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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Philip Gibbs**: *on* 8/9/13 at 2:02am UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, glad to see you made it through My fear was that early...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 8/8/13 at 23:23pm UTC, wrote Congratulations Phil! I guess your high score blows your theory about...

**Paul Borrill**: *on* 8/7/13 at 21:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Philip, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

**Philip Gibbs**: *on* 8/7/13 at 19:35pm UTC, wrote Ben, that is an interesting point. I have noticed some common points with...

**Benjamin Dribus**: *on* 8/7/13 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Philip, I enjoyed your essay... it reminds me of the "iteration of...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 8/7/13 at 2:17am UTC, wrote Hi Phil, I just wanted to let you know I did not forget you in the rush. ...

**Philip Gibbs**: *on* 8/6/13 at 9:32am UTC, wrote Charles thanks for your synopsis. I think it is true that any version of it...

**Charles Card**: *on* 8/6/13 at 3:40am UTC, wrote Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read I am sending to you...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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 23, 2019

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: An Acataleptic Universe by Philip Gibbs [refresh]

TOPIC: An Acataleptic Universe by Philip Gibbs [refresh]

John Wheeler advocated the principle that information is the foundation of physics and asked us to reformulate physics in terms of bits. The goal is to consider what we know already and work out a new mathematical theory in which space, time and matter are secondary. An application of the converse of Noether's second theorem to the holographic principle implies that physics must have an underlying hidden symmetry with degrees of symmetry that match physical degrees of freedom in order to account for the huge redundancy of information in the interior of a black-hole. I have been working on a theory that builds infinite dimensional symmetries using layers of quantisation from information as suggested by Wheeler's contemporary Carl von Weizsäcker. Necklace Lie algebras are the mathematical objects and iterated integration can be used to show how a continuum background can emerge from their structure. The logic suggests the conclusion that wheeler was right when he proclaimed "It from Bit"

Philip Gibbs has a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Glasgow. He has published papers in physics and mathematics as an independent scientist for over 20 years and is the founder of the viXra.org e-print archive.

There are “no absolute proofs in science” because the real absolute states of the real Universe that I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, BITTERS are self evident.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Philip

Your heading is a contradiction. There might be alternatives, but the only “universe” (or physical existence) which we can investigate in science is that which we can potentially know. And there is a physical process underpinning this.

Reality is not information (leaving aside the point that light, etc, which is physically existent, is also information). Reality exists. And it can only do so in a sequence of discrete, definitive, physically existent states. By definition, a reality cannot involve any form of alteration (difference) or indefiniteness, otherwise existence is impossible. Nothing “emerges”, it is a sequence. Nothing is “uncertain”, we just do not conceive of the level of differentiation involved most of the time, and would definitely have difficulty identifying it.

The point is that we can only have information of reality, and compile knowledge which ultimately we can deem to be the equivalent of it. ‘It’ being existence as potentially knowable to us. We are trapped in an existentially closed system.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Your heading is a contradiction. There might be alternatives, but the only “universe” (or physical existence) which we can investigate in science is that which we can potentially know. And there is a physical process underpinning this.

Reality is not information (leaving aside the point that light, etc, which is physically existent, is also information). Reality exists. And it can only do so in a sequence of discrete, definitive, physically existent states. By definition, a reality cannot involve any form of alteration (difference) or indefiniteness, otherwise existence is impossible. Nothing “emerges”, it is a sequence. Nothing is “uncertain”, we just do not conceive of the level of differentiation involved most of the time, and would definitely have difficulty identifying it.

The point is that we can only have information of reality, and compile knowledge which ultimately we can deem to be the equivalent of it. ‘It’ being existence as potentially knowable to us. We are trapped in an existentially closed system.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul, I would concede that the title is a paradox, but not a contradiction. Quantum mechanics makes the world inherently uncertain, but that does not mean the universe is unknowable. Some people mis-define acataleptic to mean incomprehensible but that is not an accurate description of the philosophical position held by the Greek acataleptics (as far as we know)

If you take the position that quantum mechanics is wrong and this uncertainty is not fundamental then you are in the company of Einstein, Bohm, 't Hooft and many others. I cannot persuade you otherwise, but I do not accept that such certainty is a logical necessity and nobody has provided any such argument that I am aware of.

I will read your essay to see what more you have to say about it.

If you take the position that quantum mechanics is wrong and this uncertainty is not fundamental then you are in the company of Einstein, Bohm, 't Hooft and many others. I cannot persuade you otherwise, but I do not accept that such certainty is a logical necessity and nobody has provided any such argument that I am aware of.

I will read your essay to see what more you have to say about it.

Philip

"then you are in the company of Einstein", oh heck, but then one must presume from all his output some of it was correct!!

"but I do not accept that such certainty is a logical necessity and nobody has provided any such argument that I am aware of"

Here goes then. Referring to a para over in my response to you on my blog. The form of existence knowable to us can only occur as sequence, ie one physically existent state at a time. There cannot be any form of non-definitiveness or alteration within that state, otherwise it cannot exist. There cannot be 'vague' existence. Perhaps it was here or msaybe over there, maybe it was this shape or perhaps that! It is us who cannot differentiate it adequately. But instead of accepting that, there has been this wierd notion that there is something 'wrong' with reality, it is counter intuitive, relative, subject to influence when we sense it, etc, etc.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

"then you are in the company of Einstein", oh heck, but then one must presume from all his output some of it was correct!!

"but I do not accept that such certainty is a logical necessity and nobody has provided any such argument that I am aware of"

Here goes then. Referring to a para over in my response to you on my blog. The form of existence knowable to us can only occur as sequence, ie one physically existent state at a time. There cannot be any form of non-definitiveness or alteration within that state, otherwise it cannot exist. There cannot be 'vague' existence. Perhaps it was here or msaybe over there, maybe it was this shape or perhaps that! It is us who cannot differentiate it adequately. But instead of accepting that, there has been this wierd notion that there is something 'wrong' with reality, it is counter intuitive, relative, subject to influence when we sense it, etc, etc.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul, that is not a bad try. I think many physicists who seek a deterministic theory use the same kind of ideas as you have expressed here.

A very nice and insightful essay. I'm particularly pleased that apparently, there are still people out there considering Weizsäcker's work worthy of further investigation; I've always thought that this is one of those 'great but forgotten' ideas that might merit revisiting (especially given the current state of high energy physics). I also enjoyed your nicely conceptual introduction to the holographic principle. (However, you seem to be saying that it applies to any spatial volume. I'm not sure that's right in general; you'll probably have to appeal to Busso's construction---his 'covariant entropy bound'. But you probably just wanted to not unnecessarily bog down the discussion with technicalities.)

As for your view on the necessity of some new, 'huge' symmetry---well, to me, symmetry in fact is just some kind of redundancy (I can't quite tell whether you agree or disagree here). But this redundancy is a very deep concept! It's what enables a lawlike description of the world: whatever lacks redundancy is effectively random, and has no significantly shorter description (see e.g. Kolmogorov complexity). So a universe which is highly symmetric, highly redundant, is one that has a simple, short, lawlike description---meaning one we'd have at least a fighting chance to understand using our tiny monkey brains. So in this sense, I hope you're right about the existence of such a huge amount of symmetry!

However, I think I didn't get the point about multiple quantization leading to additional symmetry. I may be misremembering, but in general, if you quantize, you may loose symmetry due to anomalyies; but I'm not sure how to gain additional symmetry. I'd be grateful if you could maybe elaborate on this point...

report post as inappropriate

As for your view on the necessity of some new, 'huge' symmetry---well, to me, symmetry in fact is just some kind of redundancy (I can't quite tell whether you agree or disagree here). But this redundancy is a very deep concept! It's what enables a lawlike description of the world: whatever lacks redundancy is effectively random, and has no significantly shorter description (see e.g. Kolmogorov complexity). So a universe which is highly symmetric, highly redundant, is one that has a simple, short, lawlike description---meaning one we'd have at least a fighting chance to understand using our tiny monkey brains. So in this sense, I hope you're right about the existence of such a huge amount of symmetry!

However, I think I didn't get the point about multiple quantization leading to additional symmetry. I may be misremembering, but in general, if you quantize, you may loose symmetry due to anomalyies; but I'm not sure how to gain additional symmetry. I'd be grateful if you could maybe elaborate on this point...

report post as inappropriate

Jochen, thanks for your comments. I am glad you also appreciate Weizsäcker's work. He is much less cited than Wheeler yet he went much further in trying to formulate how "It from Bit" could actually work. After he won the Templeton prize he was able to supervise students who furthered his work.

For the moment I am working on the principle that the holographic principle applies for any surface bounding a volume. I know this would have cosmological implication. A spatially closed cosmology would be ruled out because a surface encloses both the inside and outside which does not make sense if the surface is small. A flat homogeneous universe is also problematical, but hyperbolic universes and in-homogeneous universes are fine. Perhaps a more complete version of my ideas would imply only the covariant entropy bound but as it presently stands I think I need to believe in the more general rule.

I agree that symmetry can be seen as "some kind of redundancy" but I don't agree that this should be preceeded by the word "just". Consider a toy model where the content of the universe is described by a single NxN hermitian matrix and the dynamics have a U(N) symmetry. There are N^2 degrees of freedom and the symmetry Lie algebra is also of dimension N^2, yet the system is not quite all redundancy. There are N real invariants modulo the permutation group S_N. When we talk about symmetry being a redundancy we need to think about what is left when it is integrated out. With gauge fields there may also be topological invariants as well as conserved charged. I think this is consistent with what you are saying about its comprehensibility.

As to how quantisation builds symmetry, in Weizsäcker's work he starts with a bit which has Z_2 symmetry. The first quantisation is a qubit with SU(2) symmetry. The next quantisation is a larger object that includes larger symmetries and so on. The right definition of quantisation is still lacking but the version that came up in my work builds bigger necklace lie algebras from smaller ones. (I connected this to Weizsäcker's work later after a communication with David Finklestein) I did not have space to describe the details here. I think the anomalies will not kill the important gauge symmetry in the real theory otherwise you can lose unitarity and become inconsistent.

Thanks for you comments which have made me think. I have already noted that your essay is another technical one so I will read it carefully next.

For the moment I am working on the principle that the holographic principle applies for any surface bounding a volume. I know this would have cosmological implication. A spatially closed cosmology would be ruled out because a surface encloses both the inside and outside which does not make sense if the surface is small. A flat homogeneous universe is also problematical, but hyperbolic universes and in-homogeneous universes are fine. Perhaps a more complete version of my ideas would imply only the covariant entropy bound but as it presently stands I think I need to believe in the more general rule.

I agree that symmetry can be seen as "some kind of redundancy" but I don't agree that this should be preceeded by the word "just". Consider a toy model where the content of the universe is described by a single NxN hermitian matrix and the dynamics have a U(N) symmetry. There are N^2 degrees of freedom and the symmetry Lie algebra is also of dimension N^2, yet the system is not quite all redundancy. There are N real invariants modulo the permutation group S_N. When we talk about symmetry being a redundancy we need to think about what is left when it is integrated out. With gauge fields there may also be topological invariants as well as conserved charged. I think this is consistent with what you are saying about its comprehensibility.

As to how quantisation builds symmetry, in Weizsäcker's work he starts with a bit which has Z_2 symmetry. The first quantisation is a qubit with SU(2) symmetry. The next quantisation is a larger object that includes larger symmetries and so on. The right definition of quantisation is still lacking but the version that came up in my work builds bigger necklace lie algebras from smaller ones. (I connected this to Weizsäcker's work later after a communication with David Finklestein) I did not have space to describe the details here. I think the anomalies will not kill the important gauge symmetry in the real theory otherwise you can lose unitarity and become inconsistent.

Thanks for you comments which have made me think. I have already noted that your essay is another technical one so I will read it carefully next.

Thanks for the explanation, Philip; I also had a brief look at Lyre's article on multiple quantization. I think the concept is a little different from the intro-to-QM 'promote observables to Hermitian operators' quantization, but then, the intent is different, as well: one doesn't really want to start with a classical system to find the quantum analogue, but build up physics from the ground from 'abstract quantum theory' (a point of view I'm very sympathetic to). I guess we both appreciate Weizsäcker's work from different angles: I was initially drawn to it as an explanation for the three dimensionality of space (which I see reflected in Finkelstein's space-time code and Penrose's original spin networks; indeed, the whole concept has recently be revived in a modern setting by Müller and Masanes, who considered the abstract case of two agents attempting to establish a common reference frame by exchanging quantum information, but this only parenthetically), you emphasize the multiple quantization.

The straightforwardly ur-theoretic perspective might be somewhat difficult to align with your work anyway, since at least naively, it would seem to suggest a closed (S^3) universe, which would conflict with your views on holography (but I was never entirely convinced by these cosmological arguments anyway). This is actually one thing I've been wanting to investigate for some time: the relationship between ur theory and the holographic principle. I seem to recall some partial successes by either Görnitz or Lyre, who computed the amount of information lost to the universe by removing a particle from it, and found it to be consistent with holographic expectations (maybe it was in Görnitz' 'Abstract Quantum Theory and Space-Time'-series?). But I also seem to recall some tension...

Anyway, I'll have to check out some of the work you reference---I hadn't previously heard about 'necklace Lie algebras' (though the way you describe and use them reminds me faintly of the concept of 'string bits' that was floating around some years ago, but that might be a false association), and while I had previously dipped into your work on event symmetry (you might have noticed that I reference Greg Egan's 'Permutation City' in my essay), I can't really claim to have the necessary background to understand it all. Sometimes, there's just too much interesting stuff to read...

report post as inappropriate

The straightforwardly ur-theoretic perspective might be somewhat difficult to align with your work anyway, since at least naively, it would seem to suggest a closed (S^3) universe, which would conflict with your views on holography (but I was never entirely convinced by these cosmological arguments anyway). This is actually one thing I've been wanting to investigate for some time: the relationship between ur theory and the holographic principle. I seem to recall some partial successes by either Görnitz or Lyre, who computed the amount of information lost to the universe by removing a particle from it, and found it to be consistent with holographic expectations (maybe it was in Görnitz' 'Abstract Quantum Theory and Space-Time'-series?). But I also seem to recall some tension...

Anyway, I'll have to check out some of the work you reference---I hadn't previously heard about 'necklace Lie algebras' (though the way you describe and use them reminds me faintly of the concept of 'string bits' that was floating around some years ago, but that might be a false association), and while I had previously dipped into your work on event symmetry (you might have noticed that I reference Greg Egan's 'Permutation City' in my essay), I can't really claim to have the necessary background to understand it all. Sometimes, there's just too much interesting stuff to read...

report post as inappropriate

The formulation that they used for quantization is probably not too important now. The idea comes from decades ago and is probably a bit dated. I just like the multiple quantisation idea in general. I think Weizsäcker ended up with some large number type arguments that don't really make sense anymore.

Hi Philip!

You did a great job with your essay. I work in ICT sector and I love to use my "golden hammer" everywhere, KIS(s), you know... keep it simple. I don't like that last s (=stupid). Do you honestly think that a common people understand your theory? I mean this in a good way.

And how space, time and matter can be secondary? After all, space and matter are the fundamental building blocks of universe.

report post as inappropriate

You did a great job with your essay. I work in ICT sector and I love to use my "golden hammer" everywhere, KIS(s), you know... keep it simple. I don't like that last s (=stupid). Do you honestly think that a common people understand your theory? I mean this in a good way.

And how space, time and matter can be secondary? After all, space and matter are the fundamental building blocks of universe.

report post as inappropriate

Kimmo, it is good to see you over here.

Yes, the key to getting high scores would be the right balance of interesting text that is easy to understand plus a few equations and nice pictures. I have probably gone too far to the technical side this time, but I prefer to say what I want to say and risk some low marks. I would really like to make the final this time though, and perhaps you underestimate common people too much :-)

And yes, space time and matter can really be secondary. They don't have to be the most fundamental building blocks. Already there are many physical theories with dualities where these things change characteristic depending on how you look. I have found that an algebra with no obvious connection to continuous space or time can be mapped exactly to states of material objects in a continuous space. The explanation is somewhat mathematical and it needs more space to elaborate than the one page I gave it in the essay, but it really is a neat and non-trivial trick that physicists need to be aware of.

Yes, the key to getting high scores would be the right balance of interesting text that is easy to understand plus a few equations and nice pictures. I have probably gone too far to the technical side this time, but I prefer to say what I want to say and risk some low marks. I would really like to make the final this time though, and perhaps you underestimate common people too much :-)

And yes, space time and matter can really be secondary. They don't have to be the most fundamental building blocks. Already there are many physical theories with dualities where these things change characteristic depending on how you look. I have found that an algebra with no obvious connection to continuous space or time can be mapped exactly to states of material objects in a continuous space. The explanation is somewhat mathematical and it needs more space to elaborate than the one page I gave it in the essay, but it really is a neat and non-trivial trick that physicists need to be aware of.

I really love this setup here. Different paradigms shouting out in a market place. Kind of Monty Python movie scene comes to my mind. Again, in a good way :)

Interesting to see which one prevails in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Interesting to see which one prevails in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

I'd play a devil's advocate here :)

Continuing on your "What we need is a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations.", how do you look at current apparent lack of any hint of SUSY in LHC data? Especially, since without SUSY, there may not be strings either. May your mathematical arguments be applied somewhere, in case of no strings?

A. Wheeler talked about super-strings, because in absence of experiment, this was hoped as the best theory. I wonder, what he would've said this, if he were alive.

report post as inappropriate

I'd play a devil's advocate here :)

Continuing on your "What we need is a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations.", how do you look at current apparent lack of any hint of SUSY in LHC data? Especially, since without SUSY, there may not be strings either. May your mathematical arguments be applied somewhere, in case of no strings?

A. Wheeler talked about super-strings, because in absence of experiment, this was hoped as the best theory. I wonder, what he would've said this, if he were alive.

report post as inappropriate

Miklai, thanks for these questions which are very important to answer fully.

Two years ago the case for SUSY at the TeV scale looked pretty good. This was partly due to electroweak fits which suggested a light Higgs (115-120 GeV) supported by hints seen at LEP. Suxh a light Higgs would have required something very like SUSY to keep the cavuum stable. This turned out to be an illusion and the correct Higgs mass is 125 GeV. At that mass we dont really need SUSY to stabilise the vacuum so the case is weakened. There were other reasons to believe in SUSY. It provides solutions for dark matter, proton stability etc, but none of these things say that SUSY is necessary. It looks like nature fooled the theorists this time and it is the first time they were caught out like that. Of course SUSY could be waiting at the next energy range to be searched at the LHC in 2015 or it could be at a higher energy anywhere up to the GUT scale which is a big range of energies, but the higher it is the more the standard model looks fine-tuned. It is a strange mystery but those are the cards we have been dealt and we have to play them.

String theory is really another matter. If we see SUSY it will support string theory but not seeing SUSY only weakly affects the case for strings. String theory is a theory of quantum gravity that tells us about physics at the Planck scale. Expecting it to have observable consequences at the TeV scale is like expecting the top quark to be relevant to biology. They are worlds apart. The main motivation for string theory is that it provides the only perturbative framework for a consistent theory of quantum gravity. This is a non-trivial observation, but it is not a 100% watertight argument that string theory must be right. If it isn't then theorists have been caught out in an even bigger way than with SUSY, but maybe that is the new trend.

I am open minded but I think string theory plays some role and we have to at least understand how it works before we make progress. I am all for looking at alternative ideas either in their own right or as new ways to look at strings. My own work is quite radical and is not the way conventional string theorists see things.

Much of what I have said in this essay is fairly generic and could play a role even if string theory is irrelevant. It does seem to point more naturally in the direction of strings but the black hole information puzzle is a problem for any theory of quantum gravity to explain and the possible implications for symmetry that I have outlines are equally generic.

Two years ago the case for SUSY at the TeV scale looked pretty good. This was partly due to electroweak fits which suggested a light Higgs (115-120 GeV) supported by hints seen at LEP. Suxh a light Higgs would have required something very like SUSY to keep the cavuum stable. This turned out to be an illusion and the correct Higgs mass is 125 GeV. At that mass we dont really need SUSY to stabilise the vacuum so the case is weakened. There were other reasons to believe in SUSY. It provides solutions for dark matter, proton stability etc, but none of these things say that SUSY is necessary. It looks like nature fooled the theorists this time and it is the first time they were caught out like that. Of course SUSY could be waiting at the next energy range to be searched at the LHC in 2015 or it could be at a higher energy anywhere up to the GUT scale which is a big range of energies, but the higher it is the more the standard model looks fine-tuned. It is a strange mystery but those are the cards we have been dealt and we have to play them.

String theory is really another matter. If we see SUSY it will support string theory but not seeing SUSY only weakly affects the case for strings. String theory is a theory of quantum gravity that tells us about physics at the Planck scale. Expecting it to have observable consequences at the TeV scale is like expecting the top quark to be relevant to biology. They are worlds apart. The main motivation for string theory is that it provides the only perturbative framework for a consistent theory of quantum gravity. This is a non-trivial observation, but it is not a 100% watertight argument that string theory must be right. If it isn't then theorists have been caught out in an even bigger way than with SUSY, but maybe that is the new trend.

I am open minded but I think string theory plays some role and we have to at least understand how it works before we make progress. I am all for looking at alternative ideas either in their own right or as new ways to look at strings. My own work is quite radical and is not the way conventional string theorists see things.

Much of what I have said in this essay is fairly generic and could play a role even if string theory is irrelevant. It does seem to point more naturally in the direction of strings but the black hole information puzzle is a problem for any theory of quantum gravity to explain and the possible implications for symmetry that I have outlines are equally generic.

Phil,

A superb essay. Your brief but coherent history of the key ideas evidences superior understanding of how this view fits together. I don't subscribe to the view, but I gained insights from your presentation. For example you say, "If there is redundancy, there must also be gauge theory." I've been focused on Yang-Mills for many months and have not seen it this way. Very thought...

view entire post

A superb essay. Your brief but coherent history of the key ideas evidences superior understanding of how this view fits together. I don't subscribe to the view, but I gained insights from your presentation. For example you say, "If there is redundancy, there must also be gauge theory." I've been focused on Yang-Mills for many months and have not seen it this way. Very thought...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin, It is good to see you around and I look forward to seeing your essay enter into the debate.

I think that "a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations" is a reasonable requirement. If such a thing does not exist I don't know what replaces it. I didn't go to school at Hogwarts :-) Of course I look forward to your solution and I am sure that your view will get some sympathy.

I do agree that understanding awareness is important. Jochen Szangolies already had some interesting things to say about consciousness in his essay. I do think about such things even if I have not written about them. The role of information in this issue must be important and I hope that I may learn something about it from these essays, so I look forward to that. I do think that mathematical analysis will have some bearing on it but there is also a meta-physical side that can/must be discussed without the maths.

The firewall issue is something else that is very interesting and it an essay could be 50 pages long I would have tried to deal with it, but perhaps it is better that we are forced to concentrate on fewer points. I don't think for one minute that a firewall is the correct description of a black-hole horizon but the arguments that lead to it have to be addressed. They rely on the assumption that entanglement is an essential part of black-hole complementary. If I am right that information is described by charges from a huge symmetry then those arguments may be circumvented, but I think that is too premature a claim for me to make. Entanglement entropy is a useful idea for small black-holes in string theory and the distinction between classical and quantum is blurred when you introduce iterated quantisation so the solution may be more subtle. If anyone brings up the subject of firewalls in their essay we may get an interesting argument going about it.

I look forward to your essay.

I think that "a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations" is a reasonable requirement. If such a thing does not exist I don't know what replaces it. I didn't go to school at Hogwarts :-) Of course I look forward to your solution and I am sure that your view will get some sympathy.

I do agree that understanding awareness is important. Jochen Szangolies already had some interesting things to say about consciousness in his essay. I do think about such things even if I have not written about them. The role of information in this issue must be important and I hope that I may learn something about it from these essays, so I look forward to that. I do think that mathematical analysis will have some bearing on it but there is also a meta-physical side that can/must be discussed without the maths.

The firewall issue is something else that is very interesting and it an essay could be 50 pages long I would have tried to deal with it, but perhaps it is better that we are forced to concentrate on fewer points. I don't think for one minute that a firewall is the correct description of a black-hole horizon but the arguments that lead to it have to be addressed. They rely on the assumption that entanglement is an essential part of black-hole complementary. If I am right that information is described by charges from a huge symmetry then those arguments may be circumvented, but I think that is too premature a claim for me to make. Entanglement entropy is a useful idea for small black-holes in string theory and the distinction between classical and quantum is blurred when you introduce iterated quantisation so the solution may be more subtle. If anyone brings up the subject of firewalls in their essay we may get an interesting argument going about it.

I look forward to your essay.

Philip

Understanding awareness/consciousness is only important in that it enables the unravelling of the process which converts physical input to perception of that physical input. It is not a physical process, because it does not involve an alteration in physical form, and the process has no impact on the physical circumstance. Both because of the latter point, and because of the simple fact that physical existence occurs before perception. Physical input has to be received first, in order to enable a perception of it to be created, and a necessary condition of physical influence is sequence order.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Understanding awareness/consciousness is only important in that it enables the unravelling of the process which converts physical input to perception of that physical input. It is not a physical process, because it does not involve an alteration in physical form, and the process has no impact on the physical circumstance. Both because of the latter point, and because of the simple fact that physical existence occurs before perception. Physical input has to be received first, in order to enable a perception of it to be created, and a necessary condition of physical influence is sequence order.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

I agree that awareness/consciousness is not a physical process. It could be viewed as just a psychological process of no importance to physics, but I think it is a little more than that because it is linked to entropy and information. It is an important aspect of understanding the interpretation of physics. It may tell us something about why we see the universe the way we do. If the laws of physics are holographic why do we not experience life as if we are living on a 2D boundary rather than the extended 3D world that you get by adding in lots of redundancy?

