Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 9:21am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/2/12 at 6:19am UTC, wrote Dear Frank, Thanks. I'll take a look at what you wrote. Take care, Ben

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/2/12 at 6:16am UTC, wrote Dear Serge, Thanks, this is very helpful. Also, I appreciate the...

Serge: on 10/1/12 at 5:23am UTC, wrote Peter, thanks for your comments. I read your essay. You have touched on...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:30am UTC, wrote Dear Serge, Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some...

Peter Jackson: on 9/28/12 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Serge, I enjoyed the wedding and road trip. I hope there's no divorce! I...

Serge: on 9/26/12 at 21:23pm UTC, wrote I call this 'Constrained Relativity'. Only movement of objects with ...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 9/26/12 at 9:01am UTC, wrote Serge and Ben, because of instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Wedding of Einstein and Heisenberg (Postulates Not Invited) by Serge Mijatovic [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Serge Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 2, 2012 @ 10:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

Some postulates of modern physics may not be needed. A simple premise of a Universe as a natural kind of distributed computing network marries Einstein and Heisenberg. Patently missing from the wedding are postulates about speed of light, relativity, uncertainty and even a notion of gravity.

Author Bio

Serge Mijatovic is a former DARPA principal investigator.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Serge Mijatovic,

I really enjoyed your essay. I like the way the analogies carry the reader along as you explain your really interesting ideas. It is very well written.

There are some things I am uncertain about because you did not include references to research that backs them up. One is the driving at speed. My subjective experience is that when driving at speed for a short while it soon feels normal, rather than fast, which is especially noticeable when re-entering a slow zone.That has made me think that the speed of information processing must speed up rather than slow for it to feel normal.

I had a quick look for some research on this which I think must exist. I came across this-"Combining Perception, Action, Intention and Value. A control theoretic approach to driver performance". John M. Flach et al. " The problem of how humans and other animals solve the observer problem may be more complex than assumed by classical models. Researchers should not assume the dimensions which are automatically used in physics models of space and motion are the feedback dimensions for biological control systems".So the analogy may break down when the "computer" is a complex organism rather than a simple processing machine.

Also I was unsure what exactly you imagine the information to be at the foundational level. Are you referring to any input to any system that gives different output , so not necessarily involving observers but just the process of change? Or are you thinking of any potential sensory data that could -inform- a device or organism? Is the second example just a sub set of the first?I'm thinking of blind cave shrimp feeling their environment.

Thank you for sharing your fascinating essay here. Good luck in the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge Mijatovic replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Georgina Parry,

thank you for your kind words, they are appreciated.

The examples with driving and counting trees are analogies. The meaning of my essay is purely physical, and not biological or perceptual. I merely attempted to show why certain computational concepts are what they are. I am a computer scientist by education and by profession so these concepts are nothing new to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 08:29 GMT
Dear Serge,

thank you for clarifying your intentions with regard to the analogies used. It is perhaps because I have a background in the biological sciences rather than physics, maths or computer sciences that I took the analogies more literally than was intended.

I think your approach to the problem is refreshingly different.Have you come across Stephen Wolfram's work on cellular automata? It is interesting, as it considers how different inputs together with a set rules produce different kinds of output. He found that complexity of pattern can surprisingly sometimes arise. He has also noted that small change of input can produce large changes in the output, which is something also seen in nature.It does seem that something similar to this kind of very simple kind of processing is happening at the foundational level of reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge Mijatovic replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 06:30 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I have come across Stephen Wolfram's work when I finished my theory and perused the landscape for similar ideas. I have also seen Wheeler's 'it from bit' paradigm. I cannot claim that I have studied them, my knowledge comes entirely from casual reading of 'headlines'. My interests lie in 'headlines', i.e. the choice of first concepts. In that sense, I found those ideas...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Serge Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 05:45 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your post, however I truly do not understand it. Feel free to elaborate. Thanks again!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge Mijatovic replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 05:33 GMT
Hi Georgina

yes please send me the full scale diagram to sergemij at yahoo dot com. I would like to see it, especially since it's rotated 90 degrees in the essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Serge Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 05:48 GMT
Hi Steve,

Thanks for posting. I am sorry, I don't understand much about what you said. I do agree that time is irreversible though.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 11:22 GMT
ok Mr Mijatovic,

Bye and good luck in this contest, It is sad that my english is not perfect.

If you spoke french, I d show you my poems in french !

But I don't know if you speak french?

Regards

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Serge Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 05:54 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I am curious about what you said:

"That has to be so because the output generated from the data by the observer can not also be the source of the input. The avatar seen on the computer screen is not the software programme or the CDROM."

