Image: Kenn Brown, Mondolithic Studios
In Brief
- Quantum mechanics is usually thought of as inherently discrete, yet its equations are formulated in terms of continuous quantities. Discrete values emerge depending on how a system is set up.
- Digital partisans insist that the continuous quantities are, on closer inspection, discrete: they lie on a tightly spaced grid that gives the illusion of a continuum, like the pixels on a computer screen.
- This idea of pixilated, discrete space contradicts at least one feature of nature, however: the asymmetry between left- and right-handed versions of elementary particles of matter.
More In This Article
Editors' note: Last year the Foundational Questions Institute's third essay contest posed the following question to physicists and philosophers: “Is Reality Digital or Analog?” The organizers expected entrants to come down on the side of digital. After all, the word “quantum” in quantum physics connotes “discrete” —hence, “digital”. Many of the best essays held, however, that the world is analog. Among them was the entry by David Tong, who shared the second-place prize. The article here is a version of his essay.
In the late 1800s the famous german mathematician Leopold Kronecker proclaimed, “God made the integers, all else is the work of man.” He believed that whole numbers play a fundamental role in mathematics. For today's physicists, the quote has a different resonance. It ties in with a belief that has become increasingly common over the past several decades: that nature is, at heart, discrete—that the building blocks of matter and of spacetime can be counted out, one by one. This idea goes back to the ancient Greek atomists but has extra potency in the digital age. Many physicists have come to think of the natural world as a vast computer described by discrete bits of information, with the laws of physics an algorithm, like the green digital rain seen by Neo at the end of the 1999 film The Matrix.
This article was originally published with the title The Unquantum Quantum.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentI thought that this question was already unswered by a notion called holographic principle. Each discrete unit is connected to every other unit in a cloud of energy dimension and affects each other from afar (quantum entanglement).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould it not be nice to understand new true science of why and how things are attracted and stick to each other, really simple STUPH! (not complicated at all)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExplaining why the quark, molecule, cell, atom, magnetism etc attract and repel would soon have eyes glazing over. I will make it real simple for you to understand why bread crumbs don't stick to the plate yet toast crumbs and egg do, why snow flakes and rain drops are separated.
OK this is what you do. Sit your-self down in front of the six o'clock news and take note of the weather report. Animation shows the high pressure area (clockwise) and close by will be a low pressure (counter clock wise). If you look carefully its easy to see the forces of the low melding into the forces of the high (attracting). Looking closer, take note that the forces of the high and low merge into a figure 8 and thats how every natural thing having multiple orbits is held together. Look for two highs or two lows and you can see where the forces are running into each other (repelling).
Take this to the smallness of the quark or the hugeness of the heavens and Bobs your uncle!
Interesting article, but it misses a different possibility: that space-time is discrete indeed, and that the known fermions have mirror partners (required by the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem) which have not been discovered yet. These mirror partners could be the source of an effective dynamical Higgs mechanism waiting to be discovered at the LHC. There have been attempts to build unified theories based on discrete space-time and incorporating self-consistently mirror fermions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn “The Unquantum Quantum” David Tong is of the opinion that reality is “ultimately analog rather than digital”. Partly based on the observation that physicists are unable to simulate the standard model on a computer due to difficulties in placing chiral fermions on a lattice, he draws the conclusion that “the laws of physics are not, at heart, discrete”. Did the author consider that the question whether reality is digital or analog seems closely related to the question why the quantum mechanical wavefunction seems to collapse at the time of measurement and that the macroscopic world looks classical, and not quantum mechanical, because of a process known as decoherence, a mechanism for the appearance of wave function collapse based on the interactions of a system with its surroundings (see also “Living in a Quantum World” by Vlatko Vedral in SCIAM)? The central problem is therefore not how to obtain a continuous reality from a discrete theory but rather the other way around. I am confident that future quantum computers will enable an accurate simulation of the standard model by using an analog simulation domain based on the properties of qubits. We are indeed - as the author suggests - not living in a (digital) computer simulation, it is an analog one!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, it could well be that the Planck length is not a constant but depends on the energy or mass density in a region of spacetime. In this respect, energy or mass may alter the "degree of digitization" of spacetime. If this turns out to be true, the answer to the question "is reality analog or digital" could be that it can be digital, analog and everything in between! Unfortunately, with our current technology, we cannot tap into the Planck length scale (1.6E-35m) yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid –
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoyed your article, and I also wrote in the same essay contest. My conclusion was that we are quantized, however in a contiguous manner. But after reviewing you thoughtful pursuit beyond conventions, I have to reconsider and would say we are both wave and particle, both digitized and analog. In other words, to break it down simply “Time and Space”, and possibly some force such as gravity are immortal. They have no Alpha nor Omega, never did, never will. In this sense we are clearly all contiguous or analog, as we are part of the theoretical Big Bang and Inflation, as witnessed in the CMB. However beyond the BB, is still “Time and Space” we conveniently often set aside and ignore, but it may have millions of CMB’s, as we are really but a mere muon, in our BB’s scheme of reality. In other words “Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything” and that is a reality we will forever pursue to unravel… www.otterthink.wordpress.com has that essay, among other heretical tales as well…
Cheers mate,
Russ
Quite apart from David Tong's stimulating article and the interesting comments above, the original article in the printed edition of Scientific American had the title "The Unquantum Quantum". This is very interesting: Eric Reiter, who also happens to be the author of an essay in this year's Foundational Questions (fqxi) contest, is the one who coined the term "unquantum"see http://unquantum.net/. He should be given credit for this- but not for mere linguistic cleverness. By unquantum emphasizes the challenge that his painstaking experiments with gamma rays have posed to the very conceptual foundations of quantum physics. Reiter has proven something that Max Planck and others have argued for all along - that Einstein's 1905 conclusion that quanta of light come in the form of particles is simply wrong. If his experiments and conclusions are confirmed this would banish the weird particle-wave duality for light, thereby providing a realistic physical explanation for probabilistic quantum behavior and much else besides. Read Reiters' fqxi essay explaining all this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
I think ultimate realty at the bottommost level is infinite and infinite one can be analog and non-digital or non-quantum. When ultimate realty differentiates, it may assume quantum character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what is the ultimate realty? This question itself is evolutionary in nature. There is no end to the "ultimateness" on the spectrum of realities. As such, we do not know about what the ultimate realty is? However, many physical realities, which are not ultimate and are of intermediate nature, may exist in analog form but observation may create "discreteness" - some quantum character in such realities.
I agree with Anthony # 4 that central problem is to understand how realty converts to digital form from continuous( digital) form) and not the other way around. For example, e.m radiations from a source may actually exist in analog form but an observation may bring into existence quantum character out of analog existence. It is the limitation of observation that observation can not observe, comprehend and understand the analog character of e.m radiations but only some digital/ quantum bits falls within the observational apparatus. However, limitation of observational apparatus should not have any impact on realty ( e.m radiations) existing in analog form.
Nevertheless, article by David Tong is quite thought provoking and forces the readers to go deeper into the recess of their thought process where mental understanding seems to give way to abstract thought process. As we go higher on the realty plane, abstract thought process seems to take over from tangible character of mental understanding. It is a challenge for the Science to transform abstract realty in terms of tangible clear understanding framework
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a third possibility in the discrete vs continuous debate that unfortunately tends to be largely ignored.
That third, and I would argue the best, possibility is that the geometry and structure of nature is continuous but nondifferentiable. This would be a discrete fractal model of the cosmos, and it combines the evidence for both discreteness and continuity.
Of course, we would have to radically change our thinking to appreciate this new paradigm, and humans are reluctant to question ingrained assumptions and cherished models.
However as one physicist put it:
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, 'Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!'." John Archibald Wheeler
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
I think it's important to emphasize that this 'teaser' article only offers a very brief overview of the full print article (which is essentially only 2 pages long) - I suggest that anyone at all interested in this subject who is not a subscriber either visit a library or acquire the individual issue for $5.99 - see
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=F64AD68F-237D-9F22-E814C4F2D86557DE
I was annoyed by the poor analogy regarding planets. The scientific community explicitly addressed the issue of whether or not there was an arbitrary dividing line between planets and non-planets. They carefully worked on the issue until they could state a non-arbitrary (currently) rule for distinguishing between planets and non-planets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs Mr. Tong simply a poor writer who got stuck with a bad analogy for lack of time to think of a better one? Or is he really poorly read outside of his own discipline? Or does the mistake made here imply additional mistakes in the remainder of the article?
I also do not understand how any serious article on the continuous vs discrete nature of reality can avoid mentioning the Planck Constant. I found this article disappointing and not up to the high standards I expect from Scientific American.
