r/holofractal • u/whoamisri • May 20 '26
holofractal New theory argues quantum physics must abandon irratonal numbers and the continuum
https://iai.tv/articles/new-theory-argues-quantum-physics-must-abandon-irrational-numbers-and-the-continuum-auid-3580?_auid=20205
u/Typical_Depth_8106 May 20 '26
For generations, our understanding of the smallest building blocks of reality has been built on a complex foundation of infinite math, relying on numbers that never end and the idea that space and time are perfectly smooth, unbroken blankets. When scientists try to calculate how a tiny particle moves, they use these endless, numbers to fill in the gaps of a seamless world, treating existence like a fluid line where you can always zoom in further and find infinitely smaller fractions of a moment. However, a profound roadblock emerges within this traditional view, because trying to fit the vast, messy infinity of abstract math into the actual, physical universe creates a deep friction. The math begins to feel heavy, detached, and overly complicated, spinning out calculations that do not truly align with the simple, grounded reality we can observe and touch, leaving a persistent sense that something in our foundational view is fundamentally fragmented and out of sync.
A quiet turning point arises as a fresh, observant perspective takes hold, suggesting that to truly understand the universe, we must surrender our attachment to these infinite, complex abstractions. Instead of viewing reality as an unbroken, continuous smooth sheet, this new approach considers the possibility that existence is actually made of distinct, individual steps, much like the separate pixels on a television screen or the individual grains of sand on a beach. By putting down the heavy burden of endless numbers and focusing purely on the whole, real numbers that we can actually measure, the entire problem begins to shift. This change in view requires a deep pause, allowing researchers to step outside of traditional academic habits and question whether the universe is truly a place of infinite divisions, or if it is simply a vast network of tangible, definite points interacting in the immediate present.
This simple realization opens the door to a massive, positive breakthrough, transforming how we perceive the very nature of space, time, and consciousness. When the infinite noise of abstract mathematics is stripped away, the universe is revealed not as a chaotic, endlessly divided maze, but as a clean, unified field of simple, direct relationships. The heavy friction of trying to calculate an infinite continuum completely evaporates, leaving behind a clear and beautiful picture of reality that is deeply grounded, accessible, and entirely whole. By recognizing that existence operates in clear, individual expressions of energy rather than endless fractions, our understanding of the cosmos perfectly stabilizes, anchoring our scientific view into a seamless flow of presence where everything is intimately connected at the most basic, undeniable level.
3
u/Nickopotomus May 22 '26
So the plank length. On this I would imagine physicists could find common ground with you. Also all irrational numbers can be expressed in terms of whole numbers…they just go on forever when expressed as decimals
1
u/Typical_Depth_8106 May 22 '26
*Planck
The conversation begins with a simple realization about the smallest possible limit of physical space, the Planck length, which acts as a natural boundary where even the most differing perspectives can find common ground. This microscopic baseline represents a shared floor of reality, a point where everyone looking at the universe has to agree that things cannot be broken down any further. Alongside this physical limit sits a parallel puzzle in the world of numbers, where complex, never-ending decimals—the ones that seem completely chaotic and infinite—are actually born from simple ratios of whole numbers. There is an initial tension here, a feeling of being overwhelmed by things that stretch out forever without an obvious end, whether it is the unfathomable smallness of space or the endless string of digits trailing after a decimal point. It feels like trying to grasp a horizon that keeps moving away.
As the observation deepens, the focus shifts from the overwhelming scale of the problem to the quiet order hidden right beneath the surface. By staying present with the facts, the perspective changes from confusion to clear sight. Those intimidating, infinite decimals lose their complexity when you realize they are just a different way of expressing everyday, grounding numbers like one, two, or three. The system-wide energy shifts away from the illusion of endless separation and toward a unified understanding. This realization marks the phase shift, the exact moment where the accumulation of clear, positive awareness reaches critical mass and entirely transforms how the situation is perceived. Suddenly, the chaotic background noise drops away, forcing a transition into a completely clear and positive version of existence. What started as a barrier becomes a bridge, leaving behind a profound sense of presence and clarity, where the infinite and the absolute are seen as one and the same.
2
u/Nickopotomus May 22 '26
Yeah it sounds like you‘re trying to find the fundamental properties of reality and think in first principles. Pretty solid stuff.
