberg uncertainty principle.

        What you say about protons and electrons only being attracted to one another is clearly wrong. Mainstream would tell you that positrons and electrons are most definitely attracted through the electrostatic force - they have pictures of this happening.

        I would question "your assumptions" about what happens when a positron and electron meet. You say they "annihilate". I say they produce a neutral particle called a poselectron. See the article:

        http://www.franklinhu.com/emc.html

        You would assume "magical" conversion of matter to energy - please explain exactly how ponderable matter like your hand is converted into energy which is just motion? You can't explain this, can you? You just have to have "faith" that it happens that way.

        Funny how we can build a theory without even the faintest idea of how the most basic of operations occur.

        I don't need faith. The creation of he poselectron and the resulting release of energy can be perfectly modeled on the digital world I have proposed, no faith necessary. The release of positron and electron from empty space is also correspondingly explained.

        Fundamentally, my model of the universe is only based on the existence of the positron and the electron and their known properties. That is the only assumption I make and I think we are pretty sure that this is a good assumption since we can physically measure these to exist.

        Perhaps you should read my companion article which describes the universe without the digital metaphor:

        http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0075v1.pdf

        To fully understand the extent of my models read my TOE and recent papers:

        http://www.franklinhu.com/theory.html

        http://www.franklinhu.com/papers.html

        I thank you for your detailed questions, I hope you enjoy my answers - and by the way, I'm not a doctor - I don't even play one on TV :)

        thanks

        Franklin

        I wouldn't say that the sea of poselectron dipoles is similar to the Dirac Sea. Dirac was trying to have a sea of separated charges or holes. This is needlessly complex and unsustainable. If you just let the positron and electrons do what they would naturally do - which is to fuse together and not annihilate, the world of space is neutrally charged, hard to detect and supports EM and magnetic fields.

        Dear Sir,

        If there is no interval, how can it be called digital? Digital has been defined as: "Relating to or using signals or information represented by discrete values (digits) of a physical quantity, such as voltage or magnetic - representing data as a series of numerical values". If there is no interval, then it cannot have numerical values except 1; hence it cannot be called digital. Analog has been defined as: "Measuring or representing data by means of one or more physical properties that can express any value along a continuous scale". Thus, even if "space come in some smallest dimension", it cannot be analog either. This leads to a contradiction necessitating the interval to be precisely defined. We do not think space is infinitely divisible, as space is only an interval, which can be reduced or extended. Only matter particles in space can be divisible.

        If electrons and positrons are "a numeric property of a memory cell", then they are memory cells, because only matter has properties. If electrons and positrons are memory cells, then how do they appear in atoms? Is it your position that atoms have memory? If so, what is the proof? Why you have not defined them?

        Regarding dimension, you have only used one or two of the three dimensional objects, but your description is never 1 dimensional. Even a wave is not one dimensional, as it has a crest and a trough.

        Do you mean to say: protons and electrons are not attracted to each other? We don's believe this!

        Regarding poselectron, we have seen your hypothesis. But where is experimental evidence to turn it into a theory?

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Hello Franklin,

        I enjoyed reading your essay. One quick question - why cubes? Equidistant sphere would give all points as equivalents. Cubes aren't equidistant, so in the 2D example, the result of 8 might be reduced to 6 as per Newton's Kissing Number Problem (sphere packing). Perhaps it is that cubes fill space?

        This is just a query rather than criticism - I look forward to your response. The ideas are nicely thought out and your essay looks great.

        Hopefully you'll get the chance to look at my essay and I look forward to any comments you have for me.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Hello Franklin,

        Your ideas are great as I earlier indicated.

        But I wont let you get away easily...

        In your reply to Basudeba above you said, "All that is requited is that space come in some smallest dimension and this is easily implemented digitally". While I agree that space can be represented discretely how is this implemented digitally?

        When you ASSUME two representations and find there is no "interval" whatsoever would you not label them as ONE representation? And if there is an interval what is its nature?

        This is not to say I agree with Basudeba that space cannot be digital.

        It is this difficulty of 'is it MANY or ONE?' that was the origin of the dialectic of Parmenides and Zeno which remain to be fully resolved.

        I have my ideas for a solution. You can check them in my essay if you have the time.

        Best Regards,

        Akinbo

          To implement a simple digital space, you can use 8-bit bytes to represent discrete points. You just need to represent the properties with 1 byte each.

          X location

          Y location

          Z location

          Field property

          The scale used for the x,y,z axis is arbitrary. There are no positions that cannot be represented by an integer binary value (0-256) and there are no positions outside of those integer values.

          You would never run into Zeno's paradox as there cannot be anything less than an integer amount of movement in the system.

          This is perfectly computable and I'm sure systems like this have been used to simulate problems dealing with space.

          4 days later

          Dear Franklin

          Your analysis may not be completely accurate, but I so agree the view point "The God Computer" .

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

          9 days later

          Nice.

          Another essay that begs for a more interactive medium.

          One could quite easily make a JavaScript version of your legoblocks and play with them.

          I did something similar at http://monadpad.com/whatis.htm#workstation

          Franklin: you're not exactly the first to suggest that the universe is a giant computer. But a theory of this sort must not only explain electrons and positrons in empty space. It must explain *why* the universe instantiates quantum-mechanical phenomena, as opposed to merely deterministic laws. In my essay, I explain how this is possible only if we understand the universe as the result of a peer-to-peer-like computer network. Another problem is that not all parts of the universe -- redness, yellowness, etc. -- seem explainable in purely quantitative, computational terms. But anyway, I do agree that thinking of the universe on a computational model is still helpful

          For what it is worth, Zeno's paradox consists of four puzzles, which have conflicting answers, hence the paradox.

          The puzzle of the stadium seats shows that in a system where the smallest movements are spposedly indivisible that relative motion makes them divisible.

          That in itself isn't a big deal, but when combined with the puzzle that says time can't be infinitely divisible, how can it be that time must be infinitely divisible and cant be infinitely divisible.

          The true resolution is to challenge the assumption that change happens in a medium of time.

          Ala Barbour, change simply happens, and time is something we deduce from that.

          Put that way, there is no paradox that prevents things from changing.

          Franklin,

          If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

          Jim