Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Peter Jackson: on 8/6/13 at 19:07pm UTC, wrote Anton, Review and scoring time. I'd hoped you may respond to my positive...

Héctor Gianni: on 8/3/13 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton Lorenz Vrba: I am an...

Akinbo Ojo: on 7/31/13 at 14:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, Just to share your sentiments that with the CMB Anisotropy you...

basudeba mishra: on 7/28/13 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We...

Than Tin: on 7/26/13 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Anton Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech ...

Manuel Morales: on 7/18/13 at 13:49pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, I truly enjoyed your insight and exploration of the question...

Jayakar Joseph: on 7/10/13 at 7:18am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, It’s a nice essay in that, ‘Information in a physical...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: A Space-Time Information Paradox by Anton Lorenz Vrba [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 3, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

If we study cosmic phenomena or life, ultimately, we can simply state that nature is the interaction with the rest of the universe. Alternately expressed, a change of state is the result of the interaction with the information content presented by the universe. Information is thus a preserved quantity; this philosophical view sparked the black hole information paradox debate. This essay explores the question if information is preserved in space-time. Using the established physics theories a new paradox is uncovered that has been ignored by whoever it was presented to; an answer is still outstanding!

Author Bio

Anton Vrba is an electrical engineer. He pursued a career in R&D, manufacturing and construction project management. His interests are mathematics, physics and economics. He is a lateral thinker and stimulates others by asking challenging and uncomfortable questions.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Anton, Very good, I like this kind of thought experiment. I will have to study you appendix more carefully to understand why charlie seems to see more information than Bob. It should not work out that way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:03 GMT
Philip, I hope you will come back and elaborate your comment why it should not be that way.

Bookmark and Share



Paul Reed wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 06:26 GMT
Anton

“From this result it is very clear to the me that information based

physics and Einstein’s relativity are not compatible”

Leaving aside whether your concept of information, etc, this is not the issue. Einstein’s concept of relativity (forget SR which is irrelevant, it is a conceptualised circumstance-he said so) deems there to be a time differential in physical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 15:44 GMT
Anton,

I am terribly sorry, but I did not understand your essay. Reality is unique and because it is unique, reality must only be occurring once. There is no reason to try to codify and transmit any part of one’s reality anywhere else.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 13:09 GMT
Anton,

There is a certain real balance to reality in that one can know when one is informing and when one is being informed of useful real information in all real situations. Since the advent of fabricated communication devices, there is no balance for the purpose of the dissemination of abstract information is simply its uncontrollable size. Machines now distribute practically all information and machines now receive practically all information. Millions of TWEETS and billions of emails are produced daily few of which will ever be read by any human being.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:07 GMT
Joe, I am sorry that you have not fully understood my simple thought experiment, I take a complete general view what information could be and think of the information carried in a beam of electromagnetic radiation. If it is encoded by humans or carries the information of a natural process, i.e. a beam of sunlight, which contains the reality of the moment it was created . Please also read my below reply to Marcoen's comment.

Bookmark and Share



Marcoen Cabbolet wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 19:26 GMT
Anton,

The idea to use this thought experiment to prove that information-based physics and relativity are incompatible, is quite original. Whether or not you have succeeded in your purpose is another question.

Let's look at one particular detail. The analysis of the thought experiment yields the equation on page 2; you then claim that this equation forms a contradiction with your axioms of information-based physics. The correctness of your proof thus depends on the correctness of the equation, and the correctness of your axioms of information-based physics.

On the right hand side of the equation, we have c²+v²/c²-v². This is a ratio between two real numbers, which is again a real number. So on the right hand side we have a real number. For the equation to be correct, the left hand side must thus also be a real number. That means that the symbols ICharlie and IBob must also be real numbers. From the text it is obvious that these symbols represent information. Thus, in your essay (or at least in the thought experiment), information is a real number. Can you give a motivation for that? E.g. in quantum physics one says that the wave function contains information. But the wave function is a much more complex entity than a real number. So could you elaborate on your choice to represent information by a real number? Or do you mean not information but the amount of information?

Best regards,

Marcoen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 21:57 GMT
Marcoen, thanks for the read and comment. The ratio ICharlie to IBob is the ratio amount of information received. The correctness of the ratio (c2+v2)/ (c2-v2) you can confirm in the appendix, equation 1 of the appendix is the text book explanation to the null result of the MM experiment, all other equations thereafter use the same principles or methodology.