It may also become a practical consideration in the future if it becomes possible to accurately simulate our brains on a computer. A simulated brain would claim to have awareness because it is simulating a real brain and that is what a real brain would claim. Should we accept that? Would you transfer your brain patterns to a computer as a form of immortality? If yes, then what happens if the function of the simulated brain is modified or duplicated etc.? What if someone simulates out brain without telling us? What if we are simulated in another universe? Doesn't that happen somewhere because the universe/multiverse is so large?

I think that making sense of such questions must tell us something about how the world works, but I don't think the answers require any kind of physical process like a soul to explain consciousness. Do you agree?

It may also become a practical consideration in the future if it becomes possible to accurately simulate our brains on a computer. A simulated brain would claim to have awareness because it is simulating a real brain and that is what a real brain would claim. Should we accept that? Would you transfer your brain patterns to a computer as a form of immortality? If yes, then what happens if the function of the simulated brain is modified or duplicated etc.? What if someone simulates out brain without telling us? What if we are simulated in another universe? Doesn't that happen somewhere because the universe/multiverse is so large?

I think that making sense of such questions must tell us something about how the world works, but I don't think the answers require any kind of physical process like a soul to explain consciousness. Do you agree?

Philip

“but I think it is a little more than that because it is linked to entropy and information”

The sensory/thinking process is not physically linked to anything. It cannot have any form of physical impact on the physical circumstance. [Obviously one could depict the process as a physical one, in itself, ie the brain, eye, etc, is physically existent!, but this is not the point]

It is, obviously, important that the processes are fully understood, because it is the start point for an analysis of the physical circumstance. Or put another way, if we could get rid of it, that would really help! So we need to understand how this process converts physical input to a perception so that we can reverse engineer the process and discern what was received.

We would not want to simulate the process. The aim would be to eliminate it with technology which established accurately and comprehensively what it received.

The point here is, leaving aside detail which does not impact on the argument. The brick wall behind you received the ‘same’ light, indeed so did your mouth, etc, ec, as your eye which caused you to be aware of a bus in front of you. But the brick wall, mouth, etc, cannot process the physical input received by that interaction, the eye can. The physical circumstance was not affected.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

“but I think it is a little more than that because it is linked to entropy and information”

The sensory/thinking process is not physically linked to anything. It cannot have any form of physical impact on the physical circumstance. [Obviously one could depict the process as a physical one, in itself, ie the brain, eye, etc, is physically existent!, but this is not the point]

It is, obviously, important that the processes are fully understood, because it is the start point for an analysis of the physical circumstance. Or put another way, if we could get rid of it, that would really help! So we need to understand how this process converts physical input to a perception so that we can reverse engineer the process and discern what was received.

We would not want to simulate the process. The aim would be to eliminate it with technology which established accurately and comprehensively what it received.

The point here is, leaving aside detail which does not impact on the argument. The brick wall behind you received the ‘same’ light, indeed so did your mouth, etc, ec, as your eye which caused you to be aware of a bus in front of you. But the brick wall, mouth, etc, cannot process the physical input received by that interaction, the eye can. The physical circumstance was not affected.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

I read your essay with interest, even though I was not familiar with the term "acataleptic". The online dictionary I used defined this as "incomprehensible", although I now understand that you are referring to fundamental uncertainty. And indeed, quantum uncertainty is universally believed to be a fundamental aspect of nature. On the other hand, I argue in my essay ("Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time") that one can obtain a consistent description of microscopic reality based on real-space relativistic quantum waves, without uncertainty - there are no point particles.

Further, I show that one can obtain the effects of general relativity directly from these microscopic quantum waves. But a self-consistent application of this picture eliminates divergences, so there are neither event horizons nor black holes. Yes, this is heretical, but I argue that the observation of compact high-mass objects does not prove the existence of black holes per se.

Finally, thank you for your creation of viXra.org, which enables one to evade the tyranny of anonymous gatekeepers.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay with interest, even though I was not familiar with the term "acataleptic". The online dictionary I used defined this as "incomprehensible", although I now understand that you are referring to fundamental uncertainty. And indeed, quantum uncertainty is universally believed to be a fundamental aspect of nature. On the other hand, I argue in my essay ("Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time") that one can obtain a consistent description of microscopic reality based on real-space relativistic quantum waves, without uncertainty - there are no point particles.

Further, I show that one can obtain the effects of general relativity directly from these microscopic quantum waves. But a self-consistent application of this picture eliminates divergences, so there are neither event horizons nor black holes. Yes, this is heretical, but I argue that the observation of compact high-mass objects does not prove the existence of black holes per se.

Finally, thank you for your creation of viXra.org, which enables one to evade the tyranny of anonymous gatekeepers.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Other online dictionaries give better definitions for acataleptic. Some commentaries on the philosophy emphasize that not only are answers uncertain, but even levels of uncertainty are uncertain. This makes me think of the multiple quantisation idea and also Wheeler's comment that the probability values in quantum theory are also human inventions. It sums up some of what my essay is about and makes a cool title.

Hi Philip,

After our very brief exchange (some time ago) somehow that led me to reread your last year’s essay. I was glad I did, even more with your new essay; I finally think I understand (in general) what you are trying to say. You are definitely on the right track in my opinion . All that, are in line with my own ideas which I hope I can submit, time permitting. But let me ask you the following (for now):

1. How does the necklace Lie algebra relate to information theory

2. What does this mathematical structure represent (why this math and not others), since you say it is the origin of matter and space. Do you believe in MUH?

3. Does this theory have anything to do with your last year essay?

4. Will your theory clearly derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few.

5. Speaking of consistency. Are you really content with the three main forces of SM. The carrier of EM force is “virtual photons” then the weak force you get REAL particles W/Z then the strong is carried by “virtual quarks/gluons” where they all unite at GUT ! Can your theory figure out this mess?

So far you have done a good job engaging, not like last year, where all the top prize winners were silent, a deafening silence.

report post as inappropriate

After our very brief exchange (some time ago) somehow that led me to reread your last year’s essay. I was glad I did, even more with your new essay; I finally think I understand (in general) what you are trying to say. You are definitely on the right track in my opinion . All that, are in line with my own ideas which I hope I can submit, time permitting. But let me ask you the following (for now):

1. How does the necklace Lie algebra relate to information theory

2. What does this mathematical structure represent (why this math and not others), since you say it is the origin of matter and space. Do you believe in MUH?

3. Does this theory have anything to do with your last year essay?

4. Will your theory clearly derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few.

5. Speaking of consistency. Are you really content with the three main forces of SM. The carrier of EM force is “virtual photons” then the weak force you get REAL particles W/Z then the strong is carried by “virtual quarks/gluons” where they all unite at GUT ! Can your theory figure out this mess?

So far you have done a good job engaging, not like last year, where all the top prize winners were silent, a deafening silence.

report post as inappropriate

qsa, thanks for reading the essay. I look forward to seeing your essay. Let's take your points one by one

"1.How does the necklace Lie algebra relate to information theory"

The Lie algebras are pure symmetry. They are not embedded in any space or time and are not particles, The symmetry represents redundant information and the invariants are real information. space, time and matter should emerge from these structures and this is demonstrated by the mapping using interated integration which shows they have an equivalence to string states. Alternativeley these could be particle trajectories if you dont like strings, but I prefer strings. Some of the necklace Lie algebras I have defined in the past take the form of strings of qubits making the information element more explicit.

"2.What does this mathematical structure represent (why this math and not others), since you say it is the origin of matter and space. Do you believe in MUH?"

The structures are just infinite dimensional Lie algebras. While finite dimensional algebras can be classified as Lie groups the infinite dimensional versions are largely unexplored territory and have a rich and complex range of possibilities. I can build higher dimensional structures by a iterative process that I identify with quantisation, but I have not described that in detail here. In a more advanced version I expect these to be q-deformed (another part of quantisation) and it may require higher dimensional algebras like n-categories to get the full workings, I am not sure.

I do go along with the MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis) as postulated by Tegmark and have been writing about similar ideas myself for at least 20 years under the title "Theory of Theories". One element that I add myself is that the mathematics that describe our universe could emerge from the MUH through some principle of universality that applies to the grand ensemble of mathematical possibilities. It could be an algebraic principle of universality rather than a purely statistical process (whatever that means) I don't think anyone else has taken up that idea. The details are of course far beyond what we currently understand.

to be continued...

"1.How does the necklace Lie algebra relate to information theory"

The Lie algebras are pure symmetry. They are not embedded in any space or time and are not particles, The symmetry represents redundant information and the invariants are real information. space, time and matter should emerge from these structures and this is demonstrated by the mapping using interated integration which shows they have an equivalence to string states. Alternativeley these could be particle trajectories if you dont like strings, but I prefer strings. Some of the necklace Lie algebras I have defined in the past take the form of strings of qubits making the information element more explicit.

"2.What does this mathematical structure represent (why this math and not others), since you say it is the origin of matter and space. Do you believe in MUH?"

The structures are just infinite dimensional Lie algebras. While finite dimensional algebras can be classified as Lie groups the infinite dimensional versions are largely unexplored territory and have a rich and complex range of possibilities. I can build higher dimensional structures by a iterative process that I identify with quantisation, but I have not described that in detail here. In a more advanced version I expect these to be q-deformed (another part of quantisation) and it may require higher dimensional algebras like n-categories to get the full workings, I am not sure.

I do go along with the MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis) as postulated by Tegmark and have been writing about similar ideas myself for at least 20 years under the title "Theory of Theories". One element that I add myself is that the mathematics that describe our universe could emerge from the MUH through some principle of universality that applies to the grand ensemble of mathematical possibilities. It could be an algebraic principle of universality rather than a purely statistical process (whatever that means) I don't think anyone else has taken up that idea. The details are of course far beyond what we currently understand.

to be continued...

By the way, I prefer not to use the word "believe" which makes it sound like a quasi-religious idea. I would say that in my opinion this could be a useful way to understand how things work.

"3.Does this theory have anything to do with your last year essay?"

It is related to work in my previous three FQXi essays. I have added a more detailed argument in favour of "complete symmetry" from the holographic principle by relating it to the converse of Noether's second theorem, and I have introduced the iterated integration mapping which is a recent development. these are relevant to the "It from Bit" topic.

"4.Will your theory clearly derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few."

I hope it will derive QFT and gravity. I am not confident that it will calculate SM constants or dark energy. This is a theory about quantum gravity which is relevant to the Planck scale. the standard model is a theory of the TeV scale and below which is many orders of magnitude lower in energy. The theory at the Planck scale should include all of physics in principle but I think that expecting to derive SM physics from QG is like expecting to derive chemistry or even biology from SM physics but even harder. There is probably a lot of physics in between to account for dark matter, inflation and other stuff we have not yet seen.

"5.Speaking of consistency. Are you really content with the three main forces of SM. The carrier of EM force is “virtual photons” then the weak force you get REAL particles W/Z then the strong is carried by “virtual quarks/gluons” where they all unite at GUT ! Can your theory figure out this mess?"

The difference between photons and gluons vs W/Z is that the former are massless and the latter have mass due to Higgs. gluons are also confined so not seen on-shell. All of them manifest as virtual particles and all exist as real particles (in the case of gluons in deconfined phase). That much is well understood. There are many questions including "why so many parameters" "why is there fine-tuning" "what happens at higher energy" etc. I have no idea what happens at the GUT scale, we have along way to go to answer that. In principle a unified theory at the GUT or Planck scale may answer these questions, but it may also be too difficult to calculate what goes on in detail (as in chemistry, nuclear physics etc.) or there may be some arbitrary element (as in biology, geophysics etc.) such as a vacuum selection that can only be determined by experiment. My aims are ambitious enough but they are not so ambitious as to answer all these questions.

"So far you have done a good job engaging, not like last year, where all the top prize winners were silent, a deafening silence. "

This topic is of more interest to me and there have been good essays already so I am keen to engage where I can. It is always hard to get the professionals involved and we should respect any contribution they make. The change of rules may encourage more of them to join in the commenting, or it may put them off entering, we shall see.

Thank you for your excellent questions. I hope I have gone some way towards answering them.

"3.Does this theory have anything to do with your last year essay?"

It is related to work in my previous three FQXi essays. I have added a more detailed argument in favour of "complete symmetry" from the holographic principle by relating it to the converse of Noether's second theorem, and I have introduced the iterated integration mapping which is a recent development. these are relevant to the "It from Bit" topic.

"4.Will your theory clearly derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few."

I hope it will derive QFT and gravity. I am not confident that it will calculate SM constants or dark energy. This is a theory about quantum gravity which is relevant to the Planck scale. the standard model is a theory of the TeV scale and below which is many orders of magnitude lower in energy. The theory at the Planck scale should include all of physics in principle but I think that expecting to derive SM physics from QG is like expecting to derive chemistry or even biology from SM physics but even harder. There is probably a lot of physics in between to account for dark matter, inflation and other stuff we have not yet seen.

"5.Speaking of consistency. Are you really content with the three main forces of SM. The carrier of EM force is “virtual photons” then the weak force you get REAL particles W/Z then the strong is carried by “virtual quarks/gluons” where they all unite at GUT ! Can your theory figure out this mess?"

The difference between photons and gluons vs W/Z is that the former are massless and the latter have mass due to Higgs. gluons are also confined so not seen on-shell. All of them manifest as virtual particles and all exist as real particles (in the case of gluons in deconfined phase). That much is well understood. There are many questions including "why so many parameters" "why is there fine-tuning" "what happens at higher energy" etc. I have no idea what happens at the GUT scale, we have along way to go to answer that. In principle a unified theory at the GUT or Planck scale may answer these questions, but it may also be too difficult to calculate what goes on in detail (as in chemistry, nuclear physics etc.) or there may be some arbitrary element (as in biology, geophysics etc.) such as a vacuum selection that can only be determined by experiment. My aims are ambitious enough but they are not so ambitious as to answer all these questions.

"So far you have done a good job engaging, not like last year, where all the top prize winners were silent, a deafening silence. "

This topic is of more interest to me and there have been good essays already so I am keen to engage where I can. It is always hard to get the professionals involved and we should respect any contribution they make. The change of rules may encourage more of them to join in the commenting, or it may put them off entering, we shall see.

Thank you for your excellent questions. I hope I have gone some way towards answering them.

Hi Philip,

Thank you for the detailed answers. I will study your reply to get a better understanding of your idea and then I will formulate more specific questions.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for the detailed answers. I will study your reply to get a better understanding of your idea and then I will formulate more specific questions.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

Do you think that bits could have real form to make it?

If so, I would propose that those bits have a complex 4 fold convertible torus

to fill the particle bill. See 2x attachments and:

3-D particles the deeper bit-reality of it (matter)

http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0002

http://www.flickr.com/

photos/93308747@N05/sets/72157633110734398/

attachments: It_from_4x_macaroni_Bit_rotation.jpg, quarks_it_made_from_bits.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Do you think that bits could have real form to make it?

If so, I would propose that those bits have a complex 4 fold convertible torus

to fill the particle bill. See 2x attachments and:

3-D particles the deeper bit-reality of it (matter)

http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0002

http://www.flickr.com/

photos/93308747@N05/sets/72157633110734398/

attachments: It_from_4x_macaroni_Bit_rotation.jpg, quarks_it_made_from_bits.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Leo, Good to see you over here.

I think bits of information are real but they do not have any physical form or shape themselves. However, they have relationships with each other such as entanglement and these relationships have real form. That is just the way I see it.

I like you pictures. I will reread your essay.

I think bits of information are real but they do not have any physical form or shape themselves. However, they have relationships with each other such as entanglement and these relationships have real form. That is just the way I see it.

I like you pictures. I will reread your essay.

Thank you very much Philip,

So, Bits of information have relationships with each other such as entanglement and these relationships have real form.

With real form you mean “can be described by math Formulas”?

report post as inappropriate

So, Bits of information have relationships with each other such as entanglement and these relationships have real form.

With real form you mean “can be described by math Formulas”?

report post as inappropriate

Philip

“I think bits of information are real but they do not have any physical form or shape themselves”

What about light, vibration, noise, etc, then? This is information, because it is representational of something else, but is also physically existent in its own right.

No information, as in knowledge, is physically existent, unless one expresses it in terms of neural activity, or a chemical known as ink on a substance known as paper, etc. But of course that I not the point. So this cannot do anything physical.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

“I think bits of information are real but they do not have any physical form or shape themselves”

What about light, vibration, noise, etc, then? This is information, because it is representational of something else, but is also physically existent in its own right.

No information, as in knowledge, is physically existent, unless one expresses it in terms of neural activity, or a chemical known as ink on a substance known as paper, etc. But of course that I not the point. So this cannot do anything physical.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Okay Phil,

Once again, a thought provoking essay! Of course I'm sympathetic to your position but I feel you open yourself up to a bit of critique so I'll take advantage. Where did you open yourself up? I quote:

"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information? Wheeler...

view entire post

Once again, a thought provoking essay! Of course I'm sympathetic to your position but I feel you open yourself up to a bit of critique so I'll take advantage. Where did you open yourself up? I quote:

"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information? Wheeler...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Wes, thanks for this interesting question. I don't think I can give a very short answer because the ontology I use is quite elaborate. It could be a whole essay in itself which is why I don't try to cover such issues in this essay, but I cant really answer the question without telling you how my ontology works so I will give you the outline.

Before I do I should make the point that...

view entire post

Before I do I should make the point that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip,

I have one question and one request. I have been reading your papers and trying to see what you are trying to do exactly. The use of event symmetry is interesting, but I am not clear about multiple quantization and path integral, could you clarify it please.

The discussion of this thread and with Jochen is most interesting for me. Now, I don't want to make this thread about my theory, but I would like a line or two worth of feedback; can you see any link to your ideas. My theory is very platonic, it links space, energy , matter all in one concept, time is a change of state, it does not appear explicitly. As you can see the lagrangian falls out of the system for the Bohr like model and you get the usual relation between c,h_bar and alpha. I have many other results that I have not shown, like g-factor, Fine Structure Constant and full QM hydrogen 1S (in it, if you change the proton width-very closed to measured- even a little the energies come out wrong). I hope I can show all that in time for this contest.

report post as inappropriate

I have one question and one request. I have been reading your papers and trying to see what you are trying to do exactly. The use of event symmetry is interesting, but I am not clear about multiple quantization and path integral, could you clarify it please.

The discussion of this thread and with Jochen is most interesting for me. Now, I don't want to make this thread about my theory, but I would like a line or two worth of feedback; can you see any link to your ideas. My theory is very platonic, it links space, energy , matter all in one concept, time is a change of state, it does not appear explicitly. As you can see the lagrangian falls out of the system for the Bohr like model and you get the usual relation between c,h_bar and alpha. I have many other results that I have not shown, like g-factor, Fine Structure Constant and full QM hydrogen 1S (in it, if you change the proton width-very closed to measured- even a little the energies come out wrong). I hope I can show all that in time for this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting. Just wondering if there are any loopholes in info theory. Gravitons carry some information about the contents from a black hole, if a gauge theory of quantum gravity is a reality. The black hole must be exchanging gravitons with all other masses in the universe. These gravitons can be viewed as carrying information about the mass in the black hole. Measure the strength of the gravitational field and you have info on how much mass is in the hole. Is this relevant to the definition of "information"?

Also, is Hawking radiation perfectly random? If Hawking's own heuristic mechanism for his radiation is right (pair production at the event horizon, with one virtual particle falling in and the other escaping to become onshell and real), surely it will be affected by the electric charge of the black hole? E.g. if mainly positive ions (not light electrons) fall into the black hole, it gets positive charge, and this polarizes the virtual fermion pairs, so after the pair production it's no longer a random virtual charge that falls in, but mostly a negative (attracted to the positive matter in the black hole). The Hawking radiation escaping would then be positrons, rather than gamma rays from annihilation of random charges usually assumed to escape. So is it possible that information may be carried out by Hawking radiation?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Also, is Hawking radiation perfectly random? If Hawking's own heuristic mechanism for his radiation is right (pair production at the event horizon, with one virtual particle falling in and the other escaping to become onshell and real), surely it will be affected by the electric charge of the black hole? E.g. if mainly positive ions (not light electrons) fall into the black hole, it gets positive charge, and this polarizes the virtual fermion pairs, so after the pair production it's no longer a random virtual charge that falls in, but mostly a negative (attracted to the positive matter in the black hole). The Hawking radiation escaping would then be positrons, rather than gamma rays from annihilation of random charges usually assumed to escape. So is it possible that information may be carried out by Hawking radiation?

report post as inappropriate

"Measure the strength of the gravitational field and you have info on how much mass is in the hole. Is this relevant to the definition of "information"?"

Yes, this is a point I am making in my essay. The gravitational field around a black hole can tell you its mass, momentum, angular momentum and position. That's ten numbers. The electric field can tell you its charge. Other gauge fields would give more information. If there were a huge hidden gauge symmetry it may be that all information could be accounted for in this way. That could be how holography works.

I think you are right that Hawking radiation is not completely random. If the BH is charged it will at some point radiate away that charge. However the radiation should be thermal with energy distribution of a black body. To resolve the information loss problem we may need to accept that it is non-random in other more subtle ways.

Yes, this is a point I am making in my essay. The gravitational field around a black hole can tell you its mass, momentum, angular momentum and position. That's ten numbers. The electric field can tell you its charge. Other gauge fields would give more information. If there were a huge hidden gauge symmetry it may be that all information could be accounted for in this way. That could be how holography works.

I think you are right that Hawking radiation is not completely random. If the BH is charged it will at some point radiate away that charge. However the radiation should be thermal with energy distribution of a black body. To resolve the information loss problem we may need to accept that it is non-random in other more subtle ways.

Just a few more comments on the black hole Hawking radiation information claims. (Apologies if this wastes space, please delete if it seems off topic.)

The idea that heavy positive ions may be more likely to fall into a black hole is conventional fractionation of ionized gas in a gravitational field. If a large cloud of gas is falling into a black hole, it accelerates and heats up, being...

view entire post

The idea that heavy positive ions may be more likely to fall into a black hole is conventional fractionation of ionized gas in a gravitational field. If a large cloud of gas is falling into a black hole, it accelerates and heats up, being...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Nige, it seems to me that you might be confusing together some unrelated things. Hawking radiation has nothing to do with pair production in an electric field. It is an effect coming from the horizon. The "heuristic" explanation involving virtual pair production that Hawking and others have used in popular explanations does not really represent the detailed calculation that Hawking did. That was based on methods of semi-classical quantum gravity that are hard to describe well in general terms.

Hi Philip,

Your hypothesis is that quantum information is fundamental and all material entities including spacetime are emergent. But do we need something more fundamental than the spacetime itself? In my opinion (presented in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609) we do not. I propose a simple experiment to prove that particles, fields and information are the same i.e. they...

view entire post

Your hypothesis is that quantum information is fundamental and all material entities including spacetime are emergent. But do we need something more fundamental than the spacetime itself? In my opinion (presented in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609) we do not. I propose a simple experiment to prove that particles, fields and information are the same i.e. they...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I think the view that we live in "An Acataleptic Universe" (an ancient Skeptical view that no more than probable knowledge is available to human beings) is a mistake. In the light of the quantum mechanical understanding that there is no certainty, only probability, this is an understandable mistake, but an error nevertheless. What is needed is comprehension of quantum mechanics. Einstein did not...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Rodney, I was reading your excellent essay while you wrote this long comment.

I do think that quantum theory requires some revision to deal with emergent spacetime and multiple quantisation, but I don't see any reason to expect in-determinism to disappear. I suppose someone has to try out the possibility though.

I do think that quantum theory requires some revision to deal with emergent spacetime and multiple quantisation, but I don't see any reason to expect in-determinism to disappear. I suppose someone has to try out the possibility though.

An excellent essay. Very interesting treatment of the holographic principle

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Philip, I enjoyed your essay and your reasoning is correct when viewed from the accepted paradigm.

Your statement: "Sometimes the most brilliant step towards a great discovery is asking the right question to begin with." is so true, it should have been written much firmer as "As a rule, the most brilliant..."

If asking the right questions is the way forward in our development, then why are uncomfortable questions simply ignored or classed as irrelevant?

report post as inappropriate

Your statement: "Sometimes the most brilliant step towards a great discovery is asking the right question to begin with." is so true, it should have been written much firmer as "As a rule, the most brilliant..."

If asking the right questions is the way forward in our development, then why are uncomfortable questions simply ignored or classed as irrelevant?

report post as inappropriate

Anton, thanks for your comments.

I would ask the same question as you. I have been writing my ideas about physics for twenty years with very little attention paid to what I say. Of course it is easier to get heard if you are someone like Hawking who is known for earlier work and who holds a good position. For the rest of us we have to do what we can to tip the odds in our favour by asking our questions in the right language and in the right places, such as these contests. When nobody listens we must work harder to seek our own answers and make sure they are recorded in a permanent place. When someone else with more authority asks the same question you need to be ready to point to where you asked it first.

I will read your essay next.

I would ask the same question as you. I have been writing my ideas about physics for twenty years with very little attention paid to what I say. Of course it is easier to get heard if you are someone like Hawking who is known for earlier work and who holds a good position. For the rest of us we have to do what we can to tip the odds in our favour by asking our questions in the right language and in the right places, such as these contests. When nobody listens we must work harder to seek our own answers and make sure they are recorded in a permanent place. When someone else with more authority asks the same question you need to be ready to point to where you asked it first.

I will read your essay next.

I've been doing a lot of thinking, Phil. It looks like you were correct when you wrote the following to me - "I also still hold to Einstein's view that a mathematical theory is needed at the heart of physics". I've written a little thing called "Equatiom Describing the Universe" which makes me also think a mathematical theory is needed at the heart of physics -

(the equation won't come out right here, but you can see the proper form at http://viXra.org/abs/1305.0030)

Title –

Equation Describing the Universe

Author –

Rodney Bartlett

Abstract –

Originally, I planned to call this article Hu= BEce , or 1 = 1 . But my computer won’t let me save that name – so I’ve changed the title to “Equation Describing the Universe”. This equation looks like the one physicists are hoping will be printed on T-shirts in the middle of this century as a description of the Universe. Normally, I’d leave development of this equation in the capable hands of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. They aren’t here right now … and it’ll be quite a while before they return. However, they instructed me to send you this message on their behalf.

