Our Analog Universe by James A Putnam

Hi Jim,

I am also a Jim; but, I use James on the Internet because I have a website using the name James A. Putnam and I prefer that readers know who to hold accountable for what I say. Thank you for your remarks. I need to read your essay. Welcome to the fqxi.org essay contest.

James

James

Thanks for your response. I originally tried to condense a rich tapestry of connected solutions down to one 'master key' but so few were able to see how it works or agreed (you excluded of course) I felt I had to 'up the anti' by wheeling in the rest of the supporting evidence, covering most areas of physics! And it keeps coming (look at 2 reports on page 18 of the 19th Feb New Scientist).

I certainly think yours is noteworthy, and, at least the main/first part, consistent with a number of other excellent and important essays, most of which you've probably read. Yours is worth a higher rating and I shall give it so. (hold on tight!) I hope you agree the same with mine, and those others consistent with ours.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Peter,

Thank you very much. I am still trying to digest all the essays. My essay still remains at a low level. So, I assume that means that I have received poor ratings also. I understand that you do not accept a lot of what I write. You liked the first part, but, not the second of my essay. I heard from another, qualified participant that they liked the words and not the math. I happen to like my essay for all of its parts. I am not a disciple of the mechanical ideology. I use it as much as is necessary to demonstrate that, in my opinion, its theories are false. However, writing bits and pieces just doesn't quite cut it. That is why I explained to Georgina that it is my website that I rely upon to make my case. However, this is the third annual contest that I have participated in. I like all three of my essays. I think the first is perhaps the most important. It deals with electric charge. So, each of us is covering some ground. Maybe we even get in each other's ways. In the end, I expect that the blog discussions and the essay contests will result in fqxi.org having exposed important new perspectives that correct past theoretical ideas.

James

I find the idea that the universe might be digital in the sense that binary language is digital to be questionable. The attempts to explain the universe by comparing it to a digital computer are unconvincing to me. Those attempts appear to me to be trying to force a code upon the universe. Since we do not make exact or complete measurements, the study of the universe probably is usefully representable by a code. However, I fail to see why that code would be digital. I am not prepared to argue this case against professionals; however, I did think of a simple question by which to begin addressing it. At another author's forum I posed the question: Is Morse code digital? My point was that if we use a code to model the universe, what is the best code. I do not suggest that it is Morse code; yet, I think that that question moves us in a more correct direction than do models based upon binary code.

James

Hi James,

You may have already come across my remarks on 'analog computing', if so, ignore this.

I suppose I should be surprised how many seem to find credible a 'giant digital computer in the sky' [sarcasm off]. I attribute it to the confusion based on non-local, non-real physics that so-called violations of Bell's inequality have seemed to many to imply. Anyway, I agree with your remark above. I too find it questionable.

Rather than an 'out of this world digital processor' I prefer an 'in this world analog processor', since that is essentially what 'fields' do. If we can assume the existence of 'perfect' components used to build the processor, there's no reason that's obvious to me that the processing could not be analog, not digital.

It's not even certain that so-called 'quantum processing' is not essentially analog in nature. If each 'node' on a 'grid' is an analog processor, suitably connected to other nodes, there's no evident reason to assume digital. 'Oscillations' come quite naturally to analog elements. And one need not assume 2-D processors that favor the logic 'layouts' and construction techniques used for today's semi-conductor processing. An analog processor should be implementable as a 3-D structure, in which case analog processing may be the preferred implementation.

Problems with analog processing were based on connectivity and on imperfect building blocks and on cost factors (among other things). I am not aware of any analysis that limits what can be achieved in principle with analog processing.

These arguments are not meant to be seen as 'in favor' of analog computing as the basis of physical reality. Rather they are arguments 'against' the idea of digital computing as the (basically mechanical) explanation of our world, since 'in-world' analog processing by fields seems far more likely than 'out-of-world' hardware and code. The 'code' for analog processing is in the connectivity.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I had seen your comments on analog computing. From my perspective, I see no way that the universe could operate other than in an analog manner. Call it an analog computer. I do see very sharp variations in physical interactions that could be reasonably approximated as isolated activity for theoretical purposes. But, I can see no way that the universe could continue to operate as a cooperative effort if there was any lack of communication or lack of purpose to any degree anywhere. I see both of these concepts, just pretending that they could exist, as purely destructive. In other words, any lack of control anywhere would lead to lack of control everywhere. So, for me, analog is in and digital is out. However, reading some essays , it appears that digital is often used in an approximate form. In other words, it does not necessarily represent separation, but, rather sharp distinction. For me, it either means separation or it means that digital is a noteworthy form of variation of analog. Finally, I see no value, other than for computing purposes, to coding the universe just to have to uncode it in order to properly model it. Meaning digital, i.e. separation, must revert back to analog to reveal meaning.

