Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[analog]

Could we perhaps consider this a link or investigation within the two seemingly opposing scientific views of QM and RM with QM being the more digital objective representation per it's 'quantum' acknowledment and RM making it's implications from a more subjective analog analysis with time and space being relative? Just brainstorming to broaden my perspective.

[Graybeard]

Can an infinite amount of matter occupy an absolute spatial position or is matter quantized to absolute spatial position with only one available value? These two systems would fundamentally function differently throughout.

One system builds material density spatially different than the other. One builds outward while the other builds inward in a sense.

Which also effects the dynamics of temporal measurement depending upon the spatial distribution dynamics.

Could you explain this a bit more Tim .... perhaps you are on to something ??

cool bananas ... greg

[analog]

Yea ole buddy,

not enough time right now but will this evening, but I'm considering that if all quantum units have the same value as quantized to absolute space and time and two can't occupy the same absolute region, then perhaps we can analyse QM from an objective digital processing perspective building complexity spatially outward rather than in infinitely dense layers, with RM being the inverse analog process. An electrician should appreciate such. Lol

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Could we perhaps consider this a link or investigation within the two seemingly opposing scientific views of QM and RM with QM being the more digital objective representation per it's 'quantum' acknowledment and RM making it's implications from a more subjective analog analysis with time and space being relative? Just brainstorming to broaden my perspective.

I don't really know how Tim, but you may have something in mind... To me, I agree the relative is the more subjective analysis, but the analog and digital may more belong to both the QM and RM, than to either independently, imo... To tell you the truth, I don't make time and space relative within RM as much as Einstein and others, if Einstein himself ever did so, either... I see RM as only a slight measurement correction to CM and nothing more__in the main. I don't see the major changes in particle structures at relative velocities, because we neither have any way to physically view such, or to physically accelerate particles of any size to c, to let us know what truly would happen... Yes, there is relativistic mass, but just what is this relative mass__have we ever truly measured it...? As far as my investigations go, the actual accelerator experiments haven't reached their final conclusions, yet, to fully answer the relativity of real particles questions__We await CERN... We got a lot of math, but few real world completed experiments__Partials yes, but not complete. Yes, we know relativity, as measurement of distance diffs, is true even according to gps systems clock rate measurements and adjustments needed per elevation above Earth__and the rods actually do shrink, as we have to replace them at the Weights and Measures Dept., every so often__but, what is this really telling us about accelerating real objects to near the speed of light...? Yeah, from the theories we can dream up all kind of imaginary scenarios, from rocket-ships shrinking to whole Universes shrinking to infinitesimal high mass points__but, is not all matter/mass supposed to reach c at zero mass...? There's just a wee bit o' too many contradictions still left in QM and RM, for my tastes__if ya know what I mean... I'm still waiting for the QM and RM communities to do the real math for real matter objects accelerated to c__for the entire distance/velocity/time of such acceleration__2011 and it ain't done yet__Lorentz started this measurement math back in the 1890's, I think... Levy Civita created the more general tensor math to hide the incompletenesses of the Lorentz-Einstein maths__So, where's that leave us...? Unless you got a different history... I throw enough skepticism, maybe your young brain will accelerate to new heights...

The above in red, I would think, should be our investigation point of mechanics, to distinguish and possibly unite QM and RM__I just noticed what I'd written...

As to objective and subjective representations, they are always up to the perspective of the individual observers__It's simply a choice, to me...

As to analog and digital__idk... To me, this is like asymmetry and symmetry__idk... They're not sharp enough description tools, to me...

The subjectivist will take time and space as being relative__more often...

The objectivist will take time and space as being absolute__more often...

"The object is to explain subjectivity__not explain it away..."

"The subject is to explain objectivity__not explain it away..."

Though those last two statements don't apply to what you wrote, they just popped into me brain...

And:
A ToE must explain free-will__not try to explain it away... Perspective is everything visible... Combinatoric geo-logic is self-bound, but live bio-logic is a free bird, within and without bounds...

[Graybeard]

Still ... as we approach the FS, we must lose more and more attributes ....... Tim is onto something.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Just don't forget__that to lose all attributes of the FS__Is to become 'God'__The invisible logical impossibilia...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yea ole buddy,

not enough time right now but will this evening, but I'm considering that if all quantum units have the same value as quantized to absolute space and time and two can't occupy the same absolute region, then perhaps we can analyse QM from an objective digital processing perspective building complexity spatially outward rather than in infinitely dense layers, with RM being the inverse analog process. An electrician should appreciate such. Lol

Tim, this would be the Planck Scale length, time and volume lower bounds' model__but, let's hear your take on it__as QM has never interpreted it the way you're wording it...

[Graybeard]

Just don't forget__that to lose all attributes of the FS__Is to become 'God'__The invisible logical impossibilia...

Hmmmmm ....... particles really only have two attributes ... therefore the FS must have less ? But not so few as none.

'then perhaps we can analyse QM from an objective digital processing perspective building complexity spatially outward rather than in infinitely dense layers' .... Yes, this is where I am .... so many things fall into place. Hope I'm understanding you correctly.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I count 9 for the FS...

[Graybeard]

Far out .... seriously .... will you list them please ?

Ta! greg