Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Continuity Message-ID: <3088@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 15:29:08 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3088 Posted: Fri Jul 12 15:29:08 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:19:19 EDT Sender: lai@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 43 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