williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (07/12/85)
I personally believe that both theories, the wave collapse, and the many worlds, fall dramatically short when it comes to continuity. A model of the universe as a continuous function would have features throughout scale, and the probabilities encountered in QM would be made explainable through undetectable influences. Wave collapse is likewise discontinuous. Why is it impossible for a photon to travel in one direction only? One big problem is trying to model photons in terms of electromagnetic fields. Perhaps it is the other way around. OH, and a continuous model of the universe would exclude any kind of ether. At some level, the universe should behave as a consistent continuous mathematical function. Many people argue that there is some kind of granularity, ether and QM, for example. This granularity has to be supported somehow by something. There is no reason to believe that we are not able to observe, although indirectly, the top level which would exist on a purely mathematical manifold. It is exactly the level of consistency of observed behaviour within the universe that demonstrates the high probability for a continuous function. I suppose it's only natural that computer enthusiasts would wish to compare simulation to reality. Simulation is performed. Reality simply *IS*. A mathematical function does exist, and we are living in it. I REPEAT: The laws of physics are consistent. The granularity that is observed in QM is highly likely to be attributable to unobservable influence. You will have to excuse me if I am not able to explain everything to your satisfaction, I am not nearly as well educated in physics as some of the others who subscribe to this news group. The theory of a continuous universe is based purely on probability, the probability of physical phenomenon repeating themselves consistently, to some degree of accuracy, over undetermined history. A probability distribution requires some kind of process, and a set of equations is insufficient. A process requires a media for support. The media then requires some mathematical relationship. We are then back to the continuous function. Does anyone have any strong disagreements? John Williams
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/13/85)
> I personally believe that both theories, the wave collapse, and the > many worlds, fall dramatically short when it comes to continuity. > [Text omitted] > Does anyone have any strong disagreements? > John Williams --------------------------------------------------------- I don't know. I barely understood anything you said, despite my extensive physics background. I mean, the individual words and phrases make sense, and the sentences are gramatically correct, but I can't seem to make much sense out of them. Maybe your posting does have some content. If so, you should formulate it in more concrete terms, so us mere mortals can understand it. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher) (07/16/85)
In article <3088@decwrl.UUCP> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes: > > You will have to excuse me if I am not able to explain >everything to your satisfaction, I am not nearly as well educated in >physics as some of the others who subscribe to this news group. The >theory of a continuous universe is based purely on probability, the >probability of physical phenomenon repeating themselves consistently, >to some degree of accuracy, over undetermined history. A probability >distribution requires some kind of process, and a set of equations >is insufficient. A process requires a media for support. The media >then requires some mathematical relationship. We are then back to >the continuous function. > > Does anyone have any strong disagreements? > > John Williams I have had little training in physics but I have had some training in mathematics (about the same level as a 1st year grad student) and have (and am) studied probability and statistics. Anyway I don't see how you can make an argument from probability about continuity. I am sure that there are infinitely many discontinuous theories that support experimental data as well if not not better than the continuous theories. The only valid argument I can imagine for continuity is that such theories are pleasing either in the Occam's razor sense (Occam's razor as it has been described to me is generally inconsistent (the simplest theory is that the entire world is a result of random chance)) or in the sense that continuous theories are easier to analyze so we'll stick with them until they conflict with experimental evidence. Ultimately this kind of argument boils down to continuous theories make me happy. I may misunderstand you or maybe don't understand the mathematics or physics you are engaging to make your point though. -David Sher sher@rochester seismo!rochester!sher