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 18:53pm UTC, wrote Dear Anton, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Peter Jackson: on 8/4/13 at 21:11pm UTC, wrote Anton, I wondered if you followed and enjoyed my links above, or have...

Sreenath N: on 7/30/13 at 10:49am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, You have clearly exposed the limitations of the SLT and more...

Sreenath N: on 7/29/13 at 1:26am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it....

Than Tin: on 7/26/13 at 4:48am UTC, wrote Hello Anton Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech ...

Manuel Morales: on 7/25/13 at 16:38pm UTC, wrote Hi Anton, WOW, a kindred spirit to the core! Your understanding of 'true'...

Anton Biermans: on 7/21/13 at 3:40am UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, Thank you very much for replying to my post (of 19 July) on...

Tejinder Singh: on 7/19/13 at 5:03am UTC, wrote Dear Anton, I have read with care your latest comment that you left on my...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "It is interesting that you bring up change in the context of free..." in Cosmological Koans

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

david john: "https://www.google.com google.com/ google.com/" in Black Hole Photographed...

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

Lorraine Ford: "Physics has failed to explain change: physics tries to claim that change is..." in Cosmological Koans


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
July 17, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is Invalid by Anton Biermans [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 16:01 GMT
Essay Abstract

According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy inside a closed system like the universe only can increase in time. Though a low entropy may correspond to a system far out of equilibrium, it only can be out of equilibrium if there is an equilibrium state, if there are physical laws operational by means of which the inequilibrium can, must convert into an equilibrium state. If an inequilibrium only is created, becomes an inequilibrium as soon as such laws kick in, as it actually starts to transform into another state so one state doesn't causally precede the other, then can the entropy of the universe change at all? Moreover, if an inequilibrium only can emerge when such laws become operative, laws which specify the nature of both the initial and end state, then shouldn't they prevent the emergence of the inequilibrium in the first place, prevent an event like the big bang to happen at all?

Author Bio

As physics has yet to discover why, that causality is a metaphysical rather than a scientific concept, my educational pedigree is hardly relevant.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 02:17 GMT
I see that the pdf text as it appears when you click it open it is not legible very well: it's much better legible when you download it.

Bookmark and Share


Anton Biermans replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
ERRATUM:

If in a self-contained universe particles create, cause each other, then they explain each other in a circular way: here we can take any element of an explanation, any link of the chain of cause-and-effect without proof, use it to explain the next link and so on, to follow the circle back to the assumption we started with -which this time is explained by the foregoing reasoning.

I'm embarrassed that a piece of this paragraph is missing from the PDF.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Mr. Biermans welcome to the contest,

In your opinion, how does the concept of dark matter impacts thermodynamics laws?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 08:24 GMT
Hi Koorosh,

Though I do have some suspicions about the nature of dark matter, I don't know enough details about its distribution so I'm not sure what to make of it, I have really no idea how, whether it affects the entropy in some area.

That said, if a higher energy is a less indefinite energy (since in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
Respectfully Mr. Biermans

I found this to be a very well written essay. If I may, I would like to make a comment about your contention in the Abstract “Moreover, if an inequilibrium only can emerge when such laws become operative, laws which specify the nature of both the initial and end state, then shouldn't they prevent the emergence of the inequilibrium in the first place, prevent an event like the big bang to happen at all?”

As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, one real unique Universe can only do one real thing once. Abstract equilibrium and abstract inequilibrium are identified by you as being possibly chronologically sequential events and therefore they cannot be unique. The big bang never took place because the Universe is eternal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Hi Joe,

Like the sum of all debts and credits on Earth by definition is nil (which doesn’t mean that there exists no money), in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, conservation laws say that everything inside of it has to add to nil, then such universe has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so it makes no sense at all to ask what its entropy is, nor ask how old it is.

In contrast, the creation of a big bang universe does constitutes a violation of conservation laws: Big Bang Cosmology (BBC), in regarding the universe as an ordinary object which has properties and evolves as a whole in time, asserts that it lives in a time realm not of its own making, so can be ascribed a (finite) age, so a big bang universe is not eternal.

The quite fatal flaw of BBC is that as it is impossible to look at it from the outside, to imagine looking at it from without, as if looking over God's shoulders at His creation, is scientifically illegitimate: BBC represents an essentially religious view of our world and is just a present-day version of the Genesis tale, for a tale it is.

If as seen from within, according to the uncertainty principle, a particle with an infinitesimal rest energy (greater than zero) has an infinite lifetime, then in this sense the particle and hence its universe is eternal, not if you regard it as something which has a physical reality as a whole, as seen from the outside.

As to ''chronologically sequential events'', I argue that the observed sequence of events doesn't necessarily mean that the first is the cause of the second.

Regards, Anton

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Respectfully Mr. Biermans,

I am afraid I did not understand your answer. As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, the real Universe only deals with real unique absolutes. The real absolute of real duration is real eternal. Although I have not mentioned it in my essay, the humanly contrived abstract absolute of duration is abstract now. We can only ever know what we know now. Now there is living and non-living material clearly existing simultaneously. Why do we take it for granted that by Godly imperative, or by comprehensive explosion, all of the inanimate stuff had to come first?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 7, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have started off very well – asking the right questions. That is the sign of a seeker for truth. But somehow, you have mixed up many things into a knot that need to be untangled. We begin with your egg example, as it reflects the universal creation mechanism for massive structures.

We had actually seen an egg being delivered by a hen from about 5 feet up on a wall...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

1) With the creation of the egg I mean the entire evolution of the hen/egg and it actually laying the egg; as to gasses, their particles must similarly have evolved.

2) ''Entropy is the inertia that'' sorry, you've lost me

3) ''making time cyclic''

Never mind whether your statement makes sense or not, you can only say such a thing from an imaginary...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 02:48 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thank you for devoting so much thought to our post.

Reg. your reply to: 3) ''making time cyclic'': Our observation applies equally to an imaginary observation post outside the Universe as well as ALL observation posts inside the Universe. The concept of time arises out of the ordered sequential arrangement of events; i.e., evolutionary changes in objects. How does the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 08:20 GMT
Hi Basudeba,

Your seem not to be able to wrap your brains (plural?) around the idea that a universe which creates itself out of nothing has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say.

Whereas the creation of energy at the big bang universe either constitutes a violation of conservation laws or means that it has been created by some outside intervention (or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 09:55 GMT
Hello Anton,

You make a couple of thought provoking statements in your essay. These should help unravel a couple of physical truths. Since you dwell on the second law, which more or less is usually stated: dS = dU/T. By which is implied that if you drop a hot object (energy) say in a glass of water at temperature T, the entropy increases (dS) according to this equation.

I have often wondered whether if this equation is universally correct, what happens if the temperature is Absolute zero. Could this have a cosmological implication? Supposing a Creator (I am just assuming this to avoid chicken and egg question) dropped a tiny amount of energy in a "nothing" which of course must be of absolute zero temperature, what can happen?

All the best in the contest?

Akinbo

*You may also want to read my entry. It may or may not have something in it that may enhance your theory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 11:11 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

By (hypothetically) assuming that the universe was created by some Creator outside of it, you regard the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, which has a beginning and evolves in time, so such universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making: here all particles have the same birth date.

Conservation laws insist that in a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 13:57 GMT
Okay, okay Anton let me rephrase the issues. Forget "nothing", forget big bang theory, forget Creator, etc

1 - Is the equation dS = dE/T, also sometimes written dS = dU/T correct?

(I have removed the work terms pdV + VdP) to avoid beclouding the issues).

2 - If the equation is correct, does it apply to T = 0?

3 - If you wish to deny the possibility of T = 0 (I am trying to block all escape routes here!), then will the equation apply to an infinitesimally small temperature, say like 10^-15K?

Be careful and in your considered reply, because I have a follow up final question/ statement.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 07:42 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

As far as I'm aware of your equation is correct; as to the question whether it applies at T = 0 ?

Without intending to allow myself an escape route, you must be aware that like a velocity of 99,9999999999999999 ... % of the speed of light is still infinitely far away from ''the'' speed of light as it is unreachable, 10^-15K is infinitely far away from the absolute zero, so you question or statement will anyhow concern a hypothetic and untestable state.

I am, nevertheless very curious as to your follow-up final question/statement.

If it is related to you previous post, you should keep in mind that empty space is not the same as "nothing": unlike a mathematical space where all points are identical but for their coordinate numbers, space is not something (like a spatial grid) which only is curved by mass or energy, locally stretched and contracted.

A physical spacetime is a physical 'object': its observed properties not only depend on the mass and energy in its near and far environment, but also on the mass of the observer or observing particle, the distance he/it looks from and his/its motion.

Furthermore, except the universe, no system inside of it can be perfectly closed.

So whether the equation applies to an infinitesimally low temperature may depend on what kind or form of energy you want to put inside some area and the location of that area.

Another point is that whereas it is the same cosmic time everywhere in a big bang universe so time is the same kind of 'thing' everywhere, this is not the case in the self-creating universe we actually live in.

Regards, Anton

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 23:22 GMT
Though I wouldn't of conceived of the pathways you did to arrive at your conclusions I must say I agree w/ the following rather emphatically:

Though their behavior may seem random if the underlying mechanism is unknown, it’s unlikely that nature doesn’t know what it does, that there is no mechanism: though it may not know randomness, it does know uncertainty-–an indefiniteness we mistake for randomness."

-And-

The idea of a 'Closed' System in nature is somewhat erroneous/in error.

Brave hypothesis; so how do such thoughts influence your thinking on the 'Beginning of the Universe' (sorry if I simply missed this)?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 08:42 GMT
Hi John,

A self-creating universe (as opposed to a big bang universe which has been created by some outside interference) has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so obviously cannot have a beginning, see my reply to Basudeba of Jun. 11, 2013, or, better yet, the first chapter of my study in www.quantumgravity.nl.

Regards, Anton

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 11:02 GMT
Anton, I completely agree with you that physics is too obsessed with causality and the second law is not fundamental. I wrote about that in my previous essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1369 and the message is not widely accepted.

regards, Phil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Anton,

You ask a very relevant question and proceed to answer it in an interesting manner. Many of your arguments seem original. For example you say, "though a broken egg doesn't unbreak, its evolution, its creation in fact comes down to unbreaking the egg." Took me a moment to understand your point but it is an excellent point.

You conclude, "if in a closed universe...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 09:34 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Nice to hear that you appreciate the essay, thanks!

As to whether ''the 'big bang-like' system could exhibit the zero energy of the 'self-creating universe''': a BBU is a universe which is conceived of as an ordinary object which has a beginning and has particular properties as a whole, which evolves in its entirety so here all particles have about the same birthday...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 02:22 GMT
Edwin,

I'd like to reformulate my (above) reply. Though Lawrence Krauss, in his book ''A Universe From Nothing: Why there is Something Rather than Nothing'' argues that a big bang universe is a zero energy universe, this is certainly not the case. He reasons that, in a flat universe, the sum of the (negative) potential energy of galaxy clusters due to gravity between them equals the kinetic...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear Anton

If so, how will is valid?

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 02:19 GMT
Hi Hoang,

If you know what you want, you calculate how to go about getting what you want, so you have no freedom but are the slave of what you want. If you don't know what you want to wish for so any choice is random, then there's no will involved.

Anton

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 11:00 GMT
Hello,Anton!

Excellent conclusion, I fully agree: "... we might try a different approach and replace causality with reason as a tool to understand our world. ‡"

Good luck! Regards, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anton Biermans replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 07:00 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for appreciating it!

Good luck to you too, Anton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:07 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


Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
Hi Anton -

Though I found your arguments a little hard to follow in places, that's not surprising, since you're taking a perspective much broader than usually attempted in physics. For the most part we have to take something about the universe as a given, to make sense of some other part... but I admire your unwillingness to do that. And I'm familiar in my own work with the difficulty of being clear and logical when trying to frame deep questions.

This intuition of yours I particularly relate to - "...any information particles contain is expressed and preserved in its exchange so there exists no information outside its communication..."

Best wishes -- Conrad

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 14:01 GMT
Anton,

My agreement with your argument a priori meant I had little trouble following it. Such 'out of the box' lateral thinking is important and seems sadly lacking in the doctrine of many building from mainstream assumptions.

I loved your phrase; "it's unlikely that nature doesn't know what it does, that there is no mechanism: though it may not know randomness, it does know uncertainty -an indefiniteness we mistake for randomness." also; "there's no initial low entropy, then the SLT just doesn't hold." and; "then the Higgs mechanism doesn't really explain anything." I'm certain you'll like my own essay, with the implicit cyclic cosmology model referred in previous entries.

I have one mild 'criticism'. in criticising reliance on causality you seem to reject the concept per se rather than just the MS interpretation of it. I find even an eternal cyclic model with time entirely 'apparent' and related to to gravitational effects as you suggest, still 'causal' in a key sense. The effects or relativity can then live happily with the quantum mechanism of pair production. Thing then do happen locally in a cyclic order, but not necessarily reversible. Can you agree with that? I think my own essay exposes it's 'massive' potential. I also hope to hear your views on that.

