# Is the Universe Analog or Digital?

I originally posted this in the Relativity forum but I thought it was cogent to this topic so I'm repeating it. Sorry for the redundancy:

Is the Universe Analog or Digital?
First, I'm new to this forum, so I'm sorry if I'm being redundant or naive.

Anyway, a while ago, I'd seen the question posed, "Is the universe digital or analog in nature?"

Seemed like such a complex question at first, but then I came up with the following answer, and it's not what some might think:
I believe we're mentally or perceptually digital creatures existing in an analog universe. Perhaps it's because we have fingers; perhaps it's because our brains have a built-in clock rate, just like this computer I'm typing on. Our consciousness runs in flashes and bursts, ergs, if you will, just like my Intel chip.

However, to demonstrate the analog nature of the universe, I pose this question: Solve Pi. Pi is inherently analog in nature, and it's the purest expression of two-dimensionality I can think of. It is Curvature Itself - the fundament of dimensionality as we perceive it. And things get really hyperanalog when you square and cube Pi, and creates the need for artificial constructs like Infinity - another mathematical example I can use to demonstrate the analog nature of the universe.

Because of this thinking, I've started to look at everything in terms of spectra. Perhaps Planck only addresses part of the deal in that it may be better expressed that the fundamental "packet" that we associate with quantum mechanics is merely the part of the "spectrum" of a transdimensional unit that also exists hypo- and hyper-dimensionally. After all, I find it interesting that every "erg" we run into appears to be spherical in nature. If you've ever been exposed to the concepts of Flatland, you'll realize that a three-dimensional object entering two dimensional Flatland would appear to a flatlander as a two-dimensional object because of his limited perception of dimensionality. Spheres are the three-dimensional equivalent in this model, so virtually any hyperdimensional artifact would appear to us in exactly this fashion. In other words, what does a hypersphere look like? Well, in my way of thinking, look around; they're everywhere. We just can't actually perceive the "hyper" aspects of the sphere. (And of course, just like Flatland, I'm reducing the dimensionalities for simplicity; you have to add the time element, etc., for accuracy.)

Ultimately, I'm starting to wonder if we need a whole new form of math that is analog in nature. I was told that we have that in algebra and other formulaic expressions, but they're meaningless until you apply values and solve for them.

Following my muse, maybe the universe is full of intelligent life, all interrelating by use of technologies they have developed because of their analog-based mentalities; whereas us poor digital-brained creatures are too stupid to pick up on it because we're trying to shove stuff into shapes and units and ergs and things we can understand from an inferior perceptual nature. It's like trying to absorb the nature of God. Truly, the container must always be greater than that which it contains.

What say you?

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
Hmm... good thought!

But as far as I've studied...it's said world is Analog

Hmm...but if you can think that we all are made of particles and as particles are discrete things...so the world must be digital...I mean if you cound every particle Digitally...just may be[zz)]

Originally posted by Moni
Hmm... good thought!

But as far as I've studied...it's said world is Analog

Hmm...but if you can think that we all are made of particles and as particles are discrete things...so the world must be digital...I mean if you cound every particle Digitally...just may be[zz)]
Ah, but my question goes to, What does a particle consist of? If we define a particle as something that can affect our universe in the form of force, friction, etc., by saying "this is a particle" you limit it by your perception but that does not change what that particle inherently IS. The fundamental flaw of digital physics is that you're looking for an indivisible result, and in my way of thinking that just means that you're setting an arbitrary limit. See, to create something that can affect our spacetime, it's got to be made of constituents that do not directly affect our spacetime. What creates the particle? what are its constituents?

To give you an example, in our three-dimensional world, planets and stars and such are said to "warp" the continuum, creating a "trough" for stuff to roll into, offering this as a simple model of gravitic effects which explains why objects of mass obey the Laws of Gravity. This is simple stuff (albeit dimensionally reduced for modeling purposes).

I look at Planck as defining only the aspect of an artifact that can affect our spacetime. Planck has no meaning without the effect. This does not mean that a particle (artifact, effect, etc.) exists totally on that level because it cannot take into accout what exists but does not affect our continuum.

Does that make any sense? I don't want to write a book here, but that may be what it takes to convey such dicey concepts. I've said in another posting that I'm lost when Academe says "The universe started from something smaller than..." because that's effect, not cause. They lose me first at "something," and then again at "smaller than...."

