If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
Previous Contests
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
Previous Contests
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
FQXi FORUM
May 23, 2013
CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Is Reality Digital or Analog?
[back]
TOPIC: Is Reality Digital or Analog by Juan Carlos Christensen [refresh]
TOPIC: Is Reality Digital or Analog by Juan Carlos Christensen [refresh]
Essay Abstract
To answer this question I propose a Universe that is explained in a digital way; quantifying mass, energy, distance, and time using Planck units and qubits, and unifying certain concepts and laws like Universal Gravitation and the Lorentz Transform under the quantum gravity theory. As examples of its consistency, the proton mass, the electron mass, the Hubble constant, and other observational measures have been calculated. All this is explained in the context of a proposed Theory of the Probability of the Histories.
Author Bio
Juan Carlos Christensen is an Electronic Engineer from Buenos Aires University; was owner and President of Standard Electric Co. (an ex ITT Company) in Argentina and in Brazil; his main interest has always been R&D (he had a grant at MIT in 1975 with profesor Gerome Lettvin); has patents in Argentina and USA; is currently studying Physics at the IAFE (Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio), and Philosophy at Buenos Aires University; and works as an independent researcher.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
To answer this question I propose a Universe that is explained in a digital way; quantifying mass, energy, distance, and time using Planck units and qubits, and unifying certain concepts and laws like Universal Gravitation and the Lorentz Transform under the quantum gravity theory. As examples of its consistency, the proton mass, the electron mass, the Hubble constant, and other observational measures have been calculated. All this is explained in the context of a proposed Theory of the Probability of the Histories.
Author Bio
Juan Carlos Christensen is an Electronic Engineer from Buenos Aires University; was owner and President of Standard Electric Co. (an ex ITT Company) in Argentina and in Brazil; his main interest has always been R&D (he had a grant at MIT in 1975 with profesor Gerome Lettvin); has patents in Argentina and USA; is currently studying Physics at the IAFE (Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio), and Philosophy at Buenos Aires University; and works as an independent researcher.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
Hi Juan,
Thank you for making your essay public. I enjoyed reading it. I have a question, if you have a moment.
In your essay, you say:
---------
Qubits are used instead of bits because it is a
quantum computational Universe that gives a response in bits in every actualization/refresh
time. What we are/what we see, are bits, what we process/wh
at we don’t see are qubits.
---------
I'm interested in this remark, but not sure I follow. Would you be interested in saying more about why you'd expect the universe to operate in qubits rather than bits? Why would it not be, for instance, simply a more complex system of bits doing the unseen processing, of which the information that any observer sees or experiences would be a subset? What do you see as the specific value-add of qubits?
My thanks in advance for any input you can provide.
Alex
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for making your essay public. I enjoyed reading it. I have a question, if you have a moment.
In your essay, you say:
---------
Qubits are used instead of bits because it is a
quantum computational Universe that gives a response in bits in every actualization/refresh
time. What we are/what we see, are bits, what we process/wh
at we don’t see are qubits.
---------
I'm interested in this remark, but not sure I follow. Would you be interested in saying more about why you'd expect the universe to operate in qubits rather than bits? Why would it not be, for instance, simply a more complex system of bits doing the unseen processing, of which the information that any observer sees or experiences would be a subset? What do you see as the specific value-add of qubits?
My thanks in advance for any input you can provide.
Alex
report post as inappropriate
Thank you Alex for your interest.
A bit processed as in a normal computer takes a much longer time than in a quantum computer, and this time difference increases as complexity is increased. The results of this quantum computations are in classical bits, but the process of
that computation is made in qubits, where it processes all the possible
alternatives simultaneously instead of in a sequence. That gives
the possibility of a real time actualization. JC
report post as inappropriate
A bit processed as in a normal computer takes a much longer time than in a quantum computer, and this time difference increases as complexity is increased. The results of this quantum computations are in classical bits, but the process of
that computation is made in qubits, where it processes all the possible
alternatives simultaneously instead of in a sequence. That gives
the possibility of a real time actualization. JC
report post as inappropriate
Juan,
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts regarding quantum computing benefits. I've been perplexed by several authors' comments indicating that quantum computing would offer some qualitative benefit not available using digital computing.