H is for the Hamiltonian, representing the total energy of a quantum mechanical

system. The subscript u stands for “universe” and Hu means the universe operates quantum mechanically (quantum effects operate macroscopically as well as microscopically, and this unification is symbolized by the first 1). BEc is for Bose-Einstein condensate, a finite form of matter that is the first known example of quantum effects becoming apparent on a macroscopic scale (represented by the second 1). Borrowing a couple of lines from the more complete explanation in the Content – “The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from “the universe going on and on forever”, we can call it “electronic infinity or e ” (not E8). When the macroscopic quantum effects of the BEc are magnified by e , those effects are instantly translated into all space-time operating quantum mechanically. In other words, you can multiply a BEc (the second 1) an infinite number of times – but no matter how many (or how few) times you do it, you’ll always end up with 1 (the macroscopic universe’s time and space operating quantum mechanically). Consequent to this operation is the inevitable quantum entanglement of everything (matter, energy, forces); making all space and all time a unification.

Content –

"The universe IS something" (“Astronomy” magazine – March 2013, p.66) is interesting. This letter and its reply continue on from Bob Berman’s article "Infinite Universe" (“Astronomy” – Nov. 2012) which says, “The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite” and “Many separate areas of investigation – like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space – all point the same way.” Support for the article - (after examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sànchez, Yuri N. Parijskij [published by Springer, 31/12/2003], the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

Thinking about a finite cosmos makes my head hurt (if the cosmos is finite, what exists outside it? If there’s something, that something must be part of the universe. If there’s absolutely nothing, how can that be? Nothing doesn‘t exist.) But I can't really picture an infinite cosmos that never ends. A new definition of infinity is needed. The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation (associated with particles) partly depends on the distance between their centres, the distance of separation only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the particles’ or objects’ sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance). The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from “the universe going on and on forever”, we can call it “electronic infinity or e ”.

1's and 0's would make the bosons of gravity and electromagnetism which would interact in Wave Packets to produce matter. All matter in the universe then has the potential to behave like a Bose-Einstein condensate (a state of matter composed of bosons cooled close to absolute zero in which atoms fall or condense into the lowest accessible quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale). The bosons composing gravity and EM can all have the same properties e.g. position, velocity, magnetism and spin (force-carrying particles, or bosons, defy Pauli's exclusion principle). The matter we know obeys Pauli’s exclusion principle. So how is it different from a Bose-Einstein condensate. To exhibit Bose–Einstein condensation, the fermions (particles of matter) must "pair up" (not in the normal manner of sharing electrons) to form compound particles that are bosons. This “pairing-up” may be achieved by using e-infinity to delete distance. This leads to a photon (such as from the Sun) experiencing the whole universe – including BECs, gravitons, and other photons - in its existence.

It’s impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height. The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons - specifically, of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960’s adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. At lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time’s 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can’t exist at lightspeed and photons are massless (even when not at rest).

Suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in “Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?” – a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role in constitution of elementary particles and also in the constitution of the nuclear forces, and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces. Gravity, being united with EM and the nuclear forces, is therefore the ultimate physical source of all repelling and attracting. Mass increase at increasing accelerations is inevitable because the object is encountering more spacetime and gravity (the producers of mass; which also confer mass’s equivalent [energy] on cosmic rays that travel far enough through space, turning them into ultra-high-energy cosmic rays). But mass increase cannot become infinitely large since space-time, gravity and mass don’t exist at lightspeed. The object is converted into energy which means mass and energy must be equivalent and Energy must equal Mass related to the Speed of Light (E=mc^2, in the words of Albert Einstein).

Since there is zero, or no, spacetime at light speed; infinity exists in that state - all distances are totally eliminated and a photon experiences the whole universe – as well as all time – in its existence). “Physics of the Impossible” by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books 2008, p.227) says, “.. whenever we naively try to marry these two theories (general relativity and quantum theory), the resulting theory makes no sense: it yields a series of infinite answers that are meaningless.” We see that infinite answers are supposed to be arrived at because light is important in Relativity and “infinity (in the sense of total elimination of distance) exists at light speed”. Infinity and infinite answers are not barriers to uniting general relativity and quantum theory. When we realize that c=∞ (infinity exists at light speed), those infinite answers can yield not nonsense but real meaning.

With all distances deleted and a photon experiencing the entire universe in its existence (including gravity and the nuclear forces – carried by the gravitons, gluons, W+, W- and Z0 particles), the cosmos has become finite (even subatomic or quantum sized). The “pairing up” of particles by e-infinity i.e. by the electronic binary digits of 1 and 0 permits matter we know to defy the exclusion principle and act as though it was buried at the centre of a planet. No gravity-EM interactions in wave packets occur at the planet’s centre; meaning there is no mass* and, agreeing with conclusions from Isaac Newton's theories, (hypothetical) objects weigh nothing. Also, “pairing up” of particles by e-infinity means quantum effects become apparent on a large macroscopic scale. This permits a “distant” event to instantly affect another (exemplified by the quantum entanglement of particles separated by light years), or permits effects to influence seemingly separate causes (exemplified by the retrocausality or backward causality promoted by Yakir Aharonov and others). This means quantum processes wouldn’t be confined to tiny subatomic scales but would also occur on the largest cosmic scales.

* According to the Lagrangian – the L of a dynamical system which summarizes the dynamics of the system – fermions should be massless, and the common view is that it’s the Higgs field/boson coupled to them that gives them their masses. There are several explanations for the creation of mass – Einstein’s gravitational / electromagnetic interaction being used here.

Why do fermions obey the exclusion principle if e-infinity (binary digits) pairs them up to exhibit Bose–Einstein condensation and quantum effects becoming apparent on a macroscopic scale? It must be because of temperature. The slightest interaction with the outside world can be enough to warm fragile BECs (they’re normally very near absolute zero or -273.15 degrees C), forming a normal gas. Remembering that our world’s average temperature is almost 290 degrees C above that, it’s no surprise that the vibration from the heat splits the paired particles apart and causes them to obey the exclusion principle. Since this article refers to the 1’s and 0’s of base 2 mathematics (the binary system), physical explanation (heat splitting particles apart) isn’t enough and a mathematical explanation (at least in a limited context) is desirable.

Let’s borrow a few ideas from string theory’s ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop – or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops’ currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle. This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1’s and 0’s depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles’ “wave packets” – into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles.** Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force) and thus of exact mass, charge, quantum spin, and adherence to Pauli’s exclusion. Referring to a Bose-Einstein condensate, the slightest change in the binary-digit flow (Mobius loop orientation) would alter the way gravitation and electromagnetism interact, and the BEC could become a gas.

** Each one is a “subuniverse” composing the physically infinite and eternal space-time of the universe (our own subuniverse is 13.7 billion years old). We don’t have to worry about accelerating cosmic expansion – the result of more space, forces, energy and matter being continually produced by binary digits - leaving our galaxy alone in space. As “dark energy” causes known galaxies to depart from view, more energy and matter can replace them (since the universe obeys fractal geometry, gravity is the source of repelling and attracting not only on a quantum scale but on a cosmic scale, too i.e. it accounts for dark energy – it accounts for dark matter and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, too [but that’s a long explanation best left in http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0218]). The Law of Conservation says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (though the quantity of each can change), so a better phrase might be “binary digits recycle spacetime” (when matter changes into energy or energy becomes matter, we commonly say matter or energy has been created). As well, other expanding subuniverses can collide with ours and their galaxies enter our space to keep our galaxy company.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

(the equation won't come out right here, but you can see the proper form at http://viXra.org/abs/1305.0030)

Title –

Equation Describing the Universe

Author –

Rodney Bartlett

Abstract –

Originally, I planned to call this article Hu= BEce , or 1 = 1 . But my computer won’t let me save that name – so I’ve changed the title to “Equation Describing the Universe”. This equation looks like the one physicists are hoping will be printed on T-shirts in the middle of this century as a description of the Universe. Normally, I’d leave development of this equation in the capable hands of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. They aren’t here right now … and it’ll be quite a while before they return. However, they instructed me to send you this message on their behalf.

H is for the Hamiltonian, representing the total energy of a quantum mechanical

system. The subscript u stands for “universe” and Hu means the universe operates quantum mechanically (quantum effects operate macroscopically as well as microscopically, and this unification is symbolized by the first 1). BEc is for Bose-Einstein condensate, a finite form of matter that is the first known example of quantum effects becoming apparent on a macroscopic scale (represented by the second 1). Borrowing a couple of lines from the more complete explanation in the Content – “The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from “the universe going on and on forever”, we can call it “electronic infinity or e ” (not E8). When the macroscopic quantum effects of the BEc are magnified by e , those effects are instantly translated into all space-time operating quantum mechanically. In other words, you can multiply a BEc (the second 1) an infinite number of times – but no matter how many (or how few) times you do it, you’ll always end up with 1 (the macroscopic universe’s time and space operating quantum mechanically). Consequent to this operation is the inevitable quantum entanglement of everything (matter, energy, forces); making all space and all time a unification.

Content –

"The universe IS something" (“Astronomy” magazine – March 2013, p.66) is interesting. This letter and its reply continue on from Bob Berman’s article "Infinite Universe" (“Astronomy” – Nov. 2012) which says, “The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite” and “Many separate areas of investigation – like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space – all point the same way.” Support for the article - (after examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sànchez, Yuri N. Parijskij [published by Springer, 31/12/2003], the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

Thinking about a finite cosmos makes my head hurt (if the cosmos is finite, what exists outside it? If there’s something, that something must be part of the universe. If there’s absolutely nothing, how can that be? Nothing doesn‘t exist.) But I can't really picture an infinite cosmos that never ends. A new definition of infinity is needed. The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation (associated with particles) partly depends on the distance between their centres, the distance of separation only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the particles’ or objects’ sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance). The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from “the universe going on and on forever”, we can call it “electronic infinity or e ”.

1's and 0's would make the bosons of gravity and electromagnetism which would interact in Wave Packets to produce matter. All matter in the universe then has the potential to behave like a Bose-Einstein condensate (a state of matter composed of bosons cooled close to absolute zero in which atoms fall or condense into the lowest accessible quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale). The bosons composing gravity and EM can all have the same properties e.g. position, velocity, magnetism and spin (force-carrying particles, or bosons, defy Pauli's exclusion principle). The matter we know obeys Pauli’s exclusion principle. So how is it different from a Bose-Einstein condensate. To exhibit Bose–Einstein condensation, the fermions (particles of matter) must "pair up" (not in the normal manner of sharing electrons) to form compound particles that are bosons. This “pairing-up” may be achieved by using e-infinity to delete distance. This leads to a photon (such as from the Sun) experiencing the whole universe – including BECs, gravitons, and other photons - in its existence.

It’s impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height. The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons - specifically, of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960’s adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. At lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time’s 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can’t exist at lightspeed and photons are massless (even when not at rest).

Suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in “Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?” – a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role in constitution of elementary particles and also in the constitution of the nuclear forces, and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces. Gravity, being united with EM and the nuclear forces, is therefore the ultimate physical source of all repelling and attracting. Mass increase at increasing accelerations is inevitable because the object is encountering more spacetime and gravity (the producers of mass; which also confer mass’s equivalent [energy] on cosmic rays that travel far enough through space, turning them into ultra-high-energy cosmic rays). But mass increase cannot become infinitely large since space-time, gravity and mass don’t exist at lightspeed. The object is converted into energy which means mass and energy must be equivalent and Energy must equal Mass related to the Speed of Light (E=mc^2, in the words of Albert Einstein).

Since there is zero, or no, spacetime at light speed; infinity exists in that state - all distances are totally eliminated and a photon experiences the whole universe – as well as all time – in its existence). “Physics of the Impossible” by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books 2008, p.227) says, “.. whenever we naively try to marry these two theories (general relativity and quantum theory), the resulting theory makes no sense: it yields a series of infinite answers that are meaningless.” We see that infinite answers are supposed to be arrived at because light is important in Relativity and “infinity (in the sense of total elimination of distance) exists at light speed”. Infinity and infinite answers are not barriers to uniting general relativity and quantum theory. When we realize that c=∞ (infinity exists at light speed), those infinite answers can yield not nonsense but real meaning.

With all distances deleted and a photon experiencing the entire universe in its existence (including gravity and the nuclear forces – carried by the gravitons, gluons, W+, W- and Z0 particles), the cosmos has become finite (even subatomic or quantum sized). The “pairing up” of particles by e-infinity i.e. by the electronic binary digits of 1 and 0 permits matter we know to defy the exclusion principle and act as though it was buried at the centre of a planet. No gravity-EM interactions in wave packets occur at the planet’s centre; meaning there is no mass* and, agreeing with conclusions from Isaac Newton's theories, (hypothetical) objects weigh nothing. Also, “pairing up” of particles by e-infinity means quantum effects become apparent on a large macroscopic scale. This permits a “distant” event to instantly affect another (exemplified by the quantum entanglement of particles separated by light years), or permits effects to influence seemingly separate causes (exemplified by the retrocausality or backward causality promoted by Yakir Aharonov and others). This means quantum processes wouldn’t be confined to tiny subatomic scales but would also occur on the largest cosmic scales.

* According to the Lagrangian – the L of a dynamical system which summarizes the dynamics of the system – fermions should be massless, and the common view is that it’s the Higgs field/boson coupled to them that gives them their masses. There are several explanations for the creation of mass – Einstein’s gravitational / electromagnetic interaction being used here.

Why do fermions obey the exclusion principle if e-infinity (binary digits) pairs them up to exhibit Bose–Einstein condensation and quantum effects becoming apparent on a macroscopic scale? It must be because of temperature. The slightest interaction with the outside world can be enough to warm fragile BECs (they’re normally very near absolute zero or -273.15 degrees C), forming a normal gas. Remembering that our world’s average temperature is almost 290 degrees C above that, it’s no surprise that the vibration from the heat splits the paired particles apart and causes them to obey the exclusion principle. Since this article refers to the 1’s and 0’s of base 2 mathematics (the binary system), physical explanation (heat splitting particles apart) isn’t enough and a mathematical explanation (at least in a limited context) is desirable.

Let’s borrow a few ideas from string theory’s ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop – or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops’ currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle. This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1’s and 0’s depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles’ “wave packets” – into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles.** Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force) and thus of exact mass, charge, quantum spin, and adherence to Pauli’s exclusion. Referring to a Bose-Einstein condensate, the slightest change in the binary-digit flow (Mobius loop orientation) would alter the way gravitation and electromagnetism interact, and the BEC could become a gas.

** Each one is a “subuniverse” composing the physically infinite and eternal space-time of the universe (our own subuniverse is 13.7 billion years old). We don’t have to worry about accelerating cosmic expansion – the result of more space, forces, energy and matter being continually produced by binary digits - leaving our galaxy alone in space. As “dark energy” causes known galaxies to depart from view, more energy and matter can replace them (since the universe obeys fractal geometry, gravity is the source of repelling and attracting not only on a quantum scale but on a cosmic scale, too i.e. it accounts for dark energy – it accounts for dark matter and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, too [but that’s a long explanation best left in http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0218]). The Law of Conservation says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (though the quantity of each can change), so a better phrase might be “binary digits recycle spacetime” (when matter changes into energy or energy becomes matter, we commonly say matter or energy has been created). As well, other expanding subuniverses can collide with ours and their galaxies enter our space to keep our galaxy company.

report post as inappropriate

Rodney, thanks for the long comment. One bit I especially like is that the idea of particles from gravitational fields may return.

By the way I fixed up the equation in your viXra abstract when you submitted it this morning. You can always put in the HTML yourself if you need equations to work. Here you can do it with LaTeX.

By the way I fixed up the equation in your viXra abstract when you submitted it this morning. You can always put in the HTML yourself if you need equations to work. Here you can do it with LaTeX.

I had another look at my "long comment". I think it was too long - though there is a lot there that's worth thinking about. Anyway, I'll keep this shorter. Since you like the idea of particles from gravitational fields, I thought you might like to read a few paragraphs (only 3 or 4 short ones) showing how particles from gravitational fields can explain why planets orbit in the Sun's ecliptic plane...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I finally got around to reading a couple of these essays. Your necklace approach to string theory is in some ways similar to what I wrote in my essay with S-matrix channels. I presume it will appear here in a few days. Yangians are a form of the universal enveloping algebra, and this is in part what my essay concerns.

LC

report post as inappropriate

LC

report post as inappropriate

That sounds very exciting. I looked at Yangians for connections to Necklace Lie Algebras but could not find anything substantial, but if there is a connection with UEAs it would be interesting. As you probably know the iterated integrals also come up in relation to polylogarithms so the whole scattering theory area looks connected to these ideas.

We must be due a new batch of essay very soon.

We must be due a new batch of essay very soon.

Yangians have representations with polylogarithms. Li_s(z) functions are interesting functions which contain zeta functions and the Dirichlet functions. I have thought for a long time there are some interesting deep connections to supersymmetry and STU physics. In particular S-duality is really a form of the Bohr-Somerfeld quantization rule ∮p•dq = nħ, which really contains the Schrodinger equation if we include the Hamitonian constraint S = ∮p•dq - ∫Hdt. The evolution of the wave ψ = ψ(0)e^{-iS/ħ), computed from variations δψ = δt∂ψ/∂t will derive the Schrodinger equation. In much the same way I think there is an underlying dynamics to the S and T dualities which are Yangian or related.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I saw your section on Ynagians, necklaces and all that. I agree that this is crucial maths. The question is how to transfer these ideas to string theory and find Nima's T-Theory. I think the Yangians need to be replaced by Necklace Lie Algebras which have a richer structure. An interesting thing about the Polylogarithms is that they are generated recursively using multiple integrations. You can also use iterated integration on necklace algebras as a mapping so that is what I am looking at.

I think there is one big symmetry that covers them all including dualities, so your ideas connecting Yangians to dualities also makes sense.

I think there is one big symmetry that covers them all including dualities, so your ideas connecting Yangians to dualities also makes sense.

Question:

The Higgs Boson has more mass than a proton.

At the LHC how does a proton with less mass acquire more mass?

report post as inappropriate

The Higgs Boson has more mass than a proton.

At the LHC how does a proton with less mass acquire more mass?

report post as inappropriate

Francis, the protons are accelerated to a speed where their kinetic energy is over 8000 times the mass equivalent of the proton according to . When they collide head-on some of this energy can be used to create particles much heavier than the proton.

Philip:

In other words the input eV under a strong magnetic field imparts mass increase.

I would say that the mass creation can be easily worked out under input eV and magnetic field.

Thus infinite masses or particles can be created at different eV and B fields.

And one can get whatever particle one is looking for at different eV and B fields for a fleeting moment.

The process I have worked out for electrolysis of water and thus solved the electrochemical series.[click ref 16 in my essay]

So yes the Higgs Boson can also be worked out.

Question:

Can the appearance of the Higgs Boson mass for a fleeting moment be taken as evidence for being the precursor of a proton?

report post as inappropriate

In other words the input eV under a strong magnetic field imparts mass increase.

I would say that the mass creation can be easily worked out under input eV and magnetic field.

Thus infinite masses or particles can be created at different eV and B fields.

And one can get whatever particle one is looking for at different eV and B fields for a fleeting moment.

The process I have worked out for electrolysis of water and thus solved the electrochemical series.[click ref 16 in my essay]

So yes the Higgs Boson can also be worked out.

Question:

Can the appearance of the Higgs Boson mass for a fleeting moment be taken as evidence for being the precursor of a proton?

report post as inappropriate

Francis, you are right that there is no theoretical limit to mass of particles that can be produced in proton colliders. The practical limitation is that energy is lost as the proton rotates and magnet strength cannot hold the protons in a circle at higher energy.

I am not sure what you mean by the Higgs boson as a precursor for the proton. A Higgs can sometimes decay to protons rarely, but the properties of Higgs Boson and proton are different in almost every way.

I am not sure what you mean by the Higgs boson as a precursor for the proton. A Higgs can sometimes decay to protons rarely, but the properties of Higgs Boson and proton are different in almost every way.

Hi Philip,

I have been going through all of your vixra papers to understand better what you are proposing. It is interesting that you have proposed a mathematical universe( which is exactly what my theory proves) long before Dr. Tegmark formalized the notion. I have many questions but I will be brief this time.

for the readers this paper of yours is a very good summary of your ideas but I wish there was more math to compliment it.

http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

1. I am surprised that none of your colleagues discuss your theory here or elsewhere. Can you point to places where such discussions have taken place in case I am wrong.

2. What is your opinion of Eric Verlinde entropic gravity theory, you seem to hint at it indirectly.

3.does this paper relate to your work

http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0406200v2.pdf

4. In my theory I derive these crazy simple formulas that fall out of my system which sort of ties them to Knots and Alexander polynomial trefoil similar to your idea

1/m_e= (27/2)*(1/alpha -2 -alpha )= 1822.88747

where alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

moreover,

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

looks fantastic, I wonder if there is any link to knots/Alexander polynomial trefoil.

In the next questions I will go very deep into the analysis of your theory.

report post as inappropriate

I have been going through all of your vixra papers to understand better what you are proposing. It is interesting that you have proposed a mathematical universe( which is exactly what my theory proves) long before Dr. Tegmark formalized the notion. I have many questions but I will be brief this time.

for the readers this paper of yours is a very good summary of your ideas but I wish there was more math to compliment it.

http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

1. I am surprised that none of your colleagues discuss your theory here or elsewhere. Can you point to places where such discussions have taken place in case I am wrong.

2. What is your opinion of Eric Verlinde entropic gravity theory, you seem to hint at it indirectly.

3.does this paper relate to your work

http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0406200v2.pdf

4. In my theory I derive these crazy simple formulas that fall out of my system which sort of ties them to Knots and Alexander polynomial trefoil similar to your idea

1/m_e= (27/2)*(1/alpha -2 -alpha )= 1822.88747

where alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

moreover,

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

looks fantastic, I wonder if there is any link to knots/Alexander polynomial trefoil.

In the next questions I will go very deep into the analysis of your theory.

report post as inappropriate

qsa, thanks for looking at my work and asking so many good questions. I am going to answer each point in a separate message.

You said "It is interesting that you have proposed a mathematical universe( which is exactly what my theory proves) long before Dr. Tegmark formalized the notion."

I don't think I can claim to have had this idea before Tegmark but I thought about it independently. There are also differences in our views. A key part of my idea is universality and I think others are starting to pick up on that idea now.

The paper you cited was actually a book so it was deliberately not too mathematical but no publisher would take it. I should try to write up the universality idea and put some maths behind it.

Have you written up about how your theory proves it?

You said "It is interesting that you have proposed a mathematical universe( which is exactly what my theory proves) long before Dr. Tegmark formalized the notion."

I don't think I can claim to have had this idea before Tegmark but I thought about it independently. There are also differences in our views. A key part of my idea is universality and I think others are starting to pick up on that idea now.

The paper you cited was actually a book so it was deliberately not too mathematical but no publisher would take it. I should try to write up the universality idea and put some maths behind it.

Have you written up about how your theory proves it?

1. I am surprised that none of your colleagues discuss your theory here or elsewhere. Can you point to places where such discussions have taken place in case I am wrong.

My ideas have not been discussed much at all. I have been cited a few times but not as much as I would like. This raises an interesting point.

When I was young and naive I thought it was the proper thing to survey...

view entire post

My ideas have not been discussed much at all. I have been cited a few times but not as much as I would like. This raises an interesting point.

When I was young and naive I thought it was the proper thing to survey...

view entire post

"2. What is your opinion of Eric Verlinde entropic gravity theory, you seem to hint at it indirectly."

I like the idea of entropic gravity. It goes well with the idea that qubits are fundamental. However I dont like his explanation for the cosmoloical ratio of dark energy to cold matter. He predicts it to be constant when standard theory and observation says it increases.

I will answer more later. Going to watch Feynman film on BBC2 for rest of evening.

I like the idea of entropic gravity. It goes well with the idea that qubits are fundamental. However I dont like his explanation for the cosmoloical ratio of dark energy to cold matter. He predicts it to be constant when standard theory and observation says it increases.

I will answer more later. Going to watch Feynman film on BBC2 for rest of evening.

"3.does this paper relate to your work

http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0406200v2.pdf"

That was a different Necklace Lie Algebra to mine, but similar idea and very interesting.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0406200v2.pdf"

That was a different Necklace Lie Algebra to mine, but similar idea and very interesting.

"4. In my theory I derive these crazy simple formulas that fall out of my system which sort of ties them to Knots and Alexander polynomial trefoil similar to your idea

1/m_e= (27/2)*(1/alpha -2 -alpha )= 1822.88747

where alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

moreover,

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

looks fantastic, I wonder if there is any link to knots/Alexander polynomial trefoil."

Interesting but the trouble with producing formula for such mass ratios is that the proton is composite and its mass is the combined effect of many unconnected processes. Why would the answer be something you can easily calculate? To be convincing enough to make people take notice you would need accurate formulae for all hadron masses with similar expressions so that it becomes obvious that it cannot be a numerical fluke.

The knot stuff could be interesting but you would need to tell more.

1/m_e= (27/2)*(1/alpha -2 -alpha )= 1822.88747

where alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

moreover,

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

looks fantastic, I wonder if there is any link to knots/Alexander polynomial trefoil."

Interesting but the trouble with producing formula for such mass ratios is that the proton is composite and its mass is the combined effect of many unconnected processes. Why would the answer be something you can easily calculate? To be convincing enough to make people take notice you would need accurate formulae for all hadron masses with similar expressions so that it becomes obvious that it cannot be a numerical fluke.

The knot stuff could be interesting but you would need to tell more.

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I also had many misconceptions when I was young and naïve. I have an MPHIL in EE from Sussex, but since I have had many careers like in engineering, applied scientific research, business and many other activities.

I spent a year dealing with products from Silicon Graphics and Texas Instrument (speech), I was appalled in the end at what I found about the people. Only very (and I mean very) few people knew what was going on, even then I was not happy with the span of their knowledge and techniques. Before that I had a God like image of the people in these ultra-high tech companies. The same happened when I got involved in business.