If you thought that Mr. Tong was arguing whether Pluto was a planet, you missed his point completely. In the planet example, the number of planets and/or rocks in the Solar system has very little to do with the dynamics of the Solar system, which is primarily determined by the distribution of its mass, especially that the Sun contains 99.86% of total system mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn terms of system dynamics, any rule for distinguishing between planets and non-planets is arbitrary. Your fixation with this one little Pluto analogy seems annoyingly Mickey-Mouse to me!
I think we will not be able to overcome this dilemma until we understand "what it means to know" – and "if reality is intelligible or not" – unless "the very essence of reality is to be unintelligible".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf "scientific knowledge is only a hermeneutics of empirical experience" (as I argue, as an extension of Kantian epistemology and of Copenhagen School), the "continuous" and "discrete" are not two "complementary aspects of reality” but only two "complementary paradigms of our faculty of representation", ie two "matrix" (grids of interpretation), substantially diffent, which we apply alternative to reality, based on our empirical data, to obtain predictions the smallest margin of error. They give us the illusion that they were part of the very flesh of reality because of their local and temporary success in our empirical experiments.
Reality is neither "continuous" nor "discrete". Depending on how we cut reality, and the microscope through which we look, "physical reality" answer us "as if" should be "continuous" or "discrete", but we can not afford this illusion only because margin of error in our representation is, for the moment, within acceptable limits.
"Standard model" will necessarily be a compromise between these two "mathematical paradigms". If this compromise is impossible, it means that we are condemned to endlessly troubled by this dilemma and that physical reality will smile forever, enigmatic, outside all our scientific theories, as will be fine.
In other words, I move this "dilemma of physics” to the domain of epistemology – because it's not only of physics, but of our entire scientific knowledge.
"Epistemological dilemma" that I raise is whether "empirical reality" choose her "model of interpretation " or our "model of interpretation" choose his "empirical reality"?
I have this problem more fully theorized in chapter "Dilemma and method of metaphysics" in my book "Critical Introduction. On the possibility of metaphysics as a science in the perspective of Kant's critical philosophy "(2004). Is available on Scribd, in Romanian. In English, only a small fragment.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17474184/Marcel-Chelba-Kantian-tetralogy-Vol-I-Critical-Introduction-About-the-possibility-of-Metaphysics-as-Science-in-the-critical-philosophy-of-Kant
The answer is divided into many portions, most of which haven't been identified, yet, like the "five" string theories that turned out to be different aspects of a single theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother aspect of quantum mechanics research is that what the researchers find tends to be influenced by what they're looking for, how they "look", and how they measure the results.
I doubt that the final answer to this question will be answered with confidence during our lifetimes, or our childrens'.
Current research has demonstrated the strong possibility that both gravity and spacetime are, at their core, discrete packets, rather than continuous.
The flow of time is influenced by gravitational environment, and both Newtonian and Quantum physics fail to define a single direction. Once you consider Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds Theory", you may encounter a time theory bristling like a hedgehog, rather than a two-ended arrow.
Todd has defined his beliefs. Now, using the scientific method, he can begin the confirm/falsify/unable-to-determine-at-this-time evaluations of direct observations and other input.
Why cant we view this problem with macro examples? Let us take the example of time, which describes the interval between events. If is infinite and analog at the universal scale. But we mark repetitive and easily intelligible events and treat it as a discrete unit and measure different times as if it is digital.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question whether time is continuous or comes in discrete quanta remains unanswered. With our current technology we cannot explore time intervals that are small enough for time to reveal its discreteness. Furthermore, since the concept of time disappears at the quantum level (the variable t disappears from the equations) and since according to special relativity, there is no such thing as a "universal now", it is highly questionable that time exists at all. Consensus among physicists is that past, future and present "exist" together at the same "moment" and that the flow of time is an illusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the idea of saving continuity by pinpointing some in the asymmetry. However, that asymmetry is part of the theory, i.e. the map, not the territory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe territory remains beyond our grasp and is only accessible as finitely resolved observations. Thus, physics is an attempt to encode these discrete observations, either in continuous or discrete theories. The only clincher will be the elegance of the respective formalization (i.e., continuity and discreteness are metaphysical properties, not epistemological ones).
As for computability: while not every formalization is computable, all observables are (practically by definition, because they can be reduced to bits). Furthermore, continuous theories can usually be approximated to an arbitrary degree using discrete calculations. What the discussion comes down to is whether the physical universe can do hypercomputation. The good news would be: In that case, we can build hypercomputers, too.