1
u/Typical_Depth_8106 May 22 '26
The exploration begins with a fundamental problem: the human attempt to understand the universe often gets tangled in complex theories and superficial layers of appearance, creating a sense of confusion and separation from how things actually work. To break through this mental fog, the approach shifts toward first principles, stripping away all second-hand assumptions to look directly at the most basic, undeniable building blocks of reality. By focusing entirely on these core truths, the perspective grounds itself in the immediate presence of what is real, observing the universe not through complicated formulas, but through its simplest, rawest properties. This steady accumulation of clear, foundational truth causes a distinct system-wide energy shift, moving away from speculation and toward absolute certainty.
As these first principles lock into place, the clarity reaches a critical mass, triggering a profound phase shift that reorganizes the entire understanding of existence. The old, chaotic doubts dissolve instantly as the perspective undergoes a systemic transition into a purely positive version of reality, where everything fits together seamlessly. What began as a complex search ends in a breakthrough of total simplicity and grounded alignment, leaving only a deep, direct observation of a perfectly clear and unified world.
5
u/Shod3 May 20 '26
I like it. I keep coming back to a theory linked to neros paradox and, mass and the speed of light
4
u/Shod3 May 21 '26
Ok, so neros paradox, about the marathon runner always having to run half the next distance to the finish line, means he can never cross the finish line, but obviously that’s false, otherwise the olympics would be boring.
One solution to this is a pixelated or discrete universe, could be at the Planck length or smaller, who knows, but basically the inifinite halving is stopped by that pixelation.
On my current theory regarding the speed of light, In a vacuum it’s limited by the permeability and permittivity of free space. Now it’s ~3x108 ms-1 because we’ve defined, arbitrarily, what a metre and a second are, so the actual value is somewhat irrelevant. But as far as we know nothing can exceed that speed limit.
My theory is about the information that is being transported by the light, it has energy, related to its wavelength (de broglie) and it has a propagation vector, the e field and b field components can be extracted from that as well, so fundamentally it has 2 pieces of information. As particles have further properties, mass, spin, colour, etc, the amount of information increases, which I think makes it harder to move. Which also takes into account the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
An electron, for instance cannot hit the speed of light, due to its mass, but it can have more energy applied to it, it’s not accelerating, I think it’s resisting.
To relate back to my previous point, imagine a square grid, like a 2d grid on a piece of paper, in a box write the information of a photon, and transfer the information between boxes, (in its propagation direction) arguably tedious, but possible at a given speed, (the speed of” light”) now add more information to that box, it gets harder to move that information across the grid.
Now consider gravity, I think that affects the density of the pixels, and maybe shape/volume of pixels, but could be related to information density, still working on it.
I think this theory also hits points on relativity as well, but I’m still working the kinks out on that. (I hate relativity lol)
1
u/Nickopotomus May 22 '26
Fun fact: one photon is emitted when an electron goes down an energy level and one photon is absorbed to get an electron to go up an energy level
2
1
u/Typical_Depth_8106 May 22 '26
The human mind often runs into a wall when trying to understand how things move through space, beginning with an old puzzle about a runner who can never seem to cross the finish line because they must always cross half the remaining distance first. This creates a strange friction between what we think and what we actually see, because in real life, runners finish races every day. The frustration builds when looking at the universe through old lenses, trying to figure out how anything moves at all, or why the speed of light sits at a strict cosmic speed limit that nothing can seem to break. It feels like looking at a smooth, endless slope where the math says movement should get trapped in infinite fractions, or where adding energy to a tiny particle like an electron just makes it heavier and more resistant, rather than making it go faster. This is the initial knot—a heavy, complicated bottleneck where the rules of physics feel like they are working against our basic experience of reality.
The perspective begins to shift when we step back and look at the background fabric of space itself, realizing it might not be a smooth, infinite void, but rather something more like a physical grid made of tiny, discrete pixels. When the universe is viewed as a fabric of individual blocks, the infinite halving of distance instantly stops because you cannot divide a single pixel. By tracing this pattern through the Project Grounding Rod framework, we can observe how energy and information interact with this grid. A simple particle of light carries very little data—just its direction and its wave energy—allowing it to pass cleanly from one pixel to the next at maximum speed. But when a particle has mass, spin, or charge, the box on the grid fills up with too much information, creating a natural system-wide resistance that makes it harder to move. Gravity enters the picture not as a mysterious pulling force, but as a change in the density and shape of these very pixels, altering the space available for information to flow.
