Dubstepforum.com

brought.

you can quantify anything.

The only reason c can be defined a sa precise value is because the measurement system is based off it.

EVERYTHING IS DIGITAL, EVERYTHING! Space/time, matter/energy. It's ALL digital and so can be expressed in binary terms. The only exception to this is when something exists in quantum superposition, in which case you need an extra binary function 0 AND 1 (a qubit)

1. Digital is a poor word to use, you should be saying discrete. And no, not really. Whether the universe is discrete or continuous is completely unproven and still up in the air. Yes, there's Planck length (and time), but that doesn't mean the universe is discrete, that just means the measurement is forced into discreteness because measurements below that scale cease to be accurate (or even possible). Quantum physics does not say small distances than that "do not exist" - just that this at this scale, it is dominated by chaotic quantum effects.

2. You're completely missing the point. We're not talking about if you can represent quantities in binary, that's fucking obvious ton t anyone in this thread. You can represent any number as binary.

The original point brought up was talking about if there are physical quantities that exist simply and elegantly in either a state of "yes" or "no", ie, a binary system, or if their values take on a range of different values, ie a spectrum.

er... a photon's velocity will allways be c, there is no acceleration, it is always c.

Well no shit, I wasn't referring to a photon when I was saying "Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc", I was referring to the the "something" I referenced when I said "Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity". (see the full quote below)

Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity, particles that do exist have various properties which can not be so simply represented, such as the frequency of a photon, for example. Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc

The universe is computing particle interactions via the laws of physics.

Not really, the laws of physics are just imperfect human representations of how these interactions happen. The whole "universe is a computer" thing isn't really accepted and is mostly just fringe science

quantum mechanics is great and enlightening, but it is hilarious at times. just because something can not be disproved does not mean that it has been proved

I was reading something about this quite recently, all linked to quantum mechanics and the fabric of the universe.

I think (although I can't remember at all), that it had something to do with photons. A wave itself is a spectrum, from high to low repeated continuously, but I seem to remember something involving switching back and forth between binary states to get to a wave - that everything in fact was in one state or another. I'm going to have to dig the book out, because it was talking directly about this, and string theory and so on. That once you reach into spectrums, they're constructed through the gaps of binary.

Ouch, my brain.


111111111011111011111011101110111011011011010101001010101001001001001000100010001000100001000010000100001000000000000

we all exist on the same membrane anyways,,, all possibilities exist at once in the form of a wave that only collapses when we determine it should

fractal wrote:we all exist on the same membrane anyways,,, all possibilities exist at once in the form of a wave that only collapses when we determine it should

i mean i'm not really decided on which interpretation of quantum mechanics is valid, and the copenhagen interpretation very well may be correct, but imma play devil's advocate and bring up schroedingers cat.

if you go with the assumption that prior to wave function collapse, all possibilities exist at once, what sort of effects do the various possibilities at the quantum level have on the macroscopic level? for example, a cat in a box, who is entangled with the state of a particle. depending on the state of the particle, the cat may be killed by the release of a poison (or whatever, it's irrelevant how the cat dies). if the particle exists in both states until it is observed, that means that cat also exists in both states (dead and alive) at once. personally, i think that's sort of silly.

that why i like the multiple universes interpretation, where each different possibility (and set of possibilities) exists in a different parallel universe

Phigure wrote:Digital is a poor word to use, you should be saying discrete.

WIKI: 'A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values.'

Phigure wrote:Whether the universe is discrete or continuous is completely unproven and still up in the air. Yes, there's Planck length (and time), but that doesn't mean the universe is discrete, that just means the measurement is forced into discreteness because measurements below that scale cease to be accurate (or even possible). Quantum physics does not say small distances than that "do not exist" - just that this at this scale, it is dominated by chaotic quantum effects.

