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

Keith Berger: on 6/1/18 at 11:45am UTC, wrote Hi there, You have shared useful information. Keep up the good work. This...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Angelo, Saikat, and Tejinder, I have now finished reviewing all 180...

Israel Perez: on 8/5/13 at 22:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Colleagues I enjoyed reading your excellent essay which I found it...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 17:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh, We are at the end of...

M. Vasilyeva: on 8/3/13 at 13:00pm UTC, wrote This post got lost yesterday; here it is again: Distinguished Professors, ...

Héctor Gianni: on 8/2/13 at 18:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh: ...

Héctor Gianni: on 8/2/13 at 18:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh: ...

john selye: on 8/2/13 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


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
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Information and the foundations of quantum theory by Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

We believe that the hypothesis `it from bit' originates from the assumption that probabilities have a fundamental, irremovable status in quantum theory. We argue against this assumption and highlight four well-known reformulations / modifications of the theory in which probabilities and the measuring apparatus do not play a fundamental role. These are: Bohmian Mechanics, Dynamical Collapse Models, Trace Dynamics, and Quantum Theory without Classical Time. Here the `it' is primary and the `bit' is derived from the `it'.

Author Bio

Angelo Bassi works on foundations of quantum mechanics and has a Ph.D. degree in Physics from University of Trieste. After completing post-docs at ICTP and LMU, Munich he joined University of Trieste as faculty. Saikat Ghosh obtained his doctoral degree from Cornell, and after completing post-docs at MIT and Cornell he is now faculty at IIT Kanpur. He is an experimental physicist with interests in quantum optics, precision spectroscopy, quantum measurement and information theory. Tejinder Singh is Professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai. His research interests are in quantum gravity and foundations of quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Tejinder Singh,

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

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:42 GMT
Thank you Sreenath. I will read your essay.

Bookmark and Share


Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 06:35 GMT
Dear prof. Tejinder singh,

Thanks for producing an excellent essay which is highly thought provoking and equally original in its content. I am beginning to wonder whether both GTD/CSL and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM are ‘diametrically opposite’ views; where GTD/CSL move from past to future as in classical physics and hence give priority to It in QM, whereas Copenhagen interpretation moves from future to past and give priority to Bit although both describe the same reality from opposite ends/ directions. The Copenhagen interpretation due to its stance is ‘queer’ in the sense that it thinks of controlling past from the future and thereby controlling the future itself which irritates any classical physicist, but GTD/CSL do not give credence to such views and in this sense preferable.

Best of luck in the contest,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I broadly agree with your viewpoint about Copenhagen versus CSL/GTD. It all comes down to whether we are willing to accept probabilities as fundamental in a system which does not have an underlying sample from which to select.

Regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 05:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Tejinder singh sab,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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

I failed mainly because I worked against the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:44 GMT
Thank you Dr.Gupta. I will read your essay.

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 10:19 GMT
Resp Prof Tejinder sir,

I replied your COMMENTS put on my essay yesterday. I hope you will see those and discuss...

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear Prof. Tejinder Singh et al,

Your essay is beautiful, deep, and well written. You made justice to alternatives to QM like GRW, Bohmian mechanics, and trace dynamics, in which you have important contributions. In particular, despite Weinberg's arguments that it is impossible to make quantum evolution even slightly non-unitary, in the context of gravity, it might be difficult (although maybe not completely impossible) to maintain unitary evolution (because of the nonlinearity of general relativity). By your essay, you shown that one should not rush to give up the hope of a realistic description of the world, although to keep realism, I advocate a small change. Due to results like Bell's and Kochen-Specker's, and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, I find difficult to preserve the picture of a pre-existing reality, if "reality" has the same meaning as in classical physics. I would rather say that reality, or the initial conditions, depends on the context, on what property will be measured, so reality has to be constrained by a global consistency principle. A deeper understanding of reality is needed, but giving it up altogether, as Wheeler's "it from bit" suggests, seems too radical to me, or at least too early. I consider that it is great that you explore and advocate ways to maintain it.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Thank you Cristi, for your kind and thought provoking remarks. I readily agree to the non-local nature of realism, and the possibly far-reaching implications this could have for causality. Our principle discomfiture is with the pre-given status of probabilities in quantum theory.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 05:17 GMT
Dear three friends

A group of very well coordinated - that little thing here - but I really do not understand your conclusion : " But we believe that "it from bit " is not a real option. "Bit" always refers to a pre-existing "it" [Figure 2]. This is the meaning of "bit". All confusion comes from inverting the order of "bit" and "it". When one starts the right way with the "it", then all problems evaporate."

