What Gravity Is

[nathan]

Time to confess, this is a description of the computer program that would describe the Matrix. Each constant is a class. If the Matrix was real you would have to define 0, 1, a unit of time and infinity limited by the hardware. 0D is just the OS running. 1D is adding a class E. 2D is adding a class F, a class m, a class r, a class c and a relationship between them. 3D is adding a class m, a class r, a class c and a class G.

gibberish.

 

[I less than three logic]

No it’s just one force, the repelling of the gravity particles. The gravity particles do not exert a force on the object they get in the way. But is that what you mean – when I say getting in the way this assumes a force that acts between them?

Thanks very good point.



I think I can answer this one believe it or not, both balls will hit the same number of particles. Though the lead ball is smaller it contains more stuff therefore more particles are being hit. So the way to think of mass is that it’s the number of particles displaced by something – though the lead ball is smaller as it’s denser more particles are displaced in a smaller volume.

So you're saying the density of your proposed particles in a given area changes to match the density of whatever object passes into that area?

ETA: Sorry, just started reading the thread and didn't realize this was 4 pages long already. I'll keep reading to see if page 2 or 3 cover this already.

 

[martu]

gibberish.

Let me rephrase it then.

If we were living in the Matrix the universe would have a resolution. There would be defined somewhere in the code and\or hardware a smallest number, a largest number and a unit of time. Effectively the universe of the Matrix is pixellated - there is a shortest distance you can travel in a second and there is also an answer to the equation 1/0 even if it's just error handling.

How else could you do it?

 

[Reality Check]

Let me rephrase it then.

If we were living in the Matrix the universe would have a resolution. There would be defined somewhere in the code and\or hardware a smallest number, a largest number and a unit of time. Effectively the universe of the Matrix is pixellated - there is a shortest distance you can travel in a second and there is also an answer to the equation 1/0 even if it's just error handling.

How else could you do it?

Even more gibberish.

First "physics", now "computer science" (or is it cinematography? or fantasy? or delusions? or ?), religion must be just around the corner!

 

[martu]

Even more gibberish.

First "physics", now "computer science" (or is it cinematography? or fantasy? or delusions? or ?), religion must be just around the corner!

Why thank you. No religion from me though I promise, I can't see the point in that.

I'll try again my communication skills are lacking obviously.

Assume the Matrix is real* and running on hardware that is similar in how it works to what we have today. Wouldn’t the following be true:

• A minimum slice of time would be defined by the clock speed of the cpu
• The largest number would be defined by hardware capacity
• The shortest distance you could travel in a slice of time would have to be defined

Do you agree with this?

* before you get scared I am not suggesting this is the case, thought experiment only.

 

[nathan]

Let me rephrase it then.

If we were living in the Matrix the universe would have a resolution. There would be defined somewhere in the code and\or hardware a smallest number, a largest number and a unit of time. Effectively the universe of the Matrix is pixellated - there is a shortest distance you can travel in a second and there is also an answer to the equation 1/0 even if it's just error handling.

How else could you do it?

Modeling reality with a discrete grid may not be the most optimum solution. Game engines do not do this, because it is computationally expensive. Instead they model Newtonian physics. Ahh, for Carmageddon's 'bouncy' power up. that was fun. Weather forcasting does use a grid, but the grid resolution isn't fixed. You can do stress analysis within objects using a grid -- again the grid resolution is dynamic.

Reality may indeed be quantized at the order of hbar, but theoreticians differ. It's certainly not quantized on a grid though!

 

[nathan]

Assume the Matrix is real* and running on hardware that is similar in how it works to what we have today.

These are two contradictory statements.

Wouldn’t the following be true:

• A minimum slice of time would be defined by the clock speed of the cpu
• The largest number would be defined by hardware capacity
• The shortest distance you could travel in a slice of time would have to be defined

Do you agree with this?

Nope. The clock speed of the cpu is completely irrelevant to the advance of time in the simulation. The simulation may proceed much slower than real time even (and evidence in the Matrix movies is that it does, because some Matrix occupants are able to react faster than simulated time can account for. The occupant is using their (real-world) neural processes to beat the computer.)

 

[martu]

Modeling reality with a discrete grid may not be the most optimum solution. Game engines do not do this, because it is computationally expensive. Instead they model Newtonian physics. Ahh, for Carmageddon's 'bouncy' power up. that was fun. Weather forcasting does use a grid, but the grid resolution isn't fixed. You can do stress analysis within objects using a grid -- again the grid resolution is dynamic.

Reality may indeed be quantized at the order of hbar, but theoreticians differ. It's certainly not quantized on a grid though!

Thanks this is interesting. The grid is how I pictured it working when the cost comes down, as you say it's not done that way today because of calculation time. What better way could there be than to model the direction of each particle in the system?

Do you agree there will be a maximum resolution in any simulation as defined by the hardware?

