The Discrete ‘Pool-Ball’ Model vs. The Non-Discrete ‘Pool’ Model & The Unified Continuum Conformality of Both…

For now Tim, just let me show you the non-solvability of your single function discrete pool-ball model__as thus far mentioned by your ‘standard model’ extensions, or the other ‘standard physics’ models extensions. You can think this way only until you try to solve the physical actions and intergration maths at the limits of necessary physical function__of the necessary mechanics of the Universe, or any sub-system of the same Universe. As scientists, we already know these are the unsolved unification problems of the two independent systems__QM and RM__Where there’s been absolutely no possibility of mathematical solutions between discrete and non-discrete systems’ mechanics__yet__and this is known of by the ‘background problem’, by way of the ‘background independence’ of RM and the ‘background dependence’ of QM__or simply starting your math and models out, from the system’s non-discrete unification statistical mechanics of Einstein’s RM, or from the discrete non-unified mechanics of Heisenberg’s QM. The last 30+ years of physics maths, from all fields of physics and math studies, have been unsuccessful at unifying these two seemingly un-unifiable systems, just as was Einstein’s and any others attempts at trying to unify these two disperate systems, over the 70+ years before. Yes, there have been many hypothetical and theoretic systems put forward over the last 30+ years, but no-one can point to any physically verifiable systems__yet. Yes, we can create pseudo-matrix models and such, that may seem to convince some, of possible unifications, of the real physical systems, but they are simply being built so complex as to simply ‘seemingly’ convince many of those who are not thorough enough to check the maths against real physical systems possibilities__and therein lies these pseudo-unifications.(remember here that; “Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.”) There is yet no conformal math unifications, that truly and fully mate the real physical systems of discrete and non-discrete necessities__and all serious mathematicians, theorists, scientists and physicists admit these facts…(tis only the false assumptions, carrying water for the pseudo-day’s non-scientific ‘wished-for’ propaganda…)

Tim, we all have the desire for our minds to unify these two discrete and non-discrete systems, far beyond our mind’s abilities to physically and mathematically do so__but when sincere honesty is called forth, all our efforts are__thus far__bound to meet in failure.(that is when discussing present known realities.) No matter how much we may wish our preferred pre-suppositional system/ideas to have physical and mathematical reality__It has no reality, until it can fully and ‘absolutely’ link the real and sound maths, to the real and sound fundamental Universe’s physical actions__and thus far none of this has happened__no matter how much the wishing-well is used. Here’s the scientific way of stating the same matter:

[Note that the term ‘system’ has a different meaning for microscopic (or dynamical) systems and macroscopic (or statistical-mechanical) systems.] Physical laws come in two flavors, namely, ‘dynamical’ and ‘statistical’ laws. Dynamical laws apply to ‘completely specified’ systems (in this context often called ‘microscopic’ systems), and, at least in classical mechanics, they make predictions about individual experiments. To the best of the physicist’s knowledge, these laws are exactly reversible. Statistical laws apply to ‘incompletely specified systems’ (which include what are in this context called ‘macroscopic’ Systems), and in general all they can say is something about the whole ensemble of systems that meet the given incomplete specifications, rather than about any individual system. In the case of macroscopic systems consisting of a ‘very large number’ of interacting particles, certain statistical laws take the form of predictions concerning practically all (but not ‘exactly’ all) individual experiments. These predictions can be organized into a consistent set of deterministic laws (the ‘laws of thermodynamics’), and it is only from the viewpoint of these quasi-laws that certain physical processes are irreversible [Katz, 1967].

Right here Tim, if you notice; 'The reversible laws of physics, are completely in conflict with the irreversible laws of physics__The core of the problem__or the total lack of state change understandings, within the physics communities, no matter how much tensor math and renormalization mechanics, is thrown at this problem__It's still incomplete, especially as to sensible description logics...'

Tensor Mechanics: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/documents/Tensors_TM2002211716.pdf
Spinor Mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinor

And more simply stated:

Noether’s Theorem (Noether, 1918) states, “For every continuous symmetry
of the laws of physics, there must exist a conservation law…”

Tim, if you thoroughly read the last 20 or 30 pages of Zuse’s paper, you’ll see how clearly he stated the above stated physical and math problems, from the naturalistically derived positions, where no constructed axioms are necessary.(let me see if I can find exactly where Zuse states what I mean about the yet undiscovered truths). This is the purely naturalistic axiom system, I’ve often mentioned, as per the way Peirce always stated ideas, in the fully naturally derived methods__and always making positively sure to state what is ‘not yet naturally derived’ as well as what is ‘already naturally derived.’ Imo Tim, this is what makes the major difference between all real and pseudo-scientific positions. So imo, it’s always best to state less than what one knows, than to mistakenly state more than one knows in this very complex area of knowledge and theory__this way, more mistakes are avoided…