I have always loved math and physics and read as much as I could which was limited considering my responsibilities. Then few years back when I got to a semi-retirement situation, I decided to give my real love much more attention. And surprisingly it wasn't long before I had a hit with my theory. I did not know Tegmark, Wolfram or Conway or many others. I knew the older ones like Wheeler and Guth. I had again this super god image of physicists. I thought to myself now here are the smart with high integrity people that I belong to. After some experience, I had to come down to earth and face realities, again for the last time.

We are all humans display all the negatives like inaptitude, jealousy, laziness, treachery and so on plus all the circumstances that control us. But we do have the good parts also which some people like to display like compassion and honesty, we do exist in a superposition!

report post as inappropriate

Yes, I also had many misconceptions when I was young and naïve. I have an MPHIL in EE from Sussex, but since I have had many careers like in engineering, applied scientific research, business and many other activities.

I spent a year dealing with products from Silicon Graphics and Texas Instrument (speech), I was appalled in the end at what I found about the people. Only very (and I mean very) few people knew what was going on, even then I was not happy with the span of their knowledge and techniques. Before that I had a God like image of the people in these ultra-high tech companies. The same happened when I got involved in business.

I have always loved math and physics and read as much as I could which was limited considering my responsibilities. Then few years back when I got to a semi-retirement situation, I decided to give my real love much more attention. And surprisingly it wasn't long before I had a hit with my theory. I did not know Tegmark, Wolfram or Conway or many others. I knew the older ones like Wheeler and Guth. I had again this super god image of physicists. I thought to myself now here are the smart with high integrity people that I belong to. After some experience, I had to come down to earth and face realities, again for the last time.

We are all humans display all the negatives like inaptitude, jealousy, laziness, treachery and so on plus all the circumstances that control us. But we do have the good parts also which some people like to display like compassion and honesty, we do exist in a superposition!

report post as inappropriate

Physicists such as those you mention are very smart people, but it is true that there are no Gods. The foundational problems they (and we) are trying to solve are very hard and our limited human capacity is not adequate. It is only by working together and exploring all directions that progress can be made. The issue is that some ideas are ignored when they come from the wrong people.

It is always assumed that scientists do their best work when they are young. The truth is that if they dont do good work when they are young they are thrown out, and if they do do good work they are then burdened with teaching and admin duties.

The ideas are more important than the people and should be judged on their power and consistency alone.

It is always assumed that scientists do their best work when they are young. The truth is that if they dont do good work when they are young they are thrown out, and if they do do good work they are then burdened with teaching and admin duties.

The ideas are more important than the people and should be judged on their power and consistency alone.

agreed. I attribute my results from the intense vibe I got from all those who gave all they got.

My favorite from my own culture is Omar Khayyám

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayy%C3%A1m

Myself

when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out of the same Door as in I went.

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,

Whereunder crawling coop’t we live and die,

Lift not thy hands to It for help—for It

Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.

report post as inappropriate

My favorite from my own culture is Omar Khayyám

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayy%C3%A1m

Myself

when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out of the same Door as in I went.

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,

Whereunder crawling coop’t we live and die,

Lift not thy hands to It for help—for It

Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.

report post as inappropriate

As for my theory I will try not to say much until I have written the paper. The reason that I am late is that I have not put in all the other important results in my website and I have just came up with a method to do interactions in higher than 1D and hoping I can get new or more accurate results.

As for these formulas, you could say they might very well be a fluke if it wasn't that these fall out of simulation and there is more than one as you saw. And here I add another one all from the same system.

electron g-factor=(4m_e/3eh)*(2/(3*m_e*alpha) - 2*e^2 -1)

=2.00231934...

.. e=3(charge square),h actually h_bar=(e/alpha)^.5=20.2758.. m_e=.00054858

Of course, I know the standard theory of proton, but my system seems to only show the STABLE particles only as simple formulas.

But you are right I need to show the whole thing in one coherent system, and the onus is on me. The problem is that my system is based on simulation, although simple, but most people don’t find the time to verify. I hope I can make much better presentation soon to ease all these difficulties.

More about your theory later. Reading that long book of yours.

report post as inappropriate

As for these formulas, you could say they might very well be a fluke if it wasn't that these fall out of simulation and there is more than one as you saw. And here I add another one all from the same system.

electron g-factor=(4m_e/3eh)*(2/(3*m_e*alpha) - 2*e^2 -1)

=2.00231934...

.. e=3(charge square),h actually h_bar=(e/alpha)^.5=20.2758.. m_e=.00054858

Of course, I know the standard theory of proton, but my system seems to only show the STABLE particles only as simple formulas.

But you are right I need to show the whole thing in one coherent system, and the onus is on me. The problem is that my system is based on simulation, although simple, but most people don’t find the time to verify. I hope I can make much better presentation soon to ease all these difficulties.

More about your theory later. Reading that long book of yours.

report post as inappropriate

You dont need to rush but the main advantage of being early is that there is more time to discuss before the barage of essays arrive at the last minute.

Thanks for the good advice. If I make it in time good, if not I will be just as happy if you win.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

In your book

http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

You say this (notice the Highlighted third line)

"I imagined what might happen if the fixed linkage structure of the lattice was discarded. It could be made dynamic allowing any site to link to any other nearby site at random.

** Why not even allowing linkage to any site no matter how far away?**

For maximum...

view entire post

http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

You say this (notice the Highlighted third line)

"I imagined what might happen if the fixed linkage structure of the lattice was discarded. It could be made dynamic allowing any site to link to any other nearby site at random.

** Why not even allowing linkage to any site no matter how far away?**

For maximum...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Even before reading that last passage I had a strong gut feeling that your idea seems to somehow translate to mine but I could not pinpoint.

Here is just a quick explanation for my system as compared to yours.

In mine the links are random, their start(naturally random) defines some general particle position area (generally Compton length) and their end goes to other particles and randomly to all positions in-between. I interpret the sum of the line lengths as energy (after normalization). These lines only go from particle to particle and space is where the lines cross (i.e. created from particles). No space is defined outside the area directly of the opposing particles, otherwise the system becomes rotationally not invariant.

So in my system the particle positions can only be defined relative to others. So, I think the major difference is that my starting points are random themselves (and directly part of the link) unlike yours which seem to have been fixed and the links artificially attached to them.

report post as inappropriate

Here is just a quick explanation for my system as compared to yours.

In mine the links are random, their start(naturally random) defines some general particle position area (generally Compton length) and their end goes to other particles and randomly to all positions in-between. I interpret the sum of the line lengths as energy (after normalization). These lines only go from particle to particle and space is where the lines cross (i.e. created from particles). No space is defined outside the area directly of the opposing particles, otherwise the system becomes rotationally not invariant.

So in my system the particle positions can only be defined relative to others. So, I think the major difference is that my starting points are random themselves (and directly part of the link) unlike yours which seem to have been fixed and the links artificially attached to them.

report post as inappropriate

This was describing random graph models which were a good starting point for my ideas. They are good for understanding how space and time could be emergent. I originally hoped that space and time would emerge fairly naturally from random graph models but the simplest local interactions are not enough. It takes something more contrived or perhaps something less local such as long loops. There is still a lot that can be done with those ideas though.

A graph can be described by an adjacency matrix so it is natural to move on from random graphs to random matrices and extend the permutation symmetry to gauge symmetry for large N. The next step from there is to Necklace Lie Algebras.

A graph can be described by an adjacency matrix so it is natural to move on from random graphs to random matrices and extend the permutation symmetry to gauge symmetry for large N. The next step from there is to Necklace Lie Algebras.

As a matter of fact I have seen few systems similar to the random graphs that we are taking about. The main reason why I think all the others “appeared” as non-workable is that time in space-time picture really complicated the issue, and rendered it difficult.

Example one:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Shing_Conne

ctivity_1.pdf

Example two:

In LQG paradigm, Smolin has a paper

The Plebanski action extended to a unification of gravity and Yang-Mills theory

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0977

says this

"The proposal of matter as the ends of long distance links needs more development."

The reason why my system works (I think), is that I started by saying what elementary elements I can have (for designing the universe) and after identifying them and possible operations using them and on them then I will map them to the physics. And it turned out that only lines constituting particles and their crossing naturally constituted space and time became clear that it is unphysical but represented the change of state. Empty coordinates have no meaning.

My advice is to get rid of time if you want your system to work at a fundamental level.

I will continue on to matrix and necklace later. And Knots.

report post as inappropriate

Example one:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Shing_Conne

ctivity_1.pdf

Example two:

In LQG paradigm, Smolin has a paper

The Plebanski action extended to a unification of gravity and Yang-Mills theory

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0977

says this

"The proposal of matter as the ends of long distance links needs more development."

The reason why my system works (I think), is that I started by saying what elementary elements I can have (for designing the universe) and after identifying them and possible operations using them and on them then I will map them to the physics. And it turned out that only lines constituting particles and their crossing naturally constituted space and time became clear that it is unphysical but represented the change of state. Empty coordinates have no meaning.

My advice is to get rid of time if you want your system to work at a fundamental level.

I will continue on to matrix and necklace later. And Knots.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip,

Now that I'm here and am looking at your essay, I have the following two questions.

1."Acatalepsy . . . in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing." (Wiki)

Why do you want to emphasize the present messy state of affairs in physics, when the role of science is to seek transparency and insight? (I do remember what Einstein said about "simplicity".)

2. I found the following summary you give at the end of introduction.

"From layers of quantum uncertainty built upon fundamental information there is hope that spacetime and matter emerge in a natural way."

In my essay I stressed the "unacceptable ambiguity" of the term "information". So how does one understand your one-sentence summary (without going into the technical details), if its first half is quite ambiguous? ;-)

report post as inappropriate

Now that I'm here and am looking at your essay, I have the following two questions.

1."Acatalepsy . . . in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing." (Wiki)

Why do you want to emphasize the present messy state of affairs in physics, when the role of science is to seek transparency and insight? (I do remember what Einstein said about "simplicity".)

2. I found the following summary you give at the end of introduction.

"From layers of quantum uncertainty built upon fundamental information there is hope that spacetime and matter emerge in a natural way."

In my essay I stressed the "unacceptable ambiguity" of the term "information". So how does one understand your one-sentence summary (without going into the technical details), if its first half is quite ambiguous? ;-)

report post as inappropriate

Hi Lev,

I dont think thst definition of Acatalepsy reflects what the ancient philosophers were saying, although it is hard to be sure because there are no primary records. The definition I prefer is the one I gave at the top of the comments

"noun Philosophy. An ancient Skeptical view that no more than probable knowledge is available to human beings."

One form of Acatalepsy would be Bayesian logic, but I think you have to go further and accept that even the probabilities should be treated as uncertain, In the physics context we use quantum waver functions instead of probabilities. This does not mean that the world is incomprehensible, just that nothing about the world is certain.

I dont think the state of physics is messy, but perhaps you should give a specific example of what you mean before I can elaborate.

I dont regard simplicity as a hard principle, whatever Einstein may have said. Simplicity has its role but the only hard principles are logical self-consistency and consistency with observation.

I agree that "information" is an ambiguous term. If I could write a 20 page essay I might have said more about what I think of as information, but I had to chose to concentrate on matters where I think I have something original to say. I am using a very basic idea of information. It is just what can be said about the state of the universe. I am glad that others like you have tackled other aspects of the question.

I dont think thst definition of Acatalepsy reflects what the ancient philosophers were saying, although it is hard to be sure because there are no primary records. The definition I prefer is the one I gave at the top of the comments

"noun Philosophy. An ancient Skeptical view that no more than probable knowledge is available to human beings."

One form of Acatalepsy would be Bayesian logic, but I think you have to go further and accept that even the probabilities should be treated as uncertain, In the physics context we use quantum waver functions instead of probabilities. This does not mean that the world is incomprehensible, just that nothing about the world is certain.

I dont think the state of physics is messy, but perhaps you should give a specific example of what you mean before I can elaborate.

I dont regard simplicity as a hard principle, whatever Einstein may have said. Simplicity has its role but the only hard principles are logical self-consistency and consistency with observation.

I agree that "information" is an ambiguous term. If I could write a 20 page essay I might have said more about what I think of as information, but I had to chose to concentrate on matters where I think I have something original to say. I am using a very basic idea of information. It is just what can be said about the state of the universe. I am glad that others like you have tackled other aspects of the question.

Dear Philip,

I love your view that (r)evolution in physics is due to attempts to bring consistency between apparently disparate domains. You go very smoothly from presenting the history of some ideas in physics, from a fresh viewpoint, to your own research on necklace Lie algebras and strings of qubits. Very well done!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I love your view that (r)evolution in physics is due to attempts to bring consistency between apparently disparate domains. You go very smoothly from presenting the history of some ideas in physics, from a fresh viewpoint, to your own research on necklace Lie algebras and strings of qubits. Very well done!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

1-Even in theory, a Black Hole can only be indirectly 'observed'. The indirect effects observed include pedestrian causes, less than convincing evidence of a BH.

2-Science is not just internal metaphysical consistency, but also the external consistency of physical evidence...if we are talking physics, not math.

3-"... it(HP) is based on consistency reasoning from the need to bring together the laws of gravitation, quantum theory and thermodynamics."

This need for unification of these physical laws ... is it motivated by natural discoveries, or simplification for human convenience - an offshoot of Occam's Razor?

4-"Energy conservation in general relativity is real, exact, non-trivial and important."

Only in linearized GR is there energy conservation. But linearized GR is not exactly GR.

5-The GR field equations express a continuous feed back between mass motion and 'curvature'.. which causes non-linearity ...which causes failure of superposition and energy conservation .... and of Noether's theorems

6-"Some physicists like to say that this makes energy a non-local concept in general relativity ...."

If energy is non-local, then it violates the causality principle.... without the CP, predictive science is a guessing game.

7-"...we never really measure real numbers. We just answer yes/no questions. Nature's information comes in bits..."

...but the number of binary questions we ask for completeness may be infinite.

8-"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information?"

The latter..... specifically, the immaterial substance of the free and bound states of aether.

9-"We must 'Translate the quantum versions of string theory and of Einstein's geometrodynamics from the language of the continuum to the language of bits'".

Rather, to the language of 'its', from the abstract world of math models to the testable world of real objects. What good are the bits, if tests yield no valid hits?

report post as inappropriate

2-Science is not just internal metaphysical consistency, but also the external consistency of physical evidence...if we are talking physics, not math.

3-"... it(HP) is based on consistency reasoning from the need to bring together the laws of gravitation, quantum theory and thermodynamics."

This need for unification of these physical laws ... is it motivated by natural discoveries, or simplification for human convenience - an offshoot of Occam's Razor?

4-"Energy conservation in general relativity is real, exact, non-trivial and important."

Only in linearized GR is there energy conservation. But linearized GR is not exactly GR.

5-The GR field equations express a continuous feed back between mass motion and 'curvature'.. which causes non-linearity ...which causes failure of superposition and energy conservation .... and of Noether's theorems

6-"Some physicists like to say that this makes energy a non-local concept in general relativity ...."

If energy is non-local, then it violates the causality principle.... without the CP, predictive science is a guessing game.

7-"...we never really measure real numbers. We just answer yes/no questions. Nature's information comes in bits..."

...but the number of binary questions we ask for completeness may be infinite.

8-"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information?"

The latter..... specifically, the immaterial substance of the free and bound states of aether.

9-"We must 'Translate the quantum versions of string theory and of Einstein's geometrodynamics from the language of the continuum to the language of bits'".

Rather, to the language of 'its', from the abstract world of math models to the testable world of real objects. What good are the bits, if tests yield no valid hits?

report post as inappropriate

Robert thank you for your points. I will answer them from my own view but I realise you have a different view and I hope you will submit an essay to elaborate it.

"""1-Even in theory, a Black Hole can only be indirectly 'observed'. The indirect effects observed include pedestrian causes, less than convincing evidence of a BH."""

--- Anything can only be indirectly observed. Black holes are surrounded by a gravitational field and it's effects on in-falling matter are distinctly observable and characteristic. Nothing is certain and all astronomical observations require delicate measurements but the evidence for black holes is as good as anything we have in cosmology.

============================================================

"""2-Science is not just internal metaphysical consistency, but also the external consistency of physical evidence...if we are talking physics, not math."""

--- I agree and have made the same point myself many times. There are very few observations we have that tell us anything about the combination of gravity and quantum theory. They include

(a) the observation that the universe began from a hot dense state.

(b) the observation from Fermi that photons experience no dispersion even from the Planck scale.

These do not impose strong constraints but there is plenty of reason to hope that further observations will be possible.

===================================================

=========

"""3-"... it(HP) is based on consistency reasoning from the need to bring together the laws of gravitation, quantum theory and thermodynamics."

This need for unification of these physical laws ... is it motivated by natural discoveries, or simplification for human convenience - an offshoot of Occam's Razor?"""

--- The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics apply everywhere so there must be some consistent way to unify them. This will not necessarily be a simplification or a human convenience. For my take on Occam's razor see http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Faq/General/occam.html

==============

==============================================

"""4-"Energy conservation in general relativity is real, exact, non-trivial and important."

Only in linearized GR is there energy conservation. But linearized GR is not exactly GR."""

--- On the contrary, energy conservation in the linearised gravity approximation is problematical. You need the full non-linear theory of GR to understand energy conservation

================================================

============

"""5-The GR field equations express a continuous feed back between mass motion and 'curvature'.. which causes non-linearity ...which causes failure of superposition and energy conservation .... and of Noether's theorems"""

--- Energy conservation and Noether's theorem do not require linearity. I dont know where you got that idea from. If you can give me a reference I can locate the error in the reasoning.

==================================================

==========

"""6-"Some physicists like to say that this makes energy a non-local concept in general relativity ...."

If energy is non-local, then it violates the causality principle.... without the CP, predictive science is a guessing game. """"

--- "non-local" is how "some physicists" describe it, not me. I have provided the the equation for the correct local covariant formulation of energy current.

Besides, non-locality does not violate the causality principle. More besides I do not agree that causality is an essential feature of predictive science. Causality is emergent as I stated in this essay and explained at greater length in last years essay.

======================================================

======

"""7-"...we never really measure real numbers. We just answer yes/no questions. Nature's information comes in bits..."

...but the number of binary questions we ask for completeness may be infinite."""

--- Which is why we can never achieve completeness, and we do not require it.

=========================================================

===

"""8-"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information?"

The latter..... specifically, the immaterial substance of the free and bound states of aether."""

--- I hope you will submit an essay that explains what you mean by that because it is not part of any theory I am familiar with

========================================================

====

"""9-"We must 'Translate the quantum versions of string theory and of Einstein's geometrodynamics from the language of the continuum to the language of bits'".

Rather, to the language of 'its', from the abstract world of math models to the testable world of real objects. What good are the bits, if tests yield no valid hits? """

--- Maths ceases to be abstract when applied to physics. Of course we need to make experimental tests but predictions will only be possible when a complete theory of quantum gravity has been formulated. I don't claim to have a complete theory. I am just explaining some aspects of how such a complete theory could work. Quantum gravity is a hard problem and it is not reasonable to expect complete solutions including solid testable predictions all at once.

============================================================

"""1-Even in theory, a Black Hole can only be indirectly 'observed'. The indirect effects observed include pedestrian causes, less than convincing evidence of a BH."""

--- Anything can only be indirectly observed. Black holes are surrounded by a gravitational field and it's effects on in-falling matter are distinctly observable and characteristic. Nothing is certain and all astronomical observations require delicate measurements but the evidence for black holes is as good as anything we have in cosmology.

============================================================

"""2-Science is not just internal metaphysical consistency, but also the external consistency of physical evidence...if we are talking physics, not math."""

--- I agree and have made the same point myself many times. There are very few observations we have that tell us anything about the combination of gravity and quantum theory. They include

(a) the observation that the universe began from a hot dense state.

(b) the observation from Fermi that photons experience no dispersion even from the Planck scale.

These do not impose strong constraints but there is plenty of reason to hope that further observations will be possible.

===================================================

=========

"""3-"... it(HP) is based on consistency reasoning from the need to bring together the laws of gravitation, quantum theory and thermodynamics."

This need for unification of these physical laws ... is it motivated by natural discoveries, or simplification for human convenience - an offshoot of Occam's Razor?"""

--- The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics apply everywhere so there must be some consistent way to unify them. This will not necessarily be a simplification or a human convenience. For my take on Occam's razor see http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Faq/General/occam.html

==============

==============================================

"""4-"Energy conservation in general relativity is real, exact, non-trivial and important."

Only in linearized GR is there energy conservation. But linearized GR is not exactly GR."""

--- On the contrary, energy conservation in the linearised gravity approximation is problematical. You need the full non-linear theory of GR to understand energy conservation

================================================

============

"""5-The GR field equations express a continuous feed back between mass motion and 'curvature'.. which causes non-linearity ...which causes failure of superposition and energy conservation .... and of Noether's theorems"""

--- Energy conservation and Noether's theorem do not require linearity. I dont know where you got that idea from. If you can give me a reference I can locate the error in the reasoning.

==================================================

==========

"""6-"Some physicists like to say that this makes energy a non-local concept in general relativity ...."

If energy is non-local, then it violates the causality principle.... without the CP, predictive science is a guessing game. """"

--- "non-local" is how "some physicists" describe it, not me. I have provided the the equation for the correct local covariant formulation of energy current.

Besides, non-locality does not violate the causality principle. More besides I do not agree that causality is an essential feature of predictive science. Causality is emergent as I stated in this essay and explained at greater length in last years essay.

======================================================

======

"""7-"...we never really measure real numbers. We just answer yes/no questions. Nature's information comes in bits..."

...but the number of binary questions we ask for completeness may be infinite."""

--- Which is why we can never achieve completeness, and we do not require it.

=========================================================

===

"""8-"Should we base our theoretical foundation on basic material constructs such as particles and space-time or do these things emerge from the realm of pure information?"

The latter..... specifically, the immaterial substance of the free and bound states of aether."""

--- I hope you will submit an essay that explains what you mean by that because it is not part of any theory I am familiar with

========================================================

====

"""9-"We must 'Translate the quantum versions of string theory and of Einstein's geometrodynamics from the language of the continuum to the language of bits'".

Rather, to the language of 'its', from the abstract world of math models to the testable world of real objects. What good are the bits, if tests yield no valid hits? """

--- Maths ceases to be abstract when applied to physics. Of course we need to make experimental tests but predictions will only be possible when a complete theory of quantum gravity has been formulated. I don't claim to have a complete theory. I am just explaining some aspects of how such a complete theory could work. Quantum gravity is a hard problem and it is not reasonable to expect complete solutions including solid testable predictions all at once.

============================================================

Philip,

I enjoyed your guided tour through what what normally appears to me as a scary bestiary of mathematical and physical theories. Your calm and assured explanations were thought-provoking and went to the heart of the matter, avoiding the alarming technicalities on which a novice inevitably stumbles. Popularizers of physics often avoid such details, but one is never sure if they have really mastered the subjects they describe, as you obviously have done over your many years of research.

I liked the way you stressed the criterion of consistency as a measure the truth of a combination of theories. That made me think that other combinations of the same theories might lead to better ones - in other words theories are somehow dispensable if better ones come along, a point I stressed in my own essay here.

The other point of interest in your paper for me was the way you stressed the fundamental importance of the Holographic Principle as an all-encompassing idea in physics. In Figure 4 of my paper in this contest I sketched my idea of precisely why the Principle works at least in my Beautiful Universe BU model. In that model the Universe is essentially an ordered lattice of nodes that can be represented as a vector field of angular momenta. In any chosen volume in this lattice the resultant of the 3D vector matrix within appears as the vectors tessellating the surface. I know this is very simplistic, but who knows whether the many dimensions and symmetries of the theories you juggle so adeptly may one day be distilled into such a simple theory. For example if the concept flexible space-time (as dimensions) is banished from physics (as it could) general relativity becomes much simpler as just a density field in an absolute universe as described in (BU). Ditto for probability, which emerges from the theory as a simple consequence of the underlying order.

I enjoyed the way you described necklace algebras. It reminded me of a simple arithmetical idea I dreamed up a long time ago (one I am sure someone else had fully developed it independently). I call them Breughel numbers after the painter who made the print showing a fish eating a fish eating a fish, ad nauseum. Basically, it is a way to break a number into nested fractions:

8 = (8/7)*(7/6)*(6/5)*(5/4)*(4/3)*(3/2)*(2/1)

n= (n/(n-1))*((n-1)/(n-2))* . . . * ((n-n+2)/1)

Do Necklace algebras work along some such a principle?

Good luck in your research, and I am sure I speak for many independent researchers like me when I thank you for founding viXra . Keep viXra alive and more power to you.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your guided tour through what what normally appears to me as a scary bestiary of mathematical and physical theories. Your calm and assured explanations were thought-provoking and went to the heart of the matter, avoiding the alarming technicalities on which a novice inevitably stumbles. Popularizers of physics often avoid such details, but one is never sure if they have really mastered the subjects they describe, as you obviously have done over your many years of research.

I liked the way you stressed the criterion of consistency as a measure the truth of a combination of theories. That made me think that other combinations of the same theories might lead to better ones - in other words theories are somehow dispensable if better ones come along, a point I stressed in my own essay here.

The other point of interest in your paper for me was the way you stressed the fundamental importance of the Holographic Principle as an all-encompassing idea in physics. In Figure 4 of my paper in this contest I sketched my idea of precisely why the Principle works at least in my Beautiful Universe BU model. In that model the Universe is essentially an ordered lattice of nodes that can be represented as a vector field of angular momenta. In any chosen volume in this lattice the resultant of the 3D vector matrix within appears as the vectors tessellating the surface. I know this is very simplistic, but who knows whether the many dimensions and symmetries of the theories you juggle so adeptly may one day be distilled into such a simple theory. For example if the concept flexible space-time (as dimensions) is banished from physics (as it could) general relativity becomes much simpler as just a density field in an absolute universe as described in (BU). Ditto for probability, which emerges from the theory as a simple consequence of the underlying order.