If I understand correctly, you envision that data represented by qubits could be processed in parallel whereas data represented digitally could not?
It seems to me that the ability to process information in parallel is more a function of the number of processing elements available than the method of encoding that information.
Certainly the scale of circuit elements is a critical factor in the processing speed of discrete circuits and likely make configuration of additional processing elements more feasible, but I suspect that, as you suggest, the benefit of quantum computing is primarily in performance rather than enabling new computing functionality. Perhaps I misunderstand something.
Thanks,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts regarding quantum computing benefits. I've been perplexed by several authors' comments indicating that quantum computing would offer some qualitative benefit not available using digital computing.
If I understand correctly, you envision that data represented by qubits could be processed in parallel whereas data represented digitally could not?
It seems to me that the ability to process information in parallel is more a function of the number of processing elements available than the method of encoding that information.
Certainly the scale of circuit elements is a critical factor in the processing speed of discrete circuits and likely make configuration of additional processing elements more feasible, but I suspect that, as you suggest, the benefit of quantum computing is primarily in performance rather than enabling new computing functionality. Perhaps I misunderstand something.
Thanks,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Thank you Jim for your interest,
Thats right, quantum computation processes simultaneously and is much faster.
We normally talk about hardware and software as two different things, but here they are the same thing, both are the result of qubits.
Is like to have an special hardware computer that runs a software that makes it change. Then that computer is his hardware and his software.
JC
report post as inappropriate
Thats right, quantum computation processes simultaneously and is much faster.
We normally talk about hardware and software as two different things, but here they are the same thing, both are the result of qubits.
Is like to have an special hardware computer that runs a software that makes it change. Then that computer is his hardware and his software.
JC
report post as inappropriate
Juan,
Thanks for taking the time to address my question. What I wonder is whether the 'efficiency' of the universe makes a difference in this context. If, as you propose, each observer's experience is defined by some well defined subset of the number of bits that could emerge from the underlying universal process, won't that experience be the same regardless of how efficient the underlying computation is? Surely the subjective of experience won't be changed.
I am both interested and skeptical about the difference between quantum computing and the vanilla variety. Particularly given results like the one below:
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/12/102144-qip-pspac
e-breakthrough/fulltext
In this respect, I think I have similar questions to those that Jim has raised.
All the best,
Alex
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for taking the time to address my question. What I wonder is whether the 'efficiency' of the universe makes a difference in this context. If, as you propose, each observer's experience is defined by some well defined subset of the number of bits that could emerge from the underlying universal process, won't that experience be the same regardless of how efficient the underlying computation is? Surely the subjective of experience won't be changed.
I am both interested and skeptical about the difference between quantum computing and the vanilla variety. Particularly given results like the one below:
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/12/102144-qip-pspac
e-breakthrough/fulltext
In this respect, I think I have similar questions to those that Jim has raised.
All the best,
Alex
report post as inappropriate
Hi,
There is an another important difference between quantum computation and classical computation, and that is logic. With classic logic it is not possible to emulate a superposition state.
For example, two polarizers at right angles don't allow light go through independently if there is another polarizer in between, that is classic logic, but with quantum logic some light goes through, as the polarization of this third polarizer changes, as it happens in reality.
And to emulate quantum logic using bits in a classic computer it is needed a much bigger memory, bigger than the number of particles of the universe, then it is impossible to emulate the Universe in a classic computer or using bits. JC
report post as inappropriate
There is an another important difference between quantum computation and classical computation, and that is logic. With classic logic it is not possible to emulate a superposition state.
For example, two polarizers at right angles don't allow light go through independently if there is another polarizer in between, that is classic logic, but with quantum logic some light goes through, as the polarization of this third polarizer changes, as it happens in reality.
And to emulate quantum logic using bits in a classic computer it is needed a much bigger memory, bigger than the number of particles of the universe, then it is impossible to emulate the Universe in a classic computer or using bits. JC
report post as inappropriate
Hi again, Juan,
Thank you for your clear and patient reply. It’s certainly true that an ordinary computer can’t capture the continuum array of values that we normally associate with an uncollapsed quantum state. However, is this necessary if a quantum state always collapses to a single state when observed?