We thus far have no naturally derived axiomatic or absolute systems, either physically or mathematically logically__to unite the two above systems, mentioned in the Katz paragraph__well stated as far back as 1967, and of course the many others stated by such notables as Einstein, himself__“Castles in the sky…”

Tim, here’s a simply analogous question__How does one explicate the ‘adrenaline’ in the system, transferring and transducing throughout the entire system, within and without a pool-ball type discrete system, and the non-discrete continuum system__when we absolutely know adrenaline runs throughout the bio-system, when our fears are entered into mental action over the bio-states of cells, reacting as emotional states, then there’s these analogical inter-relationships of the possible pseudo-pool-balls, having to transfer their internal bosonic energies(here analogically relationally understood as adrenaline) out to the outside world of other bosons external/internal mechanics, as the energy has to be contained within the photon/boson structure, since it adds so much energy, than simple surface energy allows, to electrons, protons and such? A rather complex mechanics__No…? And, I see no way for frequencies, amplitudes and wave-lengths mechanics allowing such physical mechanics necessities, to achieve the possible physical actions, needed to make such a model’s mechanics possible__without inter-action with a continuous field__as our ‘fundamental pre-suppositional starting point’. If the pool-ball model says it’s all maintained on the surface of the photons/bosons’ waves, there’s just absolutely no way to account for the tremendous addition of energy/mass added to any of the micro-particles mechanics involved__It just will not add up, until the inside storage capacity of the photons/bosons is fully scientifically considered__then the model is committed to explaining the internal to external physical dynamics/mechanics of a super-positioning bosonic model, as per such as the Higgs Field-Particle Model. The discrete pool-ball model has all this necessary mechanics completely missing__no matter how hyper-fine structured your theorizing attempts to go, as you reach a Planck-scale point, where your infinitesimal size and scale theorizing, to accommodate your pool-ball model, exceeds the mathematical physical measurement, and physical mechanics ability, to stay within any sensible physical measurement and mechanics reality__’The Big Problem…???’

Tim, the model doesn’t have to explain the adrenaline model, per say, but it does have to explain how such a mechanical analogous model of radiation or bio-inter-actions truly does achieve their massive additions of mass per event volumes of actually present physical particle mechanics… That mass per event volume of its necessary mechanics is entirely missing in the discrete model__The physical torque mechanics, in the angular momentum release, is completely missing in the discrete model__When the H-bomb explodes… The discrete model has no wave-mechanics to explain how the massive mass of a heavy boson fits inside an electron, and what this mass is shaped like, upon release from the electron, and into the proton, neutron or which-ever, and also back to the FS-Field… This is why I’ve always mentioned the 9 possible shapes of the waves. If you may have noticed, Zuse also mentions the 9 fundamental states of QM motions(see tensor quote below)__This happens to be an absolute necessity of the fundamental degrees of freedom… The Universe can not be fully understood below this level of necessary ‘degrees of freedom…’ Sure, we can talk and theorize about 1 to 8 degrees of freedom, but we are not discussing the true Universal mechanics, that’s always present, in all scientific experiments. Such limited theorizing is completely ignoring the ever-present Universal field’s continuously acting event upon event upon event mechanics, all the way to eternity, thus requiring that ol’ boogie-man, natural infinity… All discrete models, thus far offered, want to limit discreteness to pseudo-intellectual finiteness__which may be great for rational mathematical simplicity, but completely fails naturalistic realities of complete logics’ necessities of fundamental FS existence, and her possibly naturally and necessarily derived axiomatic system…

Continuum mechanics...
Important examples are provided by continuum mechanics. The stresses inside a solid body or fluid are described by a tensor. The stress tensor and strain tensor are both second order tensors, and are related in a general linear elastic material by a fourth-order elasticity tensor. In detail, the tensor quantifying stress in a 3-dimensional solid object has components that can be conveniently represented as a 3×3 array. The three faces of a cube-shaped infinitesimal volume segment of the solid are each subject to some given force. The force's vector components are also three in number. Thus, 3×3, or 9 components are required to describe the stress at this cube-shaped infinitesimal segment. Within the bounds of this solid is a whole mass of varying stress quantities, each requiring 9 quantities to describe. Thus, a second order tensor is needed.

The mathematical discrete-limit problem is still sitting in the middle of the natural non-discrete physical Universe’s highly possible and necessary field-continuum, imnsho…

Pre-suppositional wishes__Will not, a complete system, make__There’s just simply no fundamental Universal mover, without the FS-Field’s first gravitational and electro-magnetic angular momentum opposing wave-particle torques__unless it necessarily be as I’ve continuously stated it__the hydrodynamic and magneto-hydrodynamic necessities of the FS-Field’s Fundamental Continuum’s Torque Mechanics… Remember Tim, vector mechanics only explains 2D topological mechanics__and says nothing scientifically rationally true about 3-body+__3D Rational Universal Mechanics… Discrete mechanics has nothing to say about the real Universe, above the micro-systems scales of QM, which are admitted by all the best QM’ers to be indeterministic systems, as all the maths and functions are reversible__thus pseudo-factualistic as pure redundantly recursive and completely tautologous systems. Yes, this means they are proved within themselves__but as relates to the greater ‘Macro-Universe of Reality’__they say nothing… There’s nothing existing in the discrete mechanics and maths to jump the giant gap between their micro-world mechanics, and the larger mechanics of the macro-Universe__Nothing except giant wishes… Wishes don’t count…