If the universe is continuous then why is the electron only allowed to orbit a nucleus at digital distances. It cannot move continuously in it's orbit, it can only jump in digital steps. Incidentally this is some 23 orders of magnitude above the planck scale. If you cannot answer that then simply, what things are continuous? I could be more inclined to believe that things were continuous if it weren't for implications of what happens to space when gravity is quantised.

Phigure wrote:The original point brought up was talking about if there are physical quantities that exist simply and elegantly in either a state of "yes" or "no", ie, a binary system, or if their values take on a range of different values, ie a spectrum.

I am saying that no matter what you use as an example, it can be reduced to binary. I thought that was also pretty obvious. You cannot talk about these things without a continual reference to the most fundamental scales

Phigure wrote:Well no shit, I wasn't referring to a photon when I was saying "Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc", I was referring to the the "something" I referenced when I said "Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity". (see the full quote below)
Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity, particles that do exist have various properties which can not be so simply represented, such as the frequency of a photon, for example. Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc

After re-reading what you said you seem to be saying simply that the speed of light is not just on or off. Well ok, thanks for that.
But whatever example you make can be described fundamentally as the emergent property of a series of 'on and offs'.
My whole point is that the observable universe is finite. That all 'things' in it have a finite informational content, and that what we call 'reality' is equivalent to informational computation. If you are arguing with me then your opinion is that all or some things actually require an infinite amount of information to describe them fully. Which begs the question: What are these things?

Phigure wrote:Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity, particles that do exist have various properties which can not be so simply represented, such as the frequency of a photon, for example. Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc

Let's take a photon then, what can we say about this photon? In Quantum electrodynamical terms:
mass = 0
elec. charge = 0
spin = 1
parity = -1
c parity = -1

Seems pretty binary to me. Even in the classical rendering of electromagnetism (where it's frequency will exist on a spectrum) it will have wavelength, and so it's maximal energy will occurr and repeat at a given unit of time, which will be a finite value.

Bringer wrote:The universe is computing particle interactions via the laws of physics.

Phigure wrote:Not really, the laws of physics are just imperfect human representations of how these interactions happen.

Ok then: The universe is computing particle interactions via 'how these interactions happen.'

The whole "universe is a computer" thing isn't really accepted and is mostly just fringe science.

I'm simply replacing the word 'nature' with 'computation'. If nature is not computation, then what is it?

This is all heavily connected to information theory, entropy, thermodynamics, some of the most fundamental elements of science. A quantum computer isn't an 'invention' as such, it's a method of borrowing the universe's natural phenomena.

Do you actually have a reason to think that computation isn't a fundamental notion?

Bringer wrote:

Phigure wrote:Digital is a poor word to use, you should be saying discrete.

WIKI: 'A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values.'

yeah, a data technology. the universe is not a data technology

Bringer wrote:

Phigure wrote:Whether the universe is discrete or continuous is completely unproven and still up in the air. Yes, there's Planck length (and time), but that doesn't mean the universe is discrete, that just means the measurement is forced into discreteness because measurements below that scale cease to be accurate (or even possible). Quantum physics does not say small distances than that "do not exist" - just that this at this scale, it is dominated by chaotic quantum effects.

If the universe is continuous then why is the electron only allowed to orbit a nucleus at digital distances. It cannot move continuously in it's orbit, it can only jump in digital steps. Incidentally this is some 23 orders of magnitude above the planck scale. If you cannot answer that then simply, what things are continuous? I could be more inclined to believe that things were continuous if it weren't for implications of what happens to space when gravity is quantised.

just because electrons occupy certain orbitals does not mean that space is quantized. electrons outside of atoms, for example, can still move at distances smaller than that.

Bringer wrote:

Phigure wrote:The original point brought up was talking about if there are physical quantities that exist simply and elegantly in either a state of "yes" or "no", ie, a binary system, or if their values take on a range of different values, ie a spectrum.

I am saying that no matter what you use as an example, it can be reduced to binary. I thought that was also pretty obvious. You cannot talk about these things without a continual reference to the most fundamental scales

there's a difference between reducing values to repreentation in binary form, and those values being an actual binary system.

