On 12/23/2018 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:49 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
    <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

        On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker
        <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote

            https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

            Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop
            quantum gravity in the 1990s that marries the laws of
            microscopic physics, or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
            which explains the dynamics of space and time. Ashtekar,
            Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in
            loop quantum gravity and showed that black hole
            singularity does not exist.


            "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be
            divided as small as we want. This is essentially the
            cause of the singularity where the gravitational field
            becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric of
            space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be
            divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I
            have shown that this is the case inside black holes and
            therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.


            "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum
            excitations'-- which resolve the singularity problem are
            orders of magnitude smaller than we can detect with
            today's technology, but we have precise mathematical
            equations that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar,
            who is one of the founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.


            But is this consistent with
            https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which showed spacetime
            to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?


        Brent,

        Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory? 
        In another thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but
        wasn't one of Bruno's predictions that space and time would be
        continuous (not discrete), therefore it would predict LQG is
        false, and then https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a
        confirmation of that.


    How did Bruno predict that from a digital (integral) model)?


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/zq6LVIjhrn0/kVZao94IeGkJ (A post from 2007, citing his work from 2004)

The essential idea is that the first person experience of a physical world, and of making predictions or measurements involves infinite numbers of competing programs going through and realizing the state of the observer's mind at one point in time. Predicting what happens next, the outcome of an experiment, a measurement of a particle's location, etc. involves the statistics concerning the infinity of these programs. It means the physical appearances/physical universe is itself not computable (not without infinite time and resources), and this implies a continuum somewhere in physics. (i.e. eechanism is incompatible with digital physics)

Being not computable is not the same as being a continuum.

The gamma ray observation assumes certain things about the interaction of photons with space and I think it assumes a roughly uniform "tiling" so it may not be definitive.  But it brings up my point that the long sought quantum theory of spacetime my throw a monkey wrench in Bruno's "predictions".

Brent

    And where did he make such a prediction?


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/2numMVaxsJ0/QePUwROUln4J (post from 2007, explaining the continuum)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/yKiXo8jB7VY/VxqraVyz5c4J (post from 2009, describing that physics cannot be entirely computational if "I am a machine")

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/QuedsKrpW4g/C6pAbJItvfMJ (post from 2009, pointing out that if digital physics is true, then mechanism would be refuted)

Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to