As far as I can tell Tim, the two systems are discretely opposite, in function and description__and no unification mechanics yet exists, except possibly the super-positioning and supervenience mechanics I’ve already mentioned__then this is still only in the hypothetical and theoretical stages, but these methods, so far, make far better physical sense, to me__than the fully discrete models being offered… Imo Tim, it’s gonna’ have to be a composite combination system of full intergration, to achieve any sort of ToE. Discrete systems simply shoot themselves in the incompleteness head__There’s no complete mechanics__There’s no fundamental prime motion mechanics__They offer no possible completion mechanics, especially as applies to field torques, which we absolutely know exists__just by looking up at the shape of the known galaxy mechanics’ spiral torqueing, electromagnetics and yet fully unexplained gravity mechanics… The instant you go to absolute discrete mechanics, you eliminate any possible understanding of these Universal Macro-Systems’ Necessary Continuum Field-Mechanics’ Inter-Actions…

I’ll get back to you later Tim, on that exact location in Zuse’s paper, where he theorizes about this very subject, the clearest of anyone else, as the language he developed best explains the complex, most simply…

P.s.
Realize Tim, if an 'analog to digital conversion' exists, then a 'digital back to analog conversion' must also be the other half of the continuous mechanics of any Universal reasoning and physical facts' existence__Action/reaction laws necessitate such...

In this scenario, nature would be interacting in such a way that our very understanding and visualization of such may actually be similar to a digital to analog conversion whereby though we may model our universe at the ever larger scales in a fashion which exhibits aspects of physical and interactive continuity, the underlying natural processes which allow for such modes of mental information processing are fundamentally discrete in nature. There is the potential for the division of the method of information processing of the only two natural systems in nature which display the processing of information as a consequence of their very design i.e. the universal system which establishes nature vs. the brain which interprets nature, whereby the functioning of one isn’t evidence to the mechanical functioning of the other as either method i.e. digital vs. analog could establish the other as with the universe creating the brain or with the brain interpreting the functioning of the universe. The universe could operate and arrange structured and unstructured systems in a digital or analog manner and still establish an internal system such as the brain which functioned in the opposite way, the same as the brain could operate and arrange structured and unstructured thoughts in either manner and still be correctly interpreting a universe which was functioning in the opposite manner with the correctness of such interpretations finding its balance by way of the scientific methodology whereby truth is evaluated rather than merely accepted.

Tim, the dynamics of this paragraph is a canard. You are necessitated to use the same free-will/action analog/digital mechanics to attempt refutation of exactly what you are not successfully refuting. Your paragraph is not respecting the logical rules of non-contradiction, falsifiability or opposing counterfactual logics__therefore the argument is dis-allowed in any and all sound logic systems... You can't refute free-will/action, due to the fact you are necessitated to use the same free-will/action to attempt such pseudo-free-will/action refutations... It's like the 'god' problem__It can't be refuted because there's no falsifiability possible, due to no counterfactual information existing, the same as there's no non-free-will/action evidence existing... These arguments relationally relate to your above paragraph... Action can never be refuted with inaction... If the mind and Universe uses one mechanics, it uses the other, by the necessity of valid identities... We can't have part of the Universe working one way, and another part of the Universe working another__and this is where supervenience enters the picture to maintain the conformality of the Universe of ideas and informations, even though we haven't reached the total evidence of it yet__as we have no other Universal law's possible evidence pointing elswhere__and the Universal physical laws are our fundamental direction of total overall pre-suppositional Universal mechanics, grounding our statistical mechanics foundations, which allows the greater functioning of our statistical probabilities' maths... Tim, simply put; 'We can't use non-mechanics to refute mechanics...' To me, the logic requires both discrete and non-discrete systems to exist everywhere__at all times. Fields and wave-particles are facts of our physical realities__everywhere, for all time, in my natural logical derivational opinion...

Tim, might you be barking up a rubber tree...? :-)

Frequencies and wavelengths are reducible to quantitative aspects of energy as with E=hv.

And here, you'd have to realize you may be conflating two systems of interpretation. Reduciblility of systems, and actual existing mechanics of systems, are not absolutely actual reductions, but merely abstract reductions of theories, and the concrete Universe remains unchanged, as a still possible non-discrete FS. Yes, we use such formulas and ideas to better express our understandings of the Universe's possible mechanics, but we should never jump the gap to complete understanding, where no complete Universal understanding has been established__Yet...