Infinite Potential

[Write4U]

I believe this may also be of interest.
The theory of everything: The universe is 'like a COMPUTER underlined by information'

SCIENTISTS are uncovering what underlies the universe and what makes up spacetime.
By SEAN MARTIN, 10:01, Sun, Feb 12, 2017 | UPDATED: 15:28, Sun, Feb 12, 2017
.........

However, by digging to the very depths of reality, scientists are on the brink of discovering what makes up reality and how spacetime – the model that combines space and time – emerges.

Their theory is that information, to put it simply, underlies and makes the universe.

While that sounds like an uncontroversial understatement, what scientists mean by information is a theoretical series of numbers.

This would mean that the universe is basically written in binary – zeros and ones.

Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) told the magazine that it “is simply our best mathematical description of the universe.”

He added: “You can find people who think that information is all there is.”

Seth Lloyd, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor specialising in quantum information, told Space that the universe is like a computer, “a physical system that processes breaks up information into bits, and flips those bits in a systematic fashion.”

He added: “So, what is the universe? The universe is a physical system that contains and processes information in a systematic fashion and that can do everything a computer can do.”

more..... https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/765843/universe-a-COMPUTER-binary-theory-of-everything

That "information processing" system has been dubbed "mathematical" by humans.

This reduction to the absolute simplest interactive dynamic of "quanta" (mathematical value) makes a lot of sense.

The universe is not based on human computers. Human computers are based on universal "quantum mechanics".
The universe is not based on human mathematics. Human mathematics is based on universal "quantum values".

 

[arfa brane]

How would you characterize the information in an interference pattern?

Do you need a minimal number of quantum particles so a pattern emerges? It seems to be the case.
And although we call them dots on a screen, are they actually physically more complex at an atomic scale, or what?

 

[Write4U]

How would you characterize the information in an interference pattern?

I believe the answer is in the question. What may have been random values flating around, an interference pattern guides these random values into a very specific pattern.

The double slit experiment provides the proof.

Do you need a minimal number of quantum particles so a pattern emerges? It seems to be the case.
And although we call them dots on a screen, are they actually physically more complex at an atomic scale, or what?

AFAIK, patterns emerge in several configurations, depending on the number of values and how they connect.
I would vote for the triangle as the simplest possible pattern set (fractals)

Altitude of a Triangle

The altitude of a triangle, or height, is a line from a vertex to the opposite side, that is perpendicular to that side. It can also be understood as the distance from one side to the opposite vertex.

Every triangle
has three altitudes (ha, hb and hc), each one associated with one of its three sides. If we know the three sides (a, b, and c) it’s easy to find the three altitudes, using Heron’s formula:

[/quote]The three altitudes of a triangle (or its extensions) intersect at a point called orthocenter. [/quote]

The altitude can be inside the triangle, outside it, or even coincide with one of its sides, it depends on the type of triangle it is:

• Obtuse triangle: The altitude related to the longest side is inside the triangle (see hc, in the triangle above) the other two heights are outside the triangle (ha, and hb).
• Right triangle: The altitude with respect to the hypotenuse is interior, and the other two altitudes coincide with the legs of the triangle.
• Acute triangle: all three altitudes lie inside the triangle.

https://www.mathematicalway.com/mathematics/geometry/points-lines-circles-associated-triangle/

 

[Write4U]

Triangle fractals can make the most incredible patterns :

The Sierpinski Triangle

The Sierpinski triangle is a self-similar fractal. It consists of an equilateral triangle, with smaller equilateral triangles recursively removed from its remaining area.

named after the Polish mathematician Wacław Sierpiński​

Sierpinski numbers are odd natural numbers k such that k·2n+1 is composite for all natural numbers n. The Sierpinski problem is trying to find the smallest Sierpinski numbers. The smallest known such number is 78,557 – but it is still unknown whether there are smaller ones.

It can be created by starting with one large, equilateral triangle, and then repeatedly cutting smaller triangles out of its center.

from

to this

https://mathigon.org/course/fractals/sierpinski

Play the video.

From what I can see, the triangle may well have near infinite potential for patterned expressions in nature.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

*sigh* Okay, I'll break it down for you.

Can you cite a single physical object or function that does not have quantum as a fundamental universal property?

Observe the words "single" and "universal" in that question.

Single objects or functions cannot have "a fundamental universal property", because single things are single things, not universal things. Ergo, the question makes no sense.

Can this problem be fixed?