I like your analogy of the relationship between reality and theory as that between a topology and a map - thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA similar analogy can be found between reality and our view through a lens - our conception of reality takes on the characteristics of the lens that allows us to see it. Viewing physical events through the perspective of quantum theory produces only discrete results; likewise, viewing the same physical events through the lens of general relativity produces continuous results.
In neither case can we be assured that the observed physical events are actually discrete or continuous...
Time does not seem to be one dimensional. When I look at the sun or some other distance object, they seem to be at the same time as I am, but the sun is really at an earlier time. This phenomenon occurs because light doesn't travel instantaneously. Sound doen't either, but the sound of the sun (if that were possible) is at a different time than the vision of the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps, there is an unknown phenomenon where the sun and I are experienced at the same time, but that (while plausible) has not been discovered yet.
Logically, we are all at the same time (now). But now on the sun cannot be experienced from my perspective. I have to travel to the sun to get to now on the sun.
Furthermore if your now and my now are perceptually the same, space no longer exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Anthony Tarallo Sir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKindly go through the original paper dated 30-06-1905 of Einstein, wherein he has used a third clock (privileged frame of reference) to define the synchronization of two clocks with reference to it. Thereafter, he has denied the existence of the privileged frame of reference. This has been pointed out by innumerable papers. Yet, some are still following the self-contradictory logic.
Regards,
basudeba
This is the question I had fifty years ago when I first heard the proposition that light appears to exist both as waves and particles. I could not fully accept it then and I still cannot now. The condition, as I later found out, is that the change is observed in interaction with matter. Lately, I refined my ideas to suggest that a stream of discrete packets of energy (photons) or interruptions in the continuity of the wave is caused when the wave intersects with the energy of electrons in orbit around a nucleus. The electrons, as we know, gain energy in this interaction and are promoted to larger orbits around the nuclei of their respective atoms. The energy that is absorbed from the intersecting wavefront reduces the constancy needed for continuity of the wave and appears as discrete packets to the observer. The exact nature of this interaction should be able to be calculated as a function of the frequency of the waveform and the energy constant of the outer orbitals of the specific elements involved. The observed frequency of the stream of pseudo-particles, in this scenario, would relate to the frequency of revolution of the orbital electron. Under this conjecture, when out of the influence of matter, the wave should reform at the same or at a less energised level of the spectrum (e.g., the same or a different colour), depending on how much energy has been "robbed" from it. Can this be tested?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe provided special comment on this issue based on Nature Knowledge Theory (NKT) as contrary different paradigm with different outcome too. Visit http://t.co/hRUnkSAA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo get an initial idea, you could have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement that there is no "absolute now" is directly derivable from the concept of relativity of simultaneity. Since there is no such thing as a "preferred" or "universal" frame of reference, the question of simultaneity is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. Since simultaneity does not exist in the absolute sense, there is also no such thing as "an absolute now". Sure, one could select a particular frame of reference, but since this frame of reference it is not better or worse than any other frame of reference, there can never be consensus about simultaneity in the absolute sense.
Dear SIR,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have not responded to the point raised by us except guiding us to some standard notions on the subject. We request you to apply your mind and respond to our reasoning.
The original paper of Einstein used a preferred frame of reference in the third clock while denying the concept. We quote from his 1905 paper: “Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t’A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t’A - tB.”
“We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.”
As you can see, he has used the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference to prove synchronization, which negates relativity. Similarly, his method of measurement of the moving rod is also faulty. He says: “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod”
We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.
For this reason, SR has been questioned at many forums. Yet, some people refuse to see reason. Kindly reconsider.
Regards,
basudeba
You refer to Einstein synchronisation. To get a first idea, you could have a look here
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
Remember, this is only a convention for the synchronisation of clocks, nothing more, nothing less. I guess Einstein got inspired during his time at the patent office :). The method has its limits and does not contradict special relativity. As I explained, since there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, there cannot be an "absolute now". Or to put it in other words: what is "now" for a first observer may be in the future for a second observer and in the past for a third observer while all observer are equally right. Many have tried to invalidate relativity but until now no single experimental result is in contradiction with it. I hope this answers your question.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have gone through your reference. While we have quoted verbatim, the wikipedia tells the same thing. However, we have analyzed it from a different perspective which has not been considered there. Kindly tell if our interpretation is wrong.
Similarly, you have not considered our comment on the method of measurement of the rod.