Sir Dr. Hawking's posit that the universe may have been brought into being by a hypersingularity in hyperspace seems to ring true to me because it at least explains how something can be created from nothing.

Now, after all that feckless rambling, I wonder: How can you measure everyting digitally? Quantum mechanics is going to make that impossible. And, after all, what is quantum mechanics? It's the INTERFACE between the analog and the digital. It's the Eye of the Monster, and we've got to kick its butt if we want to get anywhere meaningful on this level.

Hmm...Really your post is very interesting and of course impressive :)

You'll be good in writing books ;)

We taught that the universe consists of Energy and Matter only!!!

And there are four types of fundamental forces!

But when the famous E=MC^2 came it has been proved that Energy and Mass/matter are interchangeble!

And as far as I know Einstein didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics! But the reason is unknown to me :(

First: What do you mean by Digital and Analog???

From your post Analog is expressed PI i.e. Mathematics....

Mathematics is naturelly Digital,

Think about the Number Line...here all are difined digitally!
-3...-2...-1...0...1...2...3

But if you look closer you'll get Analogness!!!

What is the closest point of 3 ???

Hmm...you may go on counting ;) or dividing....

or what is sqrt(2) show it....irrational numbers!!!

So, what I see the world is

Digitally Analog !!!!!!!!!

Let me expound....

See, I revisit Planck, but it's to demonstrate that you cannot just accept the fundamentals as a given - you must reconcile the new data with the old posits and "go with the flow."

In reply to the message above, you write:
"We taught that the universe consists of Energy and Matter only!!!"

I'll get real simplistic here, to demonstrate a point:
See, everyone focuses on vacuum in terms of space, and vacuum is a function of matter. Vacuum is irrelevant in terms of what fills the universe. What fills the universe is RADIATION - MOVEMENT - OPPOSING FORCES.

Radiation is the background upon which vacuum is expressed. This is what I think that quoted statement is designed to express.

Also from the post above is:
"What do you mean by Digital and Analog???

From your post Analog is expressed PI i.e. Mathematics....

Mathematics is naturelly Digital,

Think about the Number Line...here all are difined digitally!
-3...-2...-1...0...1...2...3" ....

Ah, but the point is that Pi CANNOT be solved digitally. I believe that's because you cannot express the analog in terms of the digital without the results becoming meaningless.

The post above also notes, "But if you look closer you'll get Analogness!!!
What is the closest point of 3 ???
Hmm...you may go on counting ;) or dividing....
or what is sqrt(2) show it....irrational numbers!!!
So, what I see the world is
Digitally Analog !!!!!!!!!"

See my point? Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Just as follow-up, I've got to note that quantum physics, a'la Planck, does not say that the universe is analog; rather,that it's digital in nature. This, to me, just puts us in an analog sandwich with Infinity on either side and Pi smack-dab in the middle.

Academe say there was a Big Bang and the universe is the result of a shock wave which flowed outward, defining our continuum. I humbly submit that the universe, our continuum, IS THE SHOCKWAVE, as this dimensional interaction is what defines our existence.

Ha..ha..Hmm...then we are the member of Twilight Zone

But as we've found Lights Duality : Wave and Particle form,

(Here wave is analog and Particle you may say Digital)

May be just may be the Universe has something that nature, as I've said:

Digitally Analog!

It may be another nature !!!

And it may sounds Sci-Fi (I am a Sci-Fi writer of my coutry) our thinkings, mind all are that unknown natured Matter :)

NateTG
Homework Helper
Have you considered that the possibility is that it is neither?

Whenever people ask is the universe x or y, they assume that both and neither are not options, which is often a false dichotomy.

It would also be usefull if you clarified what you meant by digital and analog.

Originally posted by NateTG
Have you considered that the possibility is that it is neither?

Whenever people ask is the universe x or y, they assume that both and neither are not options, which is often a false dichotomy.

It would also be usefull if you clarified what you meant by digital and analog.
Well said. I've actually considered that the universe might be something else, but I've come to the conclusion that it's BOTH -- particle physics is merely a subset of electromagnetics, etc. This is actually the standard model. It's how we expound upon it that makes it interestings. I don't see dichotomy; rather I see a Unified Whole.

Interesting idea, though.

Originally posted by Moni
.... And it may sounds Sci-Fi (I am a Sci-Fi writer of my coutry) our thinkings, mind all are that unknown natured Matter :)
It's really possible, as far as I'm concerned, to demonstrate that we all live in our own relative framesets. That means that what you said is demonstrably true. I think....

