CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
Is the Planck constant itself the natural digit? by Helmut Hansen
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Helmut Hansen wrote on May. 30, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Essay AbstractIn information theory the binary digit (bit) is the most common unit of information. But there are other units of information, f.e. the natural digit (nit). It is defined as log2 e (≈ 1.443) bits, where e is the base of the natural logarithm. In this paper it shall be shown, how »Plancks constant« h can be identified as the natural digit. The key to it is the relatively unknown “Thermodynamics of the Isolated Particle” developed by the physicist Louis DeBroglie in 1960.
Author BioHelmut Hansen is author. He is convinced that metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear physics. Out of this conviction have now emerged several books and articles.
Download Essay PDF File
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Your essay is completely reasonable. Your argument involves the Euclidean time phase or measure in a path integral. The quantum phase is e^{-iEt/ħ} and with the Wick rotation it/ħ --- > β = 1/kT the Euclideanized time t = ħ/kT. The effective temperature is then a measure of the amount of quantum noise or disorder exists from quantum fluctuations.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 07:06 GMT
Helmut
But is the Plank constant (leaving aside whether the calculation is correct or not) related to the physically existent reality of light, and therefore not necessarily the existential sequence which light represents?
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Paul:
Can you precise your question? I am not quite sure, what you're asking.. As far as Plancks constant is concerned you cannot separate IT (i.e. the physical content whatever it may be) and BIT (i.e. the measure of form) from each other: they are inseparably mixed together. Just because h is greater than one bit it is impossible to describe reality as a sequence of bits.
In FQXi's 2011 essay contest I asked: Can the Universe Be Completely Digitized? I denied this possibility - and I still denies it. If the Universe were physically built up by bits (h = bit) nothing could happen in our Universe, because the two possible states would have the same probability: 50:50. In other words, a Universe built up by BITS (as a sort of logical atoms) would be a perfect crystal.
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 06:31 GMT
Helmut
There is an existential sequence. There is also existent representations of that, because as it progresses, these are created as a result of interaction with certain physical phenomena which are not inherently involved in the sequence. The most obvious example being light.
So, my understanding of Planck is that it relates to what might be termed the 'light reality' and not 'existential reality'. In other words, I read it as being the 'bottom line' in respect of light, which is not necessarily the same as the 'bottom line' in whatever is occurring. An analogy would be that light speed is asserted to be the maximum in physical existence. Whereas, in fact, it is the maximum for light, which is what enables us to see. There may be faster entities in existence, but light, in terms of a phenomena which represents something else, will not be able to identify it. Indeed, more generally, since light is just another physical entity with physical properties, any of those will have an effect on its ability to accurately and comprehensively represent what actually occurred.
In respect of your supplementary comment, the universe, or more precisely, physical existence as potentially knowable to us, must be discrete, otherwise existence would not occur.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Joe:
As I agree with your basic position I would like to recommend you of reading my FQXI-essay of 2011: Can the Universe be completely digitized?
Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Helmut,
The real Universe is unique. Humanly contrived abstract digits are not unique; therefore, the real Universe could never be digitized, polarized or memorized.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 13:22 GMT
Hi Helmut,
Your question whether the universe can be completely digitized is just the modern way of asking the same age-old question whether the unit of space is of zero dimension OR of a non-zero but very small dimension.
Other ways you can think of the question are:
- can a 'line' have length and have zero breadth?
- can a surface have length and breadth and exist in reality despite being of zero thickness?
- if you divide a body continuously into infinite number of surfaces then taking stock you want to reconstitute the body, how do you get a body with thickness (i.e. depth) from the infinite number of surfaces.
What can be achieved abstractly (mathematical) may not obtain in reality (physics).
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 07:11 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
you are right, encoding physical data in terms of bits is only a language like Euclidean geometry. I am convinced, too, that this language is not suitable, to describe the ultimate foundation of our universe in an appropriate manner, because the fundamental logic underlying our visible Universe is - as far as I can see - not a bivalent one, it is of multivalent nature.
From Quantum computing we know that a quantum bit can exist in superposition of two bit values, true and false. The enormous success of Quantum Mechanics suggests that our Universe computes itself just in this way.
Jochen Szangolies wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
An interesting proposal. As Rovelli has pointed out in his
relational quantum mechanics, the postulate that there is only a finite amount of information to be gained from a given physical system (which is of course very similar to Zeilinger's principle) introduces Planck's constant: it entails that a physical system can only be localized up to a finite accuracy in phase space, i.e. for a single particle moving in one dimension, you can never localize it perfectly, but only up to an ellipse in phase space, whose area is of dimension [momentum x position] = [energy x time]; its minimum size is then given by Planck's constant. In a sense, quantum physics is then just a deformation of classical physics (Liouville mechanics) with deformation parameter h (see the
phase space formulation of quantum mechanics).
report post as inappropriate
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 06:39 GMT
Jochen
You do not need postulates, etc. By definition, any given physical circumstance is definitive. Otherwise, what is it? Whether we can identify all that is highly debatable, but the possibility is there. In other words, it is a practical not metaphysical issue. The real question at present is whether Planck is concerned with (for want of better phrases)the reality as occurred, or the reality as represented by light.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Jochen,
I followed your link concerning relational quantum mechanics. I appreciate the author's attempt to clarify the foundations of quantum mechanics, but I do not agree, especially out of my specific understanding of Special Relativity, which Rovelli considers obviously as uncontroversial.
I am convinced that Special Relativity (SR) is incomplete. This incompleteness concerns the speed of light. My view is: As the quantum mechanical concept of Wave-Particle duality has shown us that light is of dual nature, I came to the conviction that the speed of light c has to be of dual nature, too. In other words: The speed of light c is given twice, in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. In SR only the wave-like version of c has been taken into account.
As the result of this incompleteness the relativistic Lorentz symmetry is too restrictive. I've found a geometrical space-time-structure that fits to this "Dual Parametrization of c". According to this structure there are two space-time-branches, which I am calling the "Gödel-Zone" and the "Gödel-Trench". The Gödel-Zone (from v = 0 to v = c) is limited by the speed of light v = c, whereas the Gödel-Trench (from v = c to v = oo) is limited by the speed v = oo. In SR the second space-time-segment (here described as the Gödel-Trench) is completely missing.
If this second segment is really existing then we have to strive for a deeper understanding of SR - and not of quantum mechanics. That is at least my position. But I admit all these thoughts are more a vision than a coherent theory.
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Helmut
c is not the speed of light, as in what is utilised in observation, when deployed by Einstein. It is just a constant, ie the theoretical speed of light in vacuo, used to calibrate distance and duration, nobody sees with it.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
F Earle Fox replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 02:59 GMT
Paul responds above to Jochen:
"The real question at present is whether Planck is concerned with (for want of better phrases) the reality as occurred, or the reality as represented by light."
This question appears to be related to one of the basic issues of my essay on the collapse of causal theory in the philosophy of science, namely that believers in Biblical worldview which...
view entire post
Paul responds above to Jochen:
"The real question at present is whether Planck is concerned with (for want of better phrases) the reality as occurred, or the reality as represented by light."
This question appears to be related to one of the basic issues of my essay on the collapse of causal theory in the philosophy of science, namely that believers in Biblical worldview which first inspired the development of the empirical sciences in the late middle ages became incapable of (or unwilling to) defend their own worldview based on the existence of God as the ultimate cause of the cosmos.
Western science was built, necessarily I think, on such a worldview with an Intelligent Designer. Not a popular idea today, but making a comeback (no, I am not a “young earther”). As the first scientists said, “We are thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” The secular view prevailed, but then the collapse of God as the causal explanation left us with no substantial explanation at all. We have been inventing substitutes ever since, but seem to have run out. That has led to the current essay question: “Its from Bits, or Bits from Its” Which causes which? My response to the title question is neither can cause either. Neither information nor things are adequate causal concepts.
All that seems to me relevant to the question of ultimate cause because boundary concepts, such as the speed of light, are favorite places to look for such a substitute.
“Reality as represented by light” is a phenomenal perception of reality. But that means that, as George Berkeley noted of Newtons’ world of massey atoms, there is no possibility of observing those atoms other than via the sensory world. We never see the “actual” world of Newtons atoms any more than we actually see the “light” behind our visual perceptions. So there is no way to check whether our perceptions are accurate, or even whether those atoms (or light) actually exist to cause our perceptions. The “as it occurred” aspect of Paul’s quote thus becomes metaphysically opaque.
Paul replies to Helmut...:
"c is not the speed of light, as in what is utilised in observation, when deployed by Einstein. It is just a constant, ie the theoretical speed of light in vacuo, used to calibrate distance and duration, nobody sees with it."
Is there an unseen thing called “light” by which we see? That has been the common sense assumption. Paul’s reply to Helmut seems to support the notion that the speed of light is a boundary concept which helps define the nature of visually perceived reality. But I think that does not help solve the need for a causal concept by which to understand the existence of (or our perception of) a world which is contingent (not logically necessary), and thus in need of an explanation for its existence. At best, it only shifts the burden back to atoms or light or whatever.
I would be interested in whether anyone thinks my 9-page case on these issues (backed up by doctoral degree) has substance.
Earle Fox
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 05:49 GMT
Paul
In a way you are touching a sort of the chicken or the egg dilemma: Which came first, space and time or the speed of light? Einstein used - as you mentioned - the speed of light to alter resp. re-calibrate our understanding of space and time, but you can go the other way as well: you can use a space-time-conception to alter our understanding of the constant of c. I have followed this path...
George Ellis has written an interesting paper. He asked: Is c the speed of light? arXiv:gr-qc/0305099v2 12 Jun 2003. Possibly it is interesting for your to read.
Helmut
Paul Reed replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
Helmut
Sorry, did not spot this response.
Einstein did not use the speed of observational light. He just used a number, the theoretical speed of light, to calibrate duration and distance. He could have used any constant number. For fairly obvious reasons he chose that, because he thought, and most interpreters since think, that this accounted for observation. But it did not, because there is no light in Einstein whereby people can be observers. In other words, the ‘frame of reference’ cannot be an observer perspective, because there are no observers, there is nothing for them to observe with, it is just the entity against which comparison is being made for calibration purposes (with respect to), the second postulate is irrelevant because it was not deployed as defined, etc, etc.
I do not need to read Ellis or anybody else. Light is a physical phenomenon that moves, it always starts at the same speed, and is subject to physical influences whilst travelling. It is what enables sight. Whilst questions about how light works are important, I only need to know the latter.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Mr. Hansen,
I know you're in Germany but based on the spelling of your name I assume a Danish ancestry. I can't help but wonder if we don't happen to have a few common ancestors there in the Danish Motherland; it would seem a distinct possibility. I've often wanted to get over to Denmark and take a gander around . . . My family, on both my grandfather's side (Hansen) and grandmother's...
view entire post
Mr. Hansen,
I know you're in Germany but based on the spelling of your name I assume a Danish ancestry. I can't help but wonder if we don't happen to have a few common ancestors there in the Danish Motherland; it would seem a distinct possibility. I've often wanted to get over to Denmark and take a gander around . . . My family, on both my grandfather's side (Hansen) and grandmother's (Sowle), together with a few other Danish families (Grundens, Jensens, Jurgens, etc.), formed a small village in what is now southwestern Nebraska which they called Denmark! Harris Grunden, a childhood friend of mine, and his wife Joanie now own the property where Denmark (the town) used to sit. They raise cattle and Morgan horses on what they call The Denmark Ranch. Harris' father, Harvey, actually sold the first Morgan to ever set foot in
Germany. Anyway . . .
The very fascinating relation you reveal in your essay would suggest that information is a fundamental part of nature rather than a human creation, which is certainly in line with my view. I fail to comprehend the arguments of so many others that information is a human invention. Of course if information is inherent in nature then this implies that nature is conscious and aware which, for whatever reason, seems to bother many people.
I've discovered your website and am engaged in reading a few of your English language papers; I'm particularly enamored with "Do Space and Time have an Archetypal Design?" It's interesting to consider that all mandalas represent the harmonization of opposites - Ha (sun) Tha (moon) Yoga (union) - and this archetypal bivalent structure seems to appear throughout the Universe in a scale-free manner - from dipoles to the brother-battle archetype of mythology (which is an actual phenomena). I know you consider the Universe to be analog, hence, multivalent but, if I'm not mistaken, it has been mathematically demonstrated that, on some level, all multivalent logics reduce to bivalence; I think this is a result derived from work in approximate reasoning.
With regards,
Wes Hansen
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT
@Wes
Thank you very much for your comment and your personal notes. May be there is some connection from previous lifes. Though I didn't know anything about a Danish ancestry as far as my present family is concerned, there seems, however, to be a strong bond to the "Danish Motherland". My spiritual teacher OLY NYDAHL f.e. was born in Copenhagen.
If you are ever looking for authentic information of Tibetan Buddhism, he is a very fine adress:
http://www.lama-ole-nydahl.org/
He is - like you - convinced beyond any doubt, that Nature (resp. its mind-like foundation) is conscious and aware. He travels around the world - twice a year - to teach that.
I wish you all the best for your paper.
Helmut
Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Helmut,
I must be mistaken; I have always assumed that the spelling, Hansen, indicated Danish ancestry while, Hanson, indicated German. Regardless, I would imagine both names are somehow closely related.
I followed the link to Ole Nydahl's website which is very interesting indeed. Here in Houston, Texas, we have the Dawn Mountain Temple, a temple in the Tibetan tradition. I've been...
view entire post
Helmut,
I must be mistaken; I have always assumed that the spelling, Hansen, indicated Danish ancestry while, Hanson, indicated German. Regardless, I would imagine both names are somehow closely related.
I followed the link to Ole Nydahl's website which is very interesting indeed. Here in Houston, Texas, we have the
Dawn Mountain Temple, a temple in the Tibetan tradition. I've been practicing various forms of Hatha Yoga, Mantra Yoga, and Pranayama for a number of years but have never had any formal training. In spite of the lack of training I have realized some rather formidable results. I did engage in some informal studies (Pali chanting and meditation primarily) at
Buumon Temple in Port Arthur, Texas. The Most Reverend Viet, the founder and senior Abbot of Buumon is a first class gardener! He has some exquisite lotus and lily ponds and over 30 varieties of bamboo growing; he even has a Bodhi tree on site!
My spiritual journy was really inspired by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I read a book by the philosopher, Renee Weber, A Dialogue Between Scientists and Sages, several years ago in which she included an interview with His Holiness and the Quantum Physicist, David Bohm. Dr. Bohm asked His Holiness if there was ever a situation in which a Buddhist was justified in taking another human's life. His Holiness answered that there was a situation in which a Buddhist would be, not only spiritually justified, but spiritually responsible for taking another human's life. This situation would be if the Buddhist had prior knowledge that another human planned to take the lives of multiple beings (more than one human). In such a situation the Buddhist would be Karmically required to shoulder the Karmic burden of the one death in order to spare the would be killer the tremendous Karmic burden of multiple deaths. Of course proper and improper motivation also plays a role. I found His Holiness' answer rather profound and decided I had better start reading some of his books! The rest is, shall we say, synchronicity . . .
Best regards,
Wes Hansen
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Helmut
"Two sides of the same coin" can also be understood as the opposite, like: two sexes of a species.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 08:46 GMT
@Hoang cao Hai:
The idea behind my paper is the Aristolean assumption that every real or physical object resp. action is a sort of "synholon" being composed of FORM and SUBSTANCE, which means, in REALITY none of these two categories can exist independently.
In elementary particle physics we are still looking for a fundamental particle that is really indivisible. If we define...
view entire post
@Hoang cao Hai:
The idea behind my paper is the Aristolean assumption that every real or physical object resp. action is a sort of "synholon" being composed of FORM and SUBSTANCE, which means, in REALITY none of these two categories can exist independently.
In elementary particle physics we are still looking for a fundamental particle that is really indivisible. If we define indivisibility in spatial terms, we do not know whether a known elementary particle like the quark can further be divided or not. It could be possible that there is some hidden substructure. If atomism is rigorously based on terms of spatial divisibility we will never know, if a discovered particle is really indivisible or not.
The physicist C.F. v. Weiszäcker found that the concept of information allows us to avoid this problem and to establish a radical atomism being based on a sort of logical divisibility.
At first v. Weizsäcker shows in his book "Structure of Physics" that information is nothing else than a quantity to measure FORM. The more complex an object is the more information is necessary to describe it.
If information concept is the right way to describe Nature, then the bit (i.e. the binary alternative) is the most minimal form that a physical or 'substantial' object can, in principle, have. v. Weizsäcker called these logical atoms URE.
I asked myself whether our universe is really built up in this way - exclusively by bits (i.e. URE). I came to the conclusion that this is not the case. In my FQXI-paper 2010 "Can the Universe be completely digitized?" I present an argument against this radical atomism (or: reductionism).
The FQXI-paper of this year 2013 is merely a further argument that bit-like synholons do not exist. The fact that the intrinsic form of Planck's constant h (i.e. the minimum of action) is quantified by 1,43.. bit is taken as a proof, that bit-like (i.e. 1,000... bit) synholons resp. natural actions do not exist.
In other words, there is no opposite between it and nit resp. bit. Planck's constant is a synholon in the above-mentioned sense: it describes precisely how form and substance/action are intrinsically composed at the quantum level of reality. In this way it is nothing else than a further confirmation of the fundamental character of h, which means our UNIVERSE is not a COMPUTER. It is a real thing of its own.
view post as summary
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Hi Helmut and Hoang,
Why do you still say... "we are still looking for a fundamental particle that is really indivisible... If atomism is rigorously based on terms of spatial divisibility we will never know, if a discovered particle is really indivisible or not".
Such a particle obviously cannot be detected by any instruments since it will be smaller than any technique or device to measure it. It can only be detected by logic and reductio ad absurdum arguments, some of which I proposed in my
essay. What do have against
Leibniz's monads being that particle?
Visited here before. Just visiting again.
Cheerio,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 12:21 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
I've read your paper, in which monads are introduced as foundational elements of reality. You are defining monads explicitly in a binary way. But by doing this, monads can only exist in two possible states of equal propability: 50 : 50. A Universe that would be built up in this way is a dead Universe, something like a big crystal, because nothing can change. If the two possible states of the monads does possess exactly the same probability of existence resp. emergence then nothing can change their symmetry.
In my FQXi-Paper 2012 (Can the Universe be completely digitized?) I have highlighted this argument. It is admittedly not a strong argument, but it is an argument.
Regards
Helmut
P.S. I've rated your paper.
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:46 GMT
Thanks Helmut for reading and rating my paper. I will be doing likewise.
The probability is not 50:50 and the universe will be full of activity, with monads constantly emerging, some annihaling to nothing and some staying permanently on. Indeed, you can make a monads appear and disappear by taking a walk! I tried to demonstrate this with 'digital motion'.
I will check your 2012 paper and comment later.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:20 GMT
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
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 ADDITIONAL ARTICLES
A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?
The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.
The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.
B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?
It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .
C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?
Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.
D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?
The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.
E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?
To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:
2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :
“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”
That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.
I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.
Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.
To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com
Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.
Hải.Caohoàng
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 12:37 GMT
Hi Helmut,
You said: "In FQXi's 2011 essay contest I asked: Can the Universe Be Completely Digitized? I denied this possibility - and I still denies it. If the Universe were physically built up by bits (h = bit) nothing could happen in our Universe, because the two possible states would have the same probability: 50:50. In other words, a Universe built up by BITS (as a sort of logical atoms) would be a perfect crystal."
I agree with you that both states would have the same probability but if you consider that the universe is a growing sphere of information, this is not geometrically possible. Take a look at my
essay and you will see what I mean.
I also agree with you that metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear physics. You might want to read the end of my
3D Universe Theory, I propose a possible "scientific" explanation of the soul.
Cheers,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Helmut,
If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 00:36 GMT
Hi Helmut,
Yes. In blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher temperatures, so we need increasingly more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels at higher energies, temperatures. If there can be no maximum to the energy or temperature, then size of the energy gap between two subsequence levels can become arbitrarily small. Though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum, so the Planck length and Planck time etc. have no special significance. The Planck constant h is like the number 1 in mathematics, encompassing all values between 0.5 and 1.5. If we can measure the Planck constant to the next decimal at a higher energy, a higher temperature, then we can write that number as 1.0, which encompasses all numbers between 0.95 and 1.05. So if we set h = 1 in our equations, then every time we improve the accuracy of the Planck constant, we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10.
Cheers, Anton
report post as inappropriate
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Good to see your essay here. I have some questions:
1) I am familiar with Zeilinger's Urprinzip but I have always wondered why it has not gained more popularity as the It from Bit view became more prevalent. Do you know why?
2) I am getting an incorrect result when I rewrite your derivation:
whereas according to equation (10), the natural log should be in the denominator. My suspicion is that the problem lies between equations (3) and (4) because there you seem to imply by virtue of the numerical and dimensional value
Is that what you really meant?
Also, assuming that it all works out I must admit that I did not quite follow the significance that you attribute to the mathematical derivation because the natural log of 2 factor is one of the two factors by which H and S differ from each other. If you could show that the inclusion of the natural log in the definition of H is not a matter of convention, then it would seem to me that your case would be stronger.
Finally, when I was still in the thinking stages about the contest, I thought about titling my entry "It and bit- two sides of the same coin?" and I saw that you had thought of a similar phrase at the end of your essay.
All the best,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Helmut Hansen replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear Armin,
thank you very much for your comment and your questions.
To your questions:
(1) Zeilinger's Urprinzip does not really explain anything. It describes the internal limitation of quantum mechanics only in a different language. To put it pointedly: It is a sort of shadow philosophy of the Kopenhagen Interpretation. That's possibly the reason, why it gained no more attention.
(2) You got indeed a correct result: If you calculate the expression of h x ln2 (i.e. h x 0.693...), you get the value of A* = 4, 592.. x ... erg/sec.
You are right, to unveil equation (5) as a fundamental resp. meaningful one, we have to show that the natural log in the definition of H is not a matter of convention. A German theorist states that equation (5) in connection with Euler's number e is able to explain the mass spectrum of the quarks.
http://www.necnet.de/planckwelt/Skaleninvarianz.html
I am not sure, whether this conviction turns out to be right or not, but in equation (5) there is some truth in it - no doubt. As you know Einstein was deeply convinced, too, that pure numbers like e are the genuine universal constants, because they appear in some sense with necessity in the logical evolution of mathematics as unique individual formations, which have nothing to do with conventional units. Euler's number e f.e. generates the sequence e = 1 + 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! ...
However, I will read your paper and comment it later.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Mikalai Birukou wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Helmut,
Reading comments section, I want to suggest you the following view on Special Relativity.
Minkowski space has a critical speed parameter, called c. Massless things happen to fly at this critical speed. In fact we are lucky that light, something used be humanity for ages, happened to travel at this critical for our space speed. This allowed us to discovere pretty quickly that spacetime is more of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, which must have this special critical speed, which is called speed of light do to historic inertia.
Cheers,
Mikalai
report post as inappropriate
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Helmut,
It and Nit are like two sides of the same coin, sounds very reasonable to me. I like your approach and found your essay very interesting. Planck units are certainly fundamental in nature I agree with that.
Nice work.
Please take a look at my essay if you get chance.
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Thanking you to think the h as NIT. Then why c and other physical constant magnitudes would not have that similar characteristic?
I invite you in my essay as well to read there some relevant ideas, which are almost closer of yours.
Regards
Dipak
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 08:04 GMT
Dear Helmut,
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 17:47 GMT
Helmut,
Great little essay and much bigger big ('little!') thesis, with which I agree and think is excellently derived.
You point out; "...we are still looking for a fundamental particle that is really indivisible", and "the fundamental logic underlying our visible Universe is ...- not a bivalent one, it is of multivalent nature." Which I also base my own essay on (though I do charge off and test the power of 'multi valued spaces' down to the planck limit.
And I very much liked and agreed:
"...an important insight about the most deep nature of the Universe... If the natural digit (nit) is the fundamental modus operandi how the Universe processes its internal information then the quantum of action (i.e. Plancks constant) is nothing else than the physical resp. visible side of this process"
I can't understand why so few have scored it, or why it's so low, but a top score coming from me to help. Very well earned. I do hope you can similarly read, score and comment on mine in the extra time we now have.
Very best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Member Carlo Rovelli wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Helmut,
I have read with great interest your article, and I must say that (contrary to most of the other articles) I agree with it and find it very interesting.
However, allow me say that I have a complain. You write at the beginning that Wheeler's idea of informational theoretical foundation of physics has "gained renewed interest" with Zeilinger paper. I have great respect for Zeilinger and his ideas, and maybe he himself was not aware of my work in the previous years, but I think that that the attention to these ideas started with my 1996 work:
C Rovelli: ``Relational Quantum Mechanics", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637 (1996). Arxiv: quant-ph/9609002
This is the paper that is cited by several of the first articles that begun to focus on information foundations in physics.
I am happy to recognize Zeilinger ideas and contributions, but please do not rewrite history and do not forger this paper, which is the one that started the attention on information theory at the basis of quant theory, after Wheeler.
Best, Carlo
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:48 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... You have a new radical idea. In your essay deep original ontological analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts and conclusions.
I totally agree with you:
«... That metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear...
view entire post
Dear Helmut,
Contests FQXi - is primarily a new radical idea. "The trouble with physics" push ... You have a new radical idea. In your essay deep original ontological analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, new concepts and conclusions.
I totally agree with you:
«... That metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear physics.»
«If the Universe were physically built up by bits (h = bit) nothing could happen in our Universe, because the two possible states would have the same probability: 50:50.»
«... The fundamental logic underlying our visible Universe is - as far as I can see - not a bivalent one, it is of multivalent nature.»
In modern physics, "fundamental constants" is not interpreted at the deepest level, do not find out exactly what "constants" are "fundamental." Their understanding of the methodological, not ontological. Their understanding of the need for the construction of the ontological basis. Here the principle of simplicity is key. "Occam's Razor" should be very sharp. A small number of constants should be sufficient to describe the set of complex phenomena. The constants that must lie in the ontological basis of physics - it SUOERCONSTANTS. So think of mathematics as "close physics" (mathematician Ludwig Faddeev interview in the magazine "Expert" - "The equation of the evil spirit" http://expert.ru/expert/2007/29/faddeev/), then perhaps these superconstants are purely mathematical. Aspiration of physics to a deep understanding of the nature of information suggests that the basic (unconditional) FORMS of EXISTENCE od MATTER should be the basis for the "seizure" of the constants at all levels of matter and their relation to information as a multivalent phenomenon. Build a basic structure of the fundamental of knowledge - the "GENERAL FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE" (David Gross «Expert» №6 08.02.2013 http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-prostranstv
o-vremya/) - the most important task of modern fundamental physics since the information revolution.
Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":
«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»
http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.
htm
In the russian version of a article: «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators.»
Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?
Please look also my essay and essay FQXi 2012 related to the ontological justification of "Absolute generating structure"
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1796
http://w
ww.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1362
We have the spirit of close reserch.
Best regards,
Vladimir
ideabank@yandex.ru
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 09:19 GMT
Hi dear Helmut,
I have read your essay (thanks to advice of my friend) and I have find there things which is really close to my spirit. Main thing is you well know about drama of de Broglie, as well as of Einstein's efforts to bring physics back on the natural way of development. I am also talking on this questions in my work that may interesting for you
Es text. I am going to rate your work properly!
I am very hope get your comments in my forum.
Best wishes,
George
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Helmut,
I have reread (and re-rated!) your essay. As we have observed something happen with program and last posts/rating has ben deleted. So, I do it again succesful.
Sincerely
George
report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
Hi Helmut,
Your essay is an elegant exposition of a very intriguing idea. You wrote:
> If the natural digit (nit) is the fundamental modus operandi how the Universe processes its internal information then the quantum of action (i.e. Plancks constant) is nothing else than the physical resp. visible side of this process.
My essay
Software Cosmos puts forward a computational model for the universe, which would need just this sort of thing.
You may also enjoy Branko Zivlak's essay. He shows an unusual information-based equation links the electron, proton, and neutron masses. Perhaps you can find an interpretation for it.
Hugh
report post as inappropriate
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 23:02 GMT
Helmut - your paper was short and to the point. I liked that. I gave it a high rating not because of its completeness, but because I learned something. Thank you for raising my attention to DeBroglie’s “isolated particle”, and the provocative title arising from that.
Carlo Rovelli is also quite correct: his paper on relational quantum mechanics is a landmark paper in the recent development of physics and should not be written out of the history. Anton Zeilinger is truly a great scientist, but so is Carlo Rovelli; I recommend you read his book on Quantum Gravity, and his wonderful work on relational quantum mechanics.
Kind regards, Paul
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:28 GMT
Hi Helmut,
I was looking thru the essays and came across yours. I realized that I had not voted for it. I rectified that and voted for what I considered one of the most under rated essays of the contest. I do not know about your metaphysics, but your numerology is excellent.
I started a blog on physics several years back when I realized that no one ever overcame Zeno's argument against motion. Please feel free to look at the whole thing, it starts with the conflict between Zeno and deBroglie. I have one section of the web site that I think you will particularly like. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/43_Planck_Units_and_Num
erology.html
Please comment if any of this strikes you as interesting.
Thanks, and recommend a book you think would interest me.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.