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 13:52 GMT
Hello. Could you kindly elaborate what you did not understand. We are really concluding that bit follows from it, not the other way round.

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Professor Tejinder Singh et al,

Although our essays don't reach the same conclusion, I very much enjoyed your work - especially the 'Threefold way'. I like anything that turns It from Bit on it's head - something which you have excelled at! We should never just assume.

Best wishes & kind regards,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Thank you Anntony for your kind comments. I look forward to reading your essay - I am intrigued by the appearance of the Fibonacci sequence, and curious to learn more.

Best,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 07:44 GMT
Many thanks for your reply and comments over at my essay Tejinder. I've replied. Still thinking about the threefold way while reading other essays. Certainly got me thinking!

All the best for the contest & nice to "meet" you!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 17:05 GMT
Dr. Singh & Colleagues:

I enjoyed reading your essay, which provides a clear overview of various realism-based interpretations of quantum mechanics. I particularly noted your comment that "The greatest challenge to all the above four routes is that they are all non-relativistic." In that regard, you might be interested in looking at my essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ) in which I present a locally realistic quantum picture, whereby primary quantum particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks are soliton-like rotating relativistic vector fields with quantized spin, with rotation rate f=E/h (where E is the total relativistic energy). These constitute local clocks, which slow down when E is reduced in a gravitational field, thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement. Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 01:58 GMT
Greetings Alan, and nice to meet you here again. And thank you for your kind comments. I whole-heartedly agree that making these routes relativistic will bring in new physics. I look forward to reading your essay in the next few days.

Regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 05:14 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 @ 18:17 GMT
Dr. Singh & Colleagues,

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


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 18:08 GMT
You argue against probabilities having a 'fundamental, irremovable status in quantum theory'.

I think the layman's view of what your saying is that probabilities are not fundamental to the Cosmos, and there is therefore an absolute reality that we can know completely.

But the It-Bit question does not only pertain to the measurement of quanta, or the probabilities thereof - even if...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 17:41 GMT
Dear John,

Thank you for your constructive criticism which I fully accept: we have dealt with the it-bit question only in the limited context of quantum theory, and undoubtedly the scope and context of the matter-information relation is much larger. Perhaps it could be said we stayed within these limits because our training and expertise lies here. We might be out of our depth trying to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


john stephan selye replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Thanks Tejinder,

I appreciate your input - it does seem to me that the paradigm I've created does put your option (ii) in a context that makes the Cosmos fully accessible to classical, Bio-, and Neuro-Physics. I did rate your essay highly, and am looking forward to studying it again.

I look forward to hearing from you soon on my page,

All the best,

John.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 09:09 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Your essay is impeccable and well grounded. There are indeed many theoretical rats to smell as things currently stand. Your conclusion that Bit is from It also follows on one condition, which if correct will be a fatal oversight to that conclusion. Bit is short for any binary choice.

Bizarre as it may initially appear, Is existence/non-existence then one of the binary choices available? If not, why not if the universe as a whole exhibits this choice? (if our cosmology is correct). Can this Bit be denied other Its, if the universe is not denied this choice? If yes, then non-existence is one bit that does not require any It to carry it. Again, what other Bit can lie below this Bit? Would it not occupy the "very, very deep bottom" as Wheeler says? If there is actually some primordial substance, can a fundamental discrete It come from another It? Would it rather not be derived from this Bit mentioned?

So when you say, "…we believe that 'it from bit' is not a real option. 'Bit' always refers to a pre-existing 'it'", I can understand because obviously, the Binary choice I mention above does not come into your reckoning, or if it did, you don't want it included in the list of available Bits. As I claim in my essay however, it is likely that it is that Bit that will make "all problems evaporate" and not the contrary.

*Mind you, a few in this community have come to agree that this Bit should not be excluded from our list of Bits, with Ian Durham introducing another view (trying to find an escape route) in that he says probability can again dog that Bit, i.e. an It can hover between existence and non-existence.