James

James,

As usual, we seem to see things very much alike.

I've been thinking about the 'universe as computer' contingent. Unfortunately, I think this train is just leaving the station. I do have quite a bit of computer design experience, and may decide to spend some time applying it in such a way as to derail the train. I suspect that most such are software programmers and have not thought through the 'hardware' aspects of their ideas.

Anyway, I'm glad to have your thoughts on this issue.

By the way, I voted for you when you first submitted your essay. After a week I did not see the score show up and contacted Brendan Foster, who replied that "Community votes are currently hidden."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

As I read through some essays, I find the basis of math to be misrepresented. Mathematics is not abstract. It is a collection of shortcuts for counting. That which is being counted may or may not be an abstraction, but counting is not an abstraction.

Another point: Calculus is not based upon instantaneous anything. I saw it said in a forum that "Caculus is based upon instantaneous speed." So, I wish to affirm that calculus is based upon the right triangle. It is not based upon a dot.

James

James,

You are correct that "Theory has become an end in itself". This, in my opinion, is due to a 'perfect storm' of theory and experiment and history and economics. The theory may trace back to 1929 when Rutherford's proposal for a magnetic-like nuclear force was too early, and Yukawa's 'pion exchange' model was adopted based on the misinterpretation of the muon as a pion. By the time the pion was discovered, things were locked in. As a consequence, the particle accelerators in the 60's saw behavior that could have been interpreted as quarks on a self-induced solenoidal flux tube but was instead interpreted as 'strings'. Then QCD and 'colors' arose, leading to the inability to get closer than a few percent, and then we ran out of particles for 3 or 4 decades, leaving theorists to flounder around with no new data to choose between theories. The strings introduced multiple dimensions, and these led to multiverses. As you state: "my impression is that curled up dimension theory was an important part of freeing theorists from being confined to firm footholds." And, concurrently, Bell's incorrect calculation led to the so-called 'violations' of his inequality, which led some to give up locality and real particle properties in favor of 'non-locality' and 'non-reality' which led further to ideas of information and 'out-of-this-world' computers. And the publish-or-perish nature of the game, combined with the loss of firm footholds, keeps the ball rolling in wider and wider circles, instead of honing in on some truth, while the appreciation of physics gained in WW-II kept the dollars flowing, and the universities kept the (over?)supply of new physicists.

As Planck said, "Physics advances funeral by funeral" but the problem today is there are too many physicists to all die off at once, allowing corrections to arise. Instead, physics has become a self-justifying enterprise, funded by taxpayers who can't possibly judge the validity of these wild models.

The range of ideas in fqxi alone is incredible. Some brilliant theories, but most seem to apply to a small part of reality and ignore the rest of reality (assuming one still believes in 'reality').

I'm surprised you have not received more votes, but even more surprised at my current place in the ratings, since I am firmly in the local realism camp that is rejected by most 'serious' physicists today. I guess it will be up to the final judges to correct that 'mistake'.

I have been impressed by the range of ideas and the cleverness of many in this contest, and have learned a few things and been pointed in some new directions. In particular, I have been applying my ideas to photons, which I had largely overlooked in favor of predicting the massive particles. Also looking more closely at special relativity.

I have been so busy with these ideas that I have not had time to look at entropy issues, so I do look forward to reading your ideas when you are ready. By the way, if you haven't read Joel Mayer, MD's paper, I recommend it. It is unique and worthwhile, and will probably appeal to you.

In summary, you and I are lucky, in that we are independent and free to pursue our aims without the pressures that go with a place in the establishment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. And there is always room for one more insight. I like yours below: "Calculus is not based upon instantaneous anything. I saw it said in a forum that "Calculus is based upon instantaneous speed." So, I wish to affirm that calculus is based upon the right triangle. It is not based upon a dot."

James,

Several points:

You said: "I do not add anything to my website that I do not feel certain about."

As long as you stick with that policy, you'll be OK!

And: "Yet, I have spent years correcting it."

Even better!

Finally, your candidness and truth are priceless. I have said before, several times I believe, that you are a purist.

By this I mean Sir Galahad... "His strength was as the strength of ten, because his heart was pure."

And when you say: "The question on my mind is whether or not you have ten votes. I watched you bounce around, but, I did not count the bounces."

James, only a friend could even conceive of counting my bounces. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

It is obvious that my essay did not generate general interest. So, I see no harm in piling it on. Here is an appraisal of Einstein's kinetic energy equation that I think is of importance:

"It should be apparent that Einstein's requirement to hold the speed of light constant would necessarily result in his rest energy expression being from the perspective of the local observer. Interestingly, this is not true for the rest of his kinetic energy equation or for his special relativity equations. All of these are derived from the perspective of the remote observer. Even though he believed he was holding the speed of light constant, he did not truly accomplish this.