The way I read this is that the observer is something separate from the avatar. Or to put it a bit more in the context of processing information: say there is a virtual reality program and there are characters in it.

These characters can only use the information present in virtual reality. To them, nothing else exists. And the output generated by any action of characters (i.e. observers) goes back to be the input for all character.

That's a classic informational feedback loop. Feedback loops can be positive, negative or oscillating (i.e. stable). In any case, I was just curious as to how would a virtual reality world function without the constant feedback loop.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Serge Mijatovic

I enjoyed your physics road trip, but my rather unsystematic mind needs more effort to see how the details of your analogies end up deriving the laws of SR GR and QM. I think your approach is on the right track, though and see from the linked Galilean paper that you have worked out the maths to support your conclusions. I like the summation signs in all those equations. In my own approach I see the universe as a sort of 3D abacus of self-assembled and self-interacting dielectric nodes. The angular momentum in each node is the summation of contributions from neighboring nodes. Like you I believe it is possible to derive the laws of physics from such a 'computer' but in my model the memory bits are themselves the transistors that interact one from the next - to use your analogy the whole universe is one big computer not many small ones. Here is a link to my work: Beautiful Universe . I have also a FQXI essay "Fix Physics!..." hope you can read that as well.

I agree with Georgina that the ideas of Wolfram and earlier work on cellular automata is relevant here.

Good luck

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge Mijatovic replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Vladimir F. Tamari,

thanks for your comment. I just finished reading your paper. I enjoyed the seven big foundational questions. And I must say the only way a rational observer wouldn't be dismayed by the structural state of physics (as you have) is by being entirely immersed in it and not seeing the forest for the trees.

As both you and I agree, the Universe is likely...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Wow, Serge, I should re-read your essay and concentrate on the math. What you said about deriving SR (meaning Lorentz transformations) from scratch fits in pretty much with what I expect of the infrastructure of my theory, except I have not finished the derivations yet. In my case however no computers are necessary the nodes themselves act like some gears in a Universal Babbage machine and their states represent Bloch spheres (phase indicated by spherical inclination and local potential by rate of rotation). By the way I vaguely remember reading about sgtudies (by Godel?) at the Institute of Advanced Studies in the 40's about whether a computer can represent the entire universe (and hence itself included).

Later then,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge Mijatovic replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

thanks for your reply.

To make the idea easier to understand, I've produced a short one-page proof of SR time dilation - without the relativity. It's an introduction to the Computational-Hypothesis paper that's referenced in the essay. It can be found here:

http://msg2act.com/physics/simpleSRDerivation.pdf

Starti
ng from axiomatic principles of computer science, it derives the time dilation in a single page, without any notions of light or relativity (let alone any postulates thereof).

The reason why I believe the Universe to be a kind of a distributed computing network with each node of limited capability is that it allows for not only Einstein's equations to be produced from scratch, but also for Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty and Newton's law of gravitation to be derived. Note that all three rest on postulates (and some essentially being postulates themselves). Having all three derived in mathematical form from this axiomatic idea (without those postulates) is what brought me to that conclusion.

Adding to it is that the Computational Hypothesis allows for instantaneous transfer of partial information (for example quantum entanglement). At the same time, this same idea leads to a speed limit such as we observe in Nature.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Hi Serge,

The observer; organism, device, or sensitive material is an object with a material structure. The output of data processing is the fabricated reality experienced by the organism but could also be the output of a machine or the different areas of light and dark on an exposed film for example (The avatar was given as an illustration).

The "virtual reality" is the reality that we all experience and think exists externally. There is no feedback from the observer fabricated reality directly to the external reality. However the observer organism can use the fabricated reality to make choices that affect its behaviour and thus its interaction with the external material reality. Being a one way relationship where the input data, that is generated in external reality, continually gives output with no feedback or rewind gives the experienced uni-directional arrow of time.

There is a different feedback mentioned at the end of my essay and that is entirely in the external reality where each new arrangement is the input for the next. That occurring within the whole Object universe is giving the sequential change that is passage of time in foundational Object reality.

The arrangement of ideas that allow the explanatory framework to function is illustrated by diagram 1. in my essay. It looks a little complicated but isn't after one becomes acquainted with it.I will add the high definition diagram to my current competition essay thread, in case anyone else would also like to see it. It is just the diagram in high resolution so would be easy to print out and turn around. Thank you very much for your interest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge Mijatovic replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT
Hi Georgina,

sorry you lost me when it comes to foundational physics. In the realm of spiritual thought you may be on to something. Having said that, it's possible that ultimately spiritual and physical converge.