I enjoy dialectic, so pardon my barrage of questions.

Whatever, your essay is a collector's item on how to rectify deficiencies in Quantum theory.

My essay is here as well, you may take a look.

Cheerio,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 05:26 GMT
Thank you Akinbo, for your kind appreciation, and also for your comments, which perhaps bear similarity with those by John Selye just above. I agree to the importance of the observer/existence aspect when the matter-information relationship is considered in its broadest perspective. My response would perhaps again be somewhat along the lines of the response to John’s comments.

I hope to see your essay soon.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear Angelo,

You wrote an excellent essay to introduce your RMP paper and more.

I don't really understand why your work contradicts the "it from bit" philosophy.

As you write in the RMP paper, QM is a theory of measurements and seems to have "nothing to say about the world as it is". So, in the range of validity of QM, the "bit from it" makes no sense. On the other hand, QM says a lot about observer participancy and the existence of objects, and finally about the "it".

Is it that you reject QM in the microrange? In that case, you would have to explain many exotic quantum properties, from non-locality to entanglement and contextuality, am I right?

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Dear Michel,

Thank you for your kind appreciation and interesting comments.

To put in perspective the remark you quote from our RMP paper we reproduce here the entire paragraph in which that sentence appears:

"

Quantum mechanics, in its standard textbook formulation, refers only to the outcomes of measurements, but it has nothing to say about the world as it is,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 10:01 GMT
Dear Angelo,

You write

"Here the it comes first [it being the particle / wave-function / matrix] and is well-defined even before the measurement is made."

This is where, according to quantum mechanics and the theory of measurements, I think, you are wrong. At least, now, I understand why your view contradicts the "it from bit" philosophy.

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 02:20 GMT
Angelo, Saikat, & Tejinder,

I am somewhat familiar with Bohm QM, less so with dynamic collapse and I will have to read on trace dynamics. I did read something a while back about how dynamic collapse runs into some difficulties.

Bohm QM works well enough for systems with quantum observables that have a direct correspondence with classical mechanics. Bohm’s QM does not work very well without a classical-quantum correspondence. BQM contrary to what is commonly said does work in a relativistic setting. You can write the Klein-Gordon equation in real and imaginary parts, just as with the Schrodinger equation. What becomes troublesome is when you try to do interacting QFT. There is no natural ladder of states from which to describe the production of massive particles. As a result there is no workable BQM form of QED.

These approaches to QFT, which are really forms of quantum interpretations, are minority reports. I did some work on quantum chaos where I used BQM. I used it because it is close to a classical description and is convenient for working Hamiltonian chaos. The response was not good, largely because of the Bohm part. I kept trying to argue that there is nothing erroneous with the writing the wave function in polar form, separating the Schrodinger equation into real and imaginary parts and so forth. BQM is admittedly weak in some respects, but it is not wrong. I don’t think BQM can replace standard QM, nor do I think it is likely the others will either. Yet they have their niche.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your interest in our work and for reading our essay.

We do not quite understand what you mean by your remark:

"Bohm QM works well enough for systems with quantum observables that have a direct correspondence with classical mechanics. Bohm’s QM does not work very well without a classical-quantum correspondence.”

What we have said in our...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 02:29 GMT
Angelo, Saikat, & Tejinder,

The information as embodied in particle properties (which can be thought of as internalized rules of behavior, the expression of laws of physics) in a self-creating universe must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution. If fundamental particles have to create themselves, each other and particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, then particles, particle properties, 'its' must be as much the source as the product of their interactions, both cause and effect of a continuous energy / information exchange, then information only can evolve, become information when molded into material particles and tested in actual particle interactions: only such information survives which enables its embodiments to survive, to manifest themselves as real particles. So I don't see how you can have one without (before?) the other, how one can be more fundamental than the other.

Regards, Anton

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear Anton,

We are not sure we understand your remarks. Perhaps you refer to a very broad context as to how information relates to matter, interactions and space-time. We have addressed only one aspect of that very broad issue: how the interpretation / understanding of probabilities in quantum theory can dictate the primacy of it over bit or vice versa.

