tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7326647583829498257.post8017508606119242695..comments2014-09-14T14:53:37.557-07:00Comments on Nothing is Infinite!: How I see the world!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01537253748863675494noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7326647583829498257.post-20420080508704593792008-12-04T06:56:00.000-08:002008-12-04T06:56:00.000-08:00"There is no infinite: There is always integer val..."There is no infinite: There is always integer values of something (quanta) when you go down, Space and Time have finite global values."<BR/><BR/>It is for this reason that I used to annoy my professors endlessly by arguing that there's no such thing as an analog signal. No signal can be continuous because at some level we're dealing with quanta. A truly continuous signal would convey infinite information. So everything is digital unless we want to redefine the terms. Analog would then mean a signal that is as continuous as possible. Or that has a sufficiently high sampling rate (arbitrary). Or that exceeds a particular threshold (convention).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7326647583829498257.post-50998090419637202342008-09-21T16:08:00.000-07:002008-09-21T16:08:00.000-07:00Acutally more of a mass.bigcrash.org related conje...Acutally more of a mass.bigcrash.org related conjecture.JTankershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426366851196200839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7326647583829498257.post-66203127391066446552008-09-21T15:48:00.000-07:002008-09-21T15:48:00.000-07:00Nice: http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/Bu...Nice: http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/<BR/><BR/>But I found a possible logical flaw with your site.<BR/><BR/>On the surface of Earth your site will always be 100% correct.<BR/><BR/>However, if your website was copied to space lab it is possible at some time in the future your site could return the wrong answer (but not for another 5 to 50 years if Dr. Roessler's worst case sceinario comes to pass).<BR/><BR/>As for the Bell Inequality, I studied that one also trying to solve the local/non-local problem, but I did not find the proof compelling. Sounded more like a clever mathmatical card trick.<BR/><BR/>There are proofs planed to determine if Dr. Einstien's intuition was correct after all, so have an open mind, there is probably more that we don't know than what we do, and I do suspect we will eventually figure out what is knowable.<BR/><BR/>I just got my copy of Scientific American in the mail, excellent lead article "Forget about the Big Bang: Now it's the Big Bounce".<BR/><BR/>I liked the article very much. I suspect the atoms of space time may contain emence amounts of energy that may produce gravity, possibly at smaller scales than matter. (Just a BigCrash.org related conjecture, a work in progress...).JTankershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426366851196200839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7326647583829498257.post-6338020187820484832008-09-21T13:03:00.000-07:002008-09-21T13:03:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comments, I just started this blog...Thanks for your comments, I just started this blog and I'm happy to see readers :)<BR/>I wrote another <A HREF="http://nothingisinfinite.blogspot.com/2008/09/local-or-non-local-still-question.html" REL="nofollow">entry</A> about the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequality" REL="nofollow">Bell Inequality</A>!<BR/>About the LHC, I hope to find the time to write about the "funiverse" proof, soon! But to answer your question ther is a nice website that reflect my view:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/" REL="nofollow">http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01537253748863675494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7326647583829498257.post-77478047314920719232008-09-17T19:18:00.000-07:002008-09-17T19:18:00.000-07:00Hello Frederic,Very interesting insight. I am doi...Hello Frederic,<BR/><BR/>Very interesting insight. I am doing very similar, trying to discover "what might make the universe tick" based recent conjecture such as loop quantum gravity and string theory and examination of the huge amount of empirical cosmological observation that does not fit perfectly with standard model and common sensibilities, and more specifically looking for a more plausible possible explaination for what might have triggered the big bang that might not require improbable events or inflation theory which I find more convenient than plausible. (I have a similar background, software development consulting with more of a Microsoft focus and some college physics background).<BR/><BR/>I would recommend an article that you might find compelling (I did and then some), Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist magazine, 22 March 2008[1].<BR/><BR/>The focus of the article is deterministic (Bohmian) Quantum Mechanics (very well presented) that brings simplicity back to theoretical physics and removes the weirdness of multi-verses and faster than light communication and other paradoxes predicted by non-deterministic QM (another way to conceptualize quantum mechanics without the paradoxes and weidness). Dr. Einstein believed in deterministic QM and recent work in this field suggests he may have been correct after all. One interesting prediction of deterministic QM is that entangled photons are not spooky and don't communicate at all, they are just exact copies, clones (two instances of the same "photon" object in computer science speak, both loaded with the same property values). Wins Occam's razor by a very wide margin I think.<BR/><BR/>For some other food for thought, I run two open source web speculative physics projects, www.bigcrash.org[2] and mass.bigcrash.org.[3] Bigcrash.org is the result of 10 years of work (off and on) attempting to conjecture what might have triggered the explosion of the big bang, it made significant progress in the last few month. <BR/><BR/>I found your blog working on Collider safety issues, don't know how familiar you are with this, but I believe we may be taking a huge gamble, possibly as soon as next week, about like building a nuclear power plant in your basement and assuming it must be safe, what could go wrong?<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/><BR/> [1] http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist magazine, 22 March 2008 <BR/> [2] http://www.bigcrash.org Pre-big bang conjecture<BR/> [3] http://mass.bigcrash.org Mass conjectureJTankershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426366851196200839noreply@blogger.com