Yes, you are correct in saying that information in the context of quantum physics the wavefunction contains information. In the presented thought experiment, I take a super-ordinate view; the ratio ICharlie to IBob could be information from anything starting with information encoded in say an AM modulation signal as in communication, to the quantity of information within the numerous wavefunctions that describe each and every photon in the packet . Furthermore, if we take a simplistic view that each cycle in the "beam packet' equals one photon (machine gun principle) then ratio represents an energy ratio.

The real discussion that I wish to stimulate is the continuation of Phillip Gibbs comment. His sentence "It should not work out that way" is an observation but not a scientific statement, what I am after is a mathematical explanation/proof, using the contemporary theories, to show that the result is indeed ICharlie = IBob, that what Philip expected.

Bookmark and Share


Marcoen Cabbolet replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Anton,

Here's just an intuitive thought.

In your thought experiment, information is encoded in a photon ray. A beam is then a number of such parallell rays. Now what if we say that the measure for the amount of information in a ray is just the number of subsequent photons in that ray. The amount of information is then always an integer.

In your thought experiment, the device that cuts off the beam cannot split a photon. So regardless of any relativistic effects, both Bob and Charlie detect a ray with the same number of photons, say N. So then we get IBob = ICharlie = N, in agreement with Philip's comment. So if we define the amount of information as above, then the outcome of the thought experiment doesn't indicate an incompatibility of information-based physics and relativity.

So apparently things depend heavily on the measure that we define for the amount of information. What are your thoughts on that matter?

Best regards,

Marcoen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 08:24 GMT
Marcoen, Nice try, yes you cannot split a photon, Now consider a 1 Watt red laser, and as Energy = Planck constant times Frequency (E=h f) the number of photons per one metre beam are:

N = (L/c)/(h f) approx 11 x 109

( h=6.6 x 10-34 J/s ; f=4x 1014 Hz ; c=3x 108 m/s ; L=1)

however what I can agree with you is that the ratio is not a real number but a rational number i.e a fraction of two integers.

Bookmark and Share



Mikalai Birukou wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Why do you think that "The information content of the universe is constant."?

Consider observations of early universe: lots of more or less homogeneous stuff. Now, some billions years later, there is way more structure, thus information, and at many levels, e.g. clusters of stars, and clusters of cells.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
Mikalai, It has to be constant. The Black Hole Information Paradox debate is based on this principle and great minds discussed this endlessly. If the information changes then please tell me who changes it and how it is changed.

Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 04:00 GMT
Er, perhaps because what is generating this 'information'-information being representation of something, ie information is not just existent, per se-is altering??

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 10:17 GMT
Paul, The information contain is a constant, the distribution is changing that is what we observe. Consider quantum entanglement, i.e the experiments of Prof Anton Zeilinger with entangled photons and quantum teleportation, the sum of information of the two entangled photons is constant, change something in one photon and by "spooky action" the other changes in opposition. The same principle applies to the universe as a whole.

Do not mix observation with information

Bookmark and Share



Gordon Watson wrote on May. 10, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Anton,

From your abstract: "Alternately expressed, a change of state is the result of the interaction with the information content presented by the universe. ... ."

I'm inclined to take a smaller, though related, step: The word "state" in QM might be beneficially replaced by "state of information." A "change of state" then occurs when new information comes to hand. Thus the Bayesian idea of learning and updating from observations.

But this still leaves me questioning your continuation: "... . Information is thus a preserved quantity; ... ."

Am I being too concrete when I say: "Anton, here's some new information for you; just a short note to compliment you on the fine quality of your presentation. Absolutely stunning!"



Since (even neglecting the gain that I suspect you just received), I gained information from my interaction with your information: How then, please, is information a preserved quantity?

PS: Would you mind also telling me how you generated that presentation? For I'd like to attempt it myself.

With best regards, Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 11, 2013 @ 08:13 GMT
Gordon, I appreciate your comments and compliment.

When I think of information I divorce it from the living and thus can ask what is the information a piece of space dust receives. This takes some abstract thinking to make sense. The next step in abstraction is not to think in particles, or what I call marble theory, but to think in wavefunctions, and to describe the universe as one single wavefunction. The universe's wavefunction cannot change, however all the sub-wavefunctions which make up particles and your thoughts can change relative to each other.

