Search FQXi

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Antony Ryan: on 8/7/13 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote My pleasure Mikalai, Best wishes, Antony

Mikalai Birukou: on 8/6/13 at 22:43pm UTC, wrote Using your expression, sub-time is a time direction in spacetime defined by...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 20:58pm UTC, wrote Mikalai - Nice essay on the the Waterloo Formulation. Loved your derivation...

Charles Card: on 8/6/13 at 3:54am UTC, wrote Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read I am sending to you...

Kyle Miller: on 8/5/13 at 17:28pm UTC, wrote I found your essay to be a little hard to understand with all the...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 8/1/13 at 12:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Mikalai, Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The...

Akinbo Ojo: on 8/1/13 at 12:10pm UTC, wrote Hello Mikalai, We exchanged some information on your paper. After...

Than Tin: on 7/26/13 at 3:36am UTC, wrote Hello Mikalai Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Bit is It by Mikalai Birukou [refresh]

Author Mikalai Birukou wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 10:09 GMT
Essay Abstract

Relationship between "Bit" and "It" is based on a nature of "It", a nature of quantum systems. We explore it, suggesting that quantum systems are effective systems made of fundamental particle events, described in Standard Model. Such unusual view of quantum systems, "It", puts it onto the same level as observed "Bits", which leads to conclusion that "Bit" is "It".

Author Bio

Have BSc. degree in Physics from the University of Winnipeg. Completed two years of Master's program in Physics at the University of Waterloo. Currently work as a software architect.

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
There is no physical difference between the microscopic and the macroscopic. Each particle is unique as is each galaxy. Each particle only exists once as does each galaxy. Each bit is unique. Each it is unique. Each bit only exists once. Each it only exists once.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 05:38 GMT
Joe

Correct. Physical existence can only occur in one fundamental way. It does not have different ways of operating. That is a function of our misconceptualisation of what is actually going on. But then be careful with the notion of particle and what constitutes a bit, as per my post on your blog.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
To Joe, on "Physical existence can only occur in one fundamental way."

True. That is why lots of us are trying to find a way to fit Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativity theories. And the main problem is in Time, or how differently it comes in both of these theories.

Yet, if we close our eyes on this "cloud" over physics, Quantum Field Theories of Standard Model provides a good tool for predicting phenomena at smallest scale seen by man (recall recent discovery of predicted Higgs boson).

Conceptual step from QFT to QM is done in papers from 1940's, one of which was by Feynman. Its a bridge, or translation between QFT and QM languages, but existence of said bridge is a testament to the fact that these languages tell the same story.

Conceptual step from QM to Classical Mechanics is taught as a calculation problem in a class, were initial Schrodinger's equation in path integration (thank Feynman again) leads to classical action.

So, we do have "one fundamental way" to talk about nature. This way involves using languages that are efficient at their respective levels. And this point is illustrated nicely in "More is Different" by Anderson, reference #2 in essay. Google pdf file. It is a nice read.

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 19:17 GMT
Joe,

Unfortunately, if we insist on all particles being unique, then lots of things in quantum experiments cannot be explained. But if we replace this every-day notions, as nature suggests, we are able to make progress.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 05:33 GMT
Mikalai

Re postulate 1: Whatever constitutes the ‘substance’ of physical existence cannot be annihilated and re-created. What alters is the physically existent state of it (or them, if there is more than one type of fundamental substance).

Re postulate 2: There is nothing probabilistic about physical existence, neither is there any uncertainty or difference in any given reality. Otherwise physical existence could not occur. It is our problem in defining what did so, and that must not be deemed to be a characteristic of reality.

Re postulate 3: There exists no such thing as systems, this is a conceptualisation. Neither is there a “transition from some initial state to a final state”. There is a sequence of existent states, each being different.

Re posulate 4: The closed system point is irrelevant. By definition, physical interaction can only occur at any given time (ie whatever can only be a cause of the next effect in the sequence) under certain conditions of spatial position and sequence order. Physical influence cannot ‘jump’ physical circumstance. And for something to have physical influence it must be physically existent.

“A change of states in quantum system is time”

Nearly, it is the rate at which different states occur, not the actual event. Which, leaving aside the notions of ‘change’ and ‘system’ indicates that time is not a feature of any given state of existence, it is concerned with the turnover rate thereof.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Paul,

#1. We may want to use classical-like substance for fundamental level, but a story about luminiferous aether teaches us that this prejudice towards every-day concepts may not work. And postulate #1 takes concepts that are used in QFT's that predicted top quark and recently Higgs boson. Nothing new, only what nature does, whether we like it or not.