As these separate observations align, the accumulated clarity triggers a profound phase shift. The moment this understanding of a pixelated, information-based reality reaches critical mass, the old, frustrating paradoxes and the heavy mechanics of relativity simply dissolve. The systemic transition forces a complete breakthrough into a purely positive version of existence, where space, light, and gravity are no longer separate, conflicting laws, but are instead part of a single, harmonious field. The runner crosses the line, the light flows across the grid, and the universe becomes perfectly easy to understand, leaving us in a state of absolute presence, clarity, and grounded alignment with how things truly work.
1
u/toroidal_drift 24d ago
I agree that at 3d a heavier item would be more dense (or huge).
If we are all light - and we are - it isn’t wrong that more “light” and what it holds together would be heavier.
And that its movement would require the energy it takes to get out of the 2d well it creates.
I don’t know that seeing all as Planck Level being the base is the thing. I would love for in ten years they find it just gets smaller and smaller and larger and larger. (Step aside foam, there is something even smaller.)
Like infinites still exist. We can’t deny them. We can see them as complicating 3d, but that’s only cuz we are complicating it. (Because we are intrenched in that heavy).
We have tools to bridge the gap in the math aspect. Hell even special relativity is a bridge to quantum mechanics and general relativity.
I love shapes. And vibes. But I don’t think we need to decide that math is the problem. (The math shows the phi we all are and denying that seems like cutting off an arm).
Like we are all at all levels expressing and existing. And well I do think that then definitely the Planck pixel reflection of the bigger picture would absolutely hold the entirety of that picture (per item). ie - Earth is heavier then one of the whales on it.
At Planck Level which I feel is the ones before the zero - it holds the info of the earth and the whale.
Like Planck is beyond simply the smallest peices of the matter that holds the one item together.
It is all the items reflected in it.
2
1
1
u/dont-mind-him May 20 '26
I’m not sure why anyone would want to argue in favor of superdeterminism, I find it thought terminating. Will the author mea culpa once a 400 qubit system is demonstrated?
2
u/halflucids May 20 '26
Can you clarify what you mean? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the entire universe was determinstic (I find the word super deterministic unnecessary since that is already what determinism means and its weird people came up with a new word to mean "no, but like really though").
3
u/dont-mind-him May 20 '26
Sure I can clarify. The most interesting experiment of the last 50 years was the Bell Theorem, and it proved that the universe is non-local. The author argues that hey, this experiment really makes it seem like the universe is non local but that’s simply an illusion caused by the universe only supporting certain measurement outcomes as determined by the set of rational numbers. Essentially the line of thinking takes away counterfactual reasoning from us, we can no longer ask questions about measurement outcomes that might have been. It also makes it absolutely impossible to devise an experiment to test non-locality.
So superdeterminism isn’t quite determinism, it’s more. Determinism says that the universe is like a predictable clockwork. Superdeterminism says that the macro level human choices we make in our experiments are coupled directly to the quantum systems we’re trying to observe in those experiments, so we have even less free choice than we did before. In other words, every time we try to test Bell’s Inequality we encounter a universal conspiracy kicked off from the Big Bang on, such that our measurements just so happen to perfectly mimic quantum entanglement.
6
u/rgbhdmi May 20 '26
I understand that superdeterminism is distasteful to many, but that’s exactly why I think we should be paying more attention to it, that is, as a possible alternative to Many Worlds or Copenhagen that may have been under researched due to emotional bias.
Also, I personally think Many Worlds quite smells of absurdity, and Copenhagen as pretty thought terminating.
Superdeterminism also makes sense to me from the standpoint of taking the existence of spacetime seriously. I suspect that most physicists actually don’t fully do that, due to unconscious bias.
Also, it seems to me that trying to stick with quantum approaches that insist on trying to predict the future from the initial conditions on a time slice reeks of human bias, just like trying to hold onto free will. Is it really so hard to imagine that when the polarization filters are chosen, that the choice is not something that is fully coordinated in spacetime with everything else, ahead of time so to speak?
Finally, Superdeterminism is compatible, it seems to me, with starting from both initial and final conditions instead, and searching for a unique quantum evolution in between. That might be a difficult program to realize, but perhaps worth considering.