Best regards,

Authors

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Bohm QM is basically the Schrodinger equation split into a real and imaginary part. There is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the real part that includes this quantum potential term

-∂S/∂t = H – (ħ^2/2m)∇^2R/R

for the wave function ψ = Re^{-iS/ħ}. That quantum potential is associated with the guidance equation. There is an imaginary part which is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Angelo, Saikat and Tejinder,

I enjoyed reading the overview of the three alternatives to orthodox quantum mechanics. I did not previously know much about trace dynamics, so it was good to find out a bit more about it. It would have been nice if the experimental tests hinted at in the article would have been described a little, possibly including an expected date (if known) for when they are expected to be performed. Also, one might ask if it is possible to motivate the theories a little more. Obviously nature does not need to heed our prejudices, but it would be nice if she could be understood at the most fundamental level in a way that makes sense.

I wish you all the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 10:15 GMT
Dear Armin,

Thank you for reading our essay and for your comments.

The experiments have been going on since the nineties, and have put useful bounds on the theories. If you like you could see our recent review article in

Reviews of Modern Physics 85 (2013) 471

also available at

http://arXiv.org/abs/arXiv:1204.4325

where we discuss these experiments in detail, as also the motivations for the theories.

Best regards,

Authors

Bookmark and Share



Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,

Your argument for an underlying deterministic basis for quantum theory is novel and very well presented!

Using a Bohmian approach necessitates that there is an underlying quantum wholeness in which absolute probabilities are defined for every possible outcome. One way to approach this is by using quantum information theory.

The emergence of classical spacetime from coarse graining classical matrix dynamics thus depends upon the conditional entropy of the observer. The measurement process arises out of her ignorance that this is just another aspect of dynamic evolution. Essentially, she erases the entanglement information of the underlying quantum wholeness. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate It and Bit".)

In this way, paralleling your theory, the "it" arises from the "bit".

Best wishes,

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Richard,

Thanks for your kind comments, and your remarks, which actually I am still trying to understand. From the classical matrix dynamics viewpoint, we are suggesting the `it’ to be primary. All else - quantum theory, measurement, and the probabilities and the `bit’ are treated as emergent. I will do my best to read your essay soon and try to understand what you refer as a `parallel scenario’.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 02:58 GMT
Hi Angelo, Saikat, & Tejinder,

Yes, my critique (and essay) is about what makes information into information as an answer to this question may give a clue as to whether nature at quantum level is random or not. I wonder if the following reasoning might make sense, and I would very much appreciate your answer.

In classical mechanics (in general relativity and big bang cosmology)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
post approved


Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 03:02 GMT
Hi Angelo, Saikat, & Tejinder,

Yes, my critique (and essay) is about what makes information into information as an answer to this question may give a clue as to whether nature at quantum level is random or not. I wonder if the following reasoning might make sense, and I would very much appreciate your answer.

In classical mechanics (in general relativity and big bang cosmology)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anton Biermans replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thank you very much for replying to my post 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 possibly agree with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 18:53 GMT
Dear Dr. Tejinder Singh,

I like your multifaceted approach and questioning of the concept of probability. One of my goals is to topple the uncertainty principle as a way to make physics "rational". I think I have made a good start with my essay. It would be wonderful to get your comments on my work, so please visit my blog.

I am on my way to give your work a good mark.

Thanks for the thoughtful essay,

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 12:43 GMT
Dear Don,

Greetings and thanks for your kind comments. I very much hope to see your essay in the next few days.

Best,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 02:10 GMT
Tejinder et al,

Nice! We are in full agreement that "it" is primary, i.e., IT may have an existence independent of BIT. Whether it *chooses* to do so, however, is the crux of the important question you ask:

"When is an apparatus classical? Strictly speaking, we do not quite know." And we never have known at what point quantum phenomena are supposed to "smooth out" to become classical; quantum theory is simply incoherent if not infinitely extended. How, then, can it be both coherent and probabilistic?

Reading the comments, we disagree that Bohmian mechanics is to be preferred over many worlds. A bifurcating multiverse is more satisfying to me because it preserves the topological simple connectedness that I conjecture is necessary to information conservation and classical time reversibility.

No matter -- superb job, as always!

