From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

I assume the universe is discrete rather than continuous first of all because there is no evidence that a continuity exists. Although the world has a continuous appearance, all that we can measure ultimately is discrete state change information in the quantum. There is no continuity that we observe.

We can come up with good reasons for discrete effects to be generated by a continuous underlying processes, but if these exist, why is there no evidence of them?

Wolfram and others have shown that we really can't know for sure what the underlying model is. It could be discrete or continuous, but all solutions are equivalent, so why assume the infinities (e.g. Zeno's paradox) continuity manifest unless nature herself suggests that they really exist.

In the standard model of the quantum, all the infinities in the wave equations are removed, by an arbitrary process of renornmalization. Perhaps it is not arbitrary and there really are no infinities.

I believe the universe is discrete because I think it answers Wheeler's questions, (he doesn't agree yet), "Why the Quantum", and how we get "It from Bit". Quantum effects would naturally result from a discrete underlying system. It would also explain the relationship between energy and information.

Finally, although there may be infinite universes that ours does not communicate with, this universe, that we observe, is apparently finite in nature with a mass of about 10^40kg, and it's worlds within worlds hits a quantum brick wall. To be finite, it must be discrete.


How do we know there isn't a continuous universe? Theoretically, if you piloted a spacecraft from earth, to Pluto, the beyond Pluto, it may be empty space. The boundary of the universe was set by humans, so in that saying that the universe just ends after Pluto for us, the rest is another universe. A HumanBeing defined that for us, why do people not consider that person made a wide margin of error based on rough telemetry (Not being able to go to space and look at it for a persons self). In the future, If a spacecraft goes beyond the present given universe dividing line by 100 billion miles, what's to say there isn't another planet 50 billion miles from where they stopped and turned around? --KenSchry

Space is not nothing, it is a lot of energy, ZPE, if there is infinite energy, it is not in our "bubble" of a universe from which we cannot excape.

We never get to the end, go far enough, and, in theory, you end up back at earth again. According to modern physics, it is a four dimensional hypersphere with finite mass. But practically speaking, the universe is so big, and expanding so fast, there will never be a last frontier in this world, we will always find another planet out there and there are no boundaries.

But the main point here is not that the universe is not infinitely big, it is that is is not infinitely small. In the quantum, all experience is discrete, there are no shades of grey, change or no change, or some integer number of discrete changes. Things cannot be divided down forever.

'Fraid your mistaken, Jim. Just because our solar System is round, a space trajectory along an X line [1] would only result in being sent into ZPE. If you were to follow a curve, then you may end up back at earth. But no==== If you travel the edge of the supposed imaginary line the earth travelers on in the universe, the earth is traveling to! you would always be ahead/behind of the earth. This is only true if you are traveling the speed of the planet. --KenSchry ====

Who says the universe stops at the Neptune line? Or the Oort Cloud? We know the universe does not stop there. So was that merely a conversational point?

And if you traveled far enough, you may come back to a point that Earth had existed in. However, as this site currently supports no FTL, whenever you got back, you'd find no Earth, no Sol, and not even a Milky Way galaxy. Those would have ceased to exist a long, long, time ago (in their time event sequence), and a timeless measurement ago for the traveler (if you travel at the speed of light, then no time passes for you). ---StarPilot

Exactly==== Discounting all variables, If a ship traveled in a straight line it will continue on that straight line (An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force). So theoretically, you would have to keep turning to stay on the same path as the earth, (in a curve). This is of course discounting gravity, drag and pull, which would hold the spaceship in orbit, but then it wouldn't matter because the Earth would fly off orbit.... This may take some thinking.... --KenSchry ==== >>>>>>> Other version

Nope. You can accelerate from earth as fast as you want to, but universe is stranger than it appears. Just as the earth looks flat but if you go far enough you get back to where you started because what seems flat is really bent into a third dimension, the globe. Space looks flat but bends ibto a forth dimension, time. Go fast enough and you get back to where you started, but SP is correct. It will be billions of years in the future even if you made the trip in just one year. The universe billions of years ago was boring, only hydrogen existed. Billions of years from now the earth may be gone, but there will be more high level organization and complex systems beyond our wildest dreams. --JimScarver

Why do you assume discreetly oscillating differentials do not interfere with each other? They certainly do. They can add cancel or fold (remain independent). When differences cancel, they interfere, the net difference is zero. The issue of a difference interfering with itself is a bit stickier, but in principle any discrete difference would be canceled by it mirror image with a net zero effect at the receivers perspective.