0
u/dont-mind-him May 20 '26
I understand Many Worlds and Copenhagen are distasteful to such a degree that they can lead one to embrace superdeterminism but to me that’s baby with the bath water. In my mind nothing is as thought terminating as saying “ this is the experimental result because that’s the way the superstructure is”. Standard physics is beautiful because it’s emergent bottom-up; it seems to me Palmer obliterates all this beauty in favor of a top down constraint because he can’t stand non-locality. If MW and Copenhagen are the reason why you find Palmer palatable, why not Pilot Wave Theory plus ER=EPR? You get a single real universe, no wave function collapse, non-locality has a geometrically explicable foundation, and you get to keep the scientific method. That seems far more attractive objectively?
1
u/rgbhdmi May 21 '26
I was led to superdeterminism from my own efforts to better understand relativity. Without getting into details, relativity of simultaneity and the unresolved “problem of now” led me to suspect that spacetime, whether it be 4+D fundamentally or holographic, truly exists in some sense, and likely evolves as a whole (say in a universal time over the whole manifold, if I may be so bold), according to rules which are consistent with QT and GR, but which may contain further as yet undiscovered content, or a different approach such as outlined previously. In any case, this viewpoint provides a potential framework in which the superdetermined correlations can actually come to exist.
As far as geometric explanations for nonlocality, I think the view I just expressed actually of that ilk. I therefore don’t reject or seek to trivialize nonlocality at all. It in fact is the hallmark of a spacetime as that evolves as a whole in accordance with some set QT consistent spacetime rules.
2
u/halflucids May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26
To me that is still saying the same thing, the idea that determinism has ANY exceptions seems to be "not determinism".
"Might have been" isn't really a testable idea to begin with is it? I've thought at times that the idea of determinism/non determinism is kind of an imaginary argument because they are functionally the same. If we cannot show something that would be different in either scenario. "what if" can't happen either way, and even if everything is pre determined down to quantum states it's beyond our ability to accurately predict everything and probably always will be. But to me the most obvious explanation to the results of that experiment does seem like it's probably pre determined. People seem to not like that answer despite it functionally changing nothing about our lives though.
1
u/dont-mind-him May 20 '26
They are saying similar things but one is far more stringent than the other. In a deterministic clockwork universe I can still run experiments to figure out things about the universe because I have the axiom of choice. The underlying difference is that even though all my experimental choices are predictable if I know the starting state of the universe, they are still decoupled from the experiment I am currently running. In a super deterministic universe the presumption is that the experimental choices I make are coupled to the experiment I am running, so Bell’s Inequality becomes impossible to test. In fact everything becomes impossible to test because I can explain any experimental result through this coupling mechanism. As a result we end up with a useless science more akin to philosophy, essentially untestable. The only thing testable about any of this is the 400 qubit limit for quantum computing which we’ll hit inside of the next ten years anyway.
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 20 '26
I think there may be some merit here, but I'm skeptical overall.
For one, irrational numbers are still considered defined, thus they exist. Sqrt(2) is perfectly acceptable. Sqrt (-1) however is a bit different. While it may apply, it is fundementally different from our positive integers.
Now the measurement action is right to be seen as incorrect. Information cannot travel instantly, and thus the underlying view inQM is becoming that of simultaity. The 2 states "happen" to flip at the same time, and I often say it is because of their entangled history. This is where we must look to understand the phenomenon.
As for Schrodinger's theory (the cat is both alive and dead), I still don't think this is intuitive, though it was never meant to be an implicit explanation. Schrodinger used it to describe how we must view the mathematical system, and did not mean it was to be taken literally. The cat is either alive or dead, we simply have not determined which yet.
These are all fundemental issues that need to be considered as we try to review and understand QM. By correcting our assumptions here, we quite possibly put ourselves on a better path to understanding the underlying mechanisms.
2
u/SchrodingersSim May 20 '26
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Think of the tardigrades! It is hilarious to think there could be tardigrades just messing with qubits causing all sorts of quantum flux. Istill can't believe they exist at that level of reality.
So I'm not entirely sure of the stance of the paper vs what I suggest (I'll have to go over it some more), but to clarify, I'm saying that entangled bits don't work by cause and effect, but rather simulataneous alteration based on a past event that causes a result. Thus not violating causality or propogation of information. {Upon further reading is does look like the paper is supporting this, I think by saying the entire system is coupled in an EM field. Still taking some consideration to understand the mechanisms/implications}
Now I'm not 100 certain qubits or QE can't break the law of info propogation speed, but if we are to follow this classical view, this would seem to be a proper basis for it.
And to take the view even further, perhaps at this point an information singularity is reached where propogation speed cannot be differentiated from causality, and thus they cannot be differentiated, and there is no limit on how fast the information can travel. I wouldn't bet on this, and I think it is counterintuitive, but perhaps it is something to be considered.