#2. Ask people at LHC if they can pin-point when and which event shall happen. With certainty. Nature is such, that this cannot be done, again, whether we like it, or not. And in postulate #2 we postulate experience, no more.

#3. On "There is a sequence of existent states, each being different." This statement is very, very general, and is true due to its generality. Unfortunately, this generality makes it useless in the quantum lab. On another hand, QM is usable, but it has its pains, which essay addresses.

#4. You missed the point here. It is obvious that information transfer should occur only via physical interaction. But it is not obvious that it leads to quantum entanglement, a behaviour very different from that of classical systems. Check references on EPR and Bell's theorem.

When we say that change of states is time, we highlight that time is a description of states, or their changes. It is relative, as opposed to absolute time. That is a point of such expression.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 05:36 GMT
Mikalai

1 I did not refer to a “classical like substance”, but to whatever constitutes that. By definition, for there to be existence there must be something (or a variety of somethings). It is no consequence as to what it is in order to make the point that what alters is the physically existent state. There is an important distinction between whatever it is, and the state it is in, at any given time.

2 Whether people can identify any given physically existent state, which I think is probably impossible, is irrelevant. Physical existence does not therefore possess some form of ‘vagueness’. It is definitive, we just do not have the ability to identify it.

3 It is a generic statement, how that manifests in reality is to be identified. But it certainly does not make it useless, because if people pursue science on the basis that physical existence does not occur that way, then they are going to create metaphysical theories.

4 Physically, what is “information transfer”?

“When we say that change of states is time, we highlight that time is a description of states, or their changes. It is relative, as opposed to absolute time. That is a point of such expression.

There cannot be a description of a state or change. If change there is a different state. Time is associated with difference, specifically the rate at which that difference occurs, as opposed to what the difference was or the sequence order of the differences. Everything is relative, in so far as anything can only be identified as a difference to something else. The rate of alteration is therefore calibrated with reference to another rate (this is timing), and the timing system is referenced to a conceptual constant rate of alteration. This is the purpose of synchronising timing devices.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Paul,

On, 'Physically, what is "information transfer"?' It is illustrated precisely in Shannon's work on communication, were he introduces quantified measure of information. That is reference #1 in essay, take a look.

On, too general of a statement, to be useful in the lab. I want to remind you the way it all done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffr69ZovHKc We make a statement, then refine it, making it more rigorous, and less general, so that we can calculate something, and then we compare it to experiment. Without these meticulous steps, initial grand statement is worthless, no matter how nicely it sounds (highlight sounds).

report post as inappropriate

Jochen Szangolies wrote on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 11:31 GMT
Mikalai, you have provided a very intriguing and bold essay. Your aims are certainly admirable, but I think your argumentation in some places is a little too heuristic (though this might be owed to length constraints). One thing I noticed that's probably not quite right is in section 7: here, you say basically that the apparent increase in mass due to relativistic speeds is due to increased interaction with the Higgs field. But if I'm not mistaken, the Higgs interaction is responsible for a particle's invariant mass, i.e. the mass it possesses in its rest frame; you can see that by the fact that the relevant Yukawa coupling terms in the Lagrangean are Lorentz scalars, as they must be. The 'mass increase' (which is generally a deprecated term; usually, the fundamental mass of a particle is considered to be its invariant mass) is really just an increase in the total energy of a particle moving at relativistic speeds, having nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. (In fact, most mass doesn't: quark and lepton masses provide an almost negligible part of the masses of the atoms.)

Also, I'm not quite sure I understand the detailed mechanism through which your 'Waterloo formulation' of QM solves the measurement problem, as you claim: how do you go from a state that's a superposition of measurement outcomes to a post-measurement state in which only one of the terms in this superposition, i.e. the actual measurement outcome, survives?

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT
Jochen,

I'll do a post for each of your two questions.

Let's take first your "... not quite sure I understand the detailed mechanism through which your 'Waterloo formulation' of QM solves the measurement problem".

Postulate #3 about interaction of systems should apply to all systems indiscriminately. Anything we do in the lab is also described by it. There are no special 'measurement' interactions!