Maybe we can just ignore the first half of the question for now. The assertion in the second half is that "quantum" is a "fundamental universal property". I read this as saying that the "universe" has a property called "quantum" (and this is "fundamental" to it). But (a) what is this property called "quantum", and (b) in what sense can the universe be said to have it, and (c) in what sense can be it said to be "fundamental"? I don't know the answers to these questions.

Maybe, alternatively, we can ignore the second half of the question and concentrate on the first half instead. "Can you cite a single physical object or function that does not have quantum?" I read this as an assertion that all physical objects have "quantum" as a property, and so do all functions. But (a) what is a "function"? (b) what is the property "quantum"? (c) What does it mean for a function to have the property "quantum"? (d) What does it mean for physical objects to have the property "quantum"? I can hazard a guess at some of the answers to these, but I'm really not sure.

Maybe I can just ignore the actual wording you used completely and try to guess what you might have meant to ask. Recall that the assertion you made was "quantum is applicable to everything"; this is what is in dispute.

If I wanted to calculate exactly where a tennis ball will land when thrown with a particular velocity in a particular direction from a particular height, would I need to consider the "fundamental universal property" called "quantum", as it relates to that tennis ball? I don't think so. Could this, then, possibly be an example of quantum not applying to "everything"?

When you enjoy eating your morning breakfast cereal, are you applying the quantum? Could it be that quantum doesn't apply to your breakfast cereal?

"But what about all the atoms in the wheaties and the milk!" you cry. "You can't have milk without the quantum atoms! The quantum applies to everything, don'tcha know?"

What about the function of you eating the wheaties? Does the quantum apply to that? Are you thinking about the quantum every time you chow down? Or could it be that the quantum isn't very important when the function under consideration is eating your wheaties?

Look, on second thoughts, I think you've won me over. The quantum is universal and we can't possible continue to live our lives without it being central to every single object and function.

So what?

Does this mean everything Tegmark and Bohm every wrote is proved correct? Does this mean we all have to accept that the universe is nothing but mathematics? Should we set up the altars to the microtubules now that we know about the everythingness of the quantum?

What's this thread about, again?

 

[James R]

From what I can see, the triangle may well have near infinite potential for patterned expressions in nature.

And here I was thinking that "infinite potential" was just the title of a movie. I vaguely recall somebody telling me that's all it was.

 

[Write4U]

Introduction

At the beginning of the 18th century, physicists like Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, and astronomer, and one of the most influential scientists of all time. He was a professor at Cambridge University, and president of the Royal Society in London.

In his book Principia Mathematica, Newton formulated the laws of motion and gravity, which laid the foundations for classical physics and dominated our view of the universe for the next three centuries.

Among many other things, Newton was one of the inventors of calculus, built the first reflecting telescope, calculated the speed of sound, studied the motion of fluids, and developed a theory of colour based on how prisms split sunlight into a rainbow-coloured spectrum.

Timeline
He thought that the universe was a giant clockwork machine. If you had precise information about every object right now, you could use the laws of physics to predict what would happen in the future.

watch videos.

https://mathigon.org/course/chaos/introduction

 

[Write4U]

Observe the words "single" and "universal" in that question.

Single objects or functions cannot have "a fundamental universal property", because single things are single things, not universal things. Ergo, the question makes no sense.

Unless the question asks if all things in the universe have a single common "universal" denominator.
I believe there are several equations about that.

And here I was thinking that "infinite potential" was just the title of a movie. I vaguely recall somebody telling me that's all it was

And how convenient of you the forget the qualifier "near" in your quote of my posit.
Can you present an example of creating more complex variations on a very simple (basic) theme?

Does this mean everything Tegmark and Bohm every wrote is proved correct? Does this mean we all have to accept that the universe is nothing but mathematics? Should we set up the altars to the microtubules now that we know about the everythingness of the quantum?

What are you talking about?
I am discussing quantum potentials, aren't you?

What's this thread about, again?

It's about the concept of "Infinite Potential" and I am the only one sticking to the OP question.

The term "infinite potential" was being challenged and I defended the notion that the Universe might well possess infinite potential for dynamic expression of dense complex patterns in physical reality.

If anyone mentions the size of infinity, I suggest they underestimate the size (informational value) of universal mathematical potentials (potential mathematics?).

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Unless the question asks if all things in the universe have a single common "universal" denominator.
I believe there are several equations about that.

Equations that apply equally to your breakfast wheaties and to the big bang? If you say so.