Quick comment - as you are all aware physics is not my field, computer programming is however. Apologies for the slightly obtuse method to start this conversation.

 

[martu]

These are two contradictory statements.

Bugger another communication problem, change that to 'let's assume we are running a Matrix type simulation on current hardware'. My apologies.

Nope. The clock speed of the cpu is completely irrelevant to the advance of time in the simulation. The simulation may proceed much slower than real time even (and evidence in the Matrix movies is that it does, because some Matrix occupants are able to react faster than simulated time can account for. The occupant is using their (real-world) neural processes to beat the computer.)

I agree the speed of time is independent to the speed of the cpu as we can define time anyway we want, it's a simulation after all. However there has to be a maximum speed of time as defined by the cpu clock speed, time couldn't go faster.

 

[Reality Check]

Why thank you. No religion from me though I promise, I can't see the point in that.

I'll try again my communication skills are lacking obviously.

Assume the Matrix is real* and running on hardware that is similar in how it works to what we have today. Wouldn’t the following be true:

• A minimum slice of time would be defined by the clock speed of the cpu
• The largest number would be defined by hardware capacity
• The shortest distance you could travel in a slice of time would have to be defined

Do you agree with this?

* before you get scared I am not suggesting this is the case, thought experiment only.

The "universe as a computer simulation" theory has been around for a while (even before the Matrix). See Simulism and Simulation hypothesis in Wikipedia. The Are You Living In a Computer Simulation site is also interesting. Directly related to the posting is The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High.

Of course this is nothing to to with the topic of this thread.

 

[martu]

The "universe as a computer simulation" theory has been around for a while (even before the Matrix). See Simulism and Simulation hypothesis in Wikipedia. The Are You Living In a Computer Simulation site is also interesting. Directly related to the posting is The Simulation Argument: Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High.

Of course this is nothing to to with the topic of this thread.

I don't think that's what reality is I was merely pondering what would happen if one did create a matrix that was as good as it was depicted in the film.

Could the 'people' in the matrix experience pixellation due to limitations in the hardware? Could they discover the largest number in the system? The shortest distance? etc

BTW I appreciate your input and patience in this thread, thanks.

 

[zosima]

There is no imaginary landscape in 3D. Complex numbers exist in a 2D plane only. Time does not exists in a complex plane.

This is really a random POI:
You can have imaginary landscapes in 4 or 8 dimensions though. Are you familiar with quaternions? You could make the entirely valid point that they are not traditional complex numbers.

Hamilton actually discovered quaternions when he was searching for a 3 dimensional commutative algebra. Instead he found himself a 4 dimensional non-commutative algebra. At the moment he thought of the formula for them he wrote it one the nearest thing he could find, which happened to be a bridge he was walking across with his wife. Great mathematician, perhaps not the best husband...lol

 

[Reality Check]

I don't think that's what reality is I was merely pondering what would happen if one did create a matrix that was as good as it was depicted in the film.

Could the 'people' in the matrix experience pixellation due to limitations in the hardware? Could they discover the largest number in the system? The shortest distance? etc

BTW I appreciate your input and patience in this thread, thanks.

The 'people' in the matrix will experience exactly what the people who designed the matrix want them to experience. So the answers are maybe, maybe and maybe.

So you are going to go totally off the subject of the thread. I suggest that you start a new thread, probably in the Philosophy forum.

 

[nathan]

Bugger another communication problem, change that to 'let's assume we are running a Matrix type simulation on current hardware'. My apologies.

Let me paraphrase that: 'Let's assume the impossible'

I agree the speed of time is independent to the speed of the cpu as we can define time anyway we want, it's a simulation after all. However there has to be a maximum speed of time as defined by the cpu clock speed, time couldn't go faster.

What do you mean by 'speed of time' here? Do you mean the ratio between real time and simulated time?

 

[nathan]

Thanks this is interesting. The grid is how I pictured it working when the cost comes down, as you say it's not done that way today because of calculation time. What better way could there be than to model the direction of each particle in the system?

But that's not what you originally posited. You posited a discrete grid and modeling the properties of each cell. Not modeling the properties of each particle. (Or the set up was ill-defined, which is hardly surprising as we're talking about a work of fiction with internal inconsistencies.)

Do you agree there will be a maximum resolution in any simulation as defined by the hardware?

In a finite computer in a finite time, yes.

Quick comment - as you are all aware physics is not my field, computer programming is however. Apologies for the slightly obtuse method to start this conversation.

Let me paraphrase: 'Sorry for misleading you'.

 

[The Grave]

Keep plugging at it... you may get lucky!

There are many stupid theories around and some of them are by the most renowned physicists!

Take the idea that one particle 'attracts' another simply because they 'exchange' a tiny bit of mass... he.he.he

Strange then why particles 'attract' at a distance where no such interchange could occur?