In essence, the above has been proven by the many experiments that demonstrate instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" or action (information) transfer by entangled photons.

Therefore, if you present me with a new observation or information, in doing so you needed energy and by mere act of living, you converted or rearranged many wavefunctions. It sounds like a crackpot idea, but the more thought you give it the less crackpotty it becomes. Ask yourself the question how is knowledge programmed into the living, what we call instincts. I.e. how does a turtle that just hatched from its egg know which way to dig itself out of the sand, and once it reaches the surface what makes it seek the ocean and then as a grownup how does it navigate back to the same beach to lay the eggs for the next generation. There is one important step in this cycle; turtles being loners have no Internet or example in the species from which to learn how to reproduce, furthermore how do they meet in fast expanse of the ocean? All per pre-programmed information that does not get lost from generation to generation.

All in all, I am trying to approach the question how it was possible for inorganic materials to arrange themselves and form the basis of life. In doing so, preconceived ideas have to be broken down, which include well-established theories.

Now to your PS. Again thanks for the compliment. I use the free LaTeX a typesetting system that allows you to create your own style, it takes a bit of learning. I use the modern font Palatino for text and it is matched with the awesome Euler fonts for math. For an optimum reading experience it is important to limit the number of characters per line to between 50 and 60, and to provide enough white space between the lines. The sketch was done in LaTeX using TikZ & PGF. You are welcome to email, address in the essay.

Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on May. 16, 2013 @ 07:09 GMT
Anton,

I'm planning to get back to you -- to discuss information and interactions -- as soon as I get my essay done.

This short note is to say: Many thanks for sharing your formatting system; it's as good as I've seen. For now, though, I've decided to plug on with my current system -- having little time for new tricks until I get my essay up.

However, as a return favour, I'm pleased for you to be the first to know publicly: "The quantum is classical." Me having the impression that such a conclusion might be close to your own thinking.

So, with the title settled -- "Deep physics, easy maths: The quantum is classical." -- the rest is downhill. (My use of that last reflecting some of the clever words you've invented!)

More soon, and my thanks again,

Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 01:37 GMT
1- Krausse does state the possibility that we are at the centre of the universe, but Copi et al. seemed to assiduously avoid that conclusion from the CMB multipole anomalies. Did you add geocentrism to Copi's explanations as an unspoken truism?

2- Analysis of the MMX using Doppler shifts of the Earth's motion makes the heliocentric system mandatory... that is, makes the Sun an absolute ref frame. I'm wondering why did you have defied relativity? Can you give evidence thzt if the Earth were at rest, there would be no Doppler shifts?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Robert, (1) If you read Krauss statement fully he carries on that the idea of heliocentrism (that is what the CMB data suggest) is absolutely crazy and if in any way I implied that Copi et al believe we are center of the universe I apologies. I, as Krauss, believe that this result suggests that there is new physics at large that we have not yet discovered.

(2) I do not believe that we can define a center of the universe using the three dimensions we observe, for the same reason that we cannot define the center of the surface of a sphere, but that is not the subject of the essay.

You ask: "I'm wondering why did you have defied relativity?" That basically is the subject of the essay, as stated in the title, it is paradox revealed by a mathematical analysis using special relativity transformations and Doppler shifts that give an unexpected result. Furthermore, I believe the community here has sufficient knowledge of both SR and Doppler, to address this mathematical analysis with the hope to get an explanation for this unexpected result, however everyone, who commented above, has avoided the analysis.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Anton,

Your equation implies the prohibited operation of dividing by zero.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Don't know what happened. I did log in.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 11:05 GMT
Tom, only if Bob can travel at the speed of light which he cannot! There is no divide by zero if v less than c

This contrasts to the ÷0 which is a absurdly accepted principle in physics, i.e the ÷0 that defines black holes and the so called associated event horizon. That is why I do not believe that black holes exist as described by science; however, that volumes of super dense masses exist is beyond dispute.

Back to the essay, have you an explanation for the result that intuitively should not be?

Bookmark and Share


Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
Anton,

Bob can't travel at the speed of light, but information does. The speed of light is constant, so it can be normalized to 1. Then if one accepts your premise and Charlie/Bob are traveling at the same velocity, your result is 2/0. If they are traveling at different velocities, your result has a negative value.