Can you present an example of creating more complex variations on a very simple (basic) theme?

er... Bach?

What are you talking about?

I'm not really sure any more.

Looking back at the opening post of the thread, I see that, in fact, it was pretty much just an advertisement.

There was no actual suggested topic for discussion.

Maybe that's why this conversation is rambling all over the place. You seem to be settling into your default random blogging behaviour, for the most part.

I am discussing quantum potentials, aren't you?

Not at all. Not yet, anyway.

What are quantum potentials? Where have you discussed them? Not in this thread, as far as I'm aware.

It's about the concept of "Infinite Potential" and I am the only one sticking to the OP question.

Was there a question? What was the question?

The term "infinite potential" was being challenged and I defended the notion that the Universe might well possess infinite potential for dynamic expression of complex (dense) patterns in physical reality.

Ah yes. The word salad.

Shall we go around one more time, then?

If anyone mentions the size of infinity, I suggest they underestimate the size of universal mathematical potentials (potential mathematics?).

What's a universal mathematical potential when it's at home?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Frankly, I could not care less about the term "infinite potential". I didn't invent it and to me it is meaningless, other than Bohm's "Quantum Potential" that apparently is so large that it might as well be infinite as far as human science is concerned.
​

Should we change the thread title to from "infinite potential" to "Bohm's quantum potential"? If the term "infinite potential" is, as you say, meaningless and all. Or would that fail to advertise the movie adequately?

What's Bohm's quantum potential? Can you summarise in your own words?

 

[James R]

What's all this stuff about fractals and the like, if the topic is supposed to be about Bohm's quantum potential? Isn't all the fractal stuff an off-topic irrelevancy?

Why do we need a biography of Isaac Newton in this thread?

Is the universe being like a computer somehow relevant to the thread? How so?

Why do we need a tutorial on altitudes of a triangle in this thread?

 

[Write4U]

Maybe we can just ignore the first half of the question for now. The assertion in the second half is that "quantum" is a "fundamental universal property". I read this as saying that the "universe" has a property called "quantum" (and this is "fundamental" to it). But (a) what is this property called "quantum", and (b) in what sense can the universe be said to have it, and (c) in what sense can be it said to be "fundamental"? I don't know the answers to these questions.

And I am attempting to get answers to some of these questions, by presenting analyses of various prominent scientists

er... Bach?

Oh, I like Bach, perhaps a little too Baroque for my Romantic taste. Chopin was the most romantic musical giant of his day.
And yes, the wave function seems to have near-infinite potential expressions.

 

[Write4U]

What's all this stuff about fractals and the like, if the topic is supposed to be about Bohm's quantum potential? Isn't all the fractal stuff an off-topic irrelevancy?

Clearly you have not been paying attention,
I cited CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) as a potential universal theory. But I'll quote the pertinent part.

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time.

These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called

Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

more ....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

p.s. You cannot claim "irrelevance" in context of potential fractal aspects to the unfolding of spacetime itself.

 

[James R]

Since I've started, I guess I might as well finish.

Readers might recall Write4U jumping up and down about his precious thread on "infinite potential" being taken off-topic by other posters.

But it's interesting to compare the topics raised in Write4U's own posts to this thread. Here's a list:

• Advertisement for a biopic about David Bohm (post #1)
• Question about a particle in a box having "infinite potential", despite Write4U saying the term "infinite potential" is meaningless to him (post #2).
• Potential energy vs internuclear distances between two atoms. (#3)
• Quantum field theory (#7)
• Energy of a trillion atomic bombs in every cubic metre of space (#8)
• Particle vibrations in a transverse wave (#10)
• Classification of physical theories (#12)
• The problem of time (#12)
• Longtime ravers give first-timer tips (#14)
• The enfolded order of the number 4/3 (#16)
• Biography of Louis de Broglie (#18)
• Bohm's pilot wave theory (#18,19)
• Emergent phenomena (#21)
• Bohm's "enfolded orders" (#22)
• Dictionary definitions of the words "potential" and "physics" (#28)
• Quantum potential (#36) Possibly the only ostensibly on-topic post so far...
• An interview with Roger Penrose (extract from Bohm biopic) (#41)
• What quantum physics reveals about how we should live, by Lothar Schafer (#44)
• "dynamic systems theory" definition (#51)
• dictionary definitions of "potential" (#53) and the philosophy of labelling.
• dictionary definition of "pluripotential" (#54)
• complaint about thread hijacking (!) (#59)
• democracy vs plutocracy (#61) and the planet Pluto
• definition of "atomic weight" (#62)
• definition of "water potential" (#66)
• David Bohm, implicate order and holomovement (#67)
• biography of Bohm (#81)
• Bohm's "Quantum Mechanics and Enlightenment" (#86)
• Can we gauge quantum time of flight? (#95)
• Elite cabals and other conspiracies (#98)
• Primer on "dynamics" (#101)
• Stretched springs store elastic potential energy (#102)
• Dictionary definition of "dynamical system" (#106)
• Differential equations (#109)
• Gravitational potential (#110)
• Dictionary definition of "potential energy" (#110)
• Quantum is applicable to everything (#112)
• Quantum physics study suggests objective reality doesn't exist (#117)
• Quantum loop gravity: does spacetime come in tiny chunks (#119)
• Primer on quantum loop gravity (#120)
• Dictionary definition of "causal dynamical triangulation" (#120)
• The theory of everything: The universe is like a computer underlined by information (#121)
• Altitudes of a triangle (#123)
• The Sierpinski triangle (#124)
• Video on fractals (#124)
• Biography of Newton (#127)
• Dictionary definition of "causal dynamical triangulation" (again) (#133)

What a mess.

What's clear is that Write4U never had a clear idea of what this thread would be about.

It's really just an excuse for him to blog random thoughts, full of liberal cut-and-pastes from dictionaries and cut-and-pastes from youtube videos that Write4U wants to promote.

There are signs of an inability to maintain focus on one thought. Instead, we see attention constantly wandering from one thing to the next, with nothing ever being properly understood. It's more like collecting random postcards on a frantic round-the-world trip, never stopping long enough to learn anything real about the countries you're visiting.

 

[Write4U]

Why do we need a biography of Isaac Newton in this thread?

Because I am trying to demonstrate my perspectives to other readers of this thread. I know you don't need to be told about Isaac Newton. That's the stuff of a novice. But apparently you do not recognize the relationship and common denominators in all those "random" universal conditions cited in those supporting paragraphs.
So, I share these references to show a more or less objective understanding of the mathematical "Laws of Nature", which we continue to discover and apply in practice. How you can object to the introduction of "examples" in physics.

OTOH, you seek to completely fracture science into nice little niches and specializations where comprehensive scientific communication begins to suffer.

And which seem to have no limits except for mathematical permissions and restrictions.

Bohm's perspective was solid, starting with:
Pure Potential, the chaotic Implicate Order with a promise of that which is to become reality (determinism).

Implicate and explicate order
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Implicate order and explicate order are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behaviors of subatomic particles which quantum physics describes and predicts with elegant precision but struggles to explain. [1]

In Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, he used these notions to describe how the appearance of such phenomena might appear differently, or might be characterized by, varying principal factors, depending on contexts such as scales.[2]

The implicate (also referred to as the "enfolded") order is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order includes the abstractions that humans normally perceive.

As he wrote:
"In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders" (Bohm 1980, p. xv).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

 

[James R]

You cannot claim "irrelevance" in context of potential fractal aspects to the unfolding of spacetime itself.

Everything in this thread is irrelevant, apart from one or two posts, if we're to take you at face value when you claim the topic was supposed to be Bohm's "quantum potential".

 

[Write4U]

What a mess.

What's clear is that Write4U never had a clear idea of what this thread would be about.

You are finally beginning to understand the Chaotic mess this Universe presents .
It is all the more remarkable that all these references apply equally in context of Infinite Potential

And it begins at quantum.
Bohm's "enfolded superposed values" in essence, emerging as "unfolded physical patterns" in reality.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

It makes no sense to keep using a word that you previously claimed is meaningless to you. It just means whatever you want it to mean, each time.

This seems like a pointless thread, to me.

I'm out again.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
It makes no sense to keep using a word that you previously claimed is meaningless to you. It just means whatever you want it to mean, each time.

That was in a different context. I meant to say I have no axe to grind here.

This seems like a pointless thread, to me. I'm out again.

Pointless because you refuse to give it any thought at all.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Pointless because you refuse to give it any thought at all.

That's not fair, and you know it.

I am one of the few other members of this forum who has engaged with you in this thread.

I still stop doing that, seeing as you're so rude and ungrateful.

You ought to be ashamed of your behaviour. You ought to apologise for your rudeness.