I enjoyed the way you described necklace algebras. It reminded me of a simple arithmetical idea I dreamed up a long time ago (one I am sure someone else had fully developed it independently). I call them Breughel numbers after the painter who made the print showing a fish eating a fish eating a fish, ad nauseum. Basically, it is a way to break a number into nested fractions:

8 = (8/7)*(7/6)*(6/5)*(5/4)*(4/3)*(3/2)*(2/1)

n= (n/(n-1))*((n-1)/(n-2))* . . . * ((n-n+2)/1)

Do Necklace algebras work along some such a principle?

Good luck in your research, and I am sure I speak for many independent researchers like me when I thank you for founding viXra . Keep viXra alive and more power to you.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir, thank you for your comments

The type of product you are using is mathematically interesting. If you take the product over a power of all prime numbers instead of numbers from 1 to seven you get a product definition for the zeta function which is related to the algebras I am using. In maths everything is connected,

Phil

The type of product you are using is mathematically interesting. If you take the product over a power of all prime numbers instead of numbers from 1 to seven you get a product definition for the zeta function which is related to the algebras I am using. In maths everything is connected,

Phil

Philip

Thanks now I will have to do some studying to understand what you said - but glad my little idea made sense. Yes math is connected. It is also almost magical in that it can take many forms that describe the same physics.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Thanks now I will have to do some studying to understand what you said - but glad my little idea made sense. Yes math is connected. It is also almost magical in that it can take many forms that describe the same physics.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Uncertainty is inherent in Nature because of inter-connectedness and interdependence of everything with everything else. When we try to measure soothing, the result of measurement will not only rest on our operation, but also the environment in which we operate. Even our measuring device and its functioning will be subject to the density fluctuations in the environment that will...

view entire post

Uncertainty is inherent in Nature because of inter-connectedness and interdependence of everything with everything else. When we try to measure soothing, the result of measurement will not only rest on our operation, but also the environment in which we operate. Even our measuring device and its functioning will be subject to the density fluctuations in the environment that will...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comment. I hope you will enter the contest so that you can put your point of view fully.

Basudeba

"Uncertainty is inherent in Nature"

Really? So how does it exist then?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

"Uncertainty is inherent in Nature"

Really? So how does it exist then?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to explain. Kindly bear with our lengthy explanation.

When Mr. Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Mr. Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Mr. Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of...

view entire post

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to explain. Kindly bear with our lengthy explanation.

When Mr. Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Mr. Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Mr. Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip,

I have read your essay. Not bad at all, although looking for something more radical that can tell us the secret of the 'Old One' as Einstein would say. Also thanks for providing the opportunity for vixra authors. I am one.

1. Just the same question I have asked others... In your essay and similar ones, you say, "We just answer yes/no questions". BUT what is THE QUESTION? Is it 'have you submitted an essay to FQXi'? Surely, not! Wheeler says the question must be at the'very bottom' and Paul Davies says it must 'occupy the ontological basement'.

Well for whatever it is worth I have asked what that question should be in my contribution, 'On the road not taken'.

So what exactly can THAT QUESTION be?

2. You talk of smooth spacetime. Are you by any means suggesting that space is continuous? Because if you do I might be taking you up on that.

Cheers,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay. Not bad at all, although looking for something more radical that can tell us the secret of the 'Old One' as Einstein would say. Also thanks for providing the opportunity for vixra authors. I am one.

1. Just the same question I have asked others... In your essay and similar ones, you say, "We just answer yes/no questions". BUT what is THE QUESTION? Is it 'have you submitted an essay to FQXi'? Surely, not! Wheeler says the question must be at the'very bottom' and Paul Davies says it must 'occupy the ontological basement'.

Well for whatever it is worth I have asked what that question should be in my contribution, 'On the road not taken'.

So what exactly can THAT QUESTION be?

2. You talk of smooth spacetime. Are you by any means suggesting that space is continuous? Because if you do I might be taking you up on that.

Cheers,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo, thank you for your questions.

My ideas are quite radical. Nobody else is saying the the black hole information paradox implies a huge symmetry in nature. Very few people think that multiple quantisation is a useful principle. Nobody else thinks that spacetime and physics could emerge from an algebraic principle based on necklace algebras. Most people think that causality is fundamental. In these ways and others not covered in this essay my thinking is radically different from any other physicist.

However I do not think that we should entirely abandon the theories of the standard models of particle physics, general relativity and cosmology. I also think that consistency arguments that lead us to investigate supersymmetry, string theory and other possibilities must be taken into account, in this way I am more conventionalm but I am also open minded to all kinds of crazy ideas that may hold clues.

You ask "what exactly can THAT QUESTION be?" in reference to answering yes/no questions as proposed by Wheeler. Of course he was not refering to one magical question. He was talking generically about any question whose answer can provide some information about the physical state of the universe. This includes 'have you submitted an essay to FQXi?' for example. It is with the answers to many such questions that we start to build a picture of the reality that surrounds us.

However, I think you have in mind some question whose answer tells us how the universe works. I don't have such a question but I will reread your essay to get a better sense of what you mean.

As for smooth continuous spacetime vs discrete you should read my old bibliographical review on the small scale structure of space time to see that I do not hold a narrow view http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9506171

My ideas are quite radical. Nobody else is saying the the black hole information paradox implies a huge symmetry in nature. Very few people think that multiple quantisation is a useful principle. Nobody else thinks that spacetime and physics could emerge from an algebraic principle based on necklace algebras. Most people think that causality is fundamental. In these ways and others not covered in this essay my thinking is radically different from any other physicist.

However I do not think that we should entirely abandon the theories of the standard models of particle physics, general relativity and cosmology. I also think that consistency arguments that lead us to investigate supersymmetry, string theory and other possibilities must be taken into account, in this way I am more conventionalm but I am also open minded to all kinds of crazy ideas that may hold clues.

You ask "what exactly can THAT QUESTION be?" in reference to answering yes/no questions as proposed by Wheeler. Of course he was not refering to one magical question. He was talking generically about any question whose answer can provide some information about the physical state of the universe. This includes 'have you submitted an essay to FQXi?' for example. It is with the answers to many such questions that we start to build a picture of the reality that surrounds us.

However, I think you have in mind some question whose answer tells us how the universe works. I don't have such a question but I will reread your essay to get a better sense of what you mean.

As for smooth continuous spacetime vs discrete you should read my old bibliographical review on the small scale structure of space time to see that I do not hold a narrow view http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9506171

Hi Philip,

That old bibliographical review is a MASTERPIECE in bold letters. Really fantastic. No flattery intended. There should be a forum to discuss it.

As this forum may not be ethically correct, I will restrict myself to two posers:

1. What if monads are Nature's Cellular Automata?

If you dont know much about monads, see Leibniz monadology reference in my essay.

2. If space discreteness is in the form of monads as the Pythagoreans postulate, will you regard their emergence and annihilation as a "fundamental space-time event"?

Food for thought only... I may possibly continue this on your blog.

All the best,

Akinbo

(taojo@hotmail.com)

report post as inappropriate

That old bibliographical review is a MASTERPIECE in bold letters. Really fantastic. No flattery intended. There should be a forum to discuss it.

As this forum may not be ethically correct, I will restrict myself to two posers:

1. What if monads are Nature's Cellular Automata?

If you dont know much about monads, see Leibniz monadology reference in my essay.

2. If space discreteness is in the form of monads as the Pythagoreans postulate, will you regard their emergence and annihilation as a "fundamental space-time event"?

Food for thought only... I may possibly continue this on your blog.

All the best,

Akinbo

(taojo@hotmail.com)

report post as inappropriate

Phil,

Great essay, well done. I think it deserves it's spot. There's a lot of common ground with mine, and I'm convinced a lot of truth, however 'outlying'.

I also refer briefly to von Weizsäcker as his work is analogous to the 'sample space' subsets I discuss leading to the additional parametrisations which expose von Neumann's solution to the EPR paradox as correct. I even then found the predicted 'aberrations' existed in Aspects discarded data!!

Your; "From layers of quantum uncertainty built upon fundamental information there is hope that spacetime and matter emerge in a natural way." I think I show that you're spot on!

You ask; "With multiple quantisation the values of the probabilities themselves are replaced with further wave-functions ad infinitum. In such a world, can we hope to determine anything?" I propose yes. Again I think I show this "simplifies" physics greatly (if not the maths!).

Then; "Bringing together different theories often forces almost unique conclusions." Excellent point. In fact in the EPR case Bell's dream of no boundary between SR and QM is emergent (my conclusions like yours are pretty unique, as you know!)

I think your reference to lie algebras is also important, and closely analogous to my last figure (experimental result) proving my thesis. I can't recall if I mentioned Clifford or Lie algebra now (I had to squeeze it by 10%!) but did last year with Hoft fibration and have discussed it on the APS blog. I know little of it but am sure it's rich vein I hope you'll follow.

I also like your clarity of writing (again mine ended too dense) and hope it ends up a top scorer. I'd greatly appreciate your views on mine.

Very best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Great essay, well done. I think it deserves it's spot. There's a lot of common ground with mine, and I'm convinced a lot of truth, however 'outlying'.

I also refer briefly to von Weizsäcker as his work is analogous to the 'sample space' subsets I discuss leading to the additional parametrisations which expose von Neumann's solution to the EPR paradox as correct. I even then found the predicted 'aberrations' existed in Aspects discarded data!!

Your; "From layers of quantum uncertainty built upon fundamental information there is hope that spacetime and matter emerge in a natural way." I think I show that you're spot on!

You ask; "With multiple quantisation the values of the probabilities themselves are replaced with further wave-functions ad infinitum. In such a world, can we hope to determine anything?" I propose yes. Again I think I show this "simplifies" physics greatly (if not the maths!).

Then; "Bringing together different theories often forces almost unique conclusions." Excellent point. In fact in the EPR case Bell's dream of no boundary between SR and QM is emergent (my conclusions like yours are pretty unique, as you know!)

I think your reference to lie algebras is also important, and closely analogous to my last figure (experimental result) proving my thesis. I can't recall if I mentioned Clifford or Lie algebra now (I had to squeeze it by 10%!) but did last year with Hoft fibration and have discussed it on the APS blog. I know little of it but am sure it's rich vein I hope you'll follow.

I also like your clarity of writing (again mine ended too dense) and hope it ends up a top scorer. I'd greatly appreciate your views on mine.

Very best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter, thanks for your comments. I can also see relations between our essays as you can see in the comment I left on your side.

I'm glad you found the essay clear. Hitting the right technical level is hard. The parts about Necklace algebras will be hard to follow because the maths is sketched very quickly, I try to balance with some easier sections. Your's is an excellent example of how to do it.

I'm glad you found the essay clear. Hitting the right technical level is hard. The parts about Necklace algebras will be hard to follow because the maths is sketched very quickly, I try to balance with some easier sections. Your's is an excellent example of how to do it.

Hi Philip,

I really like your approach that spacetime and matter should emerge in a natural way. I also like the idea that the key is mathematics of information redundancy bringing symmetry through algebraic geometry. I wouldn't disagree with your approach at all - my essay also has the Universe exist naturally.

Well done and keep up the great work with Vixra.

Antony

report post as inappropriate

I really like your approach that spacetime and matter should emerge in a natural way. I also like the idea that the key is mathematics of information redundancy bringing symmetry through algebraic geometry. I wouldn't disagree with your approach at all - my essay also has the Universe exist naturally.

Well done and keep up the great work with Vixra.

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Thanks very much for reading and your kind comments Philip.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

You have a very refreshing writing style. Informative, non-confrontational, friendly and clear. For example you note [in 9506171] "This style of argument tends to be convincing only to those who already believe the hypothesis. It will not make many conversions." So modest, and gets it out of the way up front. There's nothing wrong with laying out the logic for those who pursue a particular path!

Thanks very much for the link to your 9506171 paper. I found it wonderfully informative. I've made notes and hope to organize them in a comment. You've clearly been considering "It from Bit" for quite some time, as well as the "Theory of Theories" I believe you and I were addressing essentially the same problem: Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics for physics".

From the 1950's I was fascinated by computers, and in the late 60's the appearance of Medium Scale Integrated circuits (MSI) followed by the microprocessor, pulled me away from physics and in 1975 I moved from physics to computer design, but did not cease working Wigner's problem. From your essays, your comments, and 9506171, I gather you took more of a 'soft logic' approach, based on mathematics, whereas I took more of a 'hard logic' approach, based on logic underlying math, and physical reality underlying logic. Now, in 2013, we are still addressing the same problems, but we tend to come down on different sides based on our historical paths. The 'soft' side tends toward 'It from Bit' and the 'hard' side toward 'Bit from It'.

I hope you find my essay as fascinating as I found yours and your 'Small Scale Structure..' paper.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You have a very refreshing writing style. Informative, non-confrontational, friendly and clear. For example you note [in 9506171] "This style of argument tends to be convincing only to those who already believe the hypothesis. It will not make many conversions." So modest, and gets it out of the way up front. There's nothing wrong with laying out the logic for those who pursue a particular path!

Thanks very much for the link to your 9506171 paper. I found it wonderfully informative. I've made notes and hope to organize them in a comment. You've clearly been considering "It from Bit" for quite some time, as well as the "Theory of Theories" I believe you and I were addressing essentially the same problem: Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics for physics".

From the 1950's I was fascinated by computers, and in the late 60's the appearance of Medium Scale Integrated circuits (MSI) followed by the microprocessor, pulled me away from physics and in 1975 I moved from physics to computer design, but did not cease working Wigner's problem. From your essays, your comments, and 9506171, I gather you took more of a 'soft logic' approach, based on mathematics, whereas I took more of a 'hard logic' approach, based on logic underlying math, and physical reality underlying logic. Now, in 2013, we are still addressing the same problems, but we tend to come down on different sides based on our historical paths. The 'soft' side tends toward 'It from Bit' and the 'hard' side toward 'Bit from It'.

I hope you find my essay as fascinating as I found yours and your 'Small Scale Structure..' paper.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin, thank you for the compliments. I am glad you are back in the competition which is hotting up now. My facination with computers only goes back to about 1970 but I was only ten then.

I think we are all trying to solve the same problems. Some of us have a lot of overlap but no two have all the same ideas. We must always look for common ground and ask if differences are really just two sides of the same coin.

I am catching up with the new essays and will read yours shortly.

I think we are all trying to solve the same problems. Some of us have a lot of overlap but no two have all the same ideas. We must always look for common ground and ask if differences are really just two sides of the same coin.

I am catching up with the new essays and will read yours shortly.

Philip,

I forgot to mention -- in response to Rodney Bartlett you wrote, on May 5 at 07:59:

"One bit I especially like is that the idea of particles from gravitational fields may return."

My model derives particles from gravity (not done in my current essay) and I provide references to related links (such as Burinskii).

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I forgot to mention -- in response to Rodney Bartlett you wrote, on May 5 at 07:59:

"One bit I especially like is that the idea of particles from gravitational fields may return."

My model derives particles from gravity (not done in my current essay) and I provide references to related links (such as Burinskii).

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hey Phil,

When I read your essay from the "Digital or Analog" contest I started thinking about something Ben Goertzel had written about some time ago which he calls "infinite-order probabilities on a causal network." So then when I read this current essay with reference to Weizsacker and your demonstration of the Necklace Lie algebras my antenna really started to twitch (did you know a couple of engineers have developed a small pack they strap to the backs of hissing cockroaches which allows them to stimulate the cockroach's individual antenna with a small current hence causing the cockroach to turn left or right? They're able to steer the roaches through rubble on search and rescue missions; how cool is that?). Anyway, it turns out that Ben Goertzel published a short paper Modeling Uncertain Self-Referential Semantics with Infinite-Order Probabilities on his "infinite-order probability" concept in 2008 which was followed by a 2013 paper A Consistent Set of Infinite-Order Probabilities in the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning by David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg. I thought perhaps you would find these papers interesting, all things considered . . .

report post as inappropriate

When I read your essay from the "Digital or Analog" contest I started thinking about something Ben Goertzel had written about some time ago which he calls "infinite-order probabilities on a causal network." So then when I read this current essay with reference to Weizsacker and your demonstration of the Necklace Lie algebras my antenna really started to twitch (did you know a couple of engineers have developed a small pack they strap to the backs of hissing cockroaches which allows them to stimulate the cockroach's individual antenna with a small current hence causing the cockroach to turn left or right? They're able to steer the roaches through rubble on search and rescue missions; how cool is that?). Anyway, it turns out that Ben Goertzel published a short paper Modeling Uncertain Self-Referential Semantics with Infinite-Order Probabilities on his "infinite-order probability" concept in 2008 which was followed by a 2013 paper A Consistent Set of Infinite-Order Probabilities in the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning by David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg. I thought perhaps you would find these papers interesting, all things considered . . .

report post as inappropriate

Wes, thanks for drawing this to my attention. I had not looked much into what people had said about probabilities of probabilities, but it is interesting that they have taken this to the infinite limit of recursion. This is very like what might be done with multiple quantisation and looking at how it works in probability could be very helpful.

Hi Phil,

Just to let you know, there's another "viXra" entry in the competition, namely the essay of mine that got posted yesterday; I hope its ratings don't drag down the average for viXra papers by too much! I hadn't originally planned to enter; but after reading your excellent essay, in particular your discussion of the Holographic Principle and its relevance to the topic of the contest, I felt motivated to try and connect this principle to this topic in my own way; you are, of course, absolved of any responsibility for the results!

So, thanks for your essay, and for all your work (and blogging) at viXra!

-Willard Mittelman

report post as inappropriate

Just to let you know, there's another "viXra" entry in the competition, namely the essay of mine that got posted yesterday; I hope its ratings don't drag down the average for viXra papers by too much! I hadn't originally planned to enter; but after reading your excellent essay, in particular your discussion of the Holographic Principle and its relevance to the topic of the contest, I felt motivated to try and connect this principle to this topic in my own way; you are, of course, absolved of any responsibility for the results!

So, thanks for your essay, and for all your work (and blogging) at viXra!

-Willard Mittelman

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

In saying, "Simplicity has its role but the only hard principles are logical self-consistency and consistency with observation" you certainly stand with me on common ground...

But would you also join me in the school of realism... e.g., that there is an objective reality independent of our observation of same, that a faithful representation of that external reality is...

view entire post

In saying, "Simplicity has its role but the only hard principles are logical self-consistency and consistency with observation" you certainly stand with me on common ground...

But would you also join me in the school of realism... e.g., that there is an objective reality independent of our observation of same, that a faithful representation of that external reality is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Robert, I think whether I agree with someone about "objective reality" would depend on how they interpreted it and where they have it lead to. Temporal causality is a consequence of the arrow of time which is an emergent feature from statistical physics. Some people like to think that it is fundamental and build theories on that basis, but I see no evidence or need for that and prefer to proceed on the assumption that it really is emergent. One day we will know who had the better idea but for now we have to try all options. Ontological causality a.k.a reductionism is a different concept and I am undecided about that.

As to your other points about consistency of relativity etc. , all I can say is we will have to agree to disagree on that. The last 100 years of high energy physics and cosmology is based on the consistency of relativity which is easily checked mathematically and well confirmed by observation. In my opinion, if what you say were true then 100 years of physics would have to be a conspiracy to hide the truth involving many thousands of scientists and would be several orders of magnitude larger than any other conspiracy theory I have come across. I love radical ideas. I welcome free thinking and encourage anyone to think for themselves and to question any argument by authority. However, for these extreme views I prefer to leave the discussions to others and not interfere.

As to your other points about consistency of relativity etc. , all I can say is we will have to agree to disagree on that. The last 100 years of high energy physics and cosmology is based on the consistency of relativity which is easily checked mathematically and well confirmed by observation. In my opinion, if what you say were true then 100 years of physics would have to be a conspiracy to hide the truth involving many thousands of scientists and would be several orders of magnitude larger than any other conspiracy theory I have come across. I love radical ideas. I welcome free thinking and encourage anyone to think for themselves and to question any argument by authority. However, for these extreme views I prefer to leave the discussions to others and not interfere.

Hi Philip,

Just read your submission and I have two comments concerning it.

First of all, I want to thank you for the history lesson you gave concerning Noether's paper "Invariant Variational Problems". I am trying to study it, but your submission now gives me a place to place the paper in relation to GR.

My second point is more along the lines of Necklace Lie Algebra 101. I quote your submission; "A necklace lie algebra is a lie algebra built from copies of vector spaces strung together in chains. If the vector space is 2 dimensional you can picture elements of the algebra as necklaces of qubits, and more generally of qudits." The picture I am getting from your description doesn't exactly make sense. I will try to explain. My understanding is that qubits and qudits are one dimensional things. You are putting them in a 2 dimensional vector space and stringing them together. That adds up to three dimensions. Where is the fourth dimension?

I've read very few papers trying to digitize reality and the problem I keep running across is the encoding of spacetime. Yours is the first paper I've read that has gotten beyond the second dimension.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Just read your submission and I have two comments concerning it.

First of all, I want to thank you for the history lesson you gave concerning Noether's paper "Invariant Variational Problems". I am trying to study it, but your submission now gives me a place to place the paper in relation to GR.

My second point is more along the lines of Necklace Lie Algebra 101. I quote your submission; "A necklace lie algebra is a lie algebra built from copies of vector spaces strung together in chains. If the vector space is 2 dimensional you can picture elements of the algebra as necklaces of qubits, and more generally of qudits." The picture I am getting from your description doesn't exactly make sense. I will try to explain. My understanding is that qubits and qudits are one dimensional things. You are putting them in a 2 dimensional vector space and stringing them together. That adds up to three dimensions. Where is the fourth dimension?

I've read very few papers trying to digitize reality and the problem I keep running across is the encoding of spacetime. Yours is the first paper I've read that has gotten beyond the second dimension.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

The question of dimensions is a very good one and I do not have all the answers. A long time ago I proposed the idea that dimensions were built by a process of multiple quantisations that add one dimension each time. I have no idea if this is the right way to look at it but the structure of necklace algebras suggests it.

A necklace algebra is a one dimensions object formed as a lie algebra of vector spaces strung along loops. But a lie algebra is itself a vector space so necklaces themselves can be strung along loops and this builds two dimensional structures. You repeat this adding one dimension each time. I found a nice construction on this idea where commutation relations on the string were used making it look like a process of quantisation, hence the idea.

The problem with that is that it builds discrete multi-dimensional structures and you have to explain why spacetime, strings, branes or any other multidimensiaonla structure appears continuous. The mapping I describe in this essay which uses iterated integration is a step towards understanding that. There are other ways you can look at these things and no complete theory.

I also like the ideas on dimensions in your essay. This is an important part of the overall puzzle

A necklace algebra is a one dimensions object formed as a lie algebra of vector spaces strung along loops. But a lie algebra is itself a vector space so necklaces themselves can be strung along loops and this builds two dimensional structures. You repeat this adding one dimension each time. I found a nice construction on this idea where commutation relations on the string were used making it look like a process of quantisation, hence the idea.

The problem with that is that it builds discrete multi-dimensional structures and you have to explain why spacetime, strings, branes or any other multidimensiaonla structure appears continuous. The mapping I describe in this essay which uses iterated integration is a step towards understanding that. There are other ways you can look at these things and no complete theory.

I also like the ideas on dimensions in your essay. This is an important part of the overall puzzle

Hi Philip,

Though ''observational evidence for the existence of black holes in our galaxy is highly convincing'' nothing indicates that a black hole actually does have an event horizon. If nothing can escape from behind the horizon, no photons nor gravitons, then you'd say that the mass inside the horizon cannot be expressed as gravity outside of it. If an outside observer cannot interact...

view entire post

Though ''observational evidence for the existence of black holes in our galaxy is highly convincing'' nothing indicates that a black hole actually does have an event horizon. If nothing can escape from behind the horizon, no photons nor gravitons, then you'd say that the mass inside the horizon cannot be expressed as gravity outside of it. If an outside observer cannot interact...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anton, thanks for your long comment. I will try to respond to some of your points

"nothing indicates that a black hole actually does have an event horizon"

See for example http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310692 which claims otherwise. Of course you can always dispute this if you are skeptical. I am only saying that I find the evidence "highly convincing", not that there is no room at all for doubt.

"If nothing can escape from behind the horizon, no photons nor gravitons, then you'd say that the mass inside the horizon cannot be expressed as gravity outside of it"

This is acommon misconception see e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-grav

ity-escape-a-black-hole

"Another point is that though energy is quantified, that does not mean that there is a universal minimum building block of energy or space."

I have not claimed that there is a minimum energy, no such argument exists. The Planck energy for exmaple is much larger than the energies normally found in particle physics.

However there are reasonable arguments to expect a minimum distance scale at the Planck length. One argument is that to probe smaller distances the amount of concentrated energy needed would form a black-hole. Of course this argument requires many assumptions and could easily be wrong. I did not rely on such an argument in my essay. Information content is limited by the holographic principle. Of course if you are skeptical about black-holes I cant expect you to except such arguments and I leave you to follow your own path.

best regards, Phil

"nothing indicates that a black hole actually does have an event horizon"

See for example http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310692 which claims otherwise. Of course you can always dispute this if you are skeptical. I am only saying that I find the evidence "highly convincing", not that there is no room at all for doubt.

"If nothing can escape from behind the horizon, no photons nor gravitons, then you'd say that the mass inside the horizon cannot be expressed as gravity outside of it"

This is acommon misconception see e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does-grav

ity-escape-a-black-hole

"Another point is that though energy is quantified, that does not mean that there is a universal minimum building block of energy or space."

I have not claimed that there is a minimum energy, no such argument exists. The Planck energy for exmaple is much larger than the energies normally found in particle physics.

However there are reasonable arguments to expect a minimum distance scale at the Planck length. One argument is that to probe smaller distances the amount of concentrated energy needed would form a black-hole. Of course this argument requires many assumptions and could easily be wrong. I did not rely on such an argument in my essay. Information content is limited by the holographic principle. Of course if you are skeptical about black-holes I cant expect you to except such arguments and I leave you to follow your own path.

best regards, Phil

Dear Philip,

I have read your article, but afraid I understand it not so well. The universe really accelerates (I mean its expansion that maybe only with acceleration, that I got with own methods.)

I just asking you to look mine article, hoping it will interested you. I will very thankful to get some your comments.