Your see, in Waterloo formulation we do not postulate Hilbert space upfront. This allows us (a) not to have to explain 'collapse' of this mathematical entity to just one outcome (like Copenhagen), and (b), not to have to pretend that the space of possibilities is just hidding (like multi-world implication of Everett's initial thesis).

report post as inappropriate

Jochen Szangolies replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
But if, as according to the postulate, only one of the possibilities [equation]|\psi_j\rangle |\phi_j\rangle[\equation] actually occurs, then you don't get any entanglement, since these are only product states. Entanglement only exists in states like [equation]|\psi_1\rangle |\phi_1\rangle + |\psi_2\rangle |\phi_2\rangle[\equation], that can't be written in tensor product form. Or in other words, as long as you only consider pairs of states as valid endpoints for any interaction, the combined Hilbert space of both systems will just be the direct product of the two systems' Hilbert spaces, rather than the tensor product space, and you only include those states in the Segre embedding of the full space---but those are just the separable states.

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT
Entanglement.

We, an external system, see two systems as being entangled because of confinement of their interaction. That is postulate 4. There is no need to put any 'magical juice' into existence postulates in order to get quantum entanglement.

report post as inappropriate

qsa wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 00:34 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

I think you are 100% on the right track, just like DR. Philip Gibbs. All that, are in line with my own ideas which I hope I can submit, time permitting. Especially the part where space is emergent from “particle events” and time is nothing but a change in state. This exactly what my upcoming theory predicts in a very clear and unambiguous way. Moreover I reproduce a lot of the standard QM/QFT results plus some other simply stunning results. I am sure you will love it because it is all through simulation.

And it is funny, I have used your Wheeler's last paragraph as the opening to my website ! which I created three years ago.

But let me ask you this. Would your theory be able to derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few?

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 01:18 GMT
We are basing ourselves on concepts from QFT in order to have compact and clean foundation, on which QM can be formulated. This part I consider complete.

The spacetime business needs ideas and exact calculations to arrive at Minkowski thing. Sort of like Sorkin & Co do, but for all four dimensions. Once this is done, one will need to apply this to QFTs of SM. If any parameters will happen to be derived, instead of inserted, if scale problem disappears, if renormalization procedure(s) starts to have a physical background, then kudos. But at this point I won't speculate. All that we have at this moment is a clean foundation for QM, which also gives a huge hint at how spacetime emerges.

Yet, in the absence of complete math for spacetime, we may think of a shortcut calculation for gravitational constant, using existing higgs math. But this is also just a speculation, for now.

I put a link to Wheeler's paper into references. Its a pdf, located somewhere in the cloud. Use direct text. By the way, Anderson's "More is Different" can be found in pdf with google. I've read when writing this essay. It is a profound piece.

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Check reference #9, where I go through steps of assembling usual QM math. Length of one essay cannot fit all details.

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 21:15 GMT
My last post in this thread was meant to be in the other thread.

report post as inappropriate

Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
I love your writing style! I have just read two first sections so far. Regarding this many world idea. Is it more propable that entanglement of two systems most likely vanishes at some point in time? "The chain" so to speak is broken down by some other events in space. More the nearby events more likely that break down.

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT

We, an external system, see two systems as being entangled because of confinement of their interaction. This confinement is key to having this quantum phenomena. Once we interact with one of the subsystems, so that result of interaction (or information we get) is related to the confined aspect, the entanglement breaks. Or, you can say that we start to be a part of tri-entanglement. It might be easy to visualise this using quantum computing schemes.

Entanglement is how we see two systems from the outside, while sub-systems' interaction is confined. It makes all reasoning simpler.

report post as inappropriate

Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
I'm heading to the section seven and still loving your essay. I insist that you read this paper immediately -> http://toebi.com/documents/ToEbi.pdf

I'm sure that you will find it more than interesting.

report post as inappropriate

Kimmo Rouvari wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 03:53 GMT
Without that Higgs part it would have been perfect. But definitely the best essay so far!

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 15:21 GMT
You see, if I give you just foundation for QM, which treats current imperfections, you may find it interesting, and move on. This foundation must produce hints for further development, that will be proved or disproved by experiments. And, in this essay, after all, we should try to dream like Wheeler did.

report post as inappropriate

Alan M. Kadin wrote on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 13:50 GMT
Mikalai,

I read your essay with great interest. I especially noted your definition of time in terms of changes in quantum states. I agree (as described in my essay "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"), but you really need to distinguish the coherent evolution at fixed frequency (i.e., energy level) from the incoherent change in state from one frequency to another. The former follows continuous dynamics from the Schrodinger equation, whereas the latter is generally represented as a discontinuous "collapse of the wave function."