Here also we are reminded of an anecdote relating to a famous scientist, who once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!
The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats “as if all three were at rest”, one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will be relatively as rest, which means zero relative velocity. Either Mr. Einstein missed this point when he said: “Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks”. But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? This question is extremely crucial. K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Mr. Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, the velocity will be measured by each differently. In fact, they will measure the velocity of k differently. But Mr. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and all are misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.
Regards
David Tong's argument covers the same ground as 5 refereed arXiv papers co-authored by myself and professor Philip Vos Fellman. David Tong's conclusion is: "We are not living inside a computer simulation." I beg to differ. As a student of and co-author with Richard Feynman, great-grandfather of Quantum Computing, pointed out that one should use Quantum Mechanical computers to simulate Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, David Tong's argument yields, at most: "We are not living inside a computer simulation whose substrate is a classical computer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee any history of Quantum Computing which correctly states Feynman's role [i.e."Preparing the Teachers: Quantum Computing", Jonathan Vos Post, Christine Carmichael, Ph.D, Proc. 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Regional Conference.
I published the world's first QUANTITATIVE treatment) years before Bostrom) that we almost surely DO live inside a computer simulation, 10^110 years from now when all matter has fallen into Black holes, and all that remains is an ultra-dilute ambiplasma of electrons and positrons from Hawking radiation, as I've continued to discuss with Freeman Dyson, Professor Gregory Benford, and others: "Human Destiny and the End of Time" [Quantum, No.39, Winter 1991/1992, Thrust Publications, 8217 Langport Terrace, Gaithersburg, MD 20877; ISSN 0198-6686.
I also cite my more complete analysis of how to simulate the universe, including fermions, in a quantum cellular automaton:
Notes 19 June 2012 on Oracle to overcome Turing limits of TOE
Draft 15.0 of Theory of Everything, 100 pp., 21,500 words
2 Introduction
5 Formal Definitions, and Poston’s Caveats to Post
9 Complexity Classes of Oracle Machines
14 Oracles and Halting Problems
14 Applications to Cryptography
16 Bibliography
25 Here was Draft 1.0
29 Appendix A: Quantization of the Membrane Model of the Holographic Universe
30 Black Hole Entropy
32 Black Hole Information Paradox
35 Limit on Information Density
36 Jacob Bekenstein’s High Level Summary
36 Unexpected Connection
37 Energy, Matter, and Information Equivalence
38 Claimed Experimental Test at Gravitational Wave Detectors
40 Bekenstein bound and Bousso’s holographic bound
48 Appendix B: Smart Membranes
61 Appendix C: Approximately Computed Cosmos
73 Appendix D: Group Complexity
xx Appendix E: Topological Quantum Field Theory and Turaev-Viro 3-manifolds
xx Appendix F: Krohn-Rodes Theory Applied to Smart Membranes
Relativistic length contraction has been confirmed indirectly by the Michelson-Morley experiment as early as the end of the 19th century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerceptual time and space must be consistant. If I am at A I cannot see space and time as if I were at B unless I am really at B or space does not exist. In the latter case there is no A and there is no B. Therefore now is universal (in this one case).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe null result of Michelson-Morley experiment does not prove anything as light is a transverse wave and by definition transverse waves are background invariant. Thus, the very design and conclusion of the experiment are faulty. We cannot assume that whatever finds place in the text books are sacrosanct and anything contrary to that must be wrong. Unfortunately, more and more scientists are superstitiously believing only in the text books or published papers and ignoring any contradictions in them. Scientists should be ever ready to probe new ideas. Hence kindly tell us if we are wrong. If so, where and how?
Regards,
basudeba
Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have rightly pointed out to a very fundamental principle of the universe in your first sentence. However, the other part is somewhat mixed up.
Perception is a sentient or cognizant aspect belonging to the observer, whereas space and time are independent mechanical aspects belonging to the observed or observable. Absence of observer or non-observation does not mean non-existence of the observable. It simply means non-observation of the observable at that designated space and time. Since observation is possible only at here-now, your description that "now is universal", is correct.
