Is Reality Digital or Analog? by Hiro Funakoshi

Has the essay gone beyond what we would expect to comply with the evaluation criteria "Intereting" with respect to being "Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming at the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature"?

Hello Hiro, I liked the easy readability of your essay very much. I noted that you say in the conclusion that "Currently we are seriously lacking in alternatives.." which I agree with yet have just such an alternative myself. It does away with the concept of a spacetime continuum in one go. I think Newton missed a trick in the history of science. The simplest way to explain his spooky action at a distance is to use the model of an Archimedes screw. This has both particle/wave properties and can explain a force of attraction via simple particles. If you imagine that this graviton travels around a wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as an anti-graviton, i.e. DARK ENERGY. It fits like a glove, does it not? Best of luck in the competition. Alan

A brief history is a good thing for our consciousness to form the lines and sequences of our universe. Things as fields are an explination of "things" we don't understand I think. Anyway this is my greatest objection to just name things we dont understand and by just giving them another name having thouhgt that we have solved the problems, all of this is logic because we are living in a causal deterministic universe, giving answers means that there are questions and every question is proceeded by other questions, information is constituted of data, books are constituted of charecters, once you have knowledge of these caracters the amount of books becomes infinite, but if you are aware of these caracters that does'nt mean that you have ALL the knowledge of the books that can be composed by these caracters, books are information and caracters are data, the deterministic causal lines in which the books are created by our consciousnes's gives the meaning "idea" , these ideas are non material so form a continuum that is no longer formed by characters (data), so analogue. I am not a professional scientist, more a philosopher, but what scientists have brought me untill now has opened my mind, like your essay also attributed to my knowledge, if you are interested you read also my contribution to this search of mankind for his existance (REALITIES out of TOTAL SIMULTANEITY), which is in principle the HOW, and of course not to forget the WHY ?

good luck with the contest

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Hiro,

Thank you for a summary of the state of physics as it is basically understood by physics professionals (without going into confusing detail). Your insight into where things can move gives a rough field of play for the models of the future.

One of my worries is that in modern physics we concentrate so much on the "physics" and assume that the "math" is obviously correct. I would be interested in how you see this.

Don Limuti

Hiro,

Good objective evaluation of various models but would have liked to see your put on analogue, digital or both.

Thanks for the read.

Jim Hoover

Dear Hiro Funakoshi,

I found nothing to review here - the essay contains short stories copied from the textbooks about symmetries, dimensions, M-theory. Meanwhile, I am looking for YOUR OWN ideas and theory about if the reality is digital or analog. The speculations about the future unification of the four fundamental forces or M-theory prove nothing about the nature of Universe. If you have an idea, why the reality is digital or analog, you must be able to formulate it more shortly.

Thus, I don't found any proofs in the essay that the reality is digital, analog or digital-analog.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Dear Hiro,

I appreciate your essay and find it very valid. There are several things I really like. Your suggestion that there is something else besides analog or digital is a good answer to the question. Being an engineer working mostly with programming, I like digital solutions, but I agree with you that we probably do not need to jump to digital solutions for reality yet. I still am interested in digital models and what they look like because they could be useful tools. But it seems a digital answer puts the problem one level deeper, and the same can be said for most analog theories with mechanical devices.

Your questioning of four-dimensional space-time is especially pertinent. There are actually some very good alternatives that that should be explored.

Thanks for your interesting essay that discusses conscious awareness and physical logic. Good luck in the contest.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

Dear Hiro Funakoshi

Konnichiwa. Your essay is lucid and thought-provoking. You mentioned the stability of circular orbits in 4-D. I suppose this extends to the more physically realistic elliptical orbits of the solar system?

In my essay and also in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based I have presented some proposals about how physics might be reconstructed from new first principles. These include discarding some basic concepts like spacetime and a point photon. You obviously have the technical background that will enable you to evaluate and perhaps develop some of my largely qualitative ideas. I would appreciate it if you do so.

Vladimir Tamari

Hi Hiro,

Generally an enjoyable paper although at a certain point you mention geometry and matter should be unified. This however undermines the very pilars behind quantum theory (which requires a minimal space-time structure to be present). How do you see M theory tackling these issues ?

Kind regards,

Johan

Dear Hiro,

First of all, your comments regarding quantum theory are incorrect. We can only do QFT in a spacetime with a (or asymptotic) Killing symmetry(ies). Otherwise we could not define particles and interpret the results of scattering experiments. Second, the spacetime at hand must also be globally hyperbolic, or at least the quantum theory restricts to a globally hyperbolic piece of it. Third, canonical quantization of general relativity fails probably because quantum mechanics requires a partial gauge fixing. That is, the hypersufaces of constant t need to be spacelike. So, sure, the inherent structure of quantum mechanics breaks general covariance.

The problem does not only reside in the dynamics, but also in the commutation relations and the appropriate form of statistics. How would you define an appropriate covariant operator equation if you have no ''geometrical variables''? As soon as you use differential operators you need them. On the other hand, if you would have no matter but only quantum geometry, you would have to measure the manifold. But we never do that (and defining local observables is generically impossible due to diffeomorphism invariance) ... a manifold, causality and locality are auxilliary concepts without a direct operational meaning.