In addition, I question whether the Quantum Hilbert Space Model is really a correct description of nature. Yes, everyone uses this without question; but that is exactly my point. This formalism has embedded assumptions, as I describe in my essay. It is these assumptions that give rise to quantum entanglement, in what should otherwise comprise a system of real relativistic waves interacting in real space.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 22, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
It seems to me that guys did the best job possible in forming mathematical framework for QM in 1900-1920's. They couldn't possibly do better, because they didn't have all experiments with particles of 1960's and later. But now, in 2010's, we may try to straighten things up, by placing QFT's concepts as a foundation, as a physical essence for QM's math. After all, everything is maid of particles seen at CERN.

report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk wrote on Apr. 23, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

Under 7 you wrote:

“Applying Einstein's razor forces us to say that gravitational phenomena must

be a result of a Higgs mechanism as well.

For example, the closer the effective test particle to a massive body, the more it will be engaged into additional Higgs events, due to extra Higgs flying around given massive body, and the more dilated time of a test system will be. “

Well done!!

However don’t you think that it is time to decide that the whole vacuum is filled with a dense system of energetic oscillating Higgs flying around and that all photon information is transferred by this Higgs system, able to influence the speed of light around massive objects like the earth?

See attachment.

report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk replied on Apr. 23, 2013 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

Because in that case the Higgs should have NO mass only oscillating energy of about 121-130 Gev, which is what the LHC measured recently.

See:

LHC Signals Between 121-130 Gev Interpreted with Quantum-FFF Theory

http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0065

report post as inappropriate

Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 02:21 GMT
Leo,

I like the fact that we are able in essay to say that particle events define points. It is Liebnitz' relational view of space and time, as opposed to absolute, or box-like view.

When I said Higgs mechanics, I mean not necessarily exactly higgs bosons, may be, but not necessarily. It should just be something of this sort computationally. I do not want to speculate here, and do not want to cut possible avenue of search, simply because I have no grounds to do so. All I see is this time dilation, like in QZE. And Einstein's own take on gravity was realization that time dilates in gravity field, therefore, curved metric is needed, etc. I am trying to stand on giant's shoulders :) .

report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 09:56 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

attachments: 1_Kopie_van_final_cmb_2_2.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Jochen Szangolies wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 11:57 GMT
Mikalai, I'm opening up a new thread, since the other one has become quite unwieldy.

I think maybe it helps if I phrase the problem I have with your formulation in slightly different language. So, as before, let's take two qubits that are, in the ordinary quantum formalism, described by the state

[equation]

Now, according to your postulate 3, the two qubits themselves see...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Jochen,

Let's go through all details to eliminate any implied assumptions on either side. So, let us have a qubit in initial state,

[equation]

This state is such that when lab measures qubit for 0 or 1 (basis defined by apparatus setup), Lab with qubit get either in 0 or 1 state with a choice probability 50%. Any measurement is an interaction, and, like any interaction is...

view entire post

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 15:37 GMT
I also wanted to roughly say how we come to using Hilbert spaces, to highlight that it is human calculation construct, and as Asher Peres said, "...quatum phenomena do not occur in a Hilbert space, they occur in a laboratory."

The logic is from any lab, which would be the same as in 1920's. In simple experiments we have probabilistic interactions, governed by postulate 3. We want to describe this interaction juncture relating in probabilities initial states to final ones. Then we realize that final states can be fed into similar interaction, and that sets of initial and final states can be seen as one set.

On top of that set we put a measure, based on probabilities. This measure says how one state probabilistically related to another, when we have interaction, around which we construct such mathematical description.

When we measure a certain characteristic of a system, we check which state shows up, and relate to it a value with units of a measurement. Thus, measurement of variable V is a usual

[equation]V = \sum_{i} v_{i} |\psi_{i}>

Jochen Szangolies replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 16:18 GMT
Hmm, did your post get cut short (well, not that 'short' is really appropriate---by the way, I should thank you for putting all this effort into your post)?

In any case, just a quick question, in the equation

$|W\rangle(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|0\rangle|L_0\rangle+|1\rangle|L_1\rangle)\to\bigcup_{i=0,1}|W\rangle|i\rangle|L_i\rangle$

is the W missing an index i? Because otherwise, after the interaction, the world---still being in the same state as before---has not received any information at all about the measurement. So to me, the final state should be either

$|W_0\rangle|0\rangle|L_0\rangle$

or

$|W_1\rangle|1\rangle|L_1\rangle$

This is of course the projection postulate.

report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

Your essay was the first that has drawn my attention because of the promising title.

