Five big questions with pretty simple answers

IBM Journal of Research and Development, Jan 2004 by Fredkin, E

The kinds of geodesies and lengths that we use in physics can be thought of as being defined by the path of a photon and by the time it takes for the photon to traverse that length. When there are very strong gravitational fields, the laws of general relativity (GR) and the paths of photons define what we think of as our physical space-time. Under benign conditions, the DM lattice (essentially Cartesian) is a close approximation to our space-time. When we need to take GR into account, it is best to think of the lattice as a computational substrate in which the results of the computation (which determines the paths of photons) define the geometry of the local physical space-time. Under such extreme conditions, the mapping between the lattice and the space-time of physics would be determined by GR as the lattice remains Cartesian, while the space of physics, as determined by what particles do, would conform to the laws of GR.

What DM dictates is that there is a natural unit of length, L, and it should have a very simple relationship to the distance between two nearby neighboring cells. Similarly, the natural unit of time, T, should have a very simple relationship to the fundamental clock of the underlying cellular automata. Finally, L/T should equal the speed of light.

We can speculate that the mass of an electron might involve a compact 13-cell pattern (a cell in an fee lattice with its 12 nearest neighbors, the smallest possible sphere). Thus, the size of each cell would be determined by a calculation similar to that used to calculate the Compton wavelength of the electron, namely, 2[pi] h/m^sub e^c [asymptotically =] 2.42631 × 10^sup -12^ meter. Thus, an overly simplistic calculation of the unit of length L would be 13h/m^sub e^c [asymptotically =] 5.02007 × 10^sup -12^ meter, and another overly simplistic calculation of it would be 2688h/m^sub muon^c [asymptotically =] 5.02009 × 10^sup -12^ meter. This would mean that a muon would have a 2688-cell pattern (a larger sphere with a small spherical void). At this stage of DM theory, such calculations are little more than numerology.

While the core of the muon would be much larger than the core of the electron, the additional spatial information in the muon would allow for higher-resolution interactions with other particles. Thus, experimentally, the muon would appear to be smaller (actually, it would be more localized) than the electron. The startling consequence would be that the unit of length might be much greater than a fermi (10^sup -15^ meter). DM restores the common-sense notion that heavier structures (such as a muon) ought to occupy a greater volume than lighter structures (such as the electron). What does a process model of motion tell us?

A process model differs from the mathematical equations

of physics in that it is capable of being put into a computer and then running. If we assume that the FN assumption is valid and then create a process model of particles in inertial motion, we discover that we cannot do it without it being the informational equivalent of a process model that refers all motion to a single fixed reference system. In other words, no matter how we try, there is no way to write a program that models motion in accord with the contemporary picture of physics. We believe that there is a law of physics that states "That which cannot be programmed to run on a universal computer cannot be consistent with physics!"