Kind regards,

Johan

Hello Hiro

A nice rational piece on conventional theory but I was hoping for a little more. perhaps you may find time to give me an opinion of whether my own model "fits the bill" in the conservative terms you set out.

Many thanks if you are able. i hope you conceptualisation skills are good!

best of luck

Peter

Dear Sir,

We congratulate you for your brilliant analysis. In most areas we are in agreement. Below is our comment on your essay:

You describe reality as: Space-time x Matter content. We broadly agree with this description due to the following reasons. Both space and time are related to sequence - the order of arrangement. The interval between objects is space and the interval between events is time. Since space and time co-exist, space-time implies space with motion in it (events). We treat a single field as the fundamental constituent of the Universe. Depending upon the nature of confinement, it becomes matter (locally confined) or energy (locally not confined, hence trying to regain equilibrium within the bigger confinement). This generates space with motion in it. Thus, while the primordial field is smooth, what we describe as "...'space-time' usually refers to the particular metric imposed on the manifold."

The statement: "space-time appears continuous below the Planck energy scale" implies that at the fundamental level, the field is smooth and analog. As we go up in the energy ladder, we find that at the atomic and molecular level, all objects are a combination of a few atoms, which retain their individual identity in such combination. If we go further up, we find that quarks of different varieties merge to lose their identity and create a particle of a different characteristic. If we go further up, we note that LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists with its findings that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid', not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories.

Confinement implies a central point (nucleus or center of mass) around which the mass concentrates due to confinement (orbitals). Thus, there is a coupling between the two mediated by a force. By a mechanism which we are not discussing here, instability in the medium leads to a chain of events giving rise to "time", as we know it. This created inertia of motion, which was opposed by the inertia of restoration (elasticity) of the medium. This interaction, according to the same mechanism led to the density variation. This also leads to local confinement, which became the particles. Generation of particles led to further density variation. The inertia of restoration then pushed the particles around, which is seen as the effect of energy on those particles. This effect is experienced at two levels: proximity or intra-particle and distance or inter-particle. Depending upon the proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance variables, the effects are experienced as strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces. Gravity is a composite force that stabilizes: the orbits of planets and stars and the orbital of atoms. Since stabilization depends on density distribution, gravity is related to mass. Since density of intervals between objects is relatively less, in a closed system like Earth-Moon or Sun-planets, the density of the medium appears homogeneous. Hence, gravity is related to distance. The inter-relationship appears as the gravitational constant. We do not require Higg's boson or the mathematics of the symmetry group of the standard model, SU(3) ﾃ-- SU(2) ﾃ-- U(1) or general relativity to explain the fundamental forces of Nature.

You are quite right that "We require three distinct gauge groups to describe each of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces. While the current attempts at a Grand Unified Theory, such as SU (5), SO (10) or Technicolor, are seeking to overcome the second deficiency (combining the three distinct gauge groups), this still leaves the problem of unifying these three forces with gravity".

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures. These are described in detail in our book. Since time does not fit in this description, it is not a dimension.

We had given some alternative description of reality in our essay. You are welcome to peruse it.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

My congratulations to you and your colleagues, by both way of your review of my essay, and to your own out of the box sense of intuitive logic, couple with your science to push the envelope of knowledge.

Your reply is both a personal edification and a challenge for me to explain, myself with the due respect you and your colleagues most certainly deserve.

First: I am not a physicist, nor am I a mathematician of any significance, but my suppositions are based on an A = A logic, that I have spent nearly 60 years wrestling with. Albeit, the Cosmos as I have written about is anything but A=A. It is an anomaly, as I believe it is required to be. Otherwise, I believe we would be deceiving ourselves to define an unbounded open system as one that is closed.

Actually, at times I have to get up and run to break the intuitive insights, that in a sense trap me (Claustrophobic in nature) in this absolute conundrum, we call existence, and have been and will be infinitely bound too. The philosophical question often becomes: "What's the Point?" And in fact we are Trapped, by a system of the infinitely impossible. Forever and Forever. It bears a haunting mental impression upon me from time to time.

So I am very serious about my understandings, albeit not of the stellar work you have done working out a proof you believe in. Even as I question its assumptions in the following paragraphs. In fact, if I am accurately getting my head around it, it actually proves my point: "That infinity is beyond the scope of mathematics, as you appear to have used "Time" along with measurement to validate it through an ongoing basis, which is a dynamic description, not a static definition. As a quantity you appear to make it grow or it is born anew upon extended discovery. Very respectfully that is an assumption, not a proof.

Additionally, you seem to use relativistic mathematics to assume a "Scalar" absolute for all objects. If "Entaglement" is true, then scalar mathematics is not appropriate, as the pragmatic fact of "Locality" breeches a "spectrum" if you will of length. I too believe all things are based on a spectrum or scalar foundation, but I have no concrete answer to Superposition's or Entanglements, save that they may defy our known levels of scalar measurement's. They may be 10 billions smaller than a plancks constant, but appear as relative objects. Who Knows?