Best wishes,

George

ARTICLE

report post as inappropriate

I have read your article, but afraid I understand it not so well. The universe really accelerates (I mean its expansion that maybe only with acceleration, that I got with own methods.)

I just asking you to look mine article, hoping it will interested you. I will very thankful to get some your comments.

Best wishes,

George

ARTICLE

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip Gibbs

The essay is very interesting.But when It from bit - where are bit come from?

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

report post as inappropriate

The essay is very interesting.But when It from bit - where are bit come from?

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

report post as inappropriate

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the links. As one can fall into a black hole, I can imagine the mass or gravitational field within the horizon to continue outside of it. However, if when nothing can escape from behind the horizon so an observer outside of it cannot interact with what's inside of it, then the area the horizon encloses still would be a space where all points are physically identical to...

view entire post

Thanks for the links. As one can fall into a black hole, I can imagine the mass or gravitational field within the horizon to continue outside of it. However, if when nothing can escape from behind the horizon so an observer outside of it cannot interact with what's inside of it, then the area the horizon encloses still would be a space where all points are physically identical to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

You asked "So my next question to you is whether a black hole has an event horizon or not depends on whether the 'speed of light' refers to the velocity of light or to a property of spacetime?"

You should not think of the "speed of light" as just the speed of light. It is the maximum speed that any particle can travel at. The s"peed of light" is determined by the light cones which are the null directions of the spacetime metric. The metric is the gravitational field, so really the "speed of light" is a property of the gravitational field. This is why it is directly related to the black-hole event-horizon.

you asked "...which would imply that no information is lost as it does?" I am confused about what you are asking but will say what I think.

In the paper they talk in causal terms about the formation of the black-hole. I dont think causality is fundamental so the statement has its limitation, but the emergence of causality is sufficiently clear to make sense of the statement.

Looking at the bigger picture I would say that causality for a black hole should be considered more carefully. The time reversal of a black-hole is a white hole yet a static black-hole is identical to a static white-hole. If you could see the Hawking radiation emerging from a black-hole where would it appear to originate from? You can't tell because it is thermal so it does not form any kind of image that let's you see where it is formed. It looks the same as thermal radiation originating from inside the event-horizon of a whitehole, so what is really happening and how should we view causality around a black hole? These questions cannot be answered with classical general relativity and we dont have a full quantum theory so the amnwers are not known to anybody.

You should not think of the "speed of light" as just the speed of light. It is the maximum speed that any particle can travel at. The s"peed of light" is determined by the light cones which are the null directions of the spacetime metric. The metric is the gravitational field, so really the "speed of light" is a property of the gravitational field. This is why it is directly related to the black-hole event-horizon.

you asked "...which would imply that no information is lost as it does?" I am confused about what you are asking but will say what I think.

In the paper they talk in causal terms about the formation of the black-hole. I dont think causality is fundamental so the statement has its limitation, but the emergence of causality is sufficiently clear to make sense of the statement.

Looking at the bigger picture I would say that causality for a black hole should be considered more carefully. The time reversal of a black-hole is a white hole yet a static black-hole is identical to a static white-hole. If you could see the Hawking radiation emerging from a black-hole where would it appear to originate from? You can't tell because it is thermal so it does not form any kind of image that let's you see where it is formed. It looks the same as thermal radiation originating from inside the event-horizon of a whitehole, so what is really happening and how should we view causality around a black hole? These questions cannot be answered with classical general relativity and we dont have a full quantum theory so the amnwers are not known to anybody.

Phil,

Let's philosophize about your ideas.

In all this talk about information and black holes, the information has a carrier. However, if you say that information is fundamental and spacetime and matter are emergent, there is no such carrier. Historically, a similar starting point (note that I'm not saying "identical") can be found in Berkelian idealism, which revolves around the principle "esse est percipi". The object then doesn't exist if you don't observe it (and thus have no information about it).

Now surely you don't want to revisit this Berkelian idealism, so I assume that in your theory information is something that exists in itself, outside an observer, and doesn't have to be "consumed" or "absorbed" by us for a matter particle to emerge, that is, to come into existence. But still, this leaves open the question of how the process of emergence can be detected. In other words: if you want an information based theory to be classified as "physics" - as opposed to a mere metaphysical idea - how can you in principle prove experimentally that information precedes matter?

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Let's philosophize about your ideas.

In all this talk about information and black holes, the information has a carrier. However, if you say that information is fundamental and spacetime and matter are emergent, there is no such carrier. Historically, a similar starting point (note that I'm not saying "identical") can be found in Berkelian idealism, which revolves around the principle "esse est percipi". The object then doesn't exist if you don't observe it (and thus have no information about it).

Now surely you don't want to revisit this Berkelian idealism, so I assume that in your theory information is something that exists in itself, outside an observer, and doesn't have to be "consumed" or "absorbed" by us for a matter particle to emerge, that is, to come into existence. But still, this leaves open the question of how the process of emergence can be detected. In other words: if you want an information based theory to be classified as "physics" - as opposed to a mere metaphysical idea - how can you in principle prove experimentally that information precedes matter?

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen, it is a good question and I will try to give an answer from my own point of view. General statements about emergence are pf course metaphysical so they cant be decided by experiment, that is the definition of metaphysical. metaphysical ideas are just heuristics we use to develop more physical theory which should ultimately lead to testable predictions. However that is a long road and as...

view entire post

view entire post

Phil,

Thanks for your answer, you summed it up real nice.

Although I myself do not believe in quantum mechanics - that is, I'm compelled to believe that it has merit but I do not believe it is the final answer - I can understand that this information thing is thought of as a viable route to a complete theory.

I think your essay is spot on for this contest. In my rating I deducted a point, however, for mentioning that egocentric windbag 't Hooft in the text.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your answer, you summed it up real nice.

Although I myself do not believe in quantum mechanics - that is, I'm compelled to believe that it has merit but I do not believe it is the final answer - I can understand that this information thing is thought of as a viable route to a complete theory.

I think your essay is spot on for this contest. In my rating I deducted a point, however, for mentioning that egocentric windbag 't Hooft in the text.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

I rate your essay as a most appreciated one for some reasons:

It supports Wheeler's "it from bit" credo and nurtures hope for getting rid of notorious enigmas including Einstein's worry about the now.

It certainly does not matter that I tend to share Shannon's opposite view. All contest winners so far tried about the same as do you.

It will perhaps also not matter much that your reasoning relies at least in part on speculations and denies that "symmetry is just a kind of redundancy". I may be the only lonely one who considers T-symmetry an apparent and redundant one which can be attributed to Heavisides trick of analytic continuation with arbitrarily chosen reference. I would appreciate you proving me wrong in that respect.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I rate your essay as a most appreciated one for some reasons:

It supports Wheeler's "it from bit" credo and nurtures hope for getting rid of notorious enigmas including Einstein's worry about the now.

It certainly does not matter that I tend to share Shannon's opposite view. All contest winners so far tried about the same as do you.

It will perhaps also not matter much that your reasoning relies at least in part on speculations and denies that "symmetry is just a kind of redundancy". I may be the only lonely one who considers T-symmetry an apparent and redundant one which can be attributed to Heavisides trick of analytic continuation with arbitrarily chosen reference. I would appreciate you proving me wrong in that respect.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard, thanks for your comment.

Remember that the only part of "symmetry is just a kind of redundancy" that I deny is the word "just"

I am not sure exactly what you mean about Heaviside's trick. One thing to remember is that a Laplace transform is asymmetric in time. It favours decays rather than growth. You can still turn it round in time and apply but it may diverge. When you are looking for sources of time asymmetry from time-symmetric equations you have to be careful to see where you may build in the asymmetric assumption.

Remember that the only part of "symmetry is just a kind of redundancy" that I deny is the word "just"

I am not sure exactly what you mean about Heaviside's trick. One thing to remember is that a Laplace transform is asymmetric in time. It favours decays rather than growth. You can still turn it round in time and apply but it may diverge. When you are looking for sources of time asymmetry from time-symmetric equations you have to be careful to see where you may build in the asymmetric assumption.

Hi Philip

A Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making: it has a beginning and evolves as a whole IN time: as in this universe it is the same cosmic time everywhere, it takes a photon time to travel, so we can imagine to follow a photon on its path like we can, from the Skylab, follow a plane as it flies from New York to Boston, so this universe grows older as the...

view entire post

A Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making: it has a beginning and evolves as a whole IN time: as in this universe it is the same cosmic time everywhere, it takes a photon time to travel, so we can imagine to follow a photon on its path like we can, from the Skylab, follow a plane as it flies from New York to Boston, so this universe grows older as the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comments. I will just add one remark.

It is temporal causality that I consider to be emergent. I accept the deeper ontological causality or reductionism that some people prefer to question. Emergence happens through ontological causality so there is no contradiction in saying that temporal causality is emergent.

It is temporal causality that I consider to be emergent. I accept the deeper ontological causality or reductionism that some people prefer to question. Emergence happens through ontological causality so there is no contradiction in saying that temporal causality is emergent.

Philip,

Do you mean to say that causality causes itself? And knows when to stop: when it suit us?

Success in the contest, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Do you mean to say that causality causes itself? And knows when to stop: when it suit us?

Success in the contest, Anton

report post as inappropriate

I will try to explain it again.

Causality is about answering the "why" questions. We answer with an explanation that begins with the word "because". In other words we explain a "cause".

However causality can take different forms and different philosophers have classified different types of cause in different ways. In the past Einstein used the word "causality" when talking about...

view entire post

Causality is about answering the "why" questions. We answer with an explanation that begins with the word "because". In other words we explain a "cause".

However causality can take different forms and different philosophers have classified different types of cause in different ways. In the past Einstein used the word "causality" when talking about...

view entire post

Hey Phil,

There seems to be some sort of weird synchronicity phenomenon at play here - or maybe the NSA is playing games with me . . . Anyway, I was "directed" to this interesting paper by Kevin Knuth and Philip Goyal titled, "Quantum Theory and Probability Theory: Their Relationship and Origin in Symmetry" in which . . . well, here's the abstract:

"Quantum theory is a probabilistic calculus that enables the calculation of the probabilities of the possible outcomes of a measurement performed on a physical system. But what is the relationship between this probabilistic calculus and probability theory itself? Is quantum theory compatible with probability theory? If so, does it extend or generalize probability theory? In this paper, we answer these questions, and precisely determine the relationship between quantum theory and probability theory, by explicitly deriving both theories from first principles. In both cases, the derivation depends upon identifying and harnessing the appropriate symmetries that are operative in each domain. We prove, for example, that quantum theory is compatible with probability theory by explicitly deriving quantum theory on the assumption that probability theory is generally valid."

Taken in the context of the infinite-order probability stuff it seems to bring everything full circle - or maybe it's an infinite spiral, or better yet, an Oroborous! Perhaps you would find the ideas and, more importantly, the proofs useful for your own theoretical work . . .

With regards,

Wes Hansen

report post as inappropriate

There seems to be some sort of weird synchronicity phenomenon at play here - or maybe the NSA is playing games with me . . . Anyway, I was "directed" to this interesting paper by Kevin Knuth and Philip Goyal titled, "Quantum Theory and Probability Theory: Their Relationship and Origin in Symmetry" in which . . . well, here's the abstract:

"Quantum theory is a probabilistic calculus that enables the calculation of the probabilities of the possible outcomes of a measurement performed on a physical system. But what is the relationship between this probabilistic calculus and probability theory itself? Is quantum theory compatible with probability theory? If so, does it extend or generalize probability theory? In this paper, we answer these questions, and precisely determine the relationship between quantum theory and probability theory, by explicitly deriving both theories from first principles. In both cases, the derivation depends upon identifying and harnessing the appropriate symmetries that are operative in each domain. We prove, for example, that quantum theory is compatible with probability theory by explicitly deriving quantum theory on the assumption that probability theory is generally valid."

Taken in the context of the infinite-order probability stuff it seems to bring everything full circle - or maybe it's an infinite spiral, or better yet, an Oroborous! Perhaps you would find the ideas and, more importantly, the proofs useful for your own theoretical work . . .

With regards,

Wes Hansen

report post as inappropriate

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr.Philip Gibbs ,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

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

report post as inappropriate

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

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

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Philip,

Thanks for your query. Before the first mind? Of course there were Its and Bits, but to make meaning out of them the existence of mind or something similar to that is essential. I have stated in my conclusion that, 'It and Bit in themselves are empty and blind without mind'.

If you are asking regarding the existence of first mind, you will find answer to that in detail in the 'biology' section of my essay. There I have explained clearly how mind came in to existence (as a result of the evolution of Life for over billions of years). If you have further queries, please, inform me.

I have gone through your essay once and want to see it once more, before I post my comments on it.

Regards,

sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your query. Before the first mind? Of course there were Its and Bits, but to make meaning out of them the existence of mind or something similar to that is essential. I have stated in my conclusion that, 'It and Bit in themselves are empty and blind without mind'.

If you are asking regarding the existence of first mind, you will find answer to that in detail in the 'biology' section of my essay. There I have explained clearly how mind came in to existence (as a result of the evolution of Life for over billions of years). If you have further queries, please, inform me.

I have gone through your essay once and want to see it once more, before I post my comments on it.

Regards,

sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Phil,

I went through your exhilarating essay with ease and enthusiasm. The first half, I feel, is far easier to understand than the second one. I am surprised to know that string theory can solve the problem of QG. I wish you success in this endeavor. Going through your essay was simply smooth sailing. Thanks for giving audience a very good essay and it deserves high ranking.

Best of luck in the contest,

sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I went through your exhilarating essay with ease and enthusiasm. The first half, I feel, is far easier to understand than the second one. I am surprised to know that string theory can solve the problem of QG. I wish you success in this endeavor. Going through your essay was simply smooth sailing. Thanks for giving audience a very good essay and it deserves high ranking.

Best of luck in the contest,

sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Phil,

I must confess that as a non-mathematician I don't follow how we can build a new mathematical theory characterizing space, time and matter as secondary unless you model information. Does the math of string theory put you into a cyclic scenario of braneworlds?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

I must confess that as a non-mathematician I don't follow how we can build a new mathematical theory characterizing space, time and matter as secondary unless you model information. Does the math of string theory put you into a cyclic scenario of braneworlds?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

James, thanks for your question.

I dont claim to have all the answers about building space and time from information but I have presented one idea of how it might work by mapping discrete necklace lie algebras to continuous space and time using iterated integrations.

Some solutions of string theory fit the braneworld idea. It is a possibility but I dont think that is how the world works. It would be hard to keep conserved energy contrained to the braneworld if it is embedded in a higher dimensional space with its own dynamics.

I have read your essay, good luck

I dont claim to have all the answers about building space and time from information but I have presented one idea of how it might work by mapping discrete necklace lie algebras to continuous space and time using iterated integrations.

Some solutions of string theory fit the braneworld idea. It is a possibility but I dont think that is how the world works. It would be hard to keep conserved energy contrained to the braneworld if it is embedded in a higher dimensional space with its own dynamics.

I have read your essay, good luck

Hi Phil,

I enjoyed reading your essay, and I wish you luck. I got mine in on the last day, so I do not expect it to appear immediately, but you can expect a good rating from me once it does. I don't see an essay from Tom Ray yet either, and I know he submitted his a couple of days before mine.

I shall likely have further comments or a question, but for now I'm just skimming.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your essay, and I wish you luck. I got mine in on the last day, so I do not expect it to appear immediately, but you can expect a good rating from me once it does. I don't see an essay from Tom Ray yet either, and I know he submitted his a couple of days before mine.

I shall likely have further comments or a question, but for now I'm just skimming.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gibbs,

Going through your entire essay we seem to agree, essentially. Though I don’t have your expertise.

The idea in my essay is that if we take any observer as the first quantisation (i.e. as the fundamental frequency or phase space or “non-locality”) then his observables follow as the harmonics (i.e. second, third etc quantization or phase-points or “localities”). In my view this means simply that certainty or determinism (Heisenberg’s “position” notion) emerge from uncertainty (the “momentum” notion). Essentially this picture is Pythagorean, like you get an octave frame a keynote. Any de facto observer is then the de facto key (perhaps what you called the redundancy) from which one may get observables as the Pythagorean harmonics. And this is not mere speculation, I show values that define man as the key[note] for quantum gravity.

Now when we see any observer as by definition the superposition (non-locality; fundamental frequency) does not it amount to your holographic principle namely: “The amount of information in any volume of space must be limited by the area of a surface that encompasses it,”? In my opinion this area of/or surface signifies the observer as the natural unit and limit of physical information.

If you don’t mind I will love to have your no-holds-barred comment on my [/essay], Mr Gibbs, but only after you have actually read through. Probably my essay simplifies yours, sort of like a String Theory idiot’s version. Meanwhile, thanks for creating virxra.org and kind of adopting the academically orphaned.

Chidi Idika

report post as inappropriate

Going through your entire essay we seem to agree, essentially. Though I don’t have your expertise.

The idea in my essay is that if we take any observer as the first quantisation (i.e. as the fundamental frequency or phase space or “non-locality”) then his observables follow as the harmonics (i.e. second, third etc quantization or phase-points or “localities”). In my view this means simply that certainty or determinism (Heisenberg’s “position” notion) emerge from uncertainty (the “momentum” notion). Essentially this picture is Pythagorean, like you get an octave frame a keynote. Any de facto observer is then the de facto key (perhaps what you called the redundancy) from which one may get observables as the Pythagorean harmonics. And this is not mere speculation, I show values that define man as the key[note] for quantum gravity.

Now when we see any observer as by definition the superposition (non-locality; fundamental frequency) does not it amount to your holographic principle namely: “The amount of information in any volume of space must be limited by the area of a surface that encompasses it,”? In my opinion this area of/or surface signifies the observer as the natural unit and limit of physical information.

If you don’t mind I will love to have your no-holds-barred comment on my [/essay], Mr Gibbs, but only after you have actually read through. Probably my essay simplifies yours, sort of like a String Theory idiot’s version. Meanwhile, thanks for creating virxra.org and kind of adopting the academically orphaned.

Chidi Idika

report post as inappropriate

Phil,

Very nice article. My argument for why the black-hole information paradox is not true would rest largely on the idea that the orthogonal states of the density matrix are at best approximate in nature. So while the density matrix can be defined as a collection of pure states of a statistical ensemble, the pure states are at best approximations of the system itself. The underlying uncertainty ensures that there is a retention of information even when that system is thought to "collapse" into a definite state. It is only at the limit of measurements of single particle systems that we can be definite about the purity of states.

In other words, the nature of the yes/no questions are always hampered with a distribution. We can say they are mostly true or false based on observation, but only with including a confidence interval about those mean states.

On Constrained Perception

report post as inappropriate

Very nice article. My argument for why the black-hole information paradox is not true would rest largely on the idea that the orthogonal states of the density matrix are at best approximate in nature. So while the density matrix can be defined as a collection of pure states of a statistical ensemble, the pure states are at best approximations of the system itself. The underlying uncertainty ensures that there is a retention of information even when that system is thought to "collapse" into a definite state. It is only at the limit of measurements of single particle systems that we can be definite about the purity of states.

In other words, the nature of the yes/no questions are always hampered with a distribution. We can say they are mostly true or false based on observation, but only with including a confidence interval about those mean states.

On Constrained Perception

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Phil, apologies if what I was saying was misunderstood, I wasn't posting to get you to read the essay it was more to illicit dialogue. In any case, I have always been impressed by your posts on the Higgs particle and for that will give you a 10.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

This is the only essay I have read so far that required me to look up word definitions in the English (Oxford of-course) dictionary. Leave it to a Scot to keep an American informed about the proper use of English. Well written. Introduce me to the notion of bi-geometry. A strong attempt to further relate Lie-geometry to (super)string theory.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

very frankly, I cannot see where is the digital nature of your "Necklace Lie Algebras and Iterated Integration". It is as analog as is string theory. This is "Bit from it"!

Best regards

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

very frankly, I cannot see where is the digital nature of your "Necklace Lie Algebras and Iterated Integration". It is as analog as is string theory. This is "Bit from it"!

Best regards

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

Mauro, the digital vs analogue question was the topic of the essay two years ago so it is not my emphasis in this essay. There as here I take the view that quantised information made of qubits has analogue as well as digital features. It has never been my position that the foundations of physics are based on pure digital information in the form of bits.

The analogue side comes from the...

view entire post

The analogue side comes from the...

view entire post

Dear Philip

thank you for your thorough response. I believe in the value of simplicity of the starting principles of a theory. It seems to me that the Lie algebras are not good starting principles: they relate to continuous symmetries of something else. But I surely miss the conceptual points within the math. Also, we have too different background and motivations.

My best

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

thank you for your thorough response. I believe in the value of simplicity of the starting principles of a theory. It seems to me that the Lie algebras are not good starting principles: they relate to continuous symmetries of something else. But I surely miss the conceptual points within the math. Also, we have too different background and motivations.

My best

Mauro

report post as inappropriate

Mauro, yes we seem to have different approaches. I do not place a high value on simplicity. I like consistency arguments where we try to put known theories together to form a new theory consistent with both in places where they clash. The maths this generates is not always simple but the constraints of consistency can be strong and lead to mathematical structures you would not find by any other means.

Philip,

Perhaps you havent noticed my post of 29 June. Though I'm aware that you are having many discussions with other contestants, I do hope that you'll find some time to formulate a reply to it as it is quite germane to your position.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Perhaps you havent noticed my post of 29 June. Though I'm aware that you are having many discussions with other contestants, I do hope that you'll find some time to formulate a reply to it as it is quite germane to your position.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

I have had physicists contact me about the holographic principle for they feel that the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has provided empirical evidence to validate it. I find your statement, "Sometimes the most brilliant step towards a great discovery is asking the right question to begin with." is indeed the issue at hand.

I hope you find time to review my findings to see if they coincide with your conclusions:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

I have had physicists contact me about the holographic principle for they feel that the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has provided empirical evidence to validate it. I find your statement, "Sometimes the most brilliant step towards a great discovery is asking the right question to begin with." is indeed the issue at hand.

I hope you find time to review my findings to see if they coincide with your conclusions:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Phil,

I am digging deeper into your essay, and getting a better understanding of the necklace algebra you are proposing: "it can be interpreted as the emergence of

string field theories in continuous space and time from algebras based on quantised information,"

I think I am in agreement with the general idea. In my definitions, I associate information with uncertainty (which is consistent with Shannon). I am associating knowledge with what most people view as information, which is the sense of Wiener. In any case, the relative information, e.g. shared knowledge is what we are interested in. That is limited by quantum mechanics. In my interpretation of what you are saying, the idea is that we could build algebras based on the quantization of mutual information, which must be limited, which I am taking to mean there is a least element that can be defined. I like the idea of algebra building in general, so I find your essay to be very helpful.

On another note, what are your thoughts on the apparent similarity of ideas that seem to be popping up from different corners?

report post as inappropriate

I am digging deeper into your essay, and getting a better understanding of the necklace algebra you are proposing: "it can be interpreted as the emergence of

string field theories in continuous space and time from algebras based on quantised information,"

I think I am in agreement with the general idea. In my definitions, I associate information with uncertainty (which is consistent with Shannon). I am associating knowledge with what most people view as information, which is the sense of Wiener. In any case, the relative information, e.g. shared knowledge is what we are interested in. That is limited by quantum mechanics. In my interpretation of what you are saying, the idea is that we could build algebras based on the quantization of mutual information, which must be limited, which I am taking to mean there is a least element that can be defined. I like the idea of algebra building in general, so I find your essay to be very helpful.

On another note, what are your thoughts on the apparent similarity of ideas that seem to be popping up from different corners?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Phil,

I seem to agree with your flow.

I am wondering might you consider this essay What a Wavefunction is by any means a none string theory version of your arguments. I mean does its approach simplify or demonstrate the general bent of your arguments?

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

I seem to agree with your flow.

I am wondering might you consider this essay What a Wavefunction is by any means a none string theory version of your arguments. I mean does its approach simplify or demonstrate the general bent of your arguments?

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

I had the alias name QSA before, my essay has been finally posted.

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

As we discussed before and after some research I am convinced that your theory is nothing but mine in disguise, however it may be hard to see. I will discuss that some other time once you got some good feel of my theory. I think my advantage is that time has been taken out naturally, and after some thinking I feel that it can be incorporated in the end.

The rating is low but I am not concerned at all in that respect. I am only looking for few good people with deep understanding of physics plus some programming skills to run and test my programs to check that what I claim is true. The programs are so simple and should take you 15 minutes to figure them out. These programs are listed(can be downloaded) in section 11 of my website with additional detail in my postings

http://www.qsa.netne.net

I am specifically looking for the following:

1. Can you understand the derivation of the model

2. I claim that the model produces some results of QM, do you see it.

3. the mass of the electron appears using the same model

a. do you believe the result

b. assuming that is the case ,do you think that can be significant.

I will soon add the programs that you can run to see the Bohr model, the mass of the electron and how the fine structure constant is produced naturally within the system with only three lines of code. The code separates the number of hits between all the successful accepted hits and divides by the hits that happened only in the particle(electron) Compton wave region. That is very similar to the probability interpretation of the FSC.

I am really counting on you because I feel that my chance is very small with others. Besides my theory is very close to yours as I said earlier. But If you can't find the time, I understand.

Thank you.

Adel

report post as inappropriate

I had the alias name QSA before, my essay has been finally posted.

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

As we discussed before and after some research I am convinced that your theory is nothing but mine in disguise, however it may be hard to see. I will discuss that some other time once you got some good feel of my theory. I think my advantage is that time has been taken out naturally, and after some thinking I feel that it can be incorporated in the end.

The rating is low but I am not concerned at all in that respect. I am only looking for few good people with deep understanding of physics plus some programming skills to run and test my programs to check that what I claim is true. The programs are so simple and should take you 15 minutes to figure them out. These programs are listed(can be downloaded) in section 11 of my website with additional detail in my postings

http://www.qsa.netne.net

I am specifically looking for the following:

1. Can you understand the derivation of the model

2. I claim that the model produces some results of QM, do you see it.

3. the mass of the electron appears using the same model

a. do you believe the result

b. assuming that is the case ,do you think that can be significant.

