Question for all you savvy minds

[liszt]

Hi,

 

I'm no mathematician or physicist so please be gentle.

I came across the double-slit experiment a few years ago and it left

me stunned, the same goes for Schroedinger's cat.

More recently I came acroos the Navier-Stokes equation and whereas

I have no idea about the mathematical aspect of the thing, I understand

that the problem is to explain why a stone in the water cannot cause

a tidal wave.

 

I know that a simple yet stunning "solution" to the double-slit experiment

is to say that the result is merely a distribution of probability, which in itself

is verifiably correct.

 

I cannot offer mathematical solutions for all these problems, but can't it be

that they hint to the fact that the world is a matrix-like program in the end?

 

I'm not up to date with the current progress in atom theory, but last I checked

there also was no "smallest unit" as a fundament for the physical world. Any

news on that boarder?

 

Taking of my conspiracy hat now but I wonder what scientist think of that..

[studiot]

Did you have a real question amongst all that rambling? Because if you did you hid it too well for me to find.

[Phi for All]

can't it be that they hint to the fact that the world is a [M]atrix-like program in the end?

 

I did the bolding, but I think that's the question.

I'm not up to date with the current progress in atom theory, but last I checked

there also was no "smallest unit" as a fundament for the physical world. Any

news on that boarder?

 

We have Planck units, but I'm not sure if you're asking about measurements, or if you're looking for the smallest definable "particle" everything else is made up of. String Theory proposes that all is made up of vibrating, one-dimensional "strings" instead of particles, but unless "last I checked" was in the mid-90s, you've probably heard of that concept.

[Fred Champion]

My argument for units of the smallest things:

 

The one most obvious problem with string theory and most other "smallest unit" theories is that the string or unit is presented as changing from one identifiable state to another identifiable state. Any object that presents evidence of its change of state in any way other than simple displacement (changing position) must do so by presenting evidence of reconfiguration of some sort. Any such reconfiguration should be seen as evidence of internal structure, meaning the existence of smaller "stuff" inside the object.

 

Thus the smallest thing that can be something should be identifiable only by the place it occupies, and the only changes associated with it should be changes in position.

[swansont]

My argument for units of the smallest things:

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Don't hijack discussions to discuss your personal take. These belong in their own thread in speculations, and only in their own thread in speculations

[kisai]

 

I know that a simple yet stunning "solution" to the double-slit experiment

is to say that the result is merely a distribution of probability, which in itself

is verifiably correct.

I cannot offer mathematical solutions for all these problems, but can't it be

that they hint to the fact that the world is a matrix-like program in the end?

 

If you had a boat, and you placed the boat on a body of water with waves which, as far as you knew was random, and you walked away from it, went to a pub and had a drink,

 

A person asks you "Where's your boat?"

 

You answer "Well, I don't rightfully know because I'm not observing it. Since these waves are occurring, they move the boat, I can't say exactly where the boat is, but I can give a range, given how the waves move the boat and how much time passes, of statistically where it might be."

 

The person looks at you and says "We must be living in a computer simulation!"

 

Does that follow?