Einstein did, superficially, hold the speed of light constant in his equations. If Einstein had achieved the effect he was trying for then his equations would have made predictions from the perspective of the local observer. However, he inherited a problem introduced by Lorentz. Lorentz assumed the speed of light was a constant in the free space absolute reference frame. Einstein assumed every free space reference frame is analogous to an absolute reference frame. The result was that he achieved equations from the perspective of the remote observer.

Lorentz used mathematical transforms to bring two dissimilar physical concepts into relation to one another. Normally transforms are an accurate translation of two real systems. However, if one system is unreal it is still possible to derive transforms between the unreal system and a real one. Lorentz took his theory as the first system and empirical evidence as the second system. When he derived transforms to relate the two systems, it did not prove his theory was correct.

Similarly for Einstein, when he made the speed of light a universal constant he took something which is a dependent variable and declared it to be absolute. Just like for Lorentz, in order for the transform equations to help him arrive at the correct empirical answers, something that was absolute had to become a dependent variable. For both of them the absolute something, which became a dependent variable, was the dimension of time. The newly created dependent variable of time negated the effect of holding the speed of light constant."

James

Or perhaps this;

In a medium: The speed of sound is equal to the rate of change of the electric field with respect to the magnetic field.

James

Dear James,

Couldn't let this contest go by without dropping in and wishing you well. You were the very first at FQXi to encourage me and welcome me to participate in these blogs, and I shall never forget it. It has added much to the life of my mind! Thank you!

I generally have a good idea of your ideas from previous discussions and remember how strongly you argued about a more consistent measurement units all based on distance and time. Though I am not quite there yet, I am coming closer to the same position. Besides distance and time, I also need a third quantity (the prime physis quantity eta, in my essay) to get the physics out.

But we do share on the idea of a continuous reality and I object, as much as you, to the idea of 'quanta' and 'photons' and 'elementary particles'. In this regard, I like to share with you a significant result I just posted yesterday. The title says it all. It is a short mathematical proof that "photons" do not exist! Have a look and let me know what you think!

"If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave"

best wishes,

Constantinos

James,

just wanted to let you know that I have read the comments and your explanations on your thread with interest. I don't feel up to discussing what I think about all of that right now but maybe we'll put our heads together on it in the fqxi blog forum some time. Theory for theories sake, Lorentz transformation and speed of light etc etc.. Don't be disheartened by the general lack of comments.I think its great that there are thinkers like you who really want to examine all of this stuff, look at alternatives and work at perfecting their explanations and models.

All the best, Georgina.

Dear James,

I enjoyed how your essay addressed how our minds interpret the universe. Interesting to consider how much of our world-view depends on the limitations and abilities of our senses. Very thought-provoking!

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Dear Paul Halpern,

Thank you very much for visiting. The second half of my essay was put in on purpose because I was addressing the question of analog or discrete. I think that our perception of discreteness is just a perception both in the macroscopic and microscopic worlds. With regard to the fundamental mechanical properties of the universe you saw that I see no true discreteness. However, I am still on a learning curve, so the exchanges that I engage in here at fqxi.org are very helpful.

What I wonder about is that you skipped past the energy equation I presented. I know it does not look new; but, the real point made was that the energy equation, looking just the same as Einstein's, does not depend upon a constant speed of light. I thought it was important to make that case. In other words, so far as I can tell, the equation is not reliable support for proving a constant speed of light. There is more of course, but, that is enough for here.

I do appreciate that you came all the way down the upper floors to visit me :) Thank you.

Georgina,

Thank you for your kind message. I wish to further explain something. When I say I don't worry about ratings, I really mean it. There are a couple of reasons. The first is that what I have to say, it is easy to see, will not be received well by most professionals. The second is that both professionals and amateurs will have good reason from their viewpoints to disapprove of my views. So, I know that I can't win approval from almost all others by presenting my views. Therefore, I have to choose. My choice is to present my views.

I am not impervious to experiencing emotional reactions such as dissappointment at feeling rejection. But, I do not let rejection influence me. Rejection must be accompanied by its justification or it means nothing. For example, I keep dropping lower in the essay contest. Perhaps that is because others know that my essay does not deserve support. However, if any of that is due to efforts to teach me a lesson, it may be helpful to others to understand that I do not learn lessons.

Obviously I do not mean 'lessons' in the sense of receiving valuable information. I mean lessons in that I should desist from being forthright. That lesson, I have no interest in learning. My point is that I really, at least almost really, do not care about the ratings. I have no chance of winning anyway. But, I do care about continuing to be forthright. I look forward to future discussions in the blogs section. I have not found anything on the Internet to compare to the opportunities that are available here at fqxi.org.

James

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

Regards,

Basudeba.