HehCharley,

I'm not realy posting here to your question: "Is the Universe Analog or Digital?" (good question), but making a comment on what I think are your underlying thoughts:

How is this any different than a hidden variable theory? It appears to me that is what you are saying. John Bell's .. Bell's Theorem seems to rule out hidden variables.

NateTG
Homework Helper
Originally posted by Nacho
How is this any different than a hidden variable theory? It appears to me that is what you are saying. John Bell's .. Bell's Theorem seems to rule out hidden variables.
This is a bit off-topic, but Bell's theorem assumes that the hidden variables have a measurable probability distribution because Bell's theorem relies on the ability to integrate over all possible hidden variable states.

AFAIK It's possible to construct quantum models that have non-measurable hidden variables, but that fit the rest of quantum mechanics. I don't know enough about QM to tell whether he's a crackpot, but Pitowsky published some papers about it in the 80's. His math looks fairily sound to me.

Invoking something like the Banach-Tarski paradox is pretty ugly for physics, but as far as I know, the popularly accepted position involves the universe splitting whenever there is a measurement, followed by limited interactions between universes, which is also ugly.

Bell's theorem also assumes that the distance between the objects is non-zero. Thus another option for violating Bell's theorem is to allow for a wormhole between entangled electrons. I'm not sure whether anyone has investigated this possibility in earnest, but something of that nature can circumvent the assumtion that the two electrons are not local.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Nate, you said
Invoking something like the Banach-Tarski paradox is pretty ugly for physics, but as far as I know, the popularly accepted position involves the universe splitting whenever there is a measurement, followed by limited interactions between universes, which is also ugly.
I wouldn't say the many-worlds interpretation is "the popular" one. I think consistent histories is probably the current favored one, followed closely by variants of shut up and calculate (i.e. the refusal to interpret). Many-worlds is intensely controversial, with a small cadre of enthusiasts and a large group who hate the whole idea.

And Banach-Tarski? I don't think physics* should ever have to invoke the axiom of choice.

* As opposed to mathematical physics.

Originally posted by Nacho
HehCharley,

I'm not realy posting here to your question: "Is the Universe Analog or Digital?" (good question), but making a comment on what I think are your underlying thoughts:

How is this any different than a hidden variable theory? It appears to me that is what you are saying. John Bell's .. Bell's Theorem seems to rule out hidden variables.

Originally posted by HeyCharley
It's really possible, as far as I'm concerned, to demonstrate that we all live in our own relative framesets. That means that what you said is demonstrably true. I think....

Hmm...Relative Framesets interesting topic!

That means you, me all are covered with relative framesets...and the elements of that set are variables which are of course different from each other with time.

Those elements of frameset must be common to each other...but What I meant there must be any constant (frame of reference) and unknown variables...those unknown variables may be Constant to each and every sets!!!

NateTG,

Thanks for the info.

This is a bit off-topic, but Bell's theorem assumes that the hidden variables have a measurable probability distribution because Bell's theorem relies on the ability to integrate over all possible hidden variable states.

It's been awhile seen I went through/saw the formulization of Bell's Inequality, but in one particular instance I saw it developed thru plain algebra. It appeared that the inequality had weight given to measurements that may never be made .. just assumed would be made. That (to me) would seem to invalidate the whole inequality. But, no one seems to write about this when Bell's Inequality is explained.

If anybody wants to explore this angle, I could look up the passages in a book I have and post the relevant parts.

Moni,

I just did a simple "MSN Web Search" on "Hidden Variable Theories", and these popped up. google should return some too. There is a lot of info out there on it .. I didn't weed through them and I'm not saying any of them are right. Just some information to read.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO4PDF/V02N4FUN.PDF

http://students.washington.edu/maxl/research/foundations/ [Broken]

http://www.roxanne.org/epr/results.html

It all goes back to the Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen (EPR) VS Bohr debates, on the philosophy behind Quantum Mechanics. John Bell wanted to take it out the relm of philosophy, and cast it more into a mathmatical basis, and see if one side of the debate could be proved right or wrong. Alan Aspect's experiments are related also .. he was the first to be able to set up John Bell's ideas into an actual experiment.

