Is Reality Digital or Analog? by Joel Mayer, MD

Dear MD,

You were a Pathologist. What sparked your interest in mathematics and physics? When I was a teacher of fundamentals of EE at University of MD for more than forty years, I felt challenged by the superiority of hearing as compared to electronic implementation of what I meanwhile consider inappropriate mathematical theory of signal processing. So my three essays arose from decades of digging for possible imperfections in advanced theories. Maybe, we can complement each other to some extent. I also do not see Galilei outdated.

You seem to be one out of very few if not the only one who directly answered the questions I to VIII within your essay. So you might be curious to what extent your position agrees with the answers I gave directly to these questions in the discussion concerning my essay .

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Joel,

A fascinating and well presented essay. I will certainly read it again when I have more time, as you have said very many interesting things. The question and answer style worked very well. You also answered the questions in interesting ways. The writing of Galileo was new to me and its really interesting how close he came to modern explanations.

I think you have done a good job and hope you get many readers who also enjoy your writing. Good luck, regards Georgina.

Dear Georgina-

Thank you for your time and comments. I believe the real worth of my apporach has to do with the fact. That my 'style' of quantum mechanics leads directly to a quantum mechanical explanation of the mysteries of cancer cell production. Care to learn more? Send your e-mail to joelm_armillary at msn.com I will return e-mail you a copy of my monograph, NEOPLASIA MATHEMATICS. Have a nice day, thanks again.

Joel

I greatly enjoyed your essay, nice format and many interesting ideas, a bit out of my department, but I can see where you're coming from and like your thought processes. Mine may be off subject for you, but actually for that reason I'd be very interested to hear what you make of it if you have time to read it.http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 (But you probably couldn't understand the core with just a quick scan over).

Best of luck

Peter

Joel

Ooops, wrong link, though you may enjoy that paper! this is the essay; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 I hope you can read it. I think yours deserves rather better than it's current lowly placing.

Best of luck

Peter

Dear Peter- I have just completed a very careful read of your paper. At the atomic level it seems to me we could do better if we worked out of the idea that charged particles move from place to place over the arc of the cycloid. I see matrix methods as a contingency solution. Applied to physics (under the urging of Paul Dirac) because the variants on the cyloid were a long way off from being tabulated in the early 1900's.

Your work deals with the motion of particles in the aggregate, as populations. Think how beautiful it would be if you could explain your manifestations on the assumption of cyloidal motion in the very small!

Dear Peter- I have made a very careful study of both of your essays. Thanks very much for your efforts. The reason my essay has yet to spark any real interest in the group. Is that none of my readers has a clue as to my overall philosophy and my direction. I'm moving towards a comprehensive explanation of just how and why it is that cancer cells reproduce at a faster rate than healthy cells. And, I also want to imagine that I can make magnetic imaging technologies more accurate and precise. Out of the assumption that electrons move from place to place over the arc of the cycloid. In your realm, astrophysics, there is no particular reason to take on my 'style' of analysis. Thus, my essay falls flat in front of this audience.

Joel

I agree with you and Eckard. There is much wrong with present physics and it's mainly only 'belief' that's preventing important progress. We mustn't stop challenging, as Einstein said "The important thing is not to stop questioning"

Best of luck

Peter

Dear M.D.,

Yours is a fascinating journey from medicine to math and beyond! I like it. It confirms my conviction that the next great idea can come from unexpected places by unexpected people. I am especially intrigued by your connection of Planck's Formula to Gauss and deMoivre. When I have more time I will definitely look into this more closely.

Since you have obviously thought about Planck's Formula and blackbody radiation, I would like to draw your attention to my essay, "A World Without Quanta?". There I have a very simple and elegant mathematical derivation of this Formula that does not use 'energy quanta' or statistics. Most importantly, I show that Planck's Formula is an exact mathematical identity (tautology) that describes the interaction of measurement. I argue that this also explains why the experimental measurements fit so indistinguishably well the theoretical curve. Check this link for a remarkable coincidence: Blackbody spectrum .

All the best in this and future endeavors,

Constantinos

Joel,

Interesting connections to statistics and cell size. I enjoyed the references to pivotal figures such as Maxwell and Gauss.

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern - The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Hello dear Joel,

Congratulations,it is a beautiful and rational work. I like a lot also the thermodynamics and its rationalities as Black Body,....

Regards and Good luck

Steve

Dear Joel H Mayer,

I very much enjoyed your essay, and was impressed by your use of the fqxi questions I-VIII as an organizing framework. All of your points are interesting and very well presented (except for the annoying tendency to replace a comma with a period, prematurely ending the sentence.)

You chose a unique but very relevant example to make a number of points, several of which I learned from. You deserve a much higher ranking.

By the way, I was happy at the end to see that you really do honor Maxwell appropriately. He was a giant, but you do well to remind us that nobody's perfect.

Thanks for a wonderful, enlightening essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe

Hello,

The temperature seems incredibles in its pure fractalization.correlated with the pure mass and thus the pure energy, we see thus the radiation of electromagnetism.The pression can be inserted with the correlation hv=mc²...if we take the theory of kinetic and ideal gas we see the pression and thus the volumes....if we insert the pure quantum number and its finite serie,with a fractal from the main cnetral sphere with a decreasing of volumes.More the orbital rotations and the spinal rotations proportiopnal with mass and that becomes very revolutionary for a pure quantization of all mass.If the main sense of rotation for gravity is different than the other main gauge of sense for light,thus we undertand the absortion or emmission and thus we understand the difference between electromagnetism and gravity. If the volumes are inserted with the pressions , the kinetic theory seems so incredible with a pure serie.......several integrations for several constants after all.....hv=mc² if the sense is understood....P V T ....

Regards

Steve

Dear Dr. Mayer,

Congratulations on making the connection between 'pure maths' and cancer cell growth.

I would just like to add that the matter aspect of 'the Light' in my essay is discontinuous, but the frequency is so fast that it appears continuous. (Think of a strobe light switching on/off so fast that it appears to be on continuously.)

I am not a Maxwell basher either, but would like to mention that his P.D.E's cannot be solved for fractal antenna's (as far as I am aware). Hence, his theory of light has limited applicability.

Overall its a great paper.

All the best,

Robert