I will soon add the programs that you can run to see the Bohr model, the mass of the electron and how the fine structure constant is produced naturally within the system with only three lines of code. The code separates the number of hits between all the successful accepted hits and divides by the hits that happened only in the particle(electron) Compton wave region. That is very similar to the probability interpretation of the FSC.

I am really counting on you because I feel that my chance is very small with others. Besides my theory is very close to yours as I said earlier. But If you can't find the time, I understand.

Thank you.

Adel

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

What is difference between acataleptic and incognizable, unknowable?

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

What is difference between acataleptic and incognizable, unknowable?

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

In ancient Greek philosophy acatalepsy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy )was the antithesis of catalepsy ( or Katalepsis to avoid confusion with the medical condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalepsis ) catalepsy was the philosophy of the stoics such as Plato who thought there was an absolute reality that we experience through our senses but existing independently. The skeptics...

view entire post

view entire post

Dear Philip

Thank you for explanation.

Do you know Who is Warren McCuloch?

Dr. McCulloch's researches uniquely exemplify the modern interdisciplinary approach. During his long and distinguished career in neurology

and related disciplines he has also applied his talents in modern

mathematics, symbolic logic, information theory, cybernetics, medicine, the classics and the history and philosophy of science.

This is one among his many interesting articles.

http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_what

-is-a-number.pdf

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for explanation.

Do you know Who is Warren McCuloch?

Dr. McCulloch's researches uniquely exemplify the modern interdisciplinary approach. During his long and distinguished career in neurology

and related disciplines he has also applied his talents in modern

mathematics, symbolic logic, information theory, cybernetics, medicine, the classics and the history and philosophy of science.

This is one among his many interesting articles.

http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_what

-is-a-number.pdf

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip

I vaguely remember hearing the name Weizsacker as a president of Germany, but not as a theorist of matters quantum. JAW was the one who led me into the labyrinths of quantum mechanics. It was through his contributions in “Some Strangeness in the Proportion”, a book of essays from the Centennial Celebration of the Achievements of Albert Einstein that quantum mechanics became alive for me. Before that only the catechisms of Schrodinger Equation and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

In my essay “Analogical Engine” I tried to draw the parallels between Analogy (as a thought process) and Quantum Mechanics (as a physical process) from a premise “What quantum is to classical” is similar to “What analogy is to rationality.” With the help of a thought-experiment, I came to this conclusion: “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities, and a necessary condition for the existence of thoughts and things.”

Then entering the FQXi Essay Contest I found your essay, and wow you are saying: “With multiple quantisation the values of the probabilities themselves are replaced with further wave-functions ad infinitum.” and “Bringing together different theories often forces almost unique conclusions.”

Very deep and very interesting I said to myself. Unable to jump the maths huddles, I can feel only the resonances that I can barely articulate. I do not like to impose, but I am curious to know what do you see from your side of the fence if you were to look at mine.

Good luck!

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

I vaguely remember hearing the name Weizsacker as a president of Germany, but not as a theorist of matters quantum. JAW was the one who led me into the labyrinths of quantum mechanics. It was through his contributions in “Some Strangeness in the Proportion”, a book of essays from the Centennial Celebration of the Achievements of Albert Einstein that quantum mechanics became alive for me. Before that only the catechisms of Schrodinger Equation and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

In my essay “Analogical Engine” I tried to draw the parallels between Analogy (as a thought process) and Quantum Mechanics (as a physical process) from a premise “What quantum is to classical” is similar to “What analogy is to rationality.” With the help of a thought-experiment, I came to this conclusion: “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities, and a necessary condition for the existence of thoughts and things.”

Then entering the FQXi Essay Contest I found your essay, and wow you are saying: “With multiple quantisation the values of the probabilities themselves are replaced with further wave-functions ad infinitum.” and “Bringing together different theories often forces almost unique conclusions.”

Very deep and very interesting I said to myself. Unable to jump the maths huddles, I can feel only the resonances that I can barely articulate. I do not like to impose, but I am curious to know what do you see from your side of the fence if you were to look at mine.

Good luck!

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

It is clear you have worked long and hard on remarkable essay, but I have a few comments and questions:

A clear and concise definition of the “holographic principle” was never given. What I get from context: the holographic principle - all information within a closed surface can be reproduced by knowing the flux of all the fields going through that same surface.

A clear definition of “information” is needed.

Is the same information bit used for all fields? If there is just one type of bit then how does one know which field the bit is producing? If there is a different bit type for each type of field then how does saturation in one field (gravity as seen in a black hole) saturate another field such as the electrical field?

Why do we not see a black hole-like saturation due to other types of fields?

Any volume of space could have many streams of information going through it at any given moment. At the shopping mall, you can buy glass paperweights with an imbedded pattern of tiny bubbles made crossing laser beams which over-drive phonons in the material. Over-driving phonons is many orders of magnitude less than the Plank density, but in theory, we could reach that information flow density. Could we create a black hole by beam crossing?

Pions violate chiral symmetry. We have more matter than anti-matter, so charge symmetry is violated. Symmetry breaking is sometimes said to define a field, yet you declared that entropy is declared not fundamental because it violates time-reversal symmetry. Entropy might not be fundamental, but violation of symmetry cannot be the reason it is not fundamental.

All the best,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

It is clear you have worked long and hard on remarkable essay, but I have a few comments and questions:

A clear and concise definition of the “holographic principle” was never given. What I get from context: the holographic principle - all information within a closed surface can be reproduced by knowing the flux of all the fields going through that same surface.

A clear definition of “information” is needed.

Is the same information bit used for all fields? If there is just one type of bit then how does one know which field the bit is producing? If there is a different bit type for each type of field then how does saturation in one field (gravity as seen in a black hole) saturate another field such as the electrical field?

Why do we not see a black hole-like saturation due to other types of fields?

Any volume of space could have many streams of information going through it at any given moment. At the shopping mall, you can buy glass paperweights with an imbedded pattern of tiny bubbles made crossing laser beams which over-drive phonons in the material. Over-driving phonons is many orders of magnitude less than the Plank density, but in theory, we could reach that information flow density. Could we create a black hole by beam crossing?

Pions violate chiral symmetry. We have more matter than anti-matter, so charge symmetry is violated. Symmetry breaking is sometimes said to define a field, yet you declared that entropy is declared not fundamental because it violates time-reversal symmetry. Entropy might not be fundamental, but violation of symmetry cannot be the reason it is not fundamental.

All the best,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your good questions

The definition os the holographic princple I used in the essay is "The

amount of information in any volume of space must be limited by the area of a surface that encompasses it" Stringer and weaker version of the principle exist.

Information is just answers to questions we can ask about the world around us, such as the state of a particle.

Ina unified theory there are not really different fields. They are all different aspects of one field, so the type of information is also unified.

The gravitational field seems special because it is connected to geometry of space-time. All fields interact with gravity to information is all fields is limited by the holographic principle. A black hole must form when informnation density exceeds the holographic bound no matter what form it takes.

P and CP symmetry are broken in nature but CPT symmetry is always valid.

Breaking T symmetry is therefore the same as breaking CP symmetry but this is a very small effect and probably cannot account directly for the arrow of time. Some people might dispute that and we do not know enough to be sure.

However, the bigger point is that space and time themselves are emergent and the second law of thermodynamics cannot make sense at a level more fundamental than the emergence of time.

I hope this answers your questions. If not please ask again.

The definition os the holographic princple I used in the essay is "The

amount of information in any volume of space must be limited by the area of a surface that encompasses it" Stringer and weaker version of the principle exist.

Information is just answers to questions we can ask about the world around us, such as the state of a particle.

Ina unified theory there are not really different fields. They are all different aspects of one field, so the type of information is also unified.

The gravitational field seems special because it is connected to geometry of space-time. All fields interact with gravity to information is all fields is limited by the holographic principle. A black hole must form when informnation density exceeds the holographic bound no matter what form it takes.

P and CP symmetry are broken in nature but CPT symmetry is always valid.

Breaking T symmetry is therefore the same as breaking CP symmetry but this is a very small effect and probably cannot account directly for the arrow of time. Some people might dispute that and we do not know enough to be sure.

However, the bigger point is that space and time themselves are emergent and the second law of thermodynamics cannot make sense at a level more fundamental than the emergence of time.

I hope this answers your questions. If not please ask again.

Philip,

Thank you for your reply.

What is "holographic" in the holographic principle?

Just to be clear, you confirmed that a volume of space with enough signals passing through it could become a black hole.

if this volume has a material in it could this information be sound as well as EM? Could this space be a vacuum?

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your reply.

What is "holographic" in the holographic principle?

Just to be clear, you confirmed that a volume of space with enough signals passing through it could become a black hole.

if this volume has a material in it could this information be sound as well as EM? Could this space be a vacuum?

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

As I go on to explain in the essay the entropy bound means that the information in a volume of space must be described by states on the boundary. This is the sense in which it is holographic, just as a hologram can build a 3D picture from a flat surface.

The information can indeed be included in sound waves but the information in the medium carrying the sound waves will be much more than the information in the sound waves themselves.

Whether it can be a vacuum depends on what you mean by vacuum. If you mean an absence of matter then electromagnetic radiation can travel through a vacuum but sometimes in particle physics we take the vacuum to mean flat space with no matter or radiation of any kind. In this case it contains no information.

The information can indeed be included in sound waves but the information in the medium carrying the sound waves will be much more than the information in the sound waves themselves.

Whether it can be a vacuum depends on what you mean by vacuum. If you mean an absence of matter then electromagnetic radiation can travel through a vacuum but sometimes in particle physics we take the vacuum to mean flat space with no matter or radiation of any kind. In this case it contains no information.

Hello Philip,

You are right: «What we need is a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations». Your revolutionary ideas and revolutionary open vixra - the highest grade.

Good luck and best wishes, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

You are right: «What we need is a consistent theory built on mathematical logic that accounts for all known observations». Your revolutionary ideas and revolutionary open vixra - the highest grade.

Good luck and best wishes, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hello Philip, What an excellent essay! Very deep and elemental in nature with a lot of killer maths. I learned from you about Carl von Weizsäcker and his theory "that builds infinite dimensional symmetries using layers of quantisation from information" I have similar idea that in KQID, our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit can split itself up infinitely without cost to itself and to our Multiverse. However, I concluded that Wheeler did not go far enough that not only "it from bit" but also that "it is bit and bit is it." I did rank highly of your essay, if you have time please look at and rank my essay Child of Qbit in time. Best wishes, Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

I completely agree with your overarching point that we need consistency to guide our approach to help us gain further insights into the fundamentals of nature. It struck me, though, that when you gave the examples of Maxwell, Einstein and Dirac, these were in a sense completely different situations from the one that relies on arguments pertaining to black holes to derive new consistency-based insights.

In each of the historic cases, there was at least a prospect that the assumptions on which the consistency-based arguments rested could eventually be checked by experiment. What prospect do we have for that when it comes to black holes? The power of the consistency-based arguments we derive from these assumptions is only as great as the consistency of the assumptions themselves. It seems to me that if we cannot check our most basic assumptions about black holes experimentally, then there is a real danger that we could have overlooked inconsistencies in them, and will continue do so. This could then lead us to derive false arguments even though they are consistent with the assumptions. Instances like the recent firewall debate only strengthen my suspicion that this may in fact be the case.

It seems to me that a more reliable way to use consistency as a guiding principle would be to apply it to a situation that has at least a fighting chance to be eventually subjected to experimental test. I agree that it is not easy to find such situations where both GR and QT come into play, but consistency-based arguments based on that kind of a situation would seem that much more compelling.

As you may know, I am also pursuing an idea based on the notion that spacetime emerges from a lower-dimensional analog, namely that quantum theory tells us that pre-measurement states are spacetime manifestations of lower-dimensional objects and that a "measurement" is really the mechanism by which actual spacetime objects emerge out of these. Several people have told me that this reminds them of the holographic principle, although I am myself remain skeptical of that. It is good, though, that you explore the holographic principle from an angle that others have apparently neglected, as hopefully this will increase the chance the whole issue will be more clearly defined. Why do you think is it the case that over the last 20 years, the application of necklace lie algebras has not been taken up by the string theory community?

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

I completely agree with your overarching point that we need consistency to guide our approach to help us gain further insights into the fundamentals of nature. It struck me, though, that when you gave the examples of Maxwell, Einstein and Dirac, these were in a sense completely different situations from the one that relies on arguments pertaining to black holes to derive new consistency-based insights.

In each of the historic cases, there was at least a prospect that the assumptions on which the consistency-based arguments rested could eventually be checked by experiment. What prospect do we have for that when it comes to black holes? The power of the consistency-based arguments we derive from these assumptions is only as great as the consistency of the assumptions themselves. It seems to me that if we cannot check our most basic assumptions about black holes experimentally, then there is a real danger that we could have overlooked inconsistencies in them, and will continue do so. This could then lead us to derive false arguments even though they are consistent with the assumptions. Instances like the recent firewall debate only strengthen my suspicion that this may in fact be the case.

It seems to me that a more reliable way to use consistency as a guiding principle would be to apply it to a situation that has at least a fighting chance to be eventually subjected to experimental test. I agree that it is not easy to find such situations where both GR and QT come into play, but consistency-based arguments based on that kind of a situation would seem that much more compelling.

As you may know, I am also pursuing an idea based on the notion that spacetime emerges from a lower-dimensional analog, namely that quantum theory tells us that pre-measurement states are spacetime manifestations of lower-dimensional objects and that a "measurement" is really the mechanism by which actual spacetime objects emerge out of these. Several people have told me that this reminds them of the holographic principle, although I am myself remain skeptical of that. It is good, though, that you explore the holographic principle from an angle that others have apparently neglected, as hopefully this will increase the chance the whole issue will be more clearly defined. Why do you think is it the case that over the last 20 years, the application of necklace lie algebras has not been taken up by the string theory community?

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Armin, I was coincidentally reading your essay today so I am happy to find your comment here.

The examples of Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac and Higgs are some of the best examples from history of how logical consistency has been used by theorists. I agree that the circumstances have changed in that further experimental data is lacking for quantum gravity, but that is precisely why consistency is now so important.

I do think that whatever we conclude will eventually be confirmed by observation but the time scale is goinf to be much larger because it is difficult to reach the energy scales required. Nevertheless there are people looking for possibilities in quantum gravity phenomenology.

Of course it would be better if some theory could shed light on dark matter or inflation in a way that we could test, but there are people looking at that too. It is not a choice of one or the other. For some reason we seem to be able to make more promising progress on questions that relate to the highest possible energies at this time. Perhaps that will change.

The examples of Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac and Higgs are some of the best examples from history of how logical consistency has been used by theorists. I agree that the circumstances have changed in that further experimental data is lacking for quantum gravity, but that is precisely why consistency is now so important.

I do think that whatever we conclude will eventually be confirmed by observation but the time scale is goinf to be much larger because it is difficult to reach the energy scales required. Nevertheless there are people looking for possibilities in quantum gravity phenomenology.

Of course it would be better if some theory could shed light on dark matter or inflation in a way that we could test, but there are people looking at that too. It is not a choice of one or the other. For some reason we seem to be able to make more promising progress on questions that relate to the highest possible energies at this time. Perhaps that will change.

"Why do you think is it the case that over the last 20 years, the application of necklace lie algebras has not been taken up by the string theory community?"

This is an interesting question but I think the simple answer is that I have not found a convincing enough case to get them interested. There are so many ideas around that might be important that it is hard to get people interested unless there is something really obvious that makes it look important.

Sometimes a mathematical idea can hang around for years looking interesting before people find the right way to use it. A good example is twistor theory invented by Penrose years ago. Most people gave up on it but a few kept going. Andrew Hodges developed a complex diagramatic system for physics based on twistors but nobody paid any attention until Witten applied twistors to string theory a few years ago. A group of theorists then started to use it on super Yang-Mills theory. According to Nima Nima Arkani-Hamed they started to develop a new diagramatic approach for this and then noticed that some of their diagrams looked like the ones drawn by Hodges whose theory they could not really understand at that time. So they looked at some of his more complex diagrams and asked what they would mean in their new theory of super yang-mills. Suddenly everything made sense and they were able to move forward much quicker.

Now they understand it all in terms of invariants of an infinite dimensional Yangian symmetry which had previously been used to understand integral models of spin chains. These things are tantalizingly close to my necklace lie algebras but so far no cigar. It would certainly be amusing if someone wrote down the same definitions as I used twenty years earlier as a solution to the corresponding problem in string theory, but it is more likely that it will be something else

This is an interesting question but I think the simple answer is that I have not found a convincing enough case to get them interested. There are so many ideas around that might be important that it is hard to get people interested unless there is something really obvious that makes it look important.

Sometimes a mathematical idea can hang around for years looking interesting before people find the right way to use it. A good example is twistor theory invented by Penrose years ago. Most people gave up on it but a few kept going. Andrew Hodges developed a complex diagramatic system for physics based on twistors but nobody paid any attention until Witten applied twistors to string theory a few years ago. A group of theorists then started to use it on super Yang-Mills theory. According to Nima Nima Arkani-Hamed they started to develop a new diagramatic approach for this and then noticed that some of their diagrams looked like the ones drawn by Hodges whose theory they could not really understand at that time. So they looked at some of his more complex diagrams and asked what they would mean in their new theory of super yang-mills. Suddenly everything made sense and they were able to move forward much quicker.

Now they understand it all in terms of invariants of an infinite dimensional Yangian symmetry which had previously been used to understand integral models of spin chains. These things are tantalizingly close to my necklace lie algebras but so far no cigar. It would certainly be amusing if someone wrote down the same definitions as I used twenty years earlier as a solution to the corresponding problem in string theory, but it is more likely that it will be something else

Philip,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your application of Lie algebras to formulate how spacetime emerges from quantized charges of the symmetry hidden in holography is very intriguing.

It is also possible to consider the momentum/energy information in a black hole and the lost spacetime information as reciprocal measures of entropy. In this way spacetime emerges from the hidden symmetry of entanglement entropy via the conditional entropy of the local observer.

Conversely, a compactification of spacetime leads to a dimensional collapse from 4D to 2D (CFT) to 1D in the bulk towards a point singularity. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Your application of Lie algebras to formulate how spacetime emerges from quantized charges of the symmetry hidden in holography is very intriguing.

It is also possible to consider the momentum/energy information in a black hole and the lost spacetime information as reciprocal measures of entropy. In this way spacetime emerges from the hidden symmetry of entanglement entropy via the conditional entropy of the local observer.

Conversely, a compactification of spacetime leads to a dimensional collapse from 4D to 2D (CFT) to 1D in the bulk towards a point singularity. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip,

Terrific to see a way to discretize String Theory. Now if only we could find proof of String Theory... :)

You wrote:

1. "The lesson to be taken from holography is that there is a huge hidden symmetry in physics that nobody has yet appreciated."

What do you think of Bobylev and Vilasi's Projective Invariance as a candidate symmetry? Their paper is not well-known as they published in an obscure journal that soon went under. Luckily, it survives in cyberspace.

2. "Some observational input on phenomenology of quantum gravity would help but for now everything we can measure is adequately explained by the physics of quantum mechanics, general relativity, thermodynamics, and the standard model of particle physics."

Quite an optimistic view in the face of multiple foundational cosmological issues regarding Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, quasar energies, CMB anisotropy, etc! In my essay, Software Cosmos I work out a holonomic model (in the sense of David Bohm and Basil Hiley) that utilizes the Projective Invariance symmetry to address some of these cosmological problems. Hope you get a chance to take a look...

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Terrific to see a way to discretize String Theory. Now if only we could find proof of String Theory... :)

You wrote:

1. "The lesson to be taken from holography is that there is a huge hidden symmetry in physics that nobody has yet appreciated."

What do you think of Bobylev and Vilasi's Projective Invariance as a candidate symmetry? Their paper is not well-known as they published in an obscure journal that soon went under. Luckily, it survives in cyberspace.

2. "Some observational input on phenomenology of quantum gravity would help but for now everything we can measure is adequately explained by the physics of quantum mechanics, general relativity, thermodynamics, and the standard model of particle physics."

Quite an optimistic view in the face of multiple foundational cosmological issues regarding Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, quasar energies, CMB anisotropy, etc! In my essay, Software Cosmos I work out a holonomic model (in the sense of David Bohm and Basil Hiley) that utilizes the Projective Invariance symmetry to address some of these cosmological problems. Hope you get a chance to take a look...

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Hugh thanks for your comments and questions.

I had not seen the paper of Bobylev and Vilasi. It should be interesting in the context of the systems they describe. The symmetry appears to use 2D Mobius transforms which are part of conformal invariance. This is a very important symmetry in quantum field theories of massless particles. In super yang mills theory there is a dual conformal invariance which conbines with ordinary invariance to give a larger symmetry which can be used to solve the theory in the planar limit and perhaps beyond. In quantum gravity an even larger symmetry is needed to explain holography but projective mathematics surely plays its part.

I agree that Dark Matter, Inflation etc are big issues that need to be solved but they have not been much help to quantum gravity and I do not mention in my essay.

I will take a look at your essay to see how you use projective invariance in relation to these problems.

I had not seen the paper of Bobylev and Vilasi. It should be interesting in the context of the systems they describe. The symmetry appears to use 2D Mobius transforms which are part of conformal invariance. This is a very important symmetry in quantum field theories of massless particles. In super yang mills theory there is a dual conformal invariance which conbines with ordinary invariance to give a larger symmetry which can be used to solve the theory in the planar limit and perhaps beyond. In quantum gravity an even larger symmetry is needed to explain holography but projective mathematics surely plays its part.

I agree that Dark Matter, Inflation etc are big issues that need to be solved but they have not been much help to quantum gravity and I do not mention in my essay.

I will take a look at your essay to see how you use projective invariance in relation to these problems.

Dear Philip Gibbs:

You quote Wheeler: “Nothing else in our multifarious universe is fundamental, he conjectured. Space and time, locality and causality”. It would be the same if “time” is just a remnant word, from which mankind forgot its meanings as Einstein suggested is one of the pre-scientific concepts, and become more real if we find out that it is...

view entire post

You quote Wheeler: “Nothing else in our multifarious universe is fundamental, he conjectured. Space and time, locality and causality”. It would be the same if “time” is just a remnant word, from which mankind forgot its meanings as Einstein suggested is one of the pre-scientific concepts, and become more real if we find out that it is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Philip,

What I understand when you say the projective or conformal symmetries are not "large" enough is that they could not be dimensionally reducing in the way holography is.

So let me make another suggestion for a "hidden symmetry"... how about a kind of "fractal invariance"?

The idea is to postulate that space (and not just the contents) is self-similar. It would not necessarily have to be a regular fractal, like a Koch snowflake, but could be a brownian fractal (in the sense that Mandelbrot used the term) or even some kind of Julia set. Restriction to a fractal subset can be dimensionally reducing.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the measurements of the fractal dimension of luminous matter in the cosmos is about 2, instead of 3. It is also worth noting the efficiency of the fractal compression algorithm on various kinds of data, and that the wavelet packet algorithm is surprisingly effective on natural spatial and temporal signals. Laurent Nottale has explored some of the consequences for microphysics of assuming fractal structure.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

What I understand when you say the projective or conformal symmetries are not "large" enough is that they could not be dimensionally reducing in the way holography is.

So let me make another suggestion for a "hidden symmetry"... how about a kind of "fractal invariance"?

The idea is to postulate that space (and not just the contents) is self-similar. It would not necessarily have to be a regular fractal, like a Koch snowflake, but could be a brownian fractal (in the sense that Mandelbrot used the term) or even some kind of Julia set. Restriction to a fractal subset can be dimensionally reducing.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the measurements of the fractal dimension of luminous matter in the cosmos is about 2, instead of 3. It is also worth noting the efficiency of the fractal compression algorithm on various kinds of data, and that the wavelet packet algorithm is surprisingly effective on natural spatial and temporal signals. Laurent Nottale has explored some of the consequences for microphysics of assuming fractal structure.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

A scale factor symmetry is included in conformal symmetry. I think the scale relativity is more about symmetry seen in cosmological structures rather than symmetry of the underlying physics but I am not an expert.

When I say that the symmetry is huge I mean that the symmetry algebra has many dimensions. A scale invariance may sound like a big symmetry in some sense but it is only one dimension of symmetry. We need an infinite number of them.

However, scale relativity and projective symmetry are important parts of it so it is good that you are looking at thst.

When I say that the symmetry is huge I mean that the symmetry algebra has many dimensions. A scale invariance may sound like a big symmetry in some sense but it is only one dimension of symmetry. We need an infinite number of them.

However, scale relativity and projective symmetry are important parts of it so it is good that you are looking at thst.

Hi Philip,

One more try... I found a paper by Cobanera et al. that describes what the authors call "holographic symmetry".

Perhaps you will be able to use their results or their method. You might also consider posing your question to them, as their stock in trade appears to be such abstract symmetries.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

One more try... I found a paper by Cobanera et al. that describes what the authors call "holographic symmetry".

Perhaps you will be able to use their results or their method. You might also consider posing your question to them, as their stock in trade appears to be such abstract symmetries.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip, Congratulations. I sincerely hope you win this contest. 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.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

Quantization is only an abstraction of infinity in that process of abstraction is infinite for absoluteness. Information paradox indicates that the nature of information is continuum rather than discrete and thus the nature of matter seems to be as string-matter continuum rather than as particles, that is realistic rather than probabilistic with observational information.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Quantization is only an abstraction of infinity in that process of abstraction is infinite for absoluteness. Information paradox indicates that the nature of information is continuum rather than discrete and thus the nature of matter seems to be as string-matter continuum rather than as particles, that is realistic rather than probabilistic with observational information.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Sorry dear Philip,

There is an error in tagging at my previous post.

Kindly consider as, ‘in that process of abstraction is infinite for absoluteness.’

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

There is an error in tagging at my previous post.

Kindly consider as, ‘in that process of abstraction is infinite for absoluteness.’

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

I think time has come to rate our essays and I would like to know whether you have rated mine; I am thinking of giving a very high rating. Please inform in my thread and I am glad to know that you are leading the essay contest on account of your amazingly written essay.