This is in perfect accord with special relativity. A particle of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 19, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Anton

Congratulations on a well-explained, ingenious and relevant essay on the contest Question. Its compactness is welcome because it allows one to concentrate on the few points to be understood.

Your approach is interesting, and if there is anywhere the paradox can be resolved it may be in pinpointing the slippery concept of "information". For example I strongly disagree with the prevailing point-photon particle concept. Will your arguments still stand if - for example - information is embedded in amplitude modulated continuous electromagnetic waves? What about if there is a discrete ether medium?

A friend read your essay but did not wish to join the online discussions directly, and emailed me the following comment:

"Special relativity has always been challenged by paradoxes, the twin paradox and the barn and ladder are the classics and well known. Vrba's information paradox is new to me, analysing the MM-experiment using a continues wave and Doppler shifts instead of a point particle does make sense and is closer to what happens in nature, his logic seems to be correct and I presume he has checked his maths - this is going to be interesting what explanation will be given"

With best wishes in the contest,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 21, 2013 @ 09:11 GMT
Vladimir, thank you for comments, yes the argument does hold for amplitude modulated signals, only cycles are counted , how the information is encoded is immaterial. I doubt that a discrete ether medium will solve the problem; one has to look wider and solve the many aspects of physics simultaneously, the island solutions or the house of physics, which you pictured so nicely in your essay last year just do not work anymore. I fear a ether theories are will only lead to an island solution.

I am still waiting for the reply that says "Anton that is a lot of BS you published there, because of so and so" and shows me an error in my presentation in the normal scientific method, that is using mathematics. That is not forthcoming, instead I get off-topic and generalised comments, even from a Ph.D who can only manage "It should not work out that way."

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your conclusion is very interesting. The following observations may interest you.

Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 06:49 GMT
Anton,

I agree, that information is a sort of a preserved quantity. But I do not agree, that information causes a change of any physical state. Information by itself cannot change anything real.

According to C.F.v.Weizsäcker information is nothing else than the a quantitative measure of FORM (in_form) that can be found on a physical structure or state. The more complex the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Helmut, consider the case that you are enjoying a holiday on some tropical island and you receive the news, which is information, that a hurricane is approaching the island with probable catastrophic consequence. Your physical state will change dramatically from relaxed to frantic activity.

Now let's consider what is information in a physical sense and ask the question what information a piece of space dust receives, and when viewed from that point of view, information encompasses all physical phenomena that interact with that particle, and that interaction will cause a change of state.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Anton,

Short and sweet is not problem at all when so accurately 'to the point'!

I think I have a simple logical solution for you, if you haven't already found it, but perhaps you can tell me on reading my essay.

Your axiom 3 stood out to me as nonsense before I'd finished reading it, so I was very pleased to discover that you'd found that too! There is however a slight 're-interpretation' of it that which works. It shows Einstein was closer than most think, but that one wrong assumption made nonsense of it all. It's actually better described in a Hadronic Journal paper here; Emission/SR/QM resolution (Unfortunately few read that).

But well done with the essay. Sometimes small is very beautiful.

Best of luck,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Anton

The opening of your very good, but the conclusion was that to do I actually disappointment. It looks like you used a new question - answer more difficult - to answer the question posed.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Anton; It seems you're still waiting for the reply that says, "Anton that's a lot of BS you published there, because of so and so."

Leaving the final nails to you, please consider:

In Fig. 1 you have L = AB = AC. So let's take the simple case where B and C are stationary in the same reference frame and A now moves away from both with speed v.

Clearly, if Alice sends duplicate signals to Bob and Charlie, they now receive the same information.

Let Alice now cut costs (eliminating duplication) and let Bob relay the message to Charlie via a mirror. Under you assumptions, Bob and Charlie still receive the same information.

Now let Bob install his shutter. Charlie now certainly receives less information than Bob and the paradox in your title is (in this simple case) a fallacy.

PS: Similar clarification of your gedanken yields the same result.

With best regards, please return the favour via my Essay. Thanks; Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 08:38 GMT
Hi Gordon, You have demonstrated that my descriptive and linguistic prowess needs improvement. You seem to have associated A,B,and C with Alice, Bob and Charlie whereas they are fixed points of a Michelson-Morley apparatus that Bob carries with him while departing from the stationary Alice and Charlie.

In that sense, this is most valuable feedback in so far that I now know how to restructure the essay and to give particular attention to naming conventions.

Bookmark and Share


Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
OK. In that case it would be very helpful to have one Figure showing the three key phases of your experiment:

(i) The initial position of the key equipment and personnel with their interrelationships.

(ii) An intermediate phase with Bob reflecting information to Charlie.

(iii) A later stage with Bob's shutter in place.

All the best; Gordon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT
Hello Anton,

Nice concise essay. I read over the paradox several times - not completely sure I understand it fully, but very nicely written. I really like thought experiments. I'm also intrigued by your comments about Black Holes and Hawking Radiation. This is the first time an essay has made me go back to read my own again in a new context.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:23 GMT
Anton,

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

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Hello Anton,

An interesting essay with an interesting problem, and if I understand the scenario correctly, and I may not, then what you are saying is that Bob has ingeniously found a way to secretly sequester part of the message directed at Charlie. For instance, if Alice is saying "Hello Charlie, how you doing today?" and Bob steals the "g today" so that Charlie receives the message "Hello Charlie, how you doin?", and Charlie replies "Hello Alice, I'm doin just fine baby.", does that mean that Alice and Charlie have experiences a non local interaction faster than the speed of light, and this due to a previous entanglement, or what? And if that's not correct, then please explain in more detail the nature of the information encoded on the communication frequency and the actual difference between what Charlie gets and what Bob gets. For your information, I have assumed that the shutter is an ideal mirror also, and that is has been shut just the once.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Zoran, thanks for your comment. Your understanding or interpretation is not a physical possibility as all the information that Bob receives, Charlie receives also receives. Thus, the only other interpretation is that there is a fault in the analysis presented in the appendix. I can assure you that mathematical reduction of the formulas is correct, thus there can only be a mistake with mathematical expression of the special relativistic corrections for the MM experiment or the formulation for phenomena of Doppler shift. These in turn you can confirm in every physics textbook thus follows that either the contemporary formulation of special relativity or the formulation of the Doppler shifts in frequency is incorrect.

Bookmark and Share



Steve Coleman wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Anton,

While it is not clear to me from your experimental description exactly how your shutter is implemented (its not in any diagram I can see), it sounds to me like what you are describing is a version of a delayed choice experiment (keyword phrase: “instantaneously activated”), only while adding Bobs relativistic motion into the mix.

Any delayed choice should paradox should be excluded by special relativity given the photons own frame of reference and its time of flight within that reference (please see my paper Precognitive Quantum State: What Can We Know? if this does not make sense to you, or contact me off line and I will be happy to explain why a delayed choice is not permitted by special relativity).

Experiment after experiment have all consistently shown that delayed choice does not work (in complete agreement with my papers argument, taken directly from SR), so attempting to show that it does work mathematically is simply non-nonsensical. Something is wrong, but it will take me time to examine your experiment to find it. Every photon emitted in your experiment will wind up somewhere and thus there will be no formation loss overall, only perhaps data not yet collected due to redshift differences in relativistic motion, time dilation, or simply discarded. Photons don't just disappear (ref: first law of thermodynamics) The question then is why the difference in these two viewpoints (math vs first law of thermodynamics/numerous experiments).

If I have misunderstood something significant in my interpretation of your apparatus setup please feel free to correct me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Anton,

It’s a nice essay in that, ‘Information in a physical sense is that what causes the state of a physical entity to change. Viewed in this way, information is fundamental and it is a preserved quantity’, is much applicable and implies that the causality of information is the transfer of matter with energy in Hamiltonian. As the nature of information is continuum, a string-matter continuum scenario is discussed to evolve a quantum information unit in matrix to resolve the information paradoxes.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Anton,

I truly enjoyed your insight and exploration of the question if information is preserved in space-time. Although you have a different approach than I do, I find your analytical findings inspiring and most worthy of merit.

I hope that others will also find merit in your essay and rate it accordingly.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
Anton

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:28 GMT
Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Anton,

Just to share your sentiments that with the CMB Anisotropy you mentioned it is time to move on. If you have the time you may wish to see possible roads that we may consider following here. And following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you will like to view the judgement as well, in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Anton Lorenz Vrba:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Anton,

Review and scoring time. I'd hoped you may respond to my positive message on your essay above and give me your views on my derivation of a resolution of the EPR paradox. This is consistent with your views and uses the additional information contained in particle orbital angular momentum.

The more fundamental precursor essays of the last two years will help if you're interested in the SR aspects.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Anton,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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