The Best of Both Worlds: Why Reality Must Be Both Analog and Digital by Jonathan J. Dickau

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

Zeilinger and Christian,......have made a beautiful rational work, why you don't respect these deterministic roads?

Steve

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

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

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

Your view close to Penrouse http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

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

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

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 of forces. Unless a force is confined, it will not lead to non-linear behavior. Thus, linearity is the natural way. Conservation, on the other hand, is the general principle, whether the forces are linear or non-linear. Because nothing ever is truly created or destroyed - everything is only transformed.

Your exposition of George Cann's views is correct. But we have a different explanation for the said phenomenon. True analog and digital descriptions are related to infinite and finite dimensions. Where the dimensions are not fully perceptible, it is analog. Where the dimensions are fully perceptible, it is digital. But mostly analog is used in cases where the dimensions are very big. Space and time are analog, but we use specific segments of it (like bucketful of sea water) for our purpose. This is digitization of the analog. So in all cases, digital is a segment of analog.

Some may question the above view pointing out to the wave-particle dispute. For them we point out to the latest findings of LHC: the early universe was a 'perfect fluid', not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories. We posit that this fluid formed the primary field. Particles are subsequent generations of this field through confinement. We are not discussing the nature or mechanism of this confinement here. However, this proves our theory that digital is a segment of the analog.

If we find some problem with the digital, we can always expand the segment. It will still be digital (though you seem to call it analog). However, bigger it is a larger segment; it will be difficult to precisely control it. It may also appear to interact with other forces changing its behavior, which you describe as "not quite as stable, nor as predictable in their action".

The Double-slit experiment can be easily described in the context of the above description of field and particle. If particles are locally confined fields, then you cannot eliminate fields from the scene. The picture that emerges is when you direct the photon (particle) through a slit; it goes in the specified direction. Thus, the two slits create two bands. The detection device notes this direction of the photon or electron movement through a particular slit. Thus, the result remains same. However, if there is no such compulsion and the particles are free to move through the wave at their own pace, they will generate interference pattern. There is no mystery here.

What you call "free energy - as radiation" is really the density fluctuation in the local field due to interaction with particles in it.

We agree with your views that "quantum mechanics is not about very small entities." "Something large enough to be a macroscopic observable object can still be entirely quantum mechanical." The basic difference between macroscopic observable objects and quantum objects is that, while in the case of quantum objects, two particles join to form a third particle of completely different nature, the constituents of the macroscopic observable objects retain their individual characteristic even while remaining coupled. Thus, different quarks join to form protons and neutrons that exhibit different characteristics. But the individual atoms in most products retain their characteristics. Water, which shows both characteristics, belongs to a different class. While it shows different characteristics from hydrogen and oxygen, unlike quarks, it shows the linearity in addition of mass.

The results of the interferometer experiment are also not weird. Mathematically, we know that the area of a rectangle and a parallelogram on the same base and the same height is equal. Since area implies two dimensional fields, we have to use second order terms. If the length is a units and breadth is b units, then the area will be a b squared units, which is a^2 b^2 2ab. This can be geometrically proved. But when the rectangle is shifted to make it a parallelogram, the projection of b along y axis is reduced. Thus, we have to bring in an additional factor of cos θ to bring parity. This shows that b in a rectangle and b in a parallelogram over the same base are different, even though distance-wise both have the same value. In the interferometer experiment, this difference becomes dominant, because traveling time for the waves after the deflection in both ways are different. There is no mystery in this case. The difference in relative path lengths causes the different patterns.

We agree that perception is nothing but the result of measurement, which is a comparison between similars. However, we do not agree with the concepts of either Relativity or Quantum gravity. We have a different explanation for the phenomena. However, we agree with you that "the right-brain perceives reality as unified, connected, and fluid, rather than being made of distinct, disconnected, and solid entities." We will look forward to your theory. We will also be publishing our theory soon.

Regards,

basudeba.