What I would argue that it *is* possible to do is build a working discrete...
view entire post
Thank you for your clear and patient reply. It’s certainly true that an ordinary computer can’t capture the continuum array of values that we normally associate with an uncollapsed quantum state. However, is this necessary if a quantum state always collapses to a single state when observed?
What I would argue that it *is* possible to do is build a working discrete...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Hi Alex,
I've read your article and it is interesting because you are modeling particles with sets related with proximity weighted nodes expressed in dimension s. In my article a particle is a sub set defined by its relation with the rest of the universe (nodes) and it moves depending on the more probable histories (and the Lorentz transform shows the change in probability). We are talking about something simmilar. Now the subject is if we quantify our nodes with bits or qubits.
My position is that if you use Occam´s razor with qubits you loose possible combinations, then you can´t count some histories. I think that with your self interference soft you are already choosing one particular of them.
I simulated double slit experiment with photons, actualizing all the possible amplitude waves with its phase, arriving to the detector plate with interference and at this point the photon is potentialy in many places at the same time. The place where it is detected is where it is manifested. I dont see with God's Eye a traveling particle in one way, what I see is an actualizing amplitude, qubits, that with an interaction appear, to my normal eyes, as bits. The particle appears on the screen, it doesn´t go throught the slits.
Thank you for your ineterest,
All the best,
JC
report post as inappropriate
I've read your article and it is interesting because you are modeling particles with sets related with proximity weighted nodes expressed in dimension s. In my article a particle is a sub set defined by its relation with the rest of the universe (nodes) and it moves depending on the more probable histories (and the Lorentz transform shows the change in probability). We are talking about something simmilar. Now the subject is if we quantify our nodes with bits or qubits.
My position is that if you use Occam´s razor with qubits you loose possible combinations, then you can´t count some histories. I think that with your self interference soft you are already choosing one particular of them.
I simulated double slit experiment with photons, actualizing all the possible amplitude waves with its phase, arriving to the detector plate with interference and at this point the photon is potentialy in many places at the same time. The place where it is detected is where it is manifested. I dont see with God's Eye a traveling particle in one way, what I see is an actualizing amplitude, qubits, that with an interaction appear, to my normal eyes, as bits. The particle appears on the screen, it doesn´t go throught the slits.
Thank you for your ineterest,
All the best,
JC
report post as inappropriate
Dear Juan,
I read your essay with interest and wanted to say hello and thank you for writing your ideas down. Your analysis of qubits seems insightful, and I most enjoyed your discussion of time. When things get small and hard to measure, it seems like a good definition for time and change is very helpful. Thanks again for an interesting essay.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
report post as inappropriate
I read your essay with interest and wanted to say hello and thank you for writing your ideas down. Your analysis of qubits seems insightful, and I most enjoyed your discussion of time. When things get small and hard to measure, it seems like a good definition for time and change is very helpful. Thanks again for an interesting essay.
Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen
report post as inappropriate
JC:
Por todo lo que pude observar y tratar de comprender hasta aqui, esta teoria ha superado cualitativamente la original, la que yo conocia sobre El tiempo y la Informacion....
Noto enorme crecimiento intelecto, espiritual, y cientifico.
Una pregunta por favor; Tienes alguna informacion sobre Los Genios y Las Inteligencias Multiples.....
Aguardare con entusiasmo tu respuesta, cuado puedas...
Mis Felicitaciones al Proyecto,
Y un gran saludo a Ti...
AC7774
report post as inappropriate
Por todo lo que pude observar y tratar de comprender hasta aqui, esta teoria ha superado cualitativamente la original, la que yo conocia sobre El tiempo y la Informacion....
Noto enorme crecimiento intelecto, espiritual, y cientifico.
Una pregunta por favor; Tienes alguna informacion sobre Los Genios y Las Inteligencias Multiples.....
Aguardare con entusiasmo tu respuesta, cuado puedas...
Mis Felicitaciones al Proyecto,
Y un gran saludo a Ti...
AC7774
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post