Your conclusion that …systems are effective entities, arising from simpler particle events, putting both “Bit" and “It" onto the same “not-fundamental" list… seems to be close to my evolutionary view. However in details is quite different still the idea is close to emergent, self-organized systems.

I am also close to the opinion that “It” and “Bit” are the same, but it depends on definitions taken. So in this case I would prefer the term “inseparable” used by J. A. Wheeler.

You serve us with your definitions. Your essay is coherent and interesting.

My definitions and conclusion you would find at:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609

Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 15:44 GMT
Yes, Wheelers "inseparable" might be more appropriate, but we should play his own bit-vs-it language here with word "to be" in it :)

qsa wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 13:22 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

Two questions.

1. lets say "Since Omega-lambda is very close to Omega-matter, what could it mean if we assume they are exactly equal to each other. Also, lets assume they were always equal since coincident problem is unnatural." Do you think that this hypothetical assumption might say anything about your emergent space time theory.

2. If space time are some consequence of interaction, then would't that contradict inflationary theory since nothing can travel faster than speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
On #2. Since we have no spacetime postulated externally, all we have are combinatorial things to play with in arranging an emergent spacetime. My hunch is that there are no more explosive functions that combinatorial ones are. And this is a hint that inflation will come out of these postulates (yes!!). But, actual calculations should be done. So, I have no ground to speculate any further. Now,...

view entire post

qsa replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
Thanks for the reply. The reason that I asked these strange questions is that like I told you earlier that my theory is in line with yours in the emergence of spacetime.

I don't like to make this thread about my theory. It just that in my theory it is very clear that space is a direct consequence of interaction, and it predicts vacuum energy to be the same as matter energy, all the time. But it does not allow for exponential expansion. Gravity does seem to change with distance becoming repulsive when distances reach half the universe diameter.

I was somewhat sad because my theory did not seem to support inflation. but now I am happier with this recent paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785

Title: Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013

Authors: Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb

I yap about my theory a bit more in philip's essay threads !!

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Thank you for this recent reference. It looks interesting.

Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
qsa

"since nothing can travel faster than speed of light"

Why? Light is just a physical entity which travels. Or indeed has a 'turnover' rate, or certain detection properties. It just happens to be what is utilised in a subsequent evolutionary development known as sight. So if light as a representational device of some occurrence is too slow, ineffective at detecting cetain entities, etc, etc, then all that happens is we do not see it or get a disorted represenation of it. Light does not define the existential sequence it determines how that is observable.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

qsa replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Paul,

In a way you are right, but not entirely. You have your answer hinted at in Mikalai's reply to me. We imprecisely say speed of light as max, but the number c just represent the critical speed in space time, and light happens to have that speed.

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT
qsa, I wonder, why don't they write in textbooks this clearly, as you just pronounced here. Ah, ya. It is a historic inertia.

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 05:40 GMT
qsa

That does not address my point. Which was how do we know light is the fastest?

Though your response “the critical speed in space time” does indicate where the flaw is. The issue is not about the precise speed, it is about the conflation of physical existence and a physically existent representation thereof (eg light). Which if modelled renders light, which is just a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Rodney Bartlett wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
I've had a look at your essay, Mikalai - and there are quite a few points I'd like to address. I'll try not to make this too long :)

1) I agree that "It" and "Bit" are on the same level. As my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1606 puts it, "My entry refers to time being nonlinear (I believe this agrees with Einstein’s description of warped time) with ”It” and “Bit”...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 20:00 GMT
In making new arguments, I was trying not to use as much of what already works as possible. Therefore, it comes naturally that fundamental particles and their events is the basis. I figure, why break something that works?

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:11 GMT
This was meant to be a reply to Rodney Bartlett. And it meant to say "was trying to use as much of what already works as possible".

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 23, 2013 @ 13:39 GMT
I am favorably impressed by your essay. I think you raise a number of interesting points. Your postulate #4 is though something I think that needs further examination. This is in particular with respect to black holes and event horizons. This is not to say that I think it is false. It might have some greater generalization though with respect to black holes and quantum gravity. My essay It...

view entire post

attachments: 1_zitterbewegung.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on May. 24, 2013 @ 17:53 GMT
Thank you.