Very well written and incisive. I have you down for well earned a good score once the quantum uncertainty of FQXi cyberspace has been overcome and its entropy reversed!

Very best wishes and best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:44 GMT
Hi Peter,

The problem I have with cyclic cosmology is that if when one universe disappears in a big crunch and nothing is left, then there can be no relation to a subsequent big bang like universe. If a universe which creates itself out of nothing obeys the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then there's nothing left after the big crunch to serve...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 17:17 GMT
Anton,

There's no such problem with the real physical recycling model. Take a close look at Active Galactic Nuclii. I've studied them for some time. They are at once SMBH's, the core of all galaxies, the power behind quasars, and the accretion force which draws in all the old galactic matter, re-ionizes it and recycles it, mixing it with fresh matter from the field by ejection as quasar jets (the peak rate of the ubiquitous 'outflows'.

No matter is lost, just broken down by the toroid 'nuclear tokamac' energy of the AGN. When spent they rune out of matter and orbital angular momentum. In a consistent galactic model based on intrinsic rotation the long streak of matter all starts to rotate on the perpendicular axis to form the next open spiral, the start of the new cycle. The 4% matter fraction may not be constant but increase!

The galaxy cycle seems to average around 9 Bn years. There is evidence the universe may be a larger version with a far longer period. A couple of interesting relevant papers here;

Recycling Model (Short version).

http://astrobites.org/2013/06/07/cartography-of-the
-local-cosmos/?

Universe dynamics, and; Short Video of flow pattern.

This does rather suggest a change to certain assumptions is needed.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 21:11 GMT
Anton,

I wondered if you followed and enjoyed my links above, or have managed to read my essay. I'm sure you will enjoy it. Please ignore the dense abstract that's put some off, as it does come highly recommended from blog posts, including; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc.

I still believe yours has been greatly undervalued and hope my boost helps.

Very best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Anton,

A very thought provoking essay. The comments on here seem to agree with this. Some great discussion too! I see what you are suggesting about a Universe from nothing.

When you say such a Universe can't recycle because it doesn't leave anything to seed a successive Universe, I'd have to agree with you - that's precisely what is left - nothingness, so it can seed another Universe. But I see what you mean, that there can't be a relationship between these Universes information wise, and also temporally.

Makes sense - good work!

Pleased to "meet" you & best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear Anton,

I have read with care your latest comment that you left on my post and tried to understand it as well as I possibly could. Your ideas are subtle and interesting; though I wonder if you will agree, that the manner in which you describe them, they are at a heuristic level, and a mathematical formulation of the same would be very welcome.

If it can be shown with formalism and equations, that randomness originates not in probabilities but through the very nature of particle interactions, as you suggest, and if this can be done consistently with the empirical predictions of quantum field theory and microscopic quantum theory, that will be very interesting indeed.

I am afraid this is the best I can offer at the moment.

I hope I can soon make time to read your essay.

With regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:40 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thank you very much for replying to my post (of 19 July) on your thread even if it is on my thread. Though I agree that ideas must be quantified in equations so they can be put to test, before quantifying things and risk wasting time on flawed ideas, I first have to make sure that they don't lead to contradictions, that they are philosophically, rationally sound and might...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:38 GMT
Hi Anton,

WOW, a kindred spirit to the core! Your understanding of 'true' causality has been substantiated by the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently completed. Naturally, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

I hope you do well in the competition.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:48 GMT
Hello 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


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 01:26 GMT
Dear Anton,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
Dear Anton,

You have clearly exposed the limitations of the SLT and more so the applicability of the law of causality from many perspectives and vividly explaining their invalidity under different conditions. Your criticism of the validity of the Higg’s field/ mechanism in accounting for the masses of elementary particles is worth noting. Causality and arrow of time seem to have meaning only in the context of gravity and without gravity the notion of causality becomes obscure in physics. In the contest between It and Bit you have given priority to It than Bit there by siding with the objective reality of the world and not siding with Wheeler. You have given good reasons for this. Similar sort of conclusion is reached by me in my essay, when I say “Bit comes from It”.

You have presented your views in a logically consistent manner and I appreciate you for that. So I want to give an excellent rating to your well-knit essay.

Thanks for visiting my site and posting your constructive comments on my essay and I have replied to your comments there.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:53 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.