Re: Sampling Universe Theory

On Jan 3, 12:47 pm, curiosus_2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sampling Universe Theory
>
> * Foreword *
>
> As I am working in the field of digital signal processing, I noticed
> strong similarities between digital signal processing and quantum
> mechanics.
>
> I am aware that analogy does not mean identity, however I was curious
> to see how far that was possible to extend the analogy.
>
> It began by considering that the physical limits of Planck (Planck's
> time and length) were similar to the limits encountered with signal
> sampling processes (sampling period and sampling resolution.)
>


> Then I extended the analogy, and the analogy is currently working in
> the following areas:
>
> - The duality wave / particle
> - The time of Planck and length of Planck
> - The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
> - The speed of the light
> - The nature of photons
> - A synthesis between conflicting Einstein's and Bohr's viewpoints
> - A simple explanation of the expansion of the universe
>
> I would like to know if these analogies make sense for professional
> physicians:
>
> * Sampling resolution and limits *
>
> In digital signal processing, we fetch samples from the real world in
> order to convert these into numbers. The process involves two limiting
> factors:
>
> - The sampling period: the sampling process cannot represent
> accurately events shorter than the sampling period. For example music
> CDs are using a sampling frequency of 44,100 Hz.
>
> - The sampling resolution: the sampling process cannot represent
> values smaller than the resolution (for example 1 / 2^16 by using 16
> bits A/D converters.)
>
> Similarly in Quantum Mechanics, we have limits in time (Planck's time)
> and space (Planck's length). Nothing smaller than these limits can
> exist in the universe.
>
> So the Sampling Universe Theory makes the assumption that the physical
> universe is sampled from an upper infinite universe, by using the
> Planck's frequency (1 / Planck's time) as sampling frequency, and the
> Planck's length as spatial resolution.
>
> I have posted some illustrations at:http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2008/samplinguniverselimits.htm
>
> * Duality wave/particle *
>
> There are now ultra fast cameras showing the progressive accumulation
> of photons in interference experiments.
>
> As photons accumulate, we see more and more clearly a sine wave
> modulated shape displayed on the screen.
>
> Similarly, when looking at the output of a D/A converter on the screen
> of an oscilloscope, we see that, as the sweeps accumulate, a more and
> more accurate sine wave is displayed on the screen.
>
> I have posted some illustrations at:http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2008/samplinguniversedualitywavepar...
>
> * Heisenberg uncertainty principle *
>
> Heisenberg demonstrated that we cannot know accurately both the
> position and the speed of a particle.
>
> Similarly, in digital signal processing, the sampling resolution and
> period limits are creating errors and uncertainties. The formulas are
> similar to Heisenberg's formulas.
>
> I have posted some illustrations and formulas at:http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2008/samplinguniversedualitywavepar...
>
> * The speed of the light *
>
> In the physical universe, the maximum speed is the speed of the light,
> equal to
> (Planck's length) / (Planck's time).
>
> If we represent space with digital signal processing, and make the
> assumption that a 'particle' from this domain cannot jump more from
> one spatial units at a time, we get too a maximum speed equal to
> (Sampling resolution) / (Sampling period)
>
> So the speed of the light limit would be a consequence of a
> limitation: in one unit of time (Planck's time), the photon is moving
> into the next 'Planck's cell'. It cannot jump above the nearest
> Planck's cells.
>
> If he could, that would mean the existence of waves moving at twice
> the speed of the light, which is not envisioned by current theories.
>
> * The nature of photons *
>
> To some degree, the photons are not fully from this world, as they
> have no mass and they travel at the speed of the light, something no
> other component of our world can do.
>
> Moreover it seems that photons can be transformed into matter, and
> that matter can be disintegrated into photons. So it seems that
> photons are the basic components of our universe, from which any other
> component is built.
>
> Similarly, in digital signal processing, we have samples which are the
> basic components of the 'sampled universe', and samples are but
> numbers. The numbers are entities which are at the interface between
> the sampled universe and the 'real world', they participate from both
> the real world and the sampled space (the sampled space could reside,
> for example, in the memory of a computer.)
>
> Similarly too, samples are the basic components of the sampled
> universe.
>
> So the photons would be the analogue of samples, being at the
> interface between our finite universe and an infinite upper universe.
>
> * A synthesis between conflicting Einstein's and Bohr's viewpoints *
>
> There was a famous debate between Einstein and Bohr.
>
> In brief, Einstein refused to accept quantum indeterminism, stating
> that "God does not play dice", when according to Quantum Mechanics our
> universe is 'governed' by probabilities.
>
> According to the sampling universe theory, both Einstein and Bohr are
> right:
>
> There would be an upper infinite universe not governed by
> probabilities, that would be the 'Einstein's universe', but as our
> physical universe is a finite representation from it, the infinite to
> finite conversion creates errors and uncertainties expressed by
> quantum mechanics, that would be the 'Bohr's universe'. Both universes
> would exist, each one with its own laws, Bohr's universe being a
> subset of Einstein's universe.
>
> * The expansion of the universe *
>
> The Sampling Universe Theory involves that not only space and time are
> discrete and have limits, but other values as well such as the forces
> of gravitation.
>
> So there would be quanta of gravitation, and the forces of gravitation
> cannot become smaller than the quanta.
>
> This means that when the distance between two galaxies becomes large
> enough, the forces of gravitation become smaller than the quanta of
> gravitation and are cancelled.
>
> But radiation pressure, carried by photons, is not stopped by
> distance.
>
> So beyond a critical distance, radiation pressure tend to push away
> galaxies which are no more attracted by gravitation, and the universe
> is expanding.
>
> I have posted some illustrations and formulas at:http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2008/samplinguniverseexpanding.htm
>
> Do these analogies make sense?
>
> Curiosus
> --http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2008/

Cross posted to comp.dsp