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