Following essay ideas, spacetime, in which we, quantum systems, have GPS systems, is an effective thing/phenomena. And this immediately recalls in memory experiments with acoustic black holes, or effective gravity analogs. So if the thing is effective, then the whole field of black holes calculations shall have a major shake up, and I myself am not placing any bets there, till effective versus other status is settled.

I rather prefer an effective spacetime story, cause otherwise we have today's comic situation: on one hand, it is grad-student level exercise to find one more black hole solution that admit closed geodesic, and on another hand, a king has pronounced a chronology protection conjecture. Notice in the second part, it is king's words, not a solid reason. Quite ridiculous for science. Therefore, my preferences are with effective spacetime for quantum systems, as I find unsettled time-travel issue as most disturbing.

Lawrence B Crowell replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 03:58 GMT
I think in the end all theories are effective theories. My argument in my essay is that any possible theory of causality based on logic or logico-algebraic systems is necessarily incomplete.

The black hole horizon I argue partitions fields in an S-matrix channel. What becomes important in the case of a quantum black hole is the E8 algebraic structure. The associator (quantum homotopy and Stasheff polytope) does mean there are "quantum rules" that entangle interior and exterior quantum states. The interior of a black hole, in particular the singularity (equivalently the region inside r_-) permits closed timelike curves. This does mean that the ordering of events is not strictly tied to geometry. I do though think that classical spacetimes and classical black holes forbid close timelike curves.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

"This does mean that the ordering of events is not strictly tied to geometry. "

That's a very provocative statement. Does it mean that events can happen in the absence of space-time or before the big bang (before there was a space-time continuum)? Does it mean that causality of events can defy the speed of light?

Or does it mean that science cannot predict all things that might exist in nature? Maybe it's just me, but science does give this stifling view of the universe, a view that seems absolute like the iron fist of tyrannical rule. I for one do hope there are particles, fermions, bosons and forces beyond the standard model that might support chemistries, biologies and ecosystems beyond what we have observed.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on May. 25, 2013 @ 22:11 GMT
Mikalai,

Postulates are never to be taken as absolutes. A fundamental theory in one century will most likely become an effective theory in the next century. General relativity is a low energy with ħ

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on May. 25, 2013 @ 22:14 GMT
I forgot this blog system does not like backwards carrot signs.

Mikalai,

Postulates are never to be taken as absolutes. A fundamental theory in one century will most likely become an effective theory in the next century. General relativity is a low energy with action of system >> ħ approximation. It is also a case where horizon area >> Għ/c^3. String theory...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on May. 26, 2013 @ 20:03 GMT
Totally agree that yesterday's implied postulate about space existence on its own shall be replaced by saying that it is an effective thing. Hence, direction of essay's arguments.

I mentioned explicit statement of axioms in math to highlight differences in culture. Implied, ingrained, punched in school postulates culture is not letting your mind to start question underlying postulates/axioms. Math's culture let's you over this purely human, purely psychological block.

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on May. 26, 2013 @ 21:00 GMT
With regards to strings, they say why spacetime is curved according to GR equation, but strings assume initial existence of n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. There is an explanation of why thing is curved, but there is an implied axiom of spacetime existence, cause strings always start with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. And essay digs deeper, digs into "why spacetime", producing Leiniz' relational view of spacetime.

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 12:29 GMT
Hello Mikalai,

Using the opportunity of this weekend to read a few essays and comments. A number of comments and queries have already been made so no need repeating. Except for:

1. Be careful about modern day ascribing of relational view to Leibniz and absolute view to Newton, as if both were very rigid. It is not so clear cut. Leibniz seemed to believe that MONADS exist and they occupy the WHOLE of space, without any gap in between them (if a 'plenum' is interpreted thus). And these monads are not inert. See http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibmona.pdf

What effect will this have on events occurring in space? There is no doubt that if Leibniz is 100% correct, Monads are the ITs of our universe. (see more references in my essay).

2. You say, "Recall that every FUNDAMENTAL particle participates in exactly two events, a creation event, and an annihilation event". I agree and I say that is exactly, where the most fundamental BIT comes from, creation event represents a change from binary state 0 to 1 and annihilation event is a change from binary state 1 to 0.

This much I have stated in my contribution, 'On the road not taken'.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
On #1, definitely, by "relational view to Leibniz" we mean that there is no spacetime in absence of matter, i.e. it is a taste of relational phenomena, and we do not suggest Leibniz' actual implementation, which, since he lived long ago, necessarily misses experience collected over the past in between centuries. I would say that it is now, with success of QFT's view of things we may actually suggest a workable implementation of relational spacetime, like essay does.