Last edited by a moderator:
NateTG
Homework Helper
Originally posted by Nacho

It's been awhile seen I went through/saw the formulization of Bell's Inequality, but in one particular instance I saw it developed thru plain algebra. It appeared that the inequality had weight given to measurements that may never be made .. just assumed would be made. That (to me) would seem to invalidate the whole inequality. But, no one seems to write about this when Bell's Inequality is explained.
QM is quite good at making predictions. And it makes strong predictions about the results of those measurements. So unless you want to postulate some new type of interaction between the measuring equipment and the particle, you're essentially throwing away QM.

If what I'm suggesting doesn't seem applicable, and you can give a more detailed example of what you mean, I would love to look at it.

NateTG
Homework Helper

Many-worlds is intensely controversial, with a small cadre of enthusiasts and a large group who hate the whole idea.

I don't think physics should ever have to invoke the axiom of choice, except for mathematical physics.
Well, since Bell's theorem is more mathematics than physics, the notion of AC is not so far fetched there.

Similarly, if you choose the 'shut up and calulate' option, there's no reason not use the AC since interpretation is not necessary.

I like the 'unmeasurable' approach to the problem because it provides a (for me) simple model of particle state which demonstrates that there is no communication between entangled particules. Since there is a model that demonstrates no communication, I can conclude that the nonlocal phenomena that described in the EPR paradox are an artifact of the model.

From the descriptions on the web, I guess that the consistent histories approach leads to the same conclusion.

NateTG,

QM is quite good at making predictions. And it makes strong predictions about the results of those measurements. So unless you want to postulate some new type of interaction between the measuring equipment and the particle, you're essentially throwing away QM.

The particular thing I'm talking about goes into/brings out the differences between particle VS amplitudes. It's nothing new, and nothing I thought of orginally. It'll take a while to go through and pull out the necessary info. I might be able to post something on it tonight, if not tommorrow.

NateTG,

I found the info I was looking for on John Bell's Inequalities/Theorem. It is gleaned from a book by David Lindley, "Where Does the Weirdness Go?". One of the best books I've ever read on QM. The setup is pretty straight-forward, using electrons and Stern-Gerlach magnets.

You have a source of creating electron pairs that have interacted and their net spin is supposed to add to zero, and are sent off in opposite directions (sides). Each of the 2 sides has a switching device and 2 Stern-Gerlach magnets. The switching device on the "left" can randomly switch to magnets A or B, the switching device on the "right" can randomly switch to magnets C or D. All magnets are set at different angles to each other. When a pair of electrons is created, a measurement of the spin of the electron will be recorded at [A or B] and [C or D]. Assign the value +1 if the spin is detected up (or left), and -1 if the spin is detected down (or right). So there are 4 numbers A/B/C/D, each can have a value of +1 or -1.

Consider the equation: X = (A*C) + (B*C) + (A*D) - (B*D)

No matter how you feed that equation the possible values, you will always wind up with +2 or -2 as the answer. Only 2 of the letters are measured in any 1 given experiment, but if a whole series of experiments are performed with the random switching device, then all of the possible outcomes should be recorded with equal probability, and by combining the overall results we can calculate an average value of "X".

That average has to lie somewhere between -2 and +2. That is per EPR. Per QM, the orientation of the magnets come into play, and by different orientations, the value yielded can be as much as 2*sqrt(2) which is > 2. And that is Bell's Inequality.

You've probably already guessed the problem, and this formulization of Bell's Inequality readily illustrates it: each individual measurement yielded numbers for only 2 of the letters [A or B] and [C or D]. To obtain Bell's theorem, it is assumed that even though we didn't know the value of the 2 unknown measurements, we could still treat them in an individual measurement as if it had been made.

That goes against what Bohr (The Copenhagen Interpretation) says though. In absence of making a measurement you cannot assign any possible outcome, or assume any outcome. The other 2 values, on a single experiment, would not be defined. If a spin down measurement (-1) is made at magnet D, you cannot assume what it would have done had it gone to magnet C.

What *I* think Bell's Inequality truly says is that it can be used to rule out EPR's argument, and say QM doesn't follow Realist philosophy, but it cannot make any determination when it comes to Bohr and Postivism philosophy -- tenants of the Copenhagen are violated in the formulization of Bell's Inequality.

It almost looks as if the formulization that David Lindley uses is leaving something out .. the "hole" is very plain to see. It might be interesting for someone else to post a different formulization of Bell's Inequality and we see if we can pick out the "slight of hand" in it.

Focusing...

