Not A Pipe by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Jeffrey,

I enjoyed your essay. It is mind-blowing that more physicists do not discuss or further investigate this point you make:

"A fundamentally discrete universe will have a scale level where energy or

position can have a level of one or two units, but not one and a half. The

problem with this is that a particle will be in one position then be in a

different position the next moment moving faster than the speed of light

for that small step."

I am glad you brought it up. Is the shift instantaneous? Is it not, but at least faster than light? How exactly does the shift occur? One of Bohm's ideas that I mention in my essay is interesting - that the electron can momentarily disappear and reappear nearby. Almost as if it goes into solution and re-precipitates elsewhere.

These are the questions that we need answers to!

Chris,

Glad you enjoyed my essay. Thank you for your comments.

Some models have multi-dimensions, where an electrons do go elsewhere and travel at less than the speed of light in a straight line. This line appears like "popping" in and out to us like a pin going through a folded sheet of paper. The problem with this model is does the electron still have mass and charge (gravity and electric field) when not in our three dimensional "plane"? Why do we not see the macro-scopic effects of these dimension?

I think the problem of "locality" can be solved without using added dimensions. There are problems with thermal conductivity of super-conductors and superfluids that can also be solved by having time as a function of enthropy.

Jeffrey

I very much enjoyed your essay, sitting here looking at Magritte's floating 'Castle of the Pyrenees' in Vignale's article in the current new Scientist. butof more import is page 16 'Molecules Bounce of Nothing', which, with the page 18 article on plasma last week has offered strong evidence for a unification model of SR/GR an QM outline in my own essay, avoiding Bell in providing Locality and Reality. It has a logic too complex to follow just by scanning over, but I'd value your views and criticism if you can find time to look.

Many thanks, and best of luck with yours.

Peter

A Universe that is not analog or digital might be beyond human

understanding. I have no way of proving or disproving this last point, but I

hope it is not the case.

Michael,

Are you referring to a Universe that is both "analog and digital" or just "something else" that is beyond human understanding?

Jim Hoover

I do not know if it is beyond human understanding, but "analog and digital" (I used those terms to match the theme we were given) are just ways of viewing this problem. Quantum Mechanics works, most of the time, but it will be replaced by something (who knows what) and that new model will be itself replaced. This is Science, ever changing. Will this process one day stop not because of lack of better data, but because of ourselves. I hope not.

Jeffrey

Thanks for your post on my string, which I replied to, and I appreciate your seemingly rare conceptual skills in taking aboard the concept. How on earth do we improve those skills in others? Though short I think your essay is right to the heart of the matter, well written and worth more than it's lowly 'community' rating position. It'll get a good score from me. I hope you may agree about mine, if only to help get the validity of the concept noticed. I got into the top 10, then immediately dropped out like a stone, consistent with dark tactical voting. I'm used to higher professional ethics!

Best of luck. And if you can see any mathematical angles to help me do let me know! Did you read the 'axis of evil' paper link? It may be rather fun.

Thanks again, Peter

Peter,

Thank you for the kind words.

Best best way to improve skills of communicating concepts is to teach at a city college. I do not know how some of these students graduated from high school! I also teach at an art school (Columbia College Chicago) once again you have to rethink a subject to present it in a way that works with your students.

Jeff

Jeffry:

As promised on the thread of my essay, here is a comment on your essay.

Yours is very easy to read essay, it points out several interesting issues on Math, Physics and Science.

In particular, I fully agree on your statement "Put another way, the representation is not the thing."

Unfortunately science and humanity in general do not work that way. As general director of a company I have to deal a lot with marketing and sales, there you learn that truth might be important, but perception is more important. Reality is reality, but all we have is representation, science is nothing but representation.

Your browsing over several representations of reality is quite good.

The main difference with almost all other essays (not good or bad, just different) is I don´t see you taking some posture.

To your essay´s ending I might comment as stated on my essay: I think we can only grasp things when we digitize them, so science is the process of digitizing reality. Will we ever digitize everything? ...

I really hope not.

Best..

Good luck.

Juan Enrique

Juan,

Thank you for your comments.

I do have a little diagram showing how a quantized universe is impossible, but I did not make it a clear main point. Speaking of perception - Chris Kennedy in an earlier thread, saw that as the only thing he wished to comment on. I am learning a lot about how to write an essay from those comments!

Right now we are trying to digitize everything because that is our current state of technology, it was not true in the past and might not be true in the future.

Your title caught my eye; I love the dada reference, and what it says about our representational perceptions of reality.

I haven't had time to read your article yet, but one commenter quoted your no 1-1/2 step in discrete model point, which I, too, question. In essence, either infinite energy is required to manifest a perfectly discrete boundary, or the order of a discretely partitioned substrate had to exist from the beginning. Either prospect has severe ontological problems. At the very least, they lack parsimony and beg Dualism.

Cheers,

Augustus

"A Universe that is not analog or digital might be beyond human

understanding. I have no way of proving or disproving this last point, but I

hope it is not the case."

Jeffrey,

Some interesting points. I can't help wondering if we can equate reality and the universe. If there are multiple universes, is the reality for each universe different or is there one reality for all?

Best regards,

Jim Hoover

Jeffrey,

I enjoyed the way you started off with Magritte's "This is not a pipe". I often quote Alfred Korzybski, in 'Science and Sanity', who said "The map is not the territory." He seems to think that recognition of this is the key to sanity. I do believe that, in today's physics, there is more confusion between reality and representation than perhaps ever before. So I applaud your focus, in your title and your opening paragraph.

I also like you point, "A fundamentally discrete universe will have a scale level where energy or position can have a level of one or two units, but not one and a half."

I was not quite sure about the diagram until I read your comment to Juan above, that "I do have a little diagram showing how a quantized universe is impossible, but I did not make it a clear main point."

And I agree that teaching is the best way to learn. When I used to teach I could tell by their eyes that the students did not understand, so I found another way to explain. If this didn't work, I looked for another way. Often, I had never seen the third way myself, so at least one of us learned something.

You may like to read my essay. It agrees with you that the fundamental nature of the universe is analog, with thresholds such as Planck's constant and the speed of light that provide separation and hence a degree of discreteness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you for your comments.

Looking back, the Ptolemaic system with spheres within spheres seems absurd, but it was used for over a thousand years. A model that works well will always be viewed as reality by some. Students do help me. I will talk about an electron doing this or a photon doing that and a student will ask "does it really look like that?" and I will reply "No, it is just a model." Teaching concepts in Physics to non-science majors keeps you grounded.

When this is over, I might rewrite this essay. These comments have helped me see what changes it needs.

Jeff

Jim,

There is one reality for all universes. There might be very different rules (laws?) for each universe, but there is a limit to what these laws are. Reality exists, but we might never know true reality. In a sense, "Reality", the overview of all overviews is unimportant. What is important is the current best fit model and finding its problems.

Jeff