On #2, we do not connect particle creation/annihilation events to actual zero/ones. Information, "bit", is a property of effective systems, which we call "it", but effective systems themselves are maid of fundamental particles that are manifested only in two events, which is not the usual view, e.g. one persistent electron goes through stages of Stren-Gerlach experiments, etc.

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT
Hi,

On #1, relational view means space is continuous, i.e. it can be divided ad infinitum. This brings up paradoxes like those of Zeno and also Renormalization problems in QFT. While mathematics can resolve these, check out the intuitive notions that have to be sacrificed for mathematical solutions to Zeno's paradoxes here, http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

The price to pay is very steep and in my opinion a discrete space is cheaper.

However, there is a duality. If all space has a discrete representation, then no space will 'separate' those discrete units making them still continuous! But if the discrete units have a lifetime, we find something that can 'separate' the units.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Mikalai

I enjoyed reading your essay and have understood its essential features, despite the fact that I am not very adept at the math of QM but understand its basic notions.

I think you have a strong sense of how Nature should be understood. You said "To rescue a notion of system and to simultaneously have QM formalism in existing form". I have a model, a project for a Theory...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 22:54 GMT
Actually, I do not criticise QFT's view of fundamental particles as appearing at one point and disappearing at another. I promote it to a postulate, cause, as you rightfully noticed, we cannot say why this is so, pushing us to explicit postulation. This helps to really talk about quantum systems as not fundamental, removing QM's mysteries. As uncomfortable QFT's notions may feel, they produce clear picture in essay, especially with respect to fitting spacetime with quantum phenomena (non-string way).

Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 14:36 GMT
Mikalai,

Excellent essay. I approach the EPR interaction analysis in a similar way, and go further to find a resolution, verified in Aspects (majority) discarded data. I think your analysis is good, clearer than mine that focussed on constructing an ontology with full foundations, possibly making it too dense.

You say; "A notion of system becomes fuzzy. And fuzzy is not good in

serving as a foundation of existence." I hope I show how it could be a far more solid foundation than at present, via hierarchical subsets in 'sample space'.

I agree your interesting; "Waterloo Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, in which systems are effective entities, arising from simpler particle events, putting both Bit" and It" onto the same \not-fundamental" list."

Very well done, you richly deserve to be a finalist. I'd greatly appreciate your views on my own, which I think you will resonate with despite it's often apparently radical propositions.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 22:57 GMT
Thank you for these warm words.

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Mikalai Birukou

The general summary posts of you are quite enough evidence,but if "bit is it",which means "it is also the bit" - that is certainly of course,the problem is : where they come from ? It seems that is the really question that we must answer.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Hello Mikalai,

I enjoyed reading your essay and thought that right through from your approach from reality to concluding that Bit is It was the most logical answer and this was well structured. I reach the same conclusion in my essay which I hope you find the time to read.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 14:50 GMT
Thank you for these remarks.

Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
My pleasure Mikalai,

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
Mikalai,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Sergio Miguel wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 00:28 GMT
Hello Mikalay,

I could be agree with your title but I do not understand the arguments. I did not see a definition of effective entity in your paper, could you explain it to me? is for you the concept of system more funtamental than it and bit?

Thanks,

Sergio

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 02:23 GMT
On the second figure, integration (sum) of events A,B,C&D is one effective particle. These is a concept from quantum field theory. Or, by analogy, phonon is not a fundamental particle, but a collection of motions in a crystal of a solid body.

Hi Mikalai,

My name is Adel(QSA alias before), we communicated early on. I have rated your essay very high(does not mean you have to do the same), unfortunately your essay has not taken the position it should , I guess that is just the nature of this contest.

As I said earlier I very much agree with your main point. My essay does not look like the mainstream but it deals with the same issues from a very different perspective. I have chosen you to look at my essay because I feel you will be able to see your main interest very clearly(the relation between space and particles), Also since you know programming ,I hope you get the time to run the simulations(you can also modify) and see the results for yourself.

The programs are at my website

http://www.qsa.netne.net

please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

you can find my essay at this link

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

I found your essay very interesting. When I read you time hypothesis, I immediately thought that it seems to be contrary to the quantum zeno effect, so I am glad that you mentioned it, but I'm afraid I don't understand your explanation.