NOTE: The type 's of mathematics we use Euclidian or Quantum Geometry, or new mathematic's of the future may change everything. But infinity is not one of them. For me, it is as immutable as Time and Space. And just as unexplainable, other than by defining it - as an ongoing process. But that to me confines it, and infinity has no boundaries. If it did what would be on the other side of it? This is an infinite loop built into a question. And it may have the brilliance of your minds to attempt to make it fit into a round hole, but it will not, and cannot. Not in the bigger scope of things we are infinitely bound by.

I would love to understand in better terms, what I may be missing in your wonderful reply, but I am stuck in my own Lambda = confusion. I guess? I do believe you have explained infinity and possibly it's counter-part of the Quantum continuum in a process of what I would call "ongoing discovery". That is worthy of superior note. I have no question about it. By the way, your comment about "A surprised Eddington: You even further solidify my argument, by suggesting a "scale" is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require and infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light. NOTE: Anytime we inject an infinite number mathematics and explanation comes to a halt, save for the meta expressions...

By the way, your response is beyond my total comprehension, but I believe I understand the core of your comments... At least I hope so.

Again I very much applaud your research, your willingness to step away from the knowledge of the past, and stand on your own shoulders, albeit with the help of history as well. But your independent out-of -the-box thinking is much appreciated, and where we need to move - as science finds its way to improve both our human knowledge and humanity itself.

Now regarding your comments about Energy. I am a little confused as I really stepped out-of-the-box to describe the use of Energy (Liner) combined with Energy (Non-Liner) to equal increased Energy, which will as normal energy does, atrophy with time. But the outcome of using natural energies, such as Electrostatics, Magnetism, and Gravity, hold a game changer for the planet. For improving communication among peoples of the world and to a better world [Period.] I have several ways I have designed this in my head over the years, and hope to find the right physicists to work with someday to pursue it.

This is not using typical "Action = Reaction" or "Like for Like" energy and matter, but changes the formula: E = E(*). Note Gravity in a non-linear mode multiples itself.

This is doable, and surprising we have not achieved it as of yet. Of course given my concepts are correct. And that is a small issue to me, but I know a heresy to a very though crowd of physicists by and large.

Again, Basudeba and your colleagues... Many Thanks. Your response was a true edification for myself.

If I can clarify anything: Ask away... Thanks very much again, Russ

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your comments. You are unnecessarily being highly differential.

We find much more commonality than differences in our thought and approach. Yet, the style of presentation and the language used might create an impression of difference.

You say: If Entanglement is true, then scalar mathematics is not appropriate, as the pragmatic fact of Locality breeches a spectrum if you will of length.

Possibly we are expressing the same view in a different language. Mathematics is related only to the numbers of particles (or subsystems) and not their interaction or displacement. Entanglement is related to their intrinsic relationship. As we have said earlier, particles are nothing but confined fields. Confinement implies a central point (nucleus or center of mass) around which the mass concentrates due to confinement (orbitals). Thus, there is a coupling between the two mediated by a force. Entanglement is related to this mediating force. Since energy does not have a nucleus or center of mass, it does not have a fixed structure. Hence it is always dynamic unless it is contained within some container. Here also, it interacts with the container at the surface while there is no such interaction at other places. This leads to a chain reaction leading to further destabilization. Thus, energy is always mobile. All measurements are done at "here-now", which is a fixed position in some frame of reference. Numbers are associated with it, as measurement is a comparison between similars and numbers are the characteristic of objects by which we differentiate between similars. Thus, obviously, scalar mathematics is not appropriate in the case of entanglement.

Just like a fluid flows or seeps through a porous container and not through a solid one, the energy associated with the quantum particles can flow (entanglement) or seep through (quantum tunneling) macro particles. Since all objects display a three fold structure (nucleus, orbitals or confinement and the extra-nuclear field), any release of energy in one direction will be associated with the absorption of equivalent energy in the opposite direction, which will generate chain reactions in their surrounding fields. Since particles have parallel and anti-parallel spins, the release of energy by a pair with opposite spins will induce similar reactions in opposite directions. This is known as entanglement. However, like the socks example given earlier, till one particle's spin is measured, there is no way to know about the spin of either. Thus, there is nothing extraordinary about entanglement. It has unnecessarily been sensationalized. Particles move in the field automatically (in the absence of any induced force) based on the property of the field to attain uniform density. Since the density of the medium through which the energy travels is different from the density of the released energy, it gradually tapers down after a few kilo meters. Alternatively, it loses its own identity and becomes indistinguishable from the field. In both ways, the result is the same.

Action reaction is based on the general property of Nature: inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity), which appears as stress and impedance and from which we derive all fundamental forces and particles of the Universe.

Regards,

basudeba

I think that Reality is neither Analog nor Digital; It is Singular.

Dear Hiro,

Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

Love,

Sridattadev.