Is the universe quantified ? Is everything really just made of 1s and 0s ?

Is the universe quantified ? Is everything really just made of 1s and 0s ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

fellow TEM-fag here. feels that way sometimes.

buuut then again, all those "1"s you measure arent necessarily the same as the other "1"s. Just look at the difference between the contrast on the crystalline gold nanoparticle, and the amorphous carbon film. Even if you get graphitic carbon, its clearly different, and this is obvious as soon as you start doing chemistry with it.

I should add.. .just look at that displacement you have. Thats the beginnings of a herringbone-structure, and its only possible because of strain pushing your atoms out of the matrix positions. The universe isnt quite as quantized as it looks.

Newfags don't know about pure strain gold.

Electrons are identical though. The "1"s we measure in atoms are not fundamental particles and are made up of smaller things which have different masses, properties, etc...

If we ever find the smallest indivisible building block of gold nanoparticles, I'm sure they would be the "1"s we are looking for.

Maybe, at its base, everything is quantized. Intuitively and emotionally part of me is biased towards treating it as though it is, but there;s a lot of problems involved in complete quantization.

>but there;s a lot of problems involved in complete quantization.
What are they? I feel like there would be a lot more problems if there were chaos even in the 1s and 0s rather than a quantized order.

>If we ever find the smallest indivisible building block of gold nanoparticles, I'm sure they would be the "1"s we are looking for.
Spoken like somebody who has never even opened an introductory text into sub-atomic particle physics.

There is a multitude of elementary particles, and they are hardly "1s and 0s"
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

shitposters dont even read the fucking thread
> and its only possible because of strain pushing your atoms out of the matrix positions

*Information* is quantized. As for physical space and matter? Probably not. But there are lots of issues with using the real numbers to model continuous things, so I expect we will find a better way.

wtf am I seeing here? are these literal gold atoms? pls explain

t. brainlet

you have no idea what the fuck you are trying to regurgitate here and it shows
what you see is the phase contrast of a relativisticly accelerated, spherical aberration corrected, electron beam after it has passed through a thin sample containing amorphous carbon film (lower left corner) and a crystalline nanoparticle or film of gold deposited on the film (rest of the image).

The gold atoms are aligned parallel to the beam and the bloch function of the resulting transmitted beam gives rise to the impression of atomic positions, though these are in fact columns of anything up to several hundred atoms..

Intuitively one might assume that the white spots indicate the atoms and the dark area the empty space between them, but intuition is often ass backwards in TEM so one should be careful. That said, this interpretation is correct if the microscope has been tuned according to standard protocol, with a 1st order spherical correction of about negative 10 micrometers, and assuming the film is indeed mono-atomic in its composition.

>matter isn't quantized
>what are elementary particles

get the fuck out you mong

...

Science, bro.

I guess I should back track that a bit, OP.

"1 and 0" is a harsh box that obviously doesn't fit... but much of the universe is quantified.

Force appears to be divided down to quantum bosons, and matter into quantum fermions, and while there are any number of useful combinations of these, you still end up with some pretty regular physics because of this underlying property of things.

That said, space-time itself does not seem to be quantized for all we can tell. And even though photons are quantized, the allowable energy range for photons is continuous.. it is the constraints of a specific photon generation which quantizes that down to a single value.

So despite the quantization of matter and (depending on how you look at it) energy, there appears to be a lot of room to wiggle in.

Sorry, I mean space, not matter and space obviously. The point is that information is always specified in terms of bits. But we don't know whether it's possible to completely specify positions and times in terms of bits.

Why should you expect to? Ok you can have matter in "bits" that carry multiple types of information, and then you have complicated rules on how that matter should interact which itself ends up on "bits", but this idea of bits is just an analogy for a very abstract concept, itself an abstraction of what we can sense through measurement of our surrounding reality.

I mean, even the force carriers, our "rules bits" dont actually carry ALL of the rule with them. That is understood at a meta level in our model... there is no room on the bit for that depth of information.

With space and time, its even more complex. Where is the bit supposed to be? Do we imagine some kind of aether of hyperdimensional holographic space in which we reside? Why? So far we can't measure it and its apparent absence doesn't seem to be having a big effect on reality. If we have some kind of hyperdimensional headspace, what is the purpose of dividing it into quantum? What use is that to supporting reality as we perceive it? Ive yet to hear a single convincing argument in that direction, but plenty that go the other way: quantisation of space supports a "holographic reality". Well I am not surprised that evidence for a theory that aims to dispel the notion of reality, is not to be found within said reality.

mathematics is just a model
we make paterns to mimic the paterns we precieve in nature. if we do it propperly, the description is accurate.

but it does not clarify what nature "is"

It would explain why time slows down as you go faster. The universal simulator can't render you fast enough, so you take an fps drop.

I think you mean to say 'qantized' in which case no. Time is one example of something that is not quantized.

this

No, the physics of the universe is not binary.

That's not really how it works

I think causality is real and that everything else is based off of that. I think causal interactions are countable, quantized events and that geometry, space, time and curves result from large scale causal networks.