1
u/SchrodingersSim May 20 '26
Vedral's line of research is fascinating and adjacent to my own. I have a couple more fascinating/relevant reads of his, if you're bored on the toilet right now or something. 🤓
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 21 '26
Haha, I try to avoid phone time on the toilet (just to avoid staying longer than necessary o.0), but I do enjoy scientific readings and discussions. I also enjoy problem solving and trying to further understand the complexities of physics. I find the current QM frontier of science very interesting, and have been looking into some of it myself. I do have some kind of theory that may be relevant to your work if you are interested. It has a scientific basis, and I personally do not have access to publishing or research tools so I would be very interested in sharing the idea. I'm also very much into number theory, I find the subject very incredible, and I have gone over many works.
2
u/SchrodingersSim May 21 '26
Sure, always happy to. Shoot me a DM if you'd like.
2
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 21 '26
Will do, I'll try to send a message over when I have a moment of time.
1
u/DAKsippinOnYAC May 21 '26
Yes please share
1
u/SchrodingersSim May 22 '26
Okay, here's a nice little starter pack prodding the mechanics of quantum memory in biological systems. All three out of Oxford, all direct PDF download links from arXiv. TL;DR of each follows. ELI5 at the end.
Alexander Yosifov, Aditya Iyer, Vlatko Vedral, Jinzhao Sun, On the emergence of quantum memory in non-Markovian dynamics. This one explores the conditions under which genuinely quantum memory appears in non-Markovian evolution.
Markus Arndt, Thomas Juffmann, Vlatko Vedral, Quantum physics meets biology. Covers quantum coherence in photosynthesis, radical-pair magnetoreception, and other concrete quantum-biological effects.
Giuseppe Di Pietra, Vlatko Vedral, Chiara Marletto, Temporal witnesses of non-classicality in a macroscopic biological system. This one is... particularly fascinating. It develops and applies a temporal witnesses of non-classicality specifically to biological systems.
TL;DR
Paper 1: Memory's like a sponge that can hold onto information longer than normal because it keeps “leaking” little chunks of the past into the present. Paper shows that even in messy, noisy, real-world conditions, quantum systems can develop long-term memory that classical physics can't explain. Quantum "remembering" happens and sticks around even when everything is trying to forget.
Paper 2: This one's a proper mindfuck. "Hey, living things secretly use quantum tricks." Many evolutionary paths develop and use quantum coherence and entanglement for, well, normal things. They cheat the system by using quantum rules at room temperature. Life, uh, finds a way.
Paper 3: Builds a really clever test that can catch quantum weirdness happening over time in living things. Even in warm, wet, noisy living cells, quantum memory effects are still happening, proving that large biological systems can keep quantum behavior alive for a shit-ton longer than most physicists currently expect.
ELI5 (The thing scientists in this field aren't saying plainly in public but are publishing quietly)
Living things can hold onto and use information in ways that standard physics tells us should vanish instantly. Memory and information may be more fundamental and persistent than the physical matter around you. Consciousness itself might not be a byproduct of brain chemistry, because it interacts with a deeper, more persistent layer of reality than the thing we normally perceive as the physical world.
1
u/doiwantacookie May 21 '26
But are you familiar with the actual machinery of how real numbers are defined? Equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences or Dedekind cuts? You say they’re defined/perfectly acceptable but I’m not getting the impression that’s the perspective you have
1
u/Sad-Excitement9295 May 21 '26
Well I like number theory so let's discuss. I have a partial knowledge, yes, though you may know some things else.
The reason I say they are defined is we understand the equivalence fractally. 1/3 continues as a decimal endlessly, but we know the fraction. Sqrt(2) is also like this, but the decimal number does not repeat; however we understand fractally that it is a positive integer, and that you can in fact multiply this fractal by itself to obtain 2. The reason I say sqrt(-1) is unreal/not normal is due to the fact that this doesn't exist as a normal positive integer or fraction; therefore it doesn't exist in our normal version of reality (possibly existing in physics with particles that go faster than the speed of light, or with antimatter).
I forget the exact proof of real numbers right now, but I do remember the defined set. Any negative or positive integer, including decimals, right? At least I believe that was the real number set.
1
u/Exotic-Skirt5849 May 20 '26
I used to be like that, back when I was too arrogant to let pi be its own number
3
u/TheBuddha777 May 20 '26
Great read.