Bringer wrote:

Phigure wrote:Well no shit, I wasn't referring to a photon when I was saying "Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc", I was referring to the the "something" I referenced when I said "Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity". (see the full quote below)
Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity, particles that do exist have various properties which can not be so simply represented, such as the frequency of a photon, for example. Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc

After re-reading what you said you seem to be saying simply that the speed of light is not just on or off. Well ok, thanks for that.
But whatever example you make can be described fundamentally as the emergent property of a series of 'on and offs'.
My whole point is that the observable universe is finite. That all 'things' in it have a finite informational content, and that what we call 'reality' is equivalent to informational computation. If you are arguing with me then your opinion is that all or some things actually require an infinite amount of information to describe them fully. Which begs the question: What are these things?

I'm not saying the speed of light is not an on or off, I'm saying that data such as velocity/speed are not an on or off, these values occupy a spectrum instead of a binary system. And yes, I do believe things require an infinite amount of information to describe them fully. But because of quantum mechanics, it is impossible to describe them fully, due to the limits set by Planck length, time, etc.

Bringer wrote:

Phigure wrote:Even if you were to choose to represent the existence of something as a binary quantity, particles that do exist have various properties which can not be so simply represented, such as the frequency of a photon, for example. Or how about it's velocity, acceleration, etc

Let's take a photon then, what can we say about this photon? In Quantum electrodynamical terms:
mass = 0
elec. charge = 0
spin = 1
parity = -1
c parity = -1

Seems pretty binary to me. Even in the classical rendering of electromagnetism (where it's frequency will exist on a spectrum) it will have wavelength, and so it's maximal energy will occurr and repeat at a given unit of time, which will be a finite value.

sure, that's a photon. but how about a proton? mass = 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms. or even the energy of a photon (hv). while you can represent these values in binary, the values themselves are not a simple binary system. there's a difference.

Bringer wrote:

Bringer wrote:The universe is computing particle interactions via the laws of physics.

Phigure wrote:Not really, the laws of physics are just imperfect human representations of how these interactions happen.

Ok then: The universe is computing particle interactions via 'how these interactions happen.'

The whole "universe is a computer" thing isn't really accepted and is mostly just fringe science.

I'm simply replacing the word 'nature' with 'computation'. If nature is not computation, then what is it?

This is all heavily connected to information theory, entropy, thermodynamics, some of the most fundamental elements of science. A quantum computer isn't an 'invention' as such, it's a method of borrowing the universe's natural phenomena.

Do you actually have a reason to think that computation isn't a fundamental notion?

The universe doesn't "compute" things. There's not a logic system behind it that says "based on this input, when you put it through this function, you get this output". Things happen as they do, humans just observe how they happen and call them "laws". I get what you're saying, but there's no actual computations going on. It's all simply the effect of different physical forces adding together in the way they do.

Phigure wrote:just because electrons occupy certain orbitals does not mean that space is quantized. electrons outside of atoms, for example, can still move at distances smaller than that.

I didn't say that the digital energy of an electron orbit was the reason space is quantised. The digital energy of an electron orbit is simply that, there is no connection to its motion in space. Its energy is radiated and absorbed in discrete "quanta".

As I allude to later in the sentence, the quantisation of space is a necessary aspect in bringing gravity into quantum mechanics. Gravity is not a force in the same way as say the strong or weak nuclear force, they propagate via vacuum fields, gravity is propagated by spacetime itself. I dont fully understand the concept but space can be described by saying it is a discrete network of causal relationships. Even back in the day Einstein guessed that spacetime was not continuous. It's also about the only way to explain non-locality. This is all pretty mainstream.

Phigure wrote:I'm not saying the speed of light is not an on or off, I'm saying that data such as velocity/speed are not an on or off, these values occupy a spectrum instead of a binary system.