If you precisely define space and time, you will notice that both are infinite (analog), but we use arbitrary segments of these (digital) for measurement purposes just like we demarcate a foot-ball field and use it as such, while truly it is nothing but a segment of the vast surface of Earth. Measurement is the process of comparison between similars. Comparison is a conscious action that can be performed at here-now. Thus, it only indicates the time evolution of the object of measurement at any designated instant. We freeze this state and term it as the result of measurement. This makes "now" universal in the given context. However, it does not represent the true state of the object at all other times because the time-evolution of the object continues independent of observation. We combine our ignorance of the state of the object at all other times and impose it on the object by describing it to be in a superposition of all possible states. The observation or otherwise will not kill the cat or keep it alive. The cat will die if the poison is released or due to other reasons like hunger, thrust or disease. Thus, observation does not determine the outcome, but only reports the state at the instant of observation.
We have a published a book on this subject. In case you are interested, you can send us your postal address and the book will reach you free of cost.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Some observations may depend on the perspective of the observer. Time seems to be independent of the observer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt any particular space, time is at now. But because space time is not instantaneous with regard to light or sound, a different space is at now-n relative to the particular space. Relatively speaking, the initial space relates to the surrounding spaces as now-1. If instead, it related to the surrounding spaces as now, then space time is instantaneous or space does not exist.
Space time may actually be instantaneous but not for light based space time and not for sound based space time.
I do not know of an instantaneous space time.
One thing should be clear: everyone's consciousness is at now regardless of the space they are at. If I should move backward in time, I take now with me. The surrounding spaces are at now-x and at now-1 simultaneously creating additional, relative space time.
If time travel were possible, there would need to be many universal nows.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right that time is independent of observers. However, for any particular space, time may or may not be at now, because the designation of time as “now” depends on the observer. When the observer perceives, it is now for him. Since the observer has a fixed position at any given instant, the now is also related to position. But it is true for all positions making now a variable. Hence you are correct that everyone's consciousness is at now regardless of the space they are at. However, unlike position, which is static, time is dynamic – flowing continuously from now to future relegating now to past continuously. Only past and future have longer duration than now. Now is instantaneous. Hence it may not be proper to say that for any particular space, time is at now. Further, space and time as intrinsically related as space orders the arrangement of objects and time orders the changes in objects in space. Yet, both are independent of each other as they show different characteristics. Unlike time-evolution, there is no spatial evolution: it can only be accumulation or reduction of objects (not space) in time. Further unlike space, we cannot move backwards in time. The bull enters a china shop and breaks everything. The broken pieces do not assemble and arranged as the bull goes backwards.
You are right that “space time is not instantaneous with regard to light or sound”. It is because light and sound are different kinds of waves moving in space in time. Without motion, neither light nor sound would be perceptible. Thus they cannot be instantaneous.
Time travel, as it is commonly understood, is not possible because all motions in time are forward temporal motions only. Yet, all measurements show the state of objects as they were in a designated past. Thus, it describes the position and its state of temporal evolution of the past. In a sense it is also traveling backwards in time.
Regards,
basudeba
The bull in the china shop shows that only now exists. The past exists in the present as remnants. One remembers in the present. One sees geological changes in the present. If the remnants seem to have a time order, this creates a time line. The time line was created in the present and visualized in a later present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe future exists in the present as potentials that seem to be real but are truly a projection of remnants in the present.
Perhaps time is continuous, but now can be viewed as discrete. Conceptually now can have a beginng, middle and end. The beginning could be tied to the last now's ending.
Your insights are thought provoking.
I think I may have been unclear. The past and present have no real duration because they don't exist at now, but the remnants in the present suggest duration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime travel is not possible because the past doesn't exist. Neither does the future. Mentally, we can place ourselves any where in the remnants we chose. What we can't do is physically place ourselves in the time that those remnants were created. That time does not exist.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasically there is no difference between what both of us infer. Perhaps we can rephrase your statement as follows: Present is the ever-shifting interface between past and future. Since it is ever-shifting, it cannot be "present" at any instant of time. We experience (measure) present to remember it (result of measurement). By the time we remember, which comes only after experiencing something, it has become "past" (evolved in time). Thus, we remember only past.
This shows that present being ever-shifting at a steady rate, can be used as the unit to measure the ever accumulating past to a limited extent of our memory (including inferences based on other memory). Future being infinite, cannot be measured like the past.
Regards,
basudeba
The very next future is the only one that matters. There potential is changed into actuality. Each subsequent conversion of potential cannot become actual without that conversion. Moreover at the juncture of now and the very next future is the only place actuallity occurs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuture may seem to be infinite but that is because the conversion of potential is never-ending and the remnants in the present show cause and effect.
But cause and effect occur at "now" or just before now.