Moni, Nate, Nacho, et al.,

With regard to my comment about being able to demonstrate that we may all exist in our own relative and independent framesets of perceived reality, this is expounded upon by what Nate said:

"Invoking something like the Banach-Tarski paradox is pretty ugly for physics, but as far as I know, the popularly accepted position involves the universe splitting whenever there is a measurement, followed by limited interactions between universes, which is also ugly."

A comment here: Some people don't like this concept because it's so "ugly"; but in reality, it's just so "Relative." Think this is crackpot and you have to consider the underlying principles involved. Ever hear of Schrodinger? Same principle. This IS quantum physics, as we know it.

"And Banach-Tarski? I don't think physics* should ever have to invoke the axiom of choice."

A note here: Physics does NOT require the axiom of choice, it's simply cause and effect. It's actually the math that requires that choices be made, and that's where things break down. Ever notice how "fuzzy" stuff gets when you look too closely? It's strange, and I'm not saying I wholeheartedly agree with this concept, but I have to tell you I've attacked it mentally for years and, once you get past the "resistance" to the idea, it elegantly models everything. Yes, I mean Everything.

To give you a parable of sorts (and this gets to the mete of my original posting which started this thread), You have a group of people living about 200k years ago in the Neander Valley, and it's dead of winter. These folks have learned that meat tastes better when dessicated or cooked (probably because of evolution - raw flesh passes on disease and parasites). They've come to rely on the heat of their hearth to keep them alive in winter. So, somebody falls asleep and the entire tribe dies over the next few days because of the cold.

These folks knew of fire but never understood its fundamental concepts. Because of this, they had a "working knowledge" of a fire-based technology in their culture but because they didn't understand the fundamentals, their technology and culture fails them. You see, they needed a lightning strike to create fire, from which they could propagate it to their hearth.

We can model the Quantum Universe digitally, but we can only define it to our smallest measureable, handleable, manipulable erg or particle or smallest point. This is the old cop-out, "This close is close enough." I disagree, because the MATH is issuing the axiom of choice: "I arbitrarily decide that this is an erg." This is fine for working models but doesn't get to any of the fundamentals. This is why I posit the concept of a "new" type of math -- analog math. However, me, I have a GED and I'm terrible at math, so I leave this to the number-crunchers to muddle over.

Now, just for my own self-amusement, here's a note for Moni (the rest of you might want to skip this, because it's basically just my own feckless meandering <g>):

Moni - Since you write science fiction, here's a concept for you to explore in a story:

Okay, so Sir Dr. Hawking considers that our entire "frameset" or universe is the result of a black hole forming in some hyperuniverse. I've already mentioned that I really like the elegance of that because it actually pulls off the "something from nothing" trick instead of saying "the universe started from something smaller than..." because that answers nothing at all.

Next, Sir Dr. Hawking considers that there is sufficient shear in the event horizon so that paired quarks (or their hyper-equivalent) can become separated at the event horizon, one particle being consumed (assimilated) into the singularity and the other being ejected into space (cosmic ray-type stuff). This was pursued in relation to "missing mass," among other things, by Sir Dr. Hawking.

Now for the HeyCharley sci-fi.

BOOK 1:

Schrodinger says that we can affect one paired subatomic particle and produce an instantaneous effect in its mate. So, let's say there's a scientist who has discovered this concept and found a way to reverse Schrodinger's effect or maybe even manipulate data through this bond. And I humbly submit that, in my way of thinking, "wormholes" actually exist - as quarks and the like. And it's very elegant when you look at the inherent ORDER of this: Black Hole singularities are so macro but single-point and inwardly directed; whereas wormholes are expressed exactly opposite to that, being micro on the quantum level and wanting to radiate outward.

So, this scientist comes up with an experiment: He grabs a cluster of separated quarks in this universe and uses them to LOOK INSIDE a Black Hole! An entire universe for the exploring!

But the scientist considers something else, and instead of looking inward to black holes, he looks OUTWARD at our own universe ... only to discover a Scientist (capital S)!

Now let's say that the Scientist exists in the HYPERuniverse, and he's LOOKING INTO our universe! All kinds of room for mischief and adventure for your book's characters!

BOOK TWO:

So we humans come to discover that the Scientist in the HYPERuniverse has created this system to look into our universe, and adventure has been had in thwarting the fellow in book 1. In book 2, you explore ways to get "face to face" with the Scientist, perhaps even by escaping into HIS HYPERuniverse to confront him.