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Thanks a lot Tom,

One thing that always puzzles me about many worlds is the Born probability rule. If the wave function eternally exists in a linearly superposed state without collapsing then why do observers associate probabilities with measurements? I really do not know the answer to this.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous replied on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
Hi Tejinder,

Sorry I neglected to follow up till now. I think observers associate probabilities with the measurement process because perfect information (the complete Gaussian normal distribution) is never available to an observer; an "It" continuum of wave functions from which bit things are derived has no "thingness" itself, with which to associate bounded entities. This is the principle which makes linear superposition and Bayesian analytical methods attractive -- e.g., a spinning die of six sides assigns equally likely probability to each of the sides when observed at rest.

A relative two-state universe, though (such as my essay describes), is always in a state of rest relative to every observer. This is why I don't find Everett's hypothesis so quirky -- a multitude of observers sharing one spacetime domain of continuous IT get to choose which BITs are bound variables and which remain free variables. While the bound variables come with probability 1.0 for manifest reality (quantum unitarity), IT continua don't as a result become nonlocal or in superposition -- other observers choose different bits -- so wave function collapse is illusion. As Wheeler put it: "The asking of one question precludes the asking of another." By these criteria, bifurcating answers produce new initial conditions creating new universes. These universes don't communicate (i.e., exchange physical influences) because -- like the fermions in Pauli's exclusion principle -- they cannot occupy the same state at the same time.

Although Wheeler -- who introduced Everett's hypothesis to the larger physics world -- eventually rejected it himself, I find it perfectly compatible with "Bit from It," the inverse of Wheeler's proposition. I recently found that the existence of two indefinite states implies three definite states, which gives the observer a place to stand in relation to the quantum bit.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 16:18 GMT
Dear Tejinder

Thank you for an excellent, interesting, informative and eminently sensible essay, well organized and written in a clear easily read style.

I agree that only considering outcomes is wrong, although partly for different reasons. If a measurement is an *output* then surely it must also provide information on the input, which we may obtain only if we understand the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

Greetings again, thanks for your kind appreciation and incisive comments whichI enjoyed reading. I fully agree that the `bit from it’ we propose may not be the final answer and is restricted to the non-relativisitc regime [as for Copenhagen, honestly i am very happy to get rid of it!]. I am convinced that a consistent unification of special relativity and quantum theory will bring great surprises [and here I do not mean quantum gravity in the sense of bringing in gravity] but ssh the relation between light-cone structure and Minkowski space-time on the one hand, and the very real quantum non locality on the other.

I will definitely read your essay soon.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 17:59 GMT
Distinguished Professors,

"Here the `it' is primary and the `bit' is derived from the `it'." This my essay agrees with but not with such weighty arguments as yours.

Research published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, which I read the abstract of, speaks of classical time and quantum time approximations and putting that prediction to test by lab experiments that attempt to construct superposed states of macroscopic objects. For someone with my limited background, that seems impossible at the macro level. I probably would have difficulty following this approach but I am quite curious.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear James,

There is a school of thought according to which, if you could isolate a macro-object sufficiently then you can superpose it in different position states. `Isolate’ here means cut off the noise (environment) which acts like an impurity. For instance, according to this school, it should be possible to perform a double slit experiment with billiard balls and observe an interference pattern of fringes, given sufficient isolation and sufficiently advanced technology. Something like this is actually being done in the lab nowadays, not with billiard balls, but very large molecules. If quantum theory is exact, one day it will work for billiard balls [technology]. If quantum theory is approximate, we will one day see a breakdown [no interference] if the interfering object becomes larger thame critical size.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Tejinder,

My essay speaks of molecules being used in the 2-slit experiment but I don't see that as the same as ascribing subatomic behavior to macro items. I would be curious to see your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:24 GMT
Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:28 GMT
Professor Singh

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

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Thank you Than Tin, for your comments and for explaining the duality viewpoint adapted in your essay.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:04 GMT
Hello Prof. Singh.

You and your colleagues have produced a good essay on a tough subject, moreover, you have made it intelligible for the layman, and that's a bonus. I have found in my work that deterministic rules can give rise to effects which can be seen by those unfamiliar with the rules as being driven by probability. It's refreshing to see the presumption that puts the rules of probability at the root of quantum mechanics still being questioned. Just because we are yet to bring to bear on the problem a set of concrete deterministic rules doesn't mean there are none. The only query I have is with regard your use of the word "evolution", which implies something more than just a progression, however recursive complex or stochastic it may be. I am also wondering whether you have taken into consideration that a quantum entity has an environment with which it can not avoid interacting, and this whether it is classical or otherwise.

Regards.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Zoran,

Thank you for your kind appreciation, and your very interesting comments. Your own outlook towards probability is refreshing and insightful.

Evolution versus progression: by evolution we meant, in the conventional sense, an arrow of time provided by the classical world: a consequence of initial conditions at the Big Bang, which for reasons we do not understand today, was an initial state of extraordinarily low entropy. It is an important point you raise - as to how this `flow of time’ and the associated arrow is influenced/shaped by the proposed stochasticity in the modified quantum theory.

The environment: yes we agree that this is undoubtedly present, but the considerations presented in our essay are independent of the environment. The collapse of the wave-function during a quantum measurement is a result of the stochastic modification of quantum theory, and would take place independent of whether the environment is there or not.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Zoran Mijatovic replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 01:16 GMT
Prof. Singh,

Thank you for responding to my questions. I hope you have time to read and comment on my essay (1814).

Regards and good luck.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear prof. Tejinder Singh,

I have rated your essay on 2nd July with highest honors and it is time if you have not yet rated my essay will you, please, rate it now and inform me.

Thanks and all the best,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:28 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 04:25 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Enjoying your excellent Essay, I wonder if the following comment might help in your future work.

In my Essay, "collapse" is shown to be a convenient mathematical short-cut; see footnote 6, page 6.

Studying EPRB and Bell-tests, I show that the "dynamics" attributed to "collapse" may be directly associated with such underlying deterministic processes as "spin-torque-precession." The related theory is thus relativistically covariant.

With best regards; Gordon Watson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh:

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

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:20 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh:

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

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh:

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

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
This post got lost yesterday; here it is again:

Distinguished Professors,

thank you for your wonderful essay and for making it accessible to a nonspecialist like myself -- that you can describe the problem in accessible terms is the sure sign of clarity with which you approach the subject. I especially appreciated your essay, because it restored my faith in quantum physicists' grasp on reality. I often found it shocking to see how highly educated professionals appeared unable to distinguish the underlying _reality_ from information which, in quantum theory, often comes down to derivations based on actual lack of information. All too often, rather than admitting insufficiencies in our current understanding, they insist on describing the underlying reality in terms of Copenhagen interpretation and in doing so show that they _actually_believe_ that what they describe is IT (!) I can't relate to you the degree of cognitive dissonance I have suffered as a result -- until I read your essay :)

I found your analysis of the problem impeccable and gave it the top rate.

Leaving your blog with enriched understanding of physics and renewed hope for the future,

-Marina

PS

In my essay I dare to poke fun at Copenhagen interpretation and measurement process (the last couple of pages) and sincerely hope it could give you a laugh or two.. .. and yes, I hope one of you could find time to read and comment on my essay. Thank you!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Colleagues

I enjoyed reading your excellent essay which I found it clarifying and thought provoking. I'd be happy if you could comment on the following issues.

Another contestant, Dr. McHarris also argues that behind the standard QM there is a nonlinear dynamics governing the micro and mesoworld. I wonder if you are following the same direction as him.

The other issue is time. You mention that time is a classical concept and therefore should be excluded from QM (which I disagree). I didn't have clear how the GTD will deal with the evolution of a system if time is not included. Is this GTD some of thermodynamical-like theory? I'd be grateful if you could comment a little more.

The other issue is that you don't have a relativistic theory. In such case, how will gravity will be included in your formulation. What role is gravity playing in your formulation? is it possible to derive Newtonian gravitation or GR from your theory?

As well, your theory tells us something at the Planck scale or below this scale?

Finally, some topic that you don't discuss and that is assumed in QM is the background dependence of the theory, which implies a preferred frame of reference. In your theory what physical entity represents this system of reference?

I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis.

I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
Dear Angelo, Saikat, and Tejinder,

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


Keith Berger wrote on Jun. 1, 2018 @ 11:45 GMT
Hi there, You have shared useful information. Keep up the good work. This blog is really interesting and gives rich details

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.