Another possibility is that the structure of nature is best described by a continuous, infinitely differentiable, complete, vector space from which seemingly discrete entities evolve. These entities could be described by combinations of Dirac delta functions. A macroscopic example of such entities is the soliton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you say the potential of the very next future is changed to reality, you are not inferring ex-nihilo. Hence, the only inference is, future is modeled by past, guided by the ever shifting path of present. You are right that the conversion of potential is never-ending and the remnants in the present (actually past since present continuously gets converted) show cause and effect. However, future seems infinite because we cannot perceive it totally. As we have pointed out elsewhere, infinity is like one - without similars. The only difference is while the dimensions of one is fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. We measure only at present. Hence one can be measured, infinity not.
Regards,
basudeba
Only the juncture of past, present and future is active. The past is passive. The future is potential. Perhaps potential narrows as it approaches the juncture. What was once infinite becomes less and less uncertain until finally it becomes the next now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre there potentials in now? Or are there restrictions in now and all the potential is in the future?
We enjoyed this article from Dr. Tong's essay in this month's Sci Am Magazine greatly! Thanks for reproducing it! However, we (who are very digital and very biased) beg to differ that the true nature of reality is fundamentally analogue rather than digital (bitLike). For Mr. Tong reasons from the contrapositive when he concludes this article with the sentence, "We are not living inside a computer simulation". For even though it is well-established that IF: We are in a perfect simulation; THEN: A program run inside the simulation would be indistinguishable from the simulation. So the ContraPositive logical argument would be that IF: We cannot run (or program) a simulation of our own Universe based upon Observed natural physical laws; THEN: We are NOT in a perfect simulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why he reasons we are not in the Matrix: because we can't yet program a computer simulation that mimics what we observe from our most current experiments. Our problem with this logic is that for a sentient being inside the simulation, the process of logic (or thought) does not follow the laws of the computer program. For that is one definition of a sentience. Free will and/or actions not following programmable law, that is. FYI: Our website CEO finished around in the top 1/3 of these essays in the Contest and defined consciousness in his essay with an equation. The website and it's philosophy were a natural extension (or unexpected emergent property). Thank You fqxi.org, for being You... Your Foundation was the Prime CyberSpace Mover... Also a last note: thank you William Gibson for coining the word and creating the Thing called "CyberSpace", and thank's to the brothers who created the Matrix movie, which instantiated the book NeuroMancer by same...
Is it such a stretch to think of the universe as both analog and digital at the same time. However I believe it is essentially analog in a functional way since any piece regardless of how small the piece can only be represented as a fraction of a whole. The only thing that can be represented as a whole(the integer 1) in the universe is the entirety of the whole, everything else from a piece of a quark to entire systems can only be represented as fractions of the whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to point out, while the selected FXQi essay contest finalists certainly represented the best submissions, the rating process that allowed the ~250 authors to select the 35 finalists from the ~250 essays was notorious for the confusion and misunderstanding it engendered and the unintended effects produced. Certainly not every author could read and assess all ~250 essays. Some authors initially sent out 'mass ratings'. As a result, the position of any essay in the rated list was often a matter of pot-luck (and sometimes politicking and boot-licking). For example, very late in the rating process my essay was briefly among the top 35 essays, yet in the end it was in the bottom half of the ~250! There was a great deal of discussion among submitting authors concerning the ratings...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I think you're probably an analog emulation of a digital process <%)
Nice discussion with basudeba - very interesting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI especially like your comment #36. It's our perception of the artifacts of the past that infers the existence of a future... The accumulating physical existence of those artifacts confirms the reality of time progression.
I think that a person who loses both their memories of the past and the ability to form new memories could not conceive of the future.
There is a duration for memories which seems like a factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the computer statement "For i=1 to n", "i" has an extremely short duration, "n" a little bit longer, "for" and "to" are fixed to the programming language, "=" is fixed for most of human kind and the concept of 1 is a universal constant.
In people, remembering i and n is required for movement, there are human instructions some of which are embedded in the species and some of which are learned by all humans and there are short and long term memories.
I think that you are right about the future and one can wonder if the future is purely an illusion created by people seeing a progression in the past.
It's not that I think that the future is an illusion, although certainly one can, and many do, imagine any future they like. To some extent one must have a future objective to support object realization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of us with (some approximation of) continuously accumulating memories, the perception of our actual future continuously unfolds as our new present. Conversely, for a person without memories only the present would exist - they might never even recognize that their future is happening now, and now, and now...