BOOK THREE:

In the HYPERuniverse, after much discourse and enlightenment from this supposed evil villain the Scientist, we come to discover that:
1 - Yes, he's done all we thought he did. He's penetrated and influenced our universe.
2 - He's manipulated some things in the universe to facilitate acquiring his precious data.
3 - The use of these separated quark pairs, him holding one quark and receiving data from its pair in the Black Hole (our universe), caused a strange effect: These loose or separated quarks existing in our universe are being used to convey data. Because of this, they're inherently different from the matter in the universe. Also because of this, the quarks have a tendency to want to be rejoined with its mate in the HYPERuniverse.
4 - Finally, the Scientist reveals that the separated quarks manifest themselves in our universe as LIFE. You see, he needs to acquire data, and in the process of acquiring this data a coherence is created and all forms of life, from virii to mankind, are the result of these separated quarks - it's kind of like they are the impurity around which a snowflake will form, thereby producing every flavor and level of consciousness expressed in our universe.

The third book could conclude with something to the effect that, now that the Scientist has learned from the scientist that life is a byproduct of his experiment into our universe, the Scientist considers where HIS existence comes from....

This brings you back to Ground Zero in three books.

Cool, huh? I'd buy these books!

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed

Originally posted by HeyCharley
Moni, Nate, Nacho, et al.,

With regard to my comment about being able to demonstrate that we may all exist in our own relative and independent framesets of perceived reality, this is expounded upon by what Nate said:

"Invoking something like the Banach-Tarski paradox is pretty ugly for physics, but as far as I know, the popularly accepted position involves the universe splitting whenever there is a measurement, followed by limited interactions between universes, which is also ugly."

A comment here: Some people don't like this concept because it's so "ugly"; but in reality, it's just so "Relative." Think this is crackpot and you have to consider the underlying principles involved. Ever hear of Schrodinger? Same principle. This IS quantum physics, as we know it.

"And Banach-Tarski? I don't think physics* should ever have to invoke the axiom of choice."

A note here: Physics does NOT require the axiom of choice; it's simply cause and effect. It's actually the math that requires that choices be made, and that's where things break down. Ever notice how "fuzzy" stuff gets when you look too closely? It's strange, and I'm not saying I wholeheartedly agree with this concept, but I have to tell you I've attacked it mentally for years and, once you get past the "resistance" to the idea, it elegantly models everything. Yes, I mean Everything.

Fuzzyness has nothing to do with Banach-Tarski; it's as exact as Chaos. Nothing in quantum physics requires the axiom of choice but Banach-Tarski does.

To give you a parable of sorts (and this gets to the mete of my original posting which started this thread), You have a group of people living about 200k years ago in the Neander Valley, and it's dead of winter. These folks have learned that meat tastes better when dessicated or cooked (probably because of evolution - raw flesh passes on disease and parasites). They've come to rely on the heat of their hearth to keep them alive in winter. So, somebody falls asleep and the entire tribe dies over the next few days because of the cold.

These folks knew of fire but never understood its fundamental concepts. Because of this, they had a "working knowledge" of a fire-based technology in their culture but because they didn't understand the fundamentals, their technology and culture fails them. You see, they needed a lightning strike to create fire, from which they could propagate it to their hearth.

We can model the Quantum Universe digitally, but we can only define it to our smallest measureable, handleable, manipulable erg or particle or smallest point. This is the old cop-out, "This close is close enough." I disagree, because the MATH is issuing the axiom of choice: "I arbitrarily decide that this is an erg." This is fine for working models but doesn't get to any of the fundamentals. This is why I posit the concept of a "new" type of math -- analog math. However, me, I have a GED and I'm terrible at math, so I leave this to the number-crunchers to muddle over.

Now, just for my own self-amusement, here's a note for Moni (the rest of you might want to skip this, because it's basically just my own feckless meandering <g>):

Moni - Since you write science fiction, here's a concept for you to explore in a story:

Okay, so Sir Dr. Hawking considers that our entire "frameset" or universe is the result of a black hole forming in some hyperuniverse. I've already mentioned that I really like the elegance of that because it actually pulls off the "something from nothing" trick instead of saying "the universe started from something smaller than..." because that answers nothing at all.

Next, Sir Dr. Hawking considers that there is sufficient shear in the event horizon so that paired quarks (or their hyper-equivalent) can become separated at the event horizon, one particle being consumed (assimilated) into the singularity and the other being ejected into space (cosmic ray-type stuff). This was pursued in relation to "missing mass," among other things.

