[sdiy] Is everything digital?

[xmurz at gmx.de]

Just some thoughts, don't take it too seriously...

>Actually..mathmatics is simply applied truth until..you get into 
>theoretical math I guess :-).  But math is founded on definitions that 
>are not negotiable or theoretical.  We properly label an object like an 
>apple.  It is understood by the observer that this is not necessarily 
>THE perfect apple...but rather that it has been labelled as such for the 
>performance of some logical math that can be applied to a 
>logical/truthful end.  1 apple plus 2 apples gives three apples.  

some axioms too.
defining what an axiom IS, you are using another model again,
that may be based on axioms...

3 apples, not necessarily. It might tunnel to another location.
Though the propability is VERY small. (I'm using another model here) :)
The whole perception may change alot if you think about relativistic theories,
manyworld theories (which still haven't been proven wrong) etc.

Sombody might come up with another consistent model that describes the same thing.

What I'm trying to say is that we think in shematas to help us 
understand the world around us in an easy way.
This is a good thing as is, but sometimes, when new things come up,
we must validate our thoughts which may be impossible using 
the theories that exist at present.
We had that problem with quantum mechanics, and it may happen again and again.

Relativistic theories haven't been prooven,
some theories are said tobe impossible to prove as right.

>Nothing whatsoever is implied about the condition or origin of the 
>apples and therefore the math done is quite non-negotiable.  You indeed 
>can reliably count three things resembling apples there.  It has nothing 
>to do with 'modelling'.
>
>>We can prove things but we use models again. 
>>The only real judge is nature. But even nature can be inconsistent.

>       Take radiation.  We look at the phenomena and call it "random" in 
>terms of when an emission is going to occur.  We will wind up with a 
>somewhat consistent rate overall, but we have no idea when the next one 
>pops off.  This isn't because it's just happening truly randomly. 
>Rather, we just don't have the facilities to monitor the mechanisms that 
>decide when an electron becomes a beta particle for instance.   

are you saying that there are "hidden variables"?
Some fundamental physics would fall apart if there would be.
All that I know of, knobody knows of the hidden variables.
There heve been many experiments to find out.

>Remember, that electron was in a harmonic relationship 'spinning' in 
>some kind of 'orbit' as we model it...and that indeed is a model.  In 
>reality there is a harmonic EM interaction going on that happened to 
>share the same mathmatical relationships as an orbit so as to cause Bohr 
>to speculate that such was the case. 
The Bohr model has long been proven fundamentaly wrong.
What Bohr did was wathing some spectral lines and putting them in formulas.
Those are proven wrong.

> So that radiation occurs either 
>because some kind of disturbance to the harmonic aspect of that 
>relationship ocurred (say a near 'collision' with another atom where the 
>wave functions of outer orbital electrons created a disturbance 
>sufficient to kick one or both of them out of the lattice or atom or 
>whatever they were associated with at the time.

Using frequency domain doesn't explain all kinds of phenomenas
very well, but it sometimes simplifies our thoughts.
But it is just another model, "frequency domain".
Looking only at the outer electron wave function is another oversimplification
which is e.g. often used for ABINIT type energy minimisations with
good results, but that doesn't mean that you can always get away with it.
The results are wrong if you use certain elements of the periodic table
in lattice and minimize energy.
Then a all wave function approach has to be taken which may include
spin orbit info also.

>>When I got to know quantum computing / quantum theory, I thought
>>now we finally get a system where we can't say "digital" or "analogue" anymore,
>>we can end that digital vs analogue war :)
>>
>>  
>>
>Hehe...my ears will have to become POW's first.  -Bob

- Hans