Essay Abstract

Does our current understanding of Physics say more about us than about the Universe? Current discrete and continuous systems are re-examined and a new approach is which could resolve the issue of locality is offered.

Author Bio

Jeffrey Schmitz has his Masters in Physics from the University of Tennessee. He has taught Astronomy, Physics and Physical Science as an adjunct instructor at seven different colleges in and around Chicago.

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

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!

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

"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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate