1) Is everything quantized ?

Irrational numbers are an idealization, you can never obtain a perfect sphere for example.

Ultimately the world is made of rational numbers, hence the name. Most objects however may be idealized to such an accuracy that we may neglect the error and irrational numbers provide a far simpler method of getting the answer.

> Ultimately the world is made of rational numbers, hence the name

No, not hence the name. Rational as in ratio, not as in reason.

Numbers don't exist per say, they're abstractions for phemenological data.

There's no such thing as a square root of 2 or pi in real life, because real world is ultimately a simpler version which doesn't allow such abstraction to physically exist.
If such a number existed in a physical description, there should be no physical cutoff and we know that to be wrong, since everything is quantized at some fundamental level.

Both nouns come from the same latin word, I don't think it invalidates my point.
Rational numbers may be expressed as ratios, but they also happen to be the unique set of numbers that completely and exclusively can express direct physical quantities.

This argument holds no water.

This is like saying sqrt2 exists because you can draw a square and the diagonal is sqrt(2). Is this physically realizeable? Who knows.

Hippasus of Metapontum has some news for you bub

2) while there is no theory that time is quantized like a framerate in a computer game, there are theories that time is quantized by the number of causal interactions between events. In this view the actual time it takes for one particle to causally interact with another is meaningless, but you could count up the number of causal interactions between one event and another, giving you a kind of quantized time.

Fractals. *drops the mike*

But then by doing so you're expressing something you measure in a non-fundamental set of units.
If you assign to the diagonal a value of sqrt(2), it's because you assign to its sides a value of 1. This value doesn't translate to any measurable, it's just an abstraction of length.

Ultimately the only way to measure length at a satisfactory level is to count it in discrete quanta, and counting in a discrete manner will never yield an irrational number, if you count the quanta at molecular or atomic level of the hypotenuse and those of the sides, and then divide by the number you obtain at the sides, you'll get a ratio for the hypotenuse which closely approximates sqrt(2), but it will never be equal. The mere fact that irrationnals can't be expressed as ratios means that they can't be derived from direct physical observations.

Doesn't mean we can't obtain them from abstractions, but abstractions aren't the same as reality.

>5) Yes, matter and force fields may be quantized, and those quanta are identical to one another within the same field (i.e: all electrons are exactly the same, all photons, gravitons, etc...). Basically, all fundamental particles have an associated field and may be represented as vibrations (perturbations) in those fields. Those vibrations are all exactly identical no matter where you see them in the field.
In the early universe those fields may have taken on different values, so you could have gotten different versions of electrons/etc. The strengths of all the forces are actually linked by guage symmetries (lie groups) whereby the different fields can actually take on different values than what they are now as long as they satisfy the symmetry structure. They are assumed to be the way they are now because they have fallen to a minimum value somewhere in a mexican hat like energy diagram.

Yeah that's a fair point, I guess I didn't really answer that question correctly. You could say the same thing about bosons, fermions and supersymmetry though.

But to the best of our knowledge I guess your explanation is the most fundamental. After that it comes down to believing non-falsifiable theory. Must admit I haven't studied Standard Model yet, I'd like to study renormalization first.

funny how the last image looks like photographed atoms

> Is everything quantized ?
The indivisible particles we know so far are quantized. The rest are theoretical for now

> Is time quantized ?
We don't have any data that suggests such a thing

> What are the implications of this on simulated reality ?
That both operate on quantized values like a grid structure.

> Are strings the 1s and 0s of reality ?
Can't say anything since they're yet to be proven

> Are the smallest building blocks of matter identical to each other ?
Logically they should be. But again, we're far away from discovering what are quarks and muons are made of.

DIO MERDA

1) Is everything quantized ?
No
2) Is time quantized ?
Not in any accepted theory of nature.
3) What are the implications of this on simulated reality ?
Implications of what on what?
4) Are strings the 1s and 0s of reality ?
No, even people who believe string theory is correct know that strings aren't fundamental and are just the weak coupling limit of M-theory, which itself might not be fundamental. In M-theory strings are replaced by membranes (2 and 5 dimensional ones).
5) Are the smallest building blocks of matter identical to each other ?
No, different particles are excitations of different fields. You could say that in string theory they are identical and different vibrational modes give different particles, but even then you have other objects like D-branes to account for, and you can't really think of a D-brane as being made of strings.

voxel is a stupid name. the 3D analogue for pixels should by all means be struxels

voxel is cool
struxel is tryhard

i see no coolness difference. struxel is accurate

voxel has v and x letters. struxel is the poor mans voxel

volume+element=volel
there is nothing to make x
and the analogue for a picture is a structure. and volume is the analogue for area. although arel does sound cool.
struxel is the patrician's choice

if you say struxel instead of voxel, you don't support our troops.

if you say voxel, you're an americuck

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaerxdrjdtggyudy

This thread is Q U A L I T Y

>This is like saying sqrt2 exists because you can draw a square and the diagonal is sqrt(2). Is this physically realizeable? Who knows.
wait a sec u might be on to something.

if matter and space are quantized then this means that creating a perfect square is possible.

if thats the case then the diagonal of the unit square should be EXACTLY sqrt(2).

both of those would have to be quantized as they would physically exist which means sqrt(2) must be quantized as well somehow.

bump

MADONNA PUTTANAAAAA