There is no continuity light frequency or in spectrum lines or Doppler "color change", only discrete numbers of plank actions are manifest. Limitation in our ability to measure these signals cannot explain this phenomenon. If continuous energy was simply measured discreetly we would have round off errors and the conservation of energy would fail. The simple explanation is that continuity does not exist. Nature is finite. There are no infinities. There are no waves or forces. There are only propagating differences discreetly punctuating a finite existence.

What is circular is saying Maxwell's effects are due to quantum interaction and that quantum interaction is due to Maxwell's effects. The former is true, but the latter is without justification and would result in a doubling of forces, fMaxwell's plus fquantum. gives 2*f when you accept that events manifest energy, space and time,

Radiation, waves and forces should all be considered classical concepts, in the quantum, only state change information is propagated and state change propagations manifest everything else we perceive and is the only thing we measure ultimately.

The only reason we say a photon exists is because we see a state change propagated from one electron to another. There are no side effects or funny fields, waves or forces involved. The direction of the state changes oscillates discreetly at half wavelengths, not continuously like a sign wave, its value is plus 100% or minus 100%, never anything in between. The energy of an electron is relative to the observer. We can't even always agree which way the photon went, there is simply an exchange of state change information.

In aggregate looking at all the events that happen we see it is as if a force existed, but the force is not real, only the events are, and the events in sum account fully for our perception of the force. Forces, fields and waves are not something in addition to the behavior of events, they are a generalizations of independent event behavior in aggregate.

You can find wave equations that seem to make sense probabilistic, but they can never describe the deterministic discrete elastic interactions that we know actually occur as they model the aggregate, not the discrete events that paint our world.

"why QM waves cannot be mmodeledas spatial waves ... ???"

  1. . the simplest explanation of uncertainty is space and time are manifest by events and continuous space and time do not exist.
  2. . the discrete nature of measurement suggests continuous space and time do not exist.
  3. . atoms would radiate and be unstable due to orbiting electrons.
  4. . the waves would have a different values for every observer, they would have no absolute manifestation.
  5. . every charge would manifest practically infinite flux, in sum, with respect to everything else in the universe, clearly, these cannot represent anything real.
  6. the logical dimensions of quantum logic does not may into a fixed number of spacial dimensions.
  7. . there are not worlds within worlds, in this world, size does matter.

We only measure discrete state changes. We know they exist. Why is it more natural to assume continuous wave exist when there is no direct evidence of waves? Discrete oscillations can account for all phenomenon reasonable without resorting to continuous waves with infinite detail in a world that lacks any apparent infinities.

A major difficulty with QM is that it attempts to realize an objective present that does not exist yet. Only the past is determined, the present is determined by how it is perceived in the future. This sort of thing may be needed to make predictions but it does not represent anything physical.

We know what is wrong with the theories of waves and particles. But what about that which we do perceive, state change propagations and their orderings. I am finding that these are sufficient for understanding our world, and hope to challenge those here to help find the truth. If anything more is required in our model it should be easy to identify.

Information is relative to the logical context. Information with respect to discrete propagating differentials equals energy, the unary count of binary discriminations. Size is inversely defined by energy as many bits are needed to address a particular locality in an immense universe. Size is not time or space absolutely but depends on observers movement along the fabric of events. Objects have internal events not shared with our world due to the private nature of quantum communications. Gravity becomes the effect of the volume of ZPE an object receives and no phenomenon I can think of is not expected.

Why are we looking at waves and forces and fields and particles when we know these all have serious problems. Does anybody here see any problem with quantum event time propagating difference model? Or is the finite universe just too unexpected to be worth considering?

Personal tools