So things can travel slower than 0kps? Or faster than 300,000kps? You keep refusing to see the point that binary is digital is quantum. Anything above it is an emergence of it. The speed of anything is simply its location as a function over time. Let me invoke 'Xenos' paradox. [paraphrase]If time and space were continuous then it would take forever to cross the road, because you could always divide the space for ever. So the reason you CAN cross the road is because the space is made of a finite number of digital steps.

Phigure wrote:And yes, I do believe things require an infinite amount of information to describe them fully. But because of quantum mechanics, it is impossible to describe them fully, due to the limits set by Planck length, time, etc.

Hmm... What you've just said there, is a whacky way of saying that the universe is a digital representation of a 'platonic' continuous realm. Which is what I suggested earlier as a possibilty. Allthough 'whacky' because you make the contradiction of saying that things 'exist' which cannot be described fully. I suggest you read up on thermodynamic entropy. And maybe 'Bells theorem' applies here, I forget the fine details...

BTW an electron is 23 orders of magnitude bigger in scale than the planck limit, so why is it impossible to describe fully? Any particle physicist can look right up an electron's arse! They are described just fine as an eigenvalues in a wave equation. So what 'things' contain an infinite amount of information?

Phigure wrote:there's a difference between reducing values to repreentation in binary form, and those values being an actual binary system.

Phigure wrote:sure, that's a photon. but how about a proton? mass = 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms. or even the energy of a photon (hv). while you can represent these values in binary, the values themselves are not a simple binary system. there's a difference.

What are you talking about? What is the difference between a decimal value and a binary value? What is the difference between a proton's mass in decimal and a proton's mass in binary. You're not making sense.

Phigure wrote:The universe doesn't "compute" things. There's not a logic system behind it that says "based on this input, when you put it through this function, you get this output".

Physics = equations/algorithms = computation. If it is so obvious then there must be something you can point to in nature that is non-computable...?

Phigure wrote:Things happen as they do, humans just observe how they happen and call them "laws".

Yeah, that's called science. What is your actual point? Science is wrong? There are no laws? There is no physics? What?

Phigure wrote:I get what you're saying, but there's no actual computations going on.

Explain to me what you think the difference is between a computation and a process. You won't have to read many biology papers before you come accross the term 'biological computation'. What is DNA if it is not an extraordinarily efficient compressed data algorithm?

Random Wiki quote of the day:
'DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area.'

Phigure wrote:It's all simply the effect of different physical forces adding together in the way they do.

These forces, which have been digitised:

Electromagnetic force = Quantum Electrodynamics
Strong Nuclear force = Quantum Chromodynamics
Weak Nuclear force/Electromagnetic force = Electroweak theory
Gravitational force. (Work-in-progress) = (M)/string theory/quantum loop gravity/Causal Dynamical Triangulation/ ?

Phigure wrote:

fractal wrote:we all exist on the same membrane anyways,,, all possibilities exist at once in the form of a wave that only collapses when we determine it should

i mean i'm not really decided on which interpretation of quantum mechanics is valid, and the copenhagen interpretation very well may be correct, but imma play devil's advocate and bring up schroedingers cat.

if you go with the assumption that prior to wave function collapse, all possibilities exist at once, what sort of effects do the various possibilities at the quantum level have on the macroscopic level? for example, a cat in a box, who is entangled with the state of a particle. depending on the state of the particle, the cat may be killed by the release of a poison (or whatever, it's irrelevant how the cat dies). if the particle exists in both states until it is observed, that means that cat also exists in both states (dead and alive) at once. personally, i think that's sort of silly.

that why i like the multiple universes interpretation, where each different possibility (and set of possibilities) exists in a different parallel universe

in both cases both cats still exist, you've just created another universe to put one of them in to satisfy our need for understanding reality based on our own constructs. maybe, maybe not. i like playing devils advocate as well, keeps the mind moving

holy shit it's a fucking conspiracy theorist physics conference in here

dont see much pseudo science in here

speaking ofcourse... as a scientist myself

who said anything about pseudoscience

you implied it

nah, just saying there's some cool speculation going on.