A measurement is presumably an interaction which causes a change in in the quantum state. If time is a change in the quantum state, then it seems to me that the faster you measure a system, the more time passes for it, i.e. I would have expect exactly the opposite of time-dilation.

There are certain parts of the waterloo interpretation that are similar to the framework I work on, most noticeably that particles only "touch" spacetime at two points. If you have time to read my essay, you will see in the second half a foundational principle which I believe is congruent with this view of the existence of quantum systems. I apply this principle in particular to world-lines which, then results essentially in the picture you described. The paper in which the frame work is described is called "A Novel Approach to Making Sense out of the Copenhagen Interpretation".

I enjoyed your essay and wish you all the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
While at an abstract level of QM, we abstract away the fact that a system, which is a bunch of atoms, which is a bunch of particles, may have lots of events going on. These events, for example, are a primary reason behind Zurek's way of how coherence is spontaneously lost. This highlights again that current QM postulates are not fundamental enough, in light of QFT's in SM and experiments, like...

view entire post

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Dear Mikalai. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 22:09 GMT
Hi Mikalai,

I appreciate your account of space and time as effective and not fundamental. It seems to have a connection to the simulation paradigm: Space and time, even particles and interactions, may be produced from an invisible computational substrate. Perhaps we are able to observe only the "display screen" and not the "computer memory" in the simulation.

This is the concept that I explore in my essay Software Cosmos, which takes a look at the observable consequences of such a model.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:47 GMT
Ever since QM was formed, 1920's, 90% of human engineering, i.e. classical mechanics and electrodynamics, have already become effective thing on top of quantum stuff.

The QM basis, the substrate, is not without its own interpretation difficulties, though. But, between 1920's and 2010's, QFTs were found, then, steered by Feynman into calculable direction, it led to Standard Model, which is the best explanation of things around us. And QFT is a substrate for QM, and, therefore, for everything else as well.

Pretending that we have no physically grounded candidates for substrates (like QFT provides), and trying to make substrate as some abstract "world computer", is just a cute metaphysical exersice. But when taxpayers were giving me money to do physics, they meant me do physics, period.

Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Mikalai.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Hello Mikalai

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Hello Mikalai,

We exchanged some information on your paper. After additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, including you, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT which I wrote after submitting my essay. I also wish you could read and rate my essay although I do not plan to force you to change your relational views on space.

Thanks,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 12:19 GMT
Dear Mikalai,

Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... In your essay deep original analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts and conclusions One of them:

«Fundamental particles have an internal spin characteristic. While spin is internal, rotation in physical 3D space changes relative spin...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Kyle Miller wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:28 GMT
I found your essay to be a little hard to understand with all the complicated maths. And am not sure I can agree with your conclusion (or the non-standard formulation of quantum mechanics). I can see how it might be a useful way of thinking about quantum mechanics in certain scenarios, e.g., when thinking about multiple systems of particles interacting. In situations where it makes sense to think of bit as it, in other words. But I see no reason to extrapolate that bit is it.

- Kyle Miller

report post as inappropriate

Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:54 GMT

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 20:58 GMT
Mikalai - Nice essay on the the Waterloo Formulation. Loved your derivation of the principle of least action. My rating should improve your score nicely.

I have a very similar approach to defining time (all about visible change). However, I do this by defining two times of time: Classical time (Tc) and subtime (ts). I would be interested in your views on how this relates to your “Time Hypothesis”.

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill
-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if fqxi splits up this url, I haven't figured out yet how to stop it doing that).

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Mikalai Birukou wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 22:43 GMT
Using your expression, sub-time is a time direction in spacetime defined by particle events (from spacetime postulate).

The directionality of classical time is given be underlying time direction of order among particle events. The rate of "classical time" may only get slower than underlying sub-time.

What is beautiful here is that postulated spacetime is not an additional entity, but just an order of already postulated matter. Simple and beautiful. I still wonder, how did it take a whole year and Giovanni's paper for me to see it.

Yes, I think that this is how principle of least action should be introduced in QFT textbooks. Old, virtual work + secondary quantization just does not sound good. Look at http://physics-essays.birukou.net/principle-of-least-action for more details on it. Ken Wharton liked it. I had to write it, else I couldn't use action with a straight face :)

You liked the arguments, and a pleasure is all mine. Just want someone to try outlined directions for math investigation. Might be a nice topic for thesis, or a paper.

Cheers,

Mikalai.