All the best in the contest,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I think time has come to rate our essays and I would like to know whether you have rated mine; I am thinking of giving a very high rating. Please inform in my thread and I am glad to know that you are leading the essay contest on account of your amazingly written essay.

All the best in the contest,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip -

You say: 'The lesson to be taken from holography is that there is a huge hidden symmetry in physics that nobody has yet appreciated.' I agree completely, and I must say that it is interesting in this contest to see how disparate thinkers start from such different perspectives and draw near to a concept of the Cosmos that can, I sense, accommodate a grand synthesis of their...

view entire post

You say: 'The lesson to be taken from holography is that there is a huge hidden symmetry in physics that nobody has yet appreciated.' I agree completely, and I must say that it is interesting in this contest to see how disparate thinkers start from such different perspectives and draw near to a concept of the Cosmos that can, I sense, accommodate a grand synthesis of their...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Philip,

There is an issue with gravity flux through a closed surface.

For comparison, let’s start with Gauss’s law used in electrostatics. If I had two co-centric metal spheres both with charge +Q, I could make a closed surface between the inner and outer spheres. A test charge on that closed surface would experience a force due to the electric field. The electric field lines would start at the surface of the inner sphere and end at the induced negative charge on the inside of the outer sphere. Using the correct surface integral I could find the charge +Q on the inner sphere.

If I did the same thing with two co-centric spheres of mass M and a small test mass to find the gravitational field, I could be disappointed. Since there is no anti-gravity there is no induced anti-gravity charge on the inside surface of the outer sphere. I could place the test mass at a radial distance, r, between the inner and outer spheres where the force due to gravity of the two spheres would cancel. A surface integral at the closed surface at radial distance, r, will find no mass for the enclosed inner mass. This means that some of the information contained within a closed surface is not reflected in the flux through that surface.

Gravity does effect time. Since the above is a statics problem and therefore time independent, this effect on time should not be an issue.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

There is an issue with gravity flux through a closed surface.

For comparison, let’s start with Gauss’s law used in electrostatics. If I had two co-centric metal spheres both with charge +Q, I could make a closed surface between the inner and outer spheres. A test charge on that closed surface would experience a force due to the electric field. The electric field lines would start at the surface of the inner sphere and end at the induced negative charge on the inside of the outer sphere. Using the correct surface integral I could find the charge +Q on the inner sphere.

If I did the same thing with two co-centric spheres of mass M and a small test mass to find the gravitational field, I could be disappointed. Since there is no anti-gravity there is no induced anti-gravity charge on the inside surface of the outer sphere. I could place the test mass at a radial distance, r, between the inner and outer spheres where the force due to gravity of the two spheres would cancel. A surface integral at the closed surface at radial distance, r, will find no mass for the enclosed inner mass. This means that some of the information contained within a closed surface is not reflected in the flux through that surface.

Gravity does effect time. Since the above is a statics problem and therefore time independent, this effect on time should not be an issue.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Jeff, thanks for your observations. However, Gauss law does not depend on the possibility of charges moving to the inside of a sphere so that field lines end there. This would only happen in the spheres are conductors, yet Gauss law works equally well for static charges if the spheres are non-conducting.

Philip,

An insulator or dielectric will have an electric dipole moment per unit volume or polarization. This induced dipole will be were the field lines effectively end.

Since there is no negative gravity, there is no gravity dipole.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

An insulator or dielectric will have an electric dipole moment per unit volume or polarization. This induced dipole will be were the field lines effectively end.

Since there is no negative gravity, there is no gravity dipole.

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Hello Philip

You suggest that the lesson to be taken from holography is that there is a huge hidden symmetry in physics that nobody has yet appreciated. It may be only visible in an algebraic pregeometric theory from which space time emerges. My essay shows the foundation of such a pregeometry, and its nature. I would very much appreciate it if you might look at my paper and consider how it might inform your efforts. My essay is endpoint abstract, but otherwise not too hard to follow. After all, how did the universe know it was going to match some very heavy and complicated mathematics when it came into existence, figuratively speaking.

As a matter of intellectual honesty, I don’t feel qualified to rate your paper (so I won’t, to be fair to you). While your essay deals with many areas dear to me, I found it very heavy going, and it took me a long time to get through. It required the reader to know some very advanced mathematics, Noether’s theorem, gauge theory…you name it. With so much assumed foundation (of the nature of what there is) the foundational aspect of the essay is obscure to me. I have specialist knowledge of mathematics and physics relating to foundations, but would need another five or six years intensive study to fully appreciate it.

report post as inappropriate

You suggest that the lesson to be taken from holography is that there is a huge hidden symmetry in physics that nobody has yet appreciated. It may be only visible in an algebraic pregeometric theory from which space time emerges. My essay shows the foundation of such a pregeometry, and its nature. I would very much appreciate it if you might look at my paper and consider how it might inform your efforts. My essay is endpoint abstract, but otherwise not too hard to follow. After all, how did the universe know it was going to match some very heavy and complicated mathematics when it came into existence, figuratively speaking.

As a matter of intellectual honesty, I don’t feel qualified to rate your paper (so I won’t, to be fair to you). While your essay deals with many areas dear to me, I found it very heavy going, and it took me a long time to get through. It required the reader to know some very advanced mathematics, Noether’s theorem, gauge theory…you name it. With so much assumed foundation (of the nature of what there is) the foundational aspect of the essay is obscure to me. I have specialist knowledge of mathematics and physics relating to foundations, but would need another five or six years intensive study to fully appreciate it.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

One can see the holographic principle in Plato's cave; indeed it defines the unsolvable reverse problem of observation. Consider the closed 2d surface surrounding you. The information written on this surface is all you know about the universe outside (or indeed, about the universe inside either). The changing pattern of information is what we call (perhaps in our conceit) "asking yes-no questions." The universe outside is, from your perspective, perfectly symmetrical under any transformations that write the same information on your boundary.

Now imagine moving this closed boundary moving from your skin outward into space. The boundary encodes different information at every location. But the "boundary" here is purely notional; the physics - what is going on - does not depend on where the boundary has been located. This is also true as the boundary collapses inward to some point in the center of your body. At the (classical) limit, the boundary encodes no (classical) information, but this means nothing for the dynamics going on outside.

So we have a "holographic information paradox" at every closed boundary. What the black hole knows about the universe is the same as what the universe knows about the black hole, and in neither case does this information pin down the dynamics.

Cheers,

Chris

report post as inappropriate

One can see the holographic principle in Plato's cave; indeed it defines the unsolvable reverse problem of observation. Consider the closed 2d surface surrounding you. The information written on this surface is all you know about the universe outside (or indeed, about the universe inside either). The changing pattern of information is what we call (perhaps in our conceit) "asking yes-no questions." The universe outside is, from your perspective, perfectly symmetrical under any transformations that write the same information on your boundary.

Now imagine moving this closed boundary moving from your skin outward into space. The boundary encodes different information at every location. But the "boundary" here is purely notional; the physics - what is going on - does not depend on where the boundary has been located. This is also true as the boundary collapses inward to some point in the center of your body. At the (classical) limit, the boundary encodes no (classical) information, but this means nothing for the dynamics going on outside.

So we have a "holographic information paradox" at every closed boundary. What the black hole knows about the universe is the same as what the universe knows about the black hole, and in neither case does this information pin down the dynamics.

Cheers,

Chris

report post as inappropriate

Chris, I am sorry I am having trouble forming a good answer to this because I dont see clearly what you mean. As the sphere expands there is more information inside the volume and more area on the boundary. vice versa as it shrinks. I dont see where this poses a problem for the holographic principle. It is probably my misunderstanding of your point that is the problem.

Phil

Phil

Hello Philip

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

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

I agree fully with what Feynman said and it always influences my thinking. It is why I do not dismiss different ways of looking at things. For example I am always promoting the idea that string theroy and loop quantum gravity are not contradictory alternative ideas. They are more likely different (but incomplete) ways to look at the same things. The concept of dualities has become even more important in recent times and is a dramatic example of his thinking.

Another side to this is that even different philosophical approaches can turn out to be equally valid. e.g. "It from Bit" vs "Bit from It", but I think that the "It from Bit" viewpoint is more useful in our current state of knowledge.

Another side to this is that even different philosophical approaches can turn out to be equally valid. e.g. "It from Bit" vs "Bit from It", but I think that the "It from Bit" viewpoint is more useful in our current state of knowledge.

Dear Philip,

For completeness, kindly indulge me an answer to the question even though it may not be your essay topic. But being a professional I will value your opinion:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

For completeness, kindly indulge me an answer to the question even though it may not be your essay topic. But being a professional I will value your opinion:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

It's trivky to answer questions in terms of Mach's principle because Mach only gave a vahue idea of what he meant and it does not correspond to the way we think about gravity and inertia since general relativity. I can only really answer the question in terms of what we know now.

In general relativity it is not correct to say that rotation is measured relative to distant stars. Rotation is relative to a local inertial reference frame. In normal circumstances local rotation in an inertial frame is very close to the fixed frame defined by the distant stars but it does differ slightly due to the geodetic effect and frame dragging. This means that it is not really correct to talk about rotation in terms of direct relationships between objects at very large distances. Instead of the "action at a distance" idea of Newtonian mechanics we must now think in terms of matter affecting and being affected by the gravitational field whose effect propagates at the speed of light.

However, there is still possibly some mileage to be had from relational ideas in quantum gravity at small scales.

In general relativity it is not correct to say that rotation is measured relative to distant stars. Rotation is relative to a local inertial reference frame. In normal circumstances local rotation in an inertial frame is very close to the fixed frame defined by the distant stars but it does differ slightly due to the geodetic effect and frame dragging. This means that it is not really correct to talk about rotation in terms of direct relationships between objects at very large distances. Instead of the "action at a distance" idea of Newtonian mechanics we must now think in terms of matter affecting and being affected by the gravitational field whose effect propagates at the speed of light.

However, there is still possibly some mileage to be had from relational ideas in quantum gravity at small scales.

I appreciate your reply and very sorry to be troubling you. Trying to know what you physicists have in mind. Answering the question in terms of what we know now:

1)Between those two bodies where will the local inertial reference frame be located? In the middle point of the line joining them, being the only two local objects, there will still be no way of knowing of their rotation without reference to a third object. So in what frame will this rotation be observable? Note apart from that distant star these are the only two objects in the universe!

2) Let us not assume that these two objects are bound by gravity. It may be electromagnetism or a string binding them. This is to avoid complicating the picture by geodesics and frame dragging. The question is how can we know they are rotating? We know this by experiencing centrifugal force. But then rotating with respect to what?

It seems to me without preempting you that space may not be relational but substantial, don't you think? Then someone referred me to a talk by Paul Davies in which moving objects in space experience an Unruh effect.

In the absence of any reference frame to distinguish circular from linear motion, then it appears we have only Newton's space to decide our reference frame? Or do you disagree? Where can you be located to observe the rotation if it is occurring?

Thanks for your time. Much appreciated.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

1)Between those two bodies where will the local inertial reference frame be located? In the middle point of the line joining them, being the only two local objects, there will still be no way of knowing of their rotation without reference to a third object. So in what frame will this rotation be observable? Note apart from that distant star these are the only two objects in the universe!

2) Let us not assume that these two objects are bound by gravity. It may be electromagnetism or a string binding them. This is to avoid complicating the picture by geodesics and frame dragging. The question is how can we know they are rotating? We know this by experiencing centrifugal force. But then rotating with respect to what?

It seems to me without preempting you that space may not be relational but substantial, don't you think? Then someone referred me to a talk by Paul Davies in which moving objects in space experience an Unruh effect.

In the absence of any reference frame to distinguish circular from linear motion, then it appears we have only Newton's space to decide our reference frame? Or do you disagree? Where can you be located to observe the rotation if it is occurring?

Thanks for your time. Much appreciated.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Gibbs,

I have a few questions or comments/opinions if you will.

Why are boundary conditions stressed? Yes, the surface area and Planck Unit-using formula say this is a relation between information and entropy, but I don't see the logical necessity of that function being at a particular point. I would think that such a fundamental looking math equation would describe a whole group of phenomenon, not just a particularly interesting black hole paradox. I'm getting at that maths being used for all region near this "boundary."

Which leads me to note another peculiarity. You don't mention particles. I would think that they two would be fundamentally described with information, since it's appealing to think the same logic applied to black holes applies to all entities in the universe, big small or otherwise insignificant and completely ordinary.

It was a very nice essay and showed two sides and gave a pretty thorough presentation or argument. Since such difficulties are arising when the best minds are working on these problems with strings and somewhat in the way you prescribed, and seem still not to be near resolution, I think a deeper assumption will be what breaks down. Hopefully this is before many physicists do!

Appreciatively,

Amos.

report post as inappropriate

I have a few questions or comments/opinions if you will.

Why are boundary conditions stressed? Yes, the surface area and Planck Unit-using formula say this is a relation between information and entropy, but I don't see the logical necessity of that function being at a particular point. I would think that such a fundamental looking math equation would describe a whole group of phenomenon, not just a particularly interesting black hole paradox. I'm getting at that maths being used for all region near this "boundary."

Which leads me to note another peculiarity. You don't mention particles. I would think that they two would be fundamentally described with information, since it's appealing to think the same logic applied to black holes applies to all entities in the universe, big small or otherwise insignificant and completely ordinary.

It was a very nice essay and showed two sides and gave a pretty thorough presentation or argument. Since such difficulties are arising when the best minds are working on these problems with strings and somewhat in the way you prescribed, and seem still not to be near resolution, I think a deeper assumption will be what breaks down. Hopefully this is before many physicists do!

Appreciatively,

Amos.

report post as inappropriate

The boundary for the holographic principle can be any boundary. The information inside must be less than the area of the boundary. In the special case where the boundary is a black hole horizon, entropy is maximised and the information inside is equal to the area of the boundary. The holographic principle tells us that this is not just a bound but in fact the information can be determined from the state on the boundary. If that does not answer your question please clarify.

About particles, in quantum field theory particles are fields are dual descriptions of the same quantised field. It does not matter if you think in terms of one or the other. Information is encoded in the spectrum of states whether you use the particle description of the field description.

Thank you for your comments I have also enjoyed your essay

About particles, in quantum field theory particles are fields are dual descriptions of the same quantised field. It does not matter if you think in terms of one or the other. Information is encoded in the spectrum of states whether you use the particle description of the field description.

Thank you for your comments I have also enjoyed your essay

Dear Philip,

It was a privilege to read your essay, wherein you discuss many ideas at the very foundational level. Often you talk about the power of consistency. Let us consider the following three points in this context.

(1) The energy-stress tensor is a redundant part of Einstein’s equations as the material and the gravitational fields appear in the geometry through the metric field (see my essay in the present contest).

(2) Recently it has been shown that the right hand side of Einstein’s equations, i.e., the energy-stress tensor T^ik, has serious problems [arXiv:1204.1553].

(3) The quantization of the right hand side of Einstein’s equations, in a given spacetime, has yielded the interesting effects of the Hawking radiation.

Do the requirements of the logical consistency then not render the Hawking results doubtful, which are obtained by using the stress-energy tensor?

Best Regards.

___Ram

report post as inappropriate

It was a privilege to read your essay, wherein you discuss many ideas at the very foundational level. Often you talk about the power of consistency. Let us consider the following three points in this context.

(1) The energy-stress tensor is a redundant part of Einstein’s equations as the material and the gravitational fields appear in the geometry through the metric field (see my essay in the present contest).

(2) Recently it has been shown that the right hand side of Einstein’s equations, i.e., the energy-stress tensor T^ik, has serious problems [arXiv:1204.1553].

(3) The quantization of the right hand side of Einstein’s equations, in a given spacetime, has yielded the interesting effects of the Hawking radiation.

Do the requirements of the logical consistency then not render the Hawking results doubtful, which are obtained by using the stress-energy tensor?

Best Regards.

___Ram

report post as inappropriate

Phil,

I have the impression you are mixing up divergence with covariant divergence... I do not see anything in what you say that goes beyond what is written in all GR books about energy conservation in GR. There is a vast literature on this... The rest seems to me to be hanging on nothing ...

carlo

report post as inappropriate

I have the impression you are mixing up divergence with covariant divergence... I do not see anything in what you say that goes beyond what is written in all GR books about energy conservation in GR. There is a vast literature on this... The rest seems to me to be hanging on nothing ...

carlo

report post as inappropriate

Carlo,

As I am sure you know ordinary divergence and covariant divergence are simply related for vector fields

so the ordinary divergence theorem can be immediately translated to covariant form for vector currents. In what way then am I confusing divergence and covariant divergence?

Please could you tell me which textbook treats energy conservation in covariant form without claiming that it works only in special cases? In particular can you tell me where my covariant formula for the energy current (or equivalent) is given by anyone else either in texts or papers, I will repeat it here because the equation editor mangled it in the essay,

I am glad that you agree with my conclusions about energy conservation because I have been waging a one-man battle online for twenty years to convince people that energy conservation in GR works. I have been up against people such as Baez, Carroll, Carlip, Motl etc who all think that energy conservation does not work properly in GR. It would be very helpful if I could just reference a text book that agreed with me.

As to your final statement, I am baffled. I have made a number of original points. If you don't agree with specific points that is one thing but to call it nothing just indicates that you have not understood.

As I am sure you know ordinary divergence and covariant divergence are simply related for vector fields

so the ordinary divergence theorem can be immediately translated to covariant form for vector currents. In what way then am I confusing divergence and covariant divergence?

Please could you tell me which textbook treats energy conservation in covariant form without claiming that it works only in special cases? In particular can you tell me where my covariant formula for the energy current (or equivalent) is given by anyone else either in texts or papers, I will repeat it here because the equation editor mangled it in the essay,

I am glad that you agree with my conclusions about energy conservation because I have been waging a one-man battle online for twenty years to convince people that energy conservation in GR works. I have been up against people such as Baez, Carroll, Carlip, Motl etc who all think that energy conservation does not work properly in GR. It would be very helpful if I could just reference a text book that agreed with me.

As to your final statement, I am baffled. I have made a number of original points. If you don't agree with specific points that is one thing but to call it nothing just indicates that you have not understood.

Dear Philip,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

Hear is to you for pushing boundaries, my rating. Because, from my own level of view, the strongest hope is that of multiple quantization; all methods that seek to perfect it! For it seems to me the only way that something may emerge from nothing. To start with, the non-local CANNOT be information, It signifies the NOTHING. So at last the "it" has to define as the "nothing" for Wheeler's "bit" to emerge therefrom. There is no way we can START by presuming information!

And should you have the time please take another look (and do rate) at my corner.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Hear is to you for pushing boundaries, my rating. Because, from my own level of view, the strongest hope is that of multiple quantization; all methods that seek to perfect it! For it seems to me the only way that something may emerge from nothing. To start with, the non-local CANNOT be information, It signifies the NOTHING. So at last the "it" has to define as the "nothing" for Wheeler's "bit" to emerge therefrom. There is no way we can START by presuming information!

And should you have the time please take another look (and do rate) at my corner.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip

I enjoyed reading your essay. It was clarifying and well structured. The fact that the information is proportional to the area of a black hole seems to me weird but we must accept the math. To say that entropy and information are the same thing reduces the problem, in my view, to mere interpretation. In such case, I wouldn't bother to replace the it by the bit. This is what I discuss in my essay.

Indeed, as you said, what our instruments measure is discrete units (or bits) but we can derive discreteness from continuity, as some authors have argued. Real numbers cannot be computed with bits. So we need to assume that the essence is the continuity and the discreteness its manifestation which is used to distinguish one event from another. Take for instance the case of a measurement of a time interval using a quartz clock. How would you know when an event starts and when it ends. Time cannot be discrete, but we have to cut the time interval at some point to delimit it. So when we say that an event occurred at 10 am what we are saying in fact is that the event started between 9.999999... and 10.00000...0001. We are indeed discretizing time although we know that time flows continuously, otherwise we would fall into inconsistencies.

On the other hand, when we accept that information is proportional to the area of the black hole, the immediate consequence is the holographic principle; which assumes that the area has sufficient information to describe the apparently 3D world. Do you think that this principle is correct? What new physics can be extract from this principle?

Finally, I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis. They key is assuming

Well, I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your essay. It was clarifying and well structured. The fact that the information is proportional to the area of a black hole seems to me weird but we must accept the math. To say that entropy and information are the same thing reduces the problem, in my view, to mere interpretation. In such case, I wouldn't bother to replace the it by the bit. This is what I discuss in my essay.

Indeed, as you said, what our instruments measure is discrete units (or bits) but we can derive discreteness from continuity, as some authors have argued. Real numbers cannot be computed with bits. So we need to assume that the essence is the continuity and the discreteness its manifestation which is used to distinguish one event from another. Take for instance the case of a measurement of a time interval using a quartz clock. How would you know when an event starts and when it ends. Time cannot be discrete, but we have to cut the time interval at some point to delimit it. So when we say that an event occurred at 10 am what we are saying in fact is that the event started between 9.999999... and 10.00000...0001. We are indeed discretizing time although we know that time flows continuously, otherwise we would fall into inconsistencies.

On the other hand, when we accept that information is proportional to the area of the black hole, the immediate consequence is the holographic principle; which assumes that the area has sufficient information to describe the apparently 3D world. Do you think that this principle is correct? What new physics can be extract from this principle?

Finally, I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis. They key is assuming

Well, I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Hi,

A nice and thought provoking essay so I wanted to make some comments/leave some questions.

On page 2 you give three examples of advances made by Maxwell, Einstein and Dirac based on the use of logical/theoretical consistency as each was trying to combine different regimes of physics (E with M for Maxwell, GR with SR for Einstein, and SR with QM for Dirac). The idea being that...

view entire post

A nice and thought provoking essay so I wanted to make some comments/leave some questions.

On page 2 you give three examples of advances made by Maxwell, Einstein and Dirac based on the use of logical/theoretical consistency as each was trying to combine different regimes of physics (E with M for Maxwell, GR with SR for Einstein, and SR with QM for Dirac). The idea being that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Doug, thank you for your detailed points, and thanks for reminding me about the Fermi results. I mentioned that in an earlier essay. It would be much more important if they measured a dispersion rather than setting a limit but we cant tell nature what to do. I certainly agree that every effort should be made to look for QG effects both in the lab and in cosmology. I want to be optimistic about it but I feel more pessimism. Luckily I do feel optimistic that QG theory is still progressing fast and perhaps when it is understood there will be a clear prediction that can be tested.

Concerning the holographic nature of weak and strong nuclear forces I think the principle still holds. The conservation law and its holographic nature depends on the symmetry of the underlying equations and works regardless of the solution. If the solution breaks the symmetry it does not change things. It just makes it harder to see it directly. The colour charge of a blackhole may be impossible to observe due to confinement but you can place a surface round a single quark and measure its colour on the boundary. As far as I know these principles carry over from classical to quantum but I agree that this needs to be shown. Obviously we are only talking about theory so it is the principle that counts. We cant hope to measure this directly.

Of all physicists Weinberg is the one I find most reasonable and wise. His analysis of energy in GR is one of the best even if it uses pseudotensors. The equation I have given does the same job in covariant form and energy and momenta can be understood as belonging to a vector space acted on by a dual resprsentaion of the diffeomorphism Lie algebra. It is surprisingly hard to convince people that it makes sense and then when I finally succeed people just tell me that it is all known textbook stuff.

Concerning the holographic nature of weak and strong nuclear forces I think the principle still holds. The conservation law and its holographic nature depends on the symmetry of the underlying equations and works regardless of the solution. If the solution breaks the symmetry it does not change things. It just makes it harder to see it directly. The colour charge of a blackhole may be impossible to observe due to confinement but you can place a surface round a single quark and measure its colour on the boundary. As far as I know these principles carry over from classical to quantum but I agree that this needs to be shown. Obviously we are only talking about theory so it is the principle that counts. We cant hope to measure this directly.

Of all physicists Weinberg is the one I find most reasonable and wise. His analysis of energy in GR is one of the best even if it uses pseudotensors. The equation I have given does the same job in covariant form and energy and momenta can be understood as belonging to a vector space acted on by a dual resprsentaion of the diffeomorphism Lie algebra. It is surprisingly hard to convince people that it makes sense and then when I finally succeed people just tell me that it is all known textbook stuff.

I think you wrote a good essay, although it is a little math-intensive. I liked the "acataleptic" vocabulary usage: I got to teach my computer a new word! However, I'm not so sure about how certain you are about uncertainty.

Please check out my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

- Kyle Miller

report post as inappropriate

Please check out my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

- Kyle Miller

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

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

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

Charles thanks for your synopsis. I think it is true that any version of it vs bit can be argued for philosophically. My take has been to side-step that and take wheeler's "It from Bit" position as read. The interesting question then is whether we have advanced in the last two decades to see how emergence of it from bit is possible and how that might continue.

Hi Phil,

I just wanted to let you know I did not forget you in the rush. I rated your essay a few days ago, and gave it the highest rating I accorded anyone. It looks like a few other people felt the same way. I wish you the best of luck in the finals.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I just wanted to let you know I did not forget you in the rush. I rated your essay a few days ago, and gave it the highest rating I accorded anyone. It looks like a few other people felt the same way. I wish you the best of luck in the finals.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Philip,

I enjoyed your essay... it reminds me of the "iteration of structure" one sees in some approaches to QG, such as Sorkin's causal sets or Isham's topos theory. Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay... it reminds me of the "iteration of structure" one sees in some approaches to QG, such as Sorkin's causal sets or Isham's topos theory. Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Ben, that is an interesting point. I have noticed some common points with Sorkin's work in the past but was not aware of "iteration of structure". On the other hand I take an opposite view of causality because I see it as emergent rather than something to be built in. Sometimes such differences are illusory.

Phil

Phil

Dear Philip,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-

V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-

V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations Phil!

I guess your high score blows your theory about early entries having a handicap under the rating system. On the other hand; perhaps your essay was just that darn good.

Luck in the Finals.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I guess your high score blows your theory about early entries having a handicap under the rating system. On the other hand; perhaps your essay was just that darn good.

Luck in the Finals.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.