For now though, my efforts are more geared toward aspects of foundational reality that I can convert into formalism that describes it. Not mathematics per se, but formalism that reduces to it in limiting cases.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Serge,

I just read your insightful essay. I have a few questions and remarks.

1. I absolutely agree that information and "computers" are fundamental. There is a principle called the "Deutch-Church-Turing principle" that I recently learned about (by reading Mauro D'Ariano's essay here, to give proper credit) that basically hypothesizes that you can model any interaction with a quantum computer. My hope is that we could use this to get around technical difficulties with particle accelerators and model Planck-scale interactions without having to actually probe to the Planck energy.

2. I'm not quite sure if the fundamental computing you are proposing is quantum computing, or if you are saying that quantum effects arise from ordinary digital computing processes on sufficiently small scales (?)

2. You mention a lot of ways in which relativistic concepts can arise in an information-theoretic/computer-based setting. Another angle on this is that ordinary circuit diagrams have "frames of reference." The circuit represents flow of current or information, and you can trace the current back along all the wires flowing into and out of a given node to form a "light cone" as in relativity. Two "parallel" nodes are not in each others' light cones, and the computer doesn't care what order you take them to be in; this is just like the "relativity of simultaneity of spacelike separated events" in ordinary relativity.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading it! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Ben,

thanks for reading my essay.

The quantum effects arise from ordinary "information use" or "computing". The scale does not matter. For example, uncertainty in quantum mechanics is given as a consequence of information loss. This happens because there is more information to process than storage available.

The problem with 'frames of reference' is than humans tend to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 21:23 GMT
I call this 'Constrained Relativity'. Only movement of objects with non-zero information influence counts as 'relative movement' for the purpose of your own information use.

So imagine that out of the whole Universe, a group of 47 objects has non-zero information influence on you (other than yourself). Say you are in outer space and there are 47 asteroids nearby and everything else is too far away, including Earth, and even photons from faraway stars do not reach you.

Of all the objects in the Universe, only these 47 asteroids plus yourself count for your own physical behavior. The rest of the Universe does not exist for you.

This is how relative movement is viewed in FIT (a name for my theory, Fundamental Information Theory).

The distinction may not seem very useful, however it is. It cuts down on the premises needed to explain so called relativistic effects. It does not start with the premise that *any* relative movement counts for analysis.

In FIT, *only* movement relative to relevant objects counts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:16 GMT
Dear Serge,

Thanks, this is very helpful. Also, I appreciate the additional references. Take care,

Ben

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
Serge and Ben, because of instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded, when coupled with gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing, space must be both larger and smaller at once in fundamental equilibrium. This involves balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. This averages and balances acceleration, thereby fundamentally proving F=ma.

Opposites need to be combined, included, and balanced -- General Relativity and the Equivalence Principle never did, and never could do, this. Indeed, mathematics cannot do this.

Einstein never truly understood inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing, nor did he understand F=ma fundamentally either. The fundamental and inherent stability of distance in/of space is thus lacking. (A falling or ascending man does not offer an adequate and complete picture anyway. Think about it.)

In fact, my essay (in this contest) proves that everything in this post is true.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT
Dear Frank,

Thanks. I'll take a look at what you wrote. Take care,

Ben

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
Serge,

I enjoyed the wedding and road trip. I hope there's no divorce! I agree with and also "prefer consequences to postulates," and agree the "poorly understood differences between uniform and accelerated movement" is very important.

Some more very pertinent points I also find consistent with my essay; "The motion is meaningful only relative to everything that has influence on you." As "...something very far away from you is as good as non-existent."

Also; "even inertial motion causes real internal change in processing information." And; "The Pi exists only in the minds of humans."

But, I don't agree clocks themselves slow. Do you not think it is time 'signals' that are compressed as the detector approaches them, not the emitter (the clock) or receiver (lens). I do hope you'll read my essay comment on my very logical alternative to that, and what I think, possibly delusionally, may be an astonishingly important effect.

Thanks for an enjoyable read with some good insights, and I hope mine can at least offer you another angle on each.

Best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Serge replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT
Peter,

thanks for your comments.

I read your essay. You have touched on many subjects. One thing of interest is your suggestion that speed of light changes, even in empty space, as it were.

I agree that speed of light changes and that c+v,c-v is inevitable with that. Aside from Einstein's explanation, it's the only alternative.

The problem today is that until now there...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Serge,

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.