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

Willard Mittelman: on 8/9/13 at 3:52am UTC, wrote Hi Doug, I apologize for being so late in responding to your...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 23:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Willard - I enjoyed your essay very much and rated it highly. I would...

Charles Card: on 8/6/13 at 4:00am UTC, wrote Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read I am sending to you...

George Kirakosyan: on 8/1/13 at 8:38am UTC, wrote Dear Willard, I find your essay as one serious review/analytical work that...

Douglas Singleton: on 7/29/13 at 10:26am UTC, wrote Hi Willard, I finally had a chance to at least glance at your essay and it...

Jonathan Dickau: on 7/26/13 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote I shall be having at this one over the weekend, Willard.. Given your...

Willard Mittelman: on 7/26/13 at 17:36pm UTC, wrote "Anonymous" is me (Willard Mittelman); I forgot that I had logged out!

Anonymous: on 7/26/13 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote I would like to correct a significant error in my essay. Instead of saying...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Cosmological Constant Problem, Holography, de Broglie Waves, and Dark Energy: The Relevance of Information by Willard Mittelman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Willard Mittelman wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 16:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

The role of information is explored in a cosmological context. It is argued that this role is indeed a fundamental one, though not more fundamental than that of material entities. Beginning with the cosmological model of Barrow and Shaw, in which there are vestiges of Wheeler’s “it from bit” idea, we move on to consider information’s relevance to both the holographic entropy bound in cosmology and the current accelerated expansion of our universe.

Author Bio

Graduated from Michigan State University and received a PhD in philosophy from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). Since 1999 has lived in Athens, Georgia, working for the University of Georgia, as well as doing research as an independent scholar.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 16:15 GMT
Respectfully Willard,

According to website: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Planck/Planc
k_reveals_an_almost_perfect_Universe: “The extraordinary quality of Planck’s portrait of the infant Universe allows us to peel back its layers to the very foundations, revealing that our blueprint of the cosmos is far from complete. Such discoveries were made possible by the unique technologies developed for that purpose by European industry,” says Jean-Jacques Dordain, ESA’s Director General.”

Everything in the occurring Universe is unique and can only happen once. All technology is unique. All information obtained from technology is not unique; therefore, all information is unrealistic.

The satellite could not have gained its unreliable information from the “whole” sky because the eternally occurring real Universe is located in one real infinite dimension.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 16:20 GMT
Joe Fisher wrote the above comment. It is ridiculous with the "anonymous" nonsense. It keeps removing me without notification. What am I supposed to do. Keep signing in every minute I am at this site?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Thanks for your comment, Joe. I don't know why you'd get logged out with notice; maybe you could report the problem to someone at FQXi.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Thank you Willard. I have reported it for the past four years of essay competitions, every time it has happened. Nothing has ever come of my complaints.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 20:31 GMT
Willard,

Welcome back to FQXi! I was happy to see your conclusion that, even if the B&S model should prove correct, this would not show information to be more "fundamental" than the objects that constitute our universe, and appreciated your reasoning on that point.

It is interesting to see the types of problems that arise when one considers information in terms of a universal wave function [in the B&S model]: infinite phase wave velocity, zero distance between arbitrary points of space-time, waves with zero energy, "information energy", entanglement between elements of space-time, and the need to explain the relation between Planck-scale area and large-scale volume.

My model is the other side of the coin -- local quantum theory derived from universal gravity, based on the generalized quantum flow principle required by consistency. In this case quantum phenomena are essentially particle-based and macro phenomena are classical, avoiding the need for a universal wave function and viewing information as simply energy transfer until and unless a threshold is crossed 'registering' the 'information' via a change in formation of a structure. We seem to have covered both of the extreme possibilities!

Interestingly, I just read the essay by Alexei Grinbaum with a new take on these problems. I highly recommend it.

Good to see you back and good luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 21:04 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate both your cordiality and your ability to find something in my paper that you could agree with, given that we're pretty much poles apart, as you note, on some major issues.

Thanks also for the tip regarding Alexei Grinbaum's article. So far, I've only glanced briefly at your paper and haven't had time to give it a careful reading; but I did find it very interesting and well-written- you did an excellent job!

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 20:12 GMT
Hello Willard,

I've just read and rated your very, very interesting essay. I particularly liked how you related Dark energy to information. Also that you concluded that Bit wouldn't be more fundamental than It.

I think our essays don't contradict each other, moreover, my essay on the Fibonacci sequence also is based on horizons. In my case Event Horizons, in yours observation horizons on a cosmological scale.

Well done and good luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Hi Antony,

I left a comment over at your paper.

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 12:39 GMT
Hello Willard,

Thanks for your comment & also your essay. I've read it again as I found it so interesting, I like the large scale nonlocality that you describe.

All the very best,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 02:16 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have discussed Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment in our essay published on May 31, 2013 to show that the measurement process and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. Yet, when you say: “measurements made today can determine the past history of the universe”, you are correct. Measurement is always taken a time t, and the result is frozen for use at later times...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 21:56 GMT
Hello Basudeba,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I can't really do justice to them here, since they are so far-reaching and varied. However, I'll try to make a few miscellaneous points that may provide some degree of clarification and illumination.

To begin with, dark energy is "dark" not because it doesn't interact at all, but because it interacts only gravitationally (or...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Dear Sir,

What exactly is anti-gravity? Is there any theory for it like that for gravity or it is something different? Is it like anti-proton that gets annihilated when it comes into contact with proton? If so, why gravity and antigravity annihilate each other? If it is not like anti-proton, how is it different from gravity? Is it a repulsive force? Then it must be something totally...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
To say that dark energy is "anti-gravitational" is just to say that its associated pressure is negative and hence has a repulsive effect. This pressure is a force; and though it exists at all only because dark energy exists, it is not identical with this energy.

Regards,

Willard Mittelman

Bookmark and Share



John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT
Willard,

Fine essay. I incorporated discussion of DeBroglie-Bohm in my paper as well. So if Information ~= Dark Energy, but Information can have "no physical effect", is the "acceleration" (i.e. physical movement) an 'illusory' effect enacted by Information on our perceptions? Sorry if that question doesn't make total sense, just trying to wrap my head around the conclusion. Thank You!

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Hi John,

Thanks for the question, which does make sense. The thing is, though, I don't actually mean to equate dark energy with information, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that I was equating them. The point I was trying to make is that, even though dark energy itself (and its associated pressure) is not reducible to information, its total magnitude at a given time is determined by both (i)the global distribution-pattern of the Planckian spacetime volume-fluctuations occurring at a given time, and (ii) the total amount of these fluctuations. (By "global" here, I mean "ranging over the entire spacetime volume of the universe.") These two determining factors, I suggest, represent "informational inputs" from which dark energy is obtained as an "output." Hence, information is of great importance in connection with dark energy, but it is not equivalent to the latter.

There is, arguably, an energy of information itself, an energy that is not available for doing work; and I speculated that this sort of energy can be attributed to (superluminal) de Broglie phase waves, thereby allowing us to regard these waves as physically real, while at the same time justifying the claim that these waves don't give rise to any actual relativity-violating effects. This postulated information energy, however, is completely distinct from dark energy.

Hope this helps. I look forward to reading your essay soon.

Best Wishes,

Willard

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Willard

The Relativity theory cause too many conflicts, when you try to reduce conflicts by accepting dark energy and "non-material" may cause more conflict problem - we will be running 'round circle "around the truth.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 17:17 GMT
Before pronouncing relativity dead, it might be worthwhile to read the following article, which just recently appeared on the arXiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6071

The author is Mohammed Sharifi, and the title is "Invariance of spooky action at a distance in quantum entanglement under Lorentz transformation."

Sharifi's emphasis on the infinite phase velocity of the wave function of an entangled system (in the system's rest frame), as well as his view that such a system should be treated as a single entity, fits perfectly with the ideas laid out in my essay here. In addition, he argues that quantum mechanics and relativity actually "cooperate" here, rather than being in conflict; and he notes that the phase velocity plays the same role in quantum mechanics that the speed of light plays in relativity. Furthermore, his discussion of information (on p. 15) gives his paper special relevance to the topic of this essay contest.

I highly recommend a reading of his paper, especially for those who want a fuller understanding of the issues raised in my own essay.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:36 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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:26 GMT
Willard,

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


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Willard

My theory using a new basis should certainly not use the old basics - because reality shows: they are irrational and can not afford to specify for all problem.

Anyway, appreciate your advice.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 02:52 GMT
Hi Willard,

I found in your conclusion, "the wave's energy is purely information energy" reflective of the findings of a 12 year experiment which serves as the basis of my essay. Although you have a different approach to information than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit of which I have highly rated.

I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 12:49 GMT
Hello Willard,

Your description of Planck scale physics was interesting. I also make some arguments on that scale but using more of philosophy than physics. You may view.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:50 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for making me aware of your interesting and well-written article. I liked your use of monads.

Best wishes,

Willard

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:35 GMT
I would like to correct a significant error in my essay. Instead of saying that the waves associated with spacetime "bits" become entangled with each other, I should have described these waves as soliton-like entities that may "merge" or "fuse" to form superpositions that are NOT characterized by entanglement. Properties of the "composite particles" that result from such superpositions -- properties such as mass, energy and momentum -- are obtained by simply adding together the masses, energies and momenta of the individual bits that constitute these compound particles. This sort of merger or fusion of individual entities has been described by Agung Budiyono in "On de Broglie's soliton wave function of many particles with finite masses, energies and momenta" (arXiv:quant-ph/0510117).

The idea of entanglement is the wrong one for describing the sort of composite particles that I have in mind here, due to the "monogamy" that prevents entangled systems from forming new entanglements with additional wave-particles. The effects of entanglement that are discussed in my essay -- namely, reduction in the number of degrees of freedom, and entropy arising from information-erasure at cosmological horizons -- are still present when the idea of entanglement is replaced by that of merger/superposition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:36 GMT
"Anonymous" is me (Willard Mittelman); I forgot that I had logged out!

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
I shall be having at this one over the weekend, Willard..

Given your relatively low placement and my respect for your past work; I shall endeavor to read through and give an uplifting rating to your essay. I wish you good luck in the contest.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:26 GMT
Hi Willard,

I finally had a chance to at least glance at your essay and it has some interesting ideas which I had some questions/comments on. First the jumping off point is is the work by Barrow and Shaw which I was not aware of but seems important in what I gather they say from your essay. In this model there is an effective c.c. Lambda which is the product of some effective lambda plus...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Willard Mittelman replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 03:52 GMT
Hi Doug,



I apologize for being so late in responding to your stimulating comments and thoughts; but hopefully, it's still better late than never! I had written a somewhat lengthy response earlier, but for some reason it wouldn't post; so, I'm going to try a condensed version to see if I can get anything posted.

Taking your "further unrelated question" first, my "N" is related to that of causal set theory, in which N is the total number of causet elements (CEs) in the four-volume constituted by the past light cone of a suitable observer. This number is way too large for each CE to be a degree of freedom (dof), and hence it is not of the same magnitude as the cosmological entropy S. However, on my account, the number of uncanceled volume-fluctuations of CEs, which is on the order of N's square root at any given time t, is roughly comparable to S. (I don't view these uncanceled CEs as actual dof's, but they are, in some ways, "something like" dof's, at least).

I agree with your point about the desirability of unifying inflation and late-time dark energy, and I find your idea of linking inflation with Hawking radiation very interesting. My own account of dark energy appeals to the nature of discrete spacetime and its fluctuations, which may also be relevant to the explanation of inflation, as your own work suggests. Of course, the particular aspects of discrete spacetime that are crucial to inflation may be (partly) different than those connected with dark energy; but even so, there's still a significant amount of "unification" here.

Good luck, and regards,

Willard

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Willard,

I find your essay as one serious review/analytical work that I am inclined to rate in good score (after some more study). Main intriguing thing for me that you gives first significance of the real/material than the information (and moreover, to a binary encoded version of it, in form of ,,bits,,) I am working on some different direction (actually, somewhere between physics and philosophy.) But I am very hope that we have many common perception to right scientific methodology. I hope my work Essay text may be in your interest (despite its different task.) I hope we can soon mutually to complete our opinions. Welcome to my forum.

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 04:00 GMT
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
Dear Willard - I enjoyed your essay very much and rated it highly.

I would like to home in on a particular issue that you raised in your essay regarding “Dark” photons. This idea is proposed in my essay on subtime as exactly what is going on in the process of entanglement. Photons do land, but they are then “returned” to the source, creating a perpetual “hot potato”. I would love to hear your thoughts on my description of the two slit experiment as contrasted to your conclusion below:

“In the present context, this wave’s close association with information suggests a different possibility: namely, the wave’s energy is purely “information energy,” which means [18] that it is not available for doing work – or more specifically, it is not able to affect anything other than the spacetime elements with which the phase wave itself is inseparably connected. This would seem to rule out the phase wave’s having any observable, relativity-violating effects; but it does not support the idea that this wave is unphysical. (It should be noted that information energy’s being unavailable for doing work is not tantamount to its being effectively “dark,” pace [18], and hence it does not provide a basis for viewing information energy itself as dark energy.)”

I will follow up and read your reference 18 by Gough et al.

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).

Kind regards, Paul

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.