Now for the HeyCharley sci-fi.

BOOK 1:

Schrodinger says that we can affect one paired subatomic particle and produce an instantaneous effect in its mate. So, let's say there's a scientist who has discovered this concept and found a way to reverse Schrodinger's effect or maybe even manipulate data through this bond. And I humbly submit that, in my way of thinking, "wormholes" actually exist - as quarks and the like. And it's very elegant when you look at the inherent ORDER of this: Black Hole singularities are so macro but single-point and inwardly directed; whereas wormholes are expressed exactly opposite to that, being micro on the quantum level, and wanting to radiate outward.

No! No! N0! We can't. Entanglement doesn't say we can! This has been stated again and again on these boards. Entanglement produces correlation, not causal effects

< text skipped>

All of the rest of this story is invalidated by the mistake about entanglement.

NateTG
Homework Helper
Originally posted by Nacho

Consider the equation: X = (A*C) + (B*C) + (A*D) - (B*D)

You've probably already guessed the problem, and this formulization of Bell's Inequality readily illustrates it: each individual measurement yielded numbers for only 2 of the letters [A or B] and [C or D]. To obtain Bell's theorem, it is assumed that even though we didn't know the value of the 2 unknown measurements, we could still treat them in an individual measurement as if it had been made.
Consider the following (slightly bizarre) possibility:
What if the measurements are valid, but their sum is not?
This equation assumes that there's measuring over range A or range B (which are disjoint), and that if a measurement was made on the union of the ranges, that the result would be the sum of the measurment of both ranges, more specifically that $$m(A)+m(B) \geq m(A \cup B)$$. Even with $$A,B \subset \Re$$ and Lebesgue measure this is not always true.

http://www.roxanne.org/epr/eprS.html

Has a more technical approach to Bell's theorem, and starts with the equation:

$$E_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})}=\int P_{(\vec{h})} A_{(\vec{a},\vec{h})}B_{(\vec{b},\vec{h})}d(\vec{h})$$

And then

$$E_{(\vec{a},\vec{b})}-E_{(\vec{a},\vec{d})}=\int P_{(\vec{h})} A_{(\vec{a},\vec{h})}B_{(\vec{b},\vec{h})}d(\vec{h})$$

It is possible to construct $$A_{(\vec{a},\vec{h})}$$ so that the top equation does not imply the bottom one, but doing so requires using the Axiom of Choice (and perhaps the contiuum hypothesis).

I believe it is also possible to construct $$A_{(\vec{a},\vec{h})}$$ so that the top integral exists, but the bottom one does not.

Last edited:

Fuzzyness has nothing to do with Banach-Tarski; it's as exact as Chaos. Nothing in quantum physics requires the axiom of choice but Banach-Tarski does.

No! No! N0! We can't. Entanglement doesn't say we can! This has been stated again and again on these boards. Entanglement produces correlation, not causal effects

< text skipped>

All of the rest of this story is invalidated by the mistake about entanglement.
c'mon. The standard textbook example of entanglement, first in physical observation and then in underlying postulation:

"Under certain circumstances, an ultraviolet photon can spontaneously split into two lower-energy infrared photons - this is known as down-conversion. The polarizations of these two photons are intimately related: a measurement of the polarization of one photon would reveal the polarization of the other, even if they were widely separated. This is an example of 'entanglement' - a correlation that can exist between quantum particles that is much stronger than those allowed in classical physics." - Author Katie Pennicott is Editor of PhysicsWeb

This is Schrodinger. There's no conflict. Actually, by arriving at an intersection of conflict as you imagine (QEntanglement is not really to the point in this matter), nth dimensionality requires that two divergent paths emerge, thereby creating two realtivities from the one causality.

This is really quite cogent to my original postulation -- remember, I posted to get this kind of feedback; I'm looking for answers, not offering them! Digital (quantized) physics requires a definition between two different "universes," whereas nth dimensional (analog) physics does not; the conflicts fold under and overlap each other, kind of like the subduction evidenced in our Earth's tectonic plates. There is overlap because there HAS TO BE overlap. This is not rocket surgery.

As regards Quantum Entanglement, the phenomenon supports the concepts predicated in my postings.

I guess, ultimately, I don't think QE is particularly relevant; but more importantly, it actually DEFINES my concepts, if you look closely! I think....

Last edited: