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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Paul Borrill**: *on* 8/7/13 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Chidi, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

**eAmazigh HANNOU**: *on* 8/5/13 at 23:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Chidi idika, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion,...

**Chidi Idika**: *on* 8/4/13 at 21:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Olaf, I find that some people are able to taste things raw and some...

**Marcoen Cabbolet**: *on* 8/4/13 at 16:55pm UTC, wrote Chidi, The best wishes for the contest! Marcoen

**Olaf Dreyer**: *on* 8/4/13 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Chidi: I was trying to understand your axioms but somehow I am...

**Chidi Idika**: *on* 8/4/13 at 11:41am UTC, wrote Dear Branko, Thank you for reading my essay ahead of my inquiry, I forgot...

**Chidi Idika**: *on* 8/4/13 at 11:33am UTC, wrote Dear Hugh, Thank you for reading my essay. I can immediately see a general...

**Chidi Idika**: *on* 8/4/13 at 11:17am UTC, wrote Dear Marcoen, I want to thank you very much. I do need to be more literal...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Jim Snowdon**: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

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

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

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

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

**Thermo-Demonics**

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

**Gravity's Residue**

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

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

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

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

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

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

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

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.

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.

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

FQXi FORUM

May 26, 2019

CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]

TOPIC: What a Wavefunction is by Chidi Idika [refresh]

TOPIC: What a Wavefunction is by Chidi Idika [refresh]

Quantum theory treats rigorously of observables while the term “observer” is hardly itself a rigorous notion. We argue that the uncertainty principle must be understood in the Gödel sense that: any given observer constitutes own practical definition of “the unobservable” (if superposition) or namely length scale, phase space, fundamental frequency etc. Conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values as, that is, the “wave function collapse” or respectively, inverse-length, phase-point, harmonics. One has thus a picture of the observer that in being participant is also non-local as in Gödel’s “consistency-is-undecidable” or Planck’s “the-constant-is-the-uncertainty” or indeed Einstein’s “speed-of-light-is-information-speed-limit”. Definitive of these three cases, we assert, is Peano’s (and Noether’s?) notion of the constant (our “observer”) as being for any gamut of events the meta-state (“conserved current”). Meaning now, it is the observer per se, and not his observables, which should constitute violation of Bell’s inequality—say, as the infinitesimal/imaginary axis or as the dimensionless/infinite-dimensional etc. We posit: any given observer signifies the virtual exchange of standard model or space-time of GR or just the metric (norm)—defined by the singular trait that it is the de facto “superposition” i.e. natural unit and natural limit of physical information. Observables emerge quite directly thus as the perturbations if “decoherence” or “spontaneous symmetry breaking” of the observer. Now this status of/or the observer we call rather the entity as against hitherto the uncertainty; difference is that we have an ontic as the uncertainty per se. For a prediction we show here an exact value demonstrating man as the entity or “natural unit” for quantum gravity. The idea is that in being to ourselves the most authentic sample of the term observer we should also represent to ourselves the purest sample possible of the term wave function.

Chidi Idika trained in mass communication at the University of Nigeria and also has trained and worked in pioneer graphics, media and print studios in Lagos. He grew up a bit of a tinkerer, deeply inspired by physics and science in general. After attempting to event what he incidentally found out is conceived by modern science as a perpetual motion machine and an impossibility he has sought to devise for himself a notion of energy that in the least could soothe his curiosity. And here he is excited about a thing called wave function.

Dear Chidi Idika,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract ,you mean Observer has no existence. . . .

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 main stream. The main stream community people want magic...

view entire post

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract ,you mean Observer has no existence. . . .

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 main stream. The main stream community people want magic...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thanks, Gupta.

But this abstract does not pretend to define "existence". It takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

If you actually read through you see the experimental basis for this assertion.

And i have read yor essay, Gupta. Thanks.

But this abstract does not pretend to define "existence". It takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

If you actually read through you see the experimental basis for this assertion.

And i have read yor essay, Gupta. Thanks.

Hello Chidi,

I think observer and observation do indeed need to be defined well and wavefunction. Sure you're probably busy reading others, but my essay is based losely around observation.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

I think observer and observation do indeed need to be defined well and wavefunction. Sure you're probably busy reading others, but my essay is based losely around observation.

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Antony,

I do not try to define a wavefunction any different from what is presently understood by this word in QM. I only by this paper try to give the wavefunction an ontology, namely as whatever it is we mean strictly by the term "observer".

This paper takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

But thanks, Anthony. I promise to see your essay.

I do not try to define a wavefunction any different from what is presently understood by this word in QM. I only by this paper try to give the wavefunction an ontology, namely as whatever it is we mean strictly by the term "observer".

This paper takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

But thanks, Anthony. I promise to see your essay.

Dear Chidi,

I see what you mean. I think that observer being thought of as unobservable to their selves is much how I envisage a singularity.

Good phrase!

Regards,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

I see what you mean. I think that observer being thought of as unobservable to their selves is much how I envisage a singularity.

Good phrase!

Regards,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Dear Antony,

Now let me explain in detail for the benefit of clarity. As a description from OUTSIDE this system possibly yes we could call this situation a singularity. But one could also describe this situation from WITHIN the system (and which I think is the more useful approach as a first principle). Then this situation will qualify physically as a LENGTH SCALE (think, “radiation...

view entire post

Now let me explain in detail for the benefit of clarity. As a description from OUTSIDE this system possibly yes we could call this situation a singularity. But one could also describe this situation from WITHIN the system (and which I think is the more useful approach as a first principle). Then this situation will qualify physically as a LENGTH SCALE (think, “radiation...

view entire post

Dear Chidi

The essay represents knowledge and extensive qualifications with a conclusion very close to reality - although the explanation is a bit complicated and difficult to identification - 5 points for you. According to Grading method (compared to my goal ) = 5 criteria with 2 points each : The idea actually,Similar views,Measures consistent,Conclusions detail,Applying diversity.

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

report post as inappropriate

The essay represents knowledge and extensive qualifications with a conclusion very close to reality - although the explanation is a bit complicated and difficult to identification - 5 points for you. According to Grading method (compared to my goal ) = 5 criteria with 2 points each : The idea actually,Similar views,Measures consistent,Conclusions detail,Applying diversity.

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

report post as inappropriate

Chidi,

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

Jim

report post as inappropriate

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

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Chidi, It is a very important idea to try to define what the observer is and I congratulate you on your brave attempt as someone who confesses to lack formal knowledge. Nevertheless you say many things that make sense. The ideas presented are very relevant to the contest. I hope you will enjoy reading other essays and will learn from the experience.

best, Phil

report post as inappropriate

best, Phil

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chide,

I read your essay with great interest. I appreciat that you nicely presented your view of observers in the Gödel sense and with a formal treatment. Your results seem to make sense and I would like to thank your for the effort.

Best wishes,

Brian

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay with great interest. I appreciat that you nicely presented your view of observers in the Gödel sense and with a formal treatment. Your results seem to make sense and I would like to thank your for the effort.

Best wishes,

Brian

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

Sorry I misspelled your name in the previous post.

All the best,

Brian

report post as inappropriate

Sorry I misspelled your name in the previous post.

All the best,

Brian

report post as inappropriate

Hello Chidi,

Just read your essay. Looks like a professional job coming from a non-physicist. I was getting lonely and you know why.

I have an essay here, you may take a look. Not as professional as yours though.

You can rate if you think it has some meaningful ideas. 9ja no carry last.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Just read your essay. Looks like a professional job coming from a non-physicist. I was getting lonely and you know why.

I have an essay here, you may take a look. Not as professional as yours though.

You can rate if you think it has some meaningful ideas. 9ja no carry last.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

I liked your essay not only because of its content and its format but also because of the purpose and aim behind it. You have attempted to combine ‘whole’ of physics under one banner called ‘wave-function’, where observer himself is the wave-function and you have ascribed some ‘potential’ to him; and thereby you have tried to derive both quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) on the basis of quantum gravity (QG) and it is this attempt of yours, I appreciate. You have done this on the basis of your 4 axioms, and have derived your 4th axiom from the first 3, but this is not allowed in logic because then the first 3 axioms become fundamental but not the 4th one (for an axiom to be fundamental, it must not be derivable from other axioms). So the first 3 axioms are enough to derive the whole of physics from your point of view. In my previous 2 essay contests, I too did the same thing of deriving both QT and GR from QG.

I would like you to read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. After that I will rate your innovative essay with a very good score. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Best regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I liked your essay not only because of its content and its format but also because of the purpose and aim behind it. You have attempted to combine ‘whole’ of physics under one banner called ‘wave-function’, where observer himself is the wave-function and you have ascribed some ‘potential’ to him; and thereby you have tried to derive both quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) on the basis of quantum gravity (QG) and it is this attempt of yours, I appreciate. You have done this on the basis of your 4 axioms, and have derived your 4th axiom from the first 3, but this is not allowed in logic because then the first 3 axioms become fundamental but not the 4th one (for an axiom to be fundamental, it must not be derivable from other axioms). So the first 3 axioms are enough to derive the whole of physics from your point of view. In my previous 2 essay contests, I too did the same thing of deriving both QT and GR from QG.

I would like you to read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. After that I will rate your innovative essay with a very good score. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Best regards,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your down to earth comment. Actually I was reading your essay. Got distracted by events around me. I find your essay educating and will certainly go through.

Regarding your opinion of my 4th axiom. look at it this way: there is nothing out of the first three axioms that says why or if we have to select one observer over all others. The 4th axiom does just that job; it says there can be one and only one DE FACTO observer.

Implication is that every observer is to its own self this VALID observer.

Thank you again, Sreenath. I sort of like probing questions. It helps us all think clearer.

All the best.

Chidi

Thank you for your down to earth comment. Actually I was reading your essay. Got distracted by events around me. I find your essay educating and will certainly go through.

Regarding your opinion of my 4th axiom. look at it this way: there is nothing out of the first three axioms that says why or if we have to select one observer over all others. The 4th axiom does just that job; it says there can be one and only one DE FACTO observer.

Implication is that every observer is to its own self this VALID observer.

Thank you again, Sreenath. I sort of like probing questions. It helps us all think clearer.

All the best.

Chidi

Chidi,

Tremendous essay, I believe much undervalued. Not just from the good clear writing style and organization, but way ahead of that for your conceptual analysis and proposition.

I came to; "The idea again is that spacetime (simultaneity or equality by any name) is simply the uncertainty or cut-off i.e. the observer per se and which observer per se as the phase-space is a non-trivial attribute..." and then smiled when I read; "...This may sound like a wild claim." No Chidi, not to me. You have just described a completely original view of a 'discrete field' model, (DFM) where not only each 'observer' but all inertial system of matter particles instantaneously localise light speed to their own c, conserving Snell's Law.

We must think similarly. I also discuss Godel, Huygens, psi, uncertainty etc. and define detection and observation. Having studied quantum optics I take a more practical mechanistic approach and show how a thesis founded (loosely perhaps) on your own has the power to resolve the Bell inequalities EPR paradox without FTL and spookyness.

The part closer to your own is better covered in my previous two essays (both Community 7th but passed over.) I hope to do better this year with important findings. I think my model proves your concept mechanistically, and included deriving curved space-time last year. That may sound like a very wild claim!, and you'll see I don't shy from other departures from common assumptions. I do hope you can read (and score!) mine soon and greatly look forward to your thoughts.

Yours has certainly earned a well deserved 10 score from me, with no 'allowance' needed for not being a 'professional' physicist. I have lots of qualifications but none mean anything more than my primary education and later work and research. You 'are' a physicist and an exceptional conceptual thinker. Those are the skills we need to extract us from this dark labyrinthine 'rut'. Congratulations on your work.

And sincerest best wishes in the competition.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Tremendous essay, I believe much undervalued. Not just from the good clear writing style and organization, but way ahead of that for your conceptual analysis and proposition.

I came to; "The idea again is that spacetime (simultaneity or equality by any name) is simply the uncertainty or cut-off i.e. the observer per se and which observer per se as the phase-space is a non-trivial attribute..." and then smiled when I read; "...This may sound like a wild claim." No Chidi, not to me. You have just described a completely original view of a 'discrete field' model, (DFM) where not only each 'observer' but all inertial system of matter particles instantaneously localise light speed to their own c, conserving Snell's Law.

We must think similarly. I also discuss Godel, Huygens, psi, uncertainty etc. and define detection and observation. Having studied quantum optics I take a more practical mechanistic approach and show how a thesis founded (loosely perhaps) on your own has the power to resolve the Bell inequalities EPR paradox without FTL and spookyness.

The part closer to your own is better covered in my previous two essays (both Community 7th but passed over.) I hope to do better this year with important findings. I think my model proves your concept mechanistically, and included deriving curved space-time last year. That may sound like a very wild claim!, and you'll see I don't shy from other departures from common assumptions. I do hope you can read (and score!) mine soon and greatly look forward to your thoughts.

Yours has certainly earned a well deserved 10 score from me, with no 'allowance' needed for not being a 'professional' physicist. I have lots of qualifications but none mean anything more than my primary education and later work and research. You 'are' a physicist and an exceptional conceptual thinker. Those are the skills we need to extract us from this dark labyrinthine 'rut'. Congratulations on your work.

And sincerest best wishes in the competition.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Need I say I most appreciate your comment (and hard-to-come-by score!). Have worried that may be physicists are only reading physicists, first and foremost. And I will make time to read your essays (twice, I suspect, because of the technical level. I always do that) and because I will certainly love to see your DFM perspective.

Wishing you the stars this time.

Chidi

Need I say I most appreciate your comment (and hard-to-come-by score!). Have worried that may be physicists are only reading physicists, first and foremost. And I will make time to read your essays (twice, I suspect, because of the technical level. I always do that) and because I will certainly love to see your DFM perspective.

Wishing you the stars this time.

Chidi

Dear Chidi,

I appreciate your kind comments and would like to rate your innovative essay with a score of 8 and above if you like. Rate my essay and inform me soon.

All the best,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your kind comments and would like to rate your innovative essay with a score of 8 and above if you like. Rate my essay and inform me soon.

All the best,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

Thanks for rating my essay and I too have rated your essay with maximum points possible.

Regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for rating my essay and I too have rated your essay with maximum points possible.

Regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Hello Chidi -

I'm interested to see that you focus on the observer as crucial. This point is often overlooked, even in treating of information.

I take a more descriptive and structural approach to developing a uniform treatment of the natural events of nature: I describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer and naturally create a quantum/classical correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics - and that we must accept that we exist in a Species' Cosmos, and develop the necessary systems to interpret this fact usefully.

You might find in this a way of further unifying the formative and spatial realms you describe. Of course - like you - I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

I found the text challenging, but engrossing; I have rated the essay, of course, and hope you'll soon have time to look at mine.

All the best in the competition,

John.

report post as inappropriate

I'm interested to see that you focus on the observer as crucial. This point is often overlooked, even in treating of information.

I take a more descriptive and structural approach to developing a uniform treatment of the natural events of nature: I describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer and naturally create a quantum/classical correlation. The evolving observer, I show, is the missing link in many of our quests. I think it is this that impels Physics' expansion into Bio- and Neuro-Physics - and that we must accept that we exist in a Species' Cosmos, and develop the necessary systems to interpret this fact usefully.

You might find in this a way of further unifying the formative and spatial realms you describe. Of course - like you - I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

I found the text challenging, but engrossing; I have rated the essay, of course, and hope you'll soon have time to look at mine.

All the best in the competition,

John.

report post as inappropriate

Hello Chidi - I'm sure you are busy, as we all are - I simply want to let you know that I look forward to your feedback once you've read my essay. Hope you have time to do that soon!

Best Regards,

John

report post as inappropriate

Best Regards,

John

report post as inappropriate

Hi Chidi,

Thank you for your attention on my work. Early I open your work because it devoted to interpretation of wave function, which was my hobby also. But, I delayed detailed study of question because of time. I see you have clearly divided the events as OBSERVABLE and UNOBSERVABLE. That is very important to be understand actual essence of quantum phenomenon. I was trying to do it in my works (after of this battle you can open references in my work - if you see interest) I will rate your essay surely within 1-2 days. I will recommend my friends also.

Good wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your attention on my work. Early I open your work because it devoted to interpretation of wave function, which was my hobby also. But, I delayed detailed study of question because of time. I see you have clearly divided the events as OBSERVABLE and UNOBSERVABLE. That is very important to be understand actual essence of quantum phenomenon. I was trying to do it in my works (after of this battle you can open references in my work - if you see interest) I will rate your essay surely within 1-2 days. I will recommend my friends also.

Good wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

Thanks for writing a very interesting essay. I'll pick out a few things to remark on:

You say "conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values...". That's worth contemplating. For example, James Putnam objects to the vagueness and circularity of the force definition F = ma whereby force is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in...

view entire post

Thanks for writing a very interesting essay. I'll pick out a few things to remark on:

You say "conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values...". That's worth contemplating. For example, James Putnam objects to the vagueness and circularity of the force definition F = ma whereby force is defined in terms of mass and mass is defined in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for finding the time to read my essay. Actually I have delayed to reply to your power comment because I have been reading it over and over and over again to be sure it sinks!! Actually I have had to abridge three different papers of mine to get this essay.

Your comment is most valuable to me.

Just again, thank you for finding the time.

I'll be at your blog soon.

All the best,

Chidi

Thank you for finding the time to read my essay. Actually I have delayed to reply to your power comment because I have been reading it over and over and over again to be sure it sinks!! Actually I have had to abridge three different papers of mine to get this essay.

Your comment is most valuable to me.

Just again, thank you for finding the time.

I'll be at your blog soon.

All the best,

Chidi

Hello Chidi,

I have read your essay, as promised, and I see that propose on page 9 a theory of everything in the form of four axioms. That raises some questions.

Your first axiom is that an equality is an entity. The question is then: are there also entities that are not equalities? Or is every entity an equality?

I am interested in your reply.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay, as promised, and I see that propose on page 9 a theory of everything in the form of four axioms. That raises some questions.

Your first axiom is that an equality is an entity. The question is then: are there also entities that are not equalities? Or is every entity an equality?

I am interested in your reply.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marcoen,

Thank you, for making time to reading my essay.

It might help to catch a physical picture of my “entity” and not confuse it with the normal usage.

I define entity (equality) as virtual work i.e. the “configuration space for all times” (some will call it instead the “consistency” or “invariance” or as in QM the “wavefunction"/"non-locality”). Now, as the 4th axiom says, there can be one and only one VALID entity (every other is only then hypothetical).

Implicit is that any given observer is to itself this DE FACTO entity.

And inequality is then the flux or perturbations or amplitude or as QM will say “observables” of this entity.

I hope I have answered your question. Please I will appreciate that you feel free to ask me more questions if you are not clear.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Thank you, for making time to reading my essay.

It might help to catch a physical picture of my “entity” and not confuse it with the normal usage.

I define entity (equality) as virtual work i.e. the “configuration space for all times” (some will call it instead the “consistency” or “invariance” or as in QM the “wavefunction"/"non-locality”). Now, as the 4th axiom says, there can be one and only one VALID entity (every other is only then hypothetical).

Implicit is that any given observer is to itself this DE FACTO entity.

And inequality is then the flux or perturbations or amplitude or as QM will say “observables” of this entity.

I hope I have answered your question. Please I will appreciate that you feel free to ask me more questions if you are not clear.

All the best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate

Chidi,

Thanks for replying to my question. I am still confused, however.

Your axiom #1 merely state that an equality is an entity. Usually, an equality is represented by an expression of the type t_{1} = t_{2}. But in your above answer you say that you define an entity as virtual work, that you identify as "configuration space of all times". But that is not an equality. And you then mention all of a sudden that others call it "consistencey", "invariance" or "wavefunction". But these are entirely different notions (that is, these notions are something else than "configuration space").

So my question remains: what is an "entity", mentioned in your first axiom, in your universe? Is it an equality? Or is it a wave function? Or still something else?

To grasp your idea, I think this is the first thing that should be clear.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for replying to my question. I am still confused, however.

Your axiom #1 merely state that an equality is an entity. Usually, an equality is represented by an expression of the type t

So my question remains: what is an "entity", mentioned in your first axiom, in your universe? Is it an equality? Or is it a wave function? Or still something else?

To grasp your idea, I think this is the first thing that should be clear.

Best regards,

Marcoen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Marcoen,

Thank you for replying. And sorry about that "anonymous".

To your question: another way to put all this is to say that for any system of events (observables) there is a de facto invariant (observer). This then is the same essentially as Noether’s theorem.

The idea of equality as “configuration space” (virtual work) goes to say that for us to assert that any two t's are equal we must FIRST assume a constant of proportionality “k”. One may think of “k” as the invariant such that the two states (t1, t2) are merely among its possible “states”. In wave motion one may say “k” is the well-behavedness. In logic generally one could call “k” the consistency.

Now we can think of Godel’s incompleteness theorem as saying that one must presume the ACTIVE consistency/constant NOT at the same instance that it IS the consistency/constant also to be part of own observables/variables. Meaning “k” is essentially to itself the imaginary or virtual or (as is Newton’s “inertia” only the IDEAL state [of motion]).

Now if one can see matter wave (“wave function” barring all technicalities else) as but the “configuration space” (k) of all observable matter this analogy comes through. But if you want it put strictly, I am claiming that in any system of observables the matter wave will represent qulitatively the "nothing" (same in fact as the "all things" or more conventionally the "uncertainty")

The strange thing about axiom 1. is that our entity (observer) has non-local attributes, it is the “configuration space” or “conservation law” proper. But that goes to say that in a participatory universe (one in which the observer must be assumed as subject to the same laws as its own observables) we must FIRST PRESUME any given observer as the boundary condition (the ideal constraint).

The science of thermodynamics shows us that the notion “isolated system” (thermodynamic equilibrium?) can in fact be non-trivial.

Hoping that I have been able to make myself clearer. Otherwise, Marcoen, feel free to press on.

Regards,

Chidi

Thank you for replying. And sorry about that "anonymous".

To your question: another way to put all this is to say that for any system of events (observables) there is a de facto invariant (observer). This then is the same essentially as Noether’s theorem.

The idea of equality as “configuration space” (virtual work) goes to say that for us to assert that any two t's are equal we must FIRST assume a constant of proportionality “k”. One may think of “k” as the invariant such that the two states (t1, t2) are merely among its possible “states”. In wave motion one may say “k” is the well-behavedness. In logic generally one could call “k” the consistency.

Now we can think of Godel’s incompleteness theorem as saying that one must presume the ACTIVE consistency/constant NOT at the same instance that it IS the consistency/constant also to be part of own observables/variables. Meaning “k” is essentially to itself the imaginary or virtual or (as is Newton’s “inertia” only the IDEAL state [of motion]).

Now if one can see matter wave (“wave function” barring all technicalities else) as but the “configuration space” (k) of all observable matter this analogy comes through. But if you want it put strictly, I am claiming that in any system of observables the matter wave will represent qulitatively the "nothing" (same in fact as the "all things" or more conventionally the "uncertainty")

The strange thing about axiom 1. is that our entity (observer) has non-local attributes, it is the “configuration space” or “conservation law” proper. But that goes to say that in a participatory universe (one in which the observer must be assumed as subject to the same laws as its own observables) we must FIRST PRESUME any given observer as the boundary condition (the ideal constraint).

The science of thermodynamics shows us that the notion “isolated system” (thermodynamic equilibrium?) can in fact be non-trivial.

Hoping that I have been able to make myself clearer. Otherwise, Marcoen, feel free to press on.

Regards,

Chidi

Dear Chidi,

I found your essay quite an interesting read even though I am not a physicist. In my essay BITTERS, I have taken a realistic point of view.

I think that as everything is already in a perpetual state of motion, that is the only reason needed to prove why a perpetual motion machine cannot be erected. That would be as futile as trying to perfect a chemical that would make the oceans wetter.

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

report post as inappropriate

I found your essay quite an interesting read even though I am not a physicist. In my essay BITTERS, I have taken a realistic point of view.

I think that as everything is already in a perpetual state of motion, that is the only reason needed to prove why a perpetual motion machine cannot be erected. That would be as futile as trying to perfect a chemical that would make the oceans wetter.

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe,

Thank you for reading my essay.

By the way, I always knew that part of my bio that says about perpetual motion must make me look PRE-SCIENCE. But its okay, the science of thermodynamics emerged after mankind as a whole made the same error or fallacy as myself. Come to think of it that experience has made me confront in a unique way the notion of a conservation law.

I'll make time to read BITTERS.

Regards,

Chidi

Thank you for reading my essay.

By the way, I always knew that part of my bio that says about perpetual motion must make me look PRE-SCIENCE. But its okay, the science of thermodynamics emerged after mankind as a whole made the same error or fallacy as myself. Come to think of it that experience has made me confront in a unique way the notion of a conservation law.

I'll make time to read BITTERS.

Regards,

Chidi

Hello Chidi,

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new fundamental ideas. You included in your essay is a huge amount of material that gave a very interesting ideas, new images and made a very interesting radical conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http:// www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to "an unlimited number» of viewers".

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Maybe we need a new mathematical revolution in the spirit of Descartes, to overcome the "trouble with physics" and build «a model of self-aware Universe» (V.Nalomov), united for physicists and poets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

I put a great rating.

Best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I read with interest your analytical essay made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt. Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new fundamental ideas. You included in your essay is a huge amount of material that gave a very interesting ideas, new images and made a very interesting radical conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http:// www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

In the russian version of the paper that thought shorter: "the truth should be drawn and presented to "an unlimited number» of viewers".

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Maybe we need a new mathematical revolution in the spirit of Descartes, to overcome the "trouble with physics" and build «a model of self-aware Universe» (V.Nalomov), united for physicists and poets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

Please read my essay. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research.

I put a great rating.

Best regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Chidi,

Now I have read your essay (see your early post)and I find it interesting. I can not say that I am fully agree with all your points and approaches, particularly there seems some uncertainties about definitions. But, no problem my Dear! Main thing is that you have strive to give interpretation to Wave Function (and to Schroedinger equation by the same) I welcome this efforts because it is just inevitable/necessary to be comprehend physical essence of QM phenomena!

On this I am going rate your work on ,,high,, score. I have my own approach to interpretation of Schrodinger equation and wave function that actually works! (i.e. it gives a lot of results on the cause/effect principle) After, when you find free time just try to study ref [9] in my work. I hope you will find there some interesting for you.

Good luck,

George

report post as inappropriate

Now I have read your essay (see your early post)and I find it interesting. I can not say that I am fully agree with all your points and approaches, particularly there seems some uncertainties about definitions. But, no problem my Dear! Main thing is that you have strive to give interpretation to Wave Function (and to Schroedinger equation by the same) I welcome this efforts because it is just inevitable/necessary to be comprehend physical essence of QM phenomena!

On this I am going rate your work on ,,high,, score. I have my own approach to interpretation of Schrodinger equation and wave function that actually works! (i.e. it gives a lot of results on the cause/effect principle) After, when you find free time just try to study ref [9] in my work. I hope you will find there some interesting for you.

Good luck,

George

report post as inappropriate

Dear George,

God bless you for reading and rating my essay. I have tried to refer to your reference 9. I have it saved and I will read through when the FQXi heat is less.

Wishing you the stars, Gevorge,

Chidi

God bless you for reading and rating my essay. I have tried to refer to your reference 9. I have it saved and I will read through when the FQXi heat is less.

Wishing you the stars, Gevorge,

Chidi

Dear Chidi,

Congratulations for the intriguing essay. You said on my page "we are here at last to push boundaries, ain't we?". I fully agree, and I wish you all the best with the contest and with your research!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for the intriguing essay. You said on my page "we are here at last to push boundaries, ain't we?". I fully agree, and I wish you all the best with the contest and with your research!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Chidi,

I read your essay. I like the play between the observer and the objects of perception. My understanding of your essay is that the wave-function collapse belongs to the observer and not the objects of perception. Siri did recommend that I drink a lot of coffee and take some aspirin. The headache isn't too bad. My intuitions say you are on the right path. But how do I rate your essay?

I asked Siri. She said to give you a 10. Who am I to argue.

Best of Luck,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay. I like the play between the observer and the objects of perception. My understanding of your essay is that the wave-function collapse belongs to the observer and not the objects of perception. Siri did recommend that I drink a lot of coffee and take some aspirin. The headache isn't too bad. My intuitions say you are on the right path. But how do I rate your essay?

I asked Siri. She said to give you a 10. Who am I to argue.

Best of Luck,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Chidi,

I just realized that my my post above could be taken as a bad review. That was not my intent, I rate your work very highly.

I use Siri as my intuition, if she says its good, it is good!

Best of Luck in the contest!

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

I just realized that my my post above could be taken as a bad review. That was not my intent, I rate your work very highly.

I use Siri as my intuition, if she says its good, it is good!

Best of Luck in the contest!

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

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

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

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Chidi,

You have presented a very interesting set of ideas, along with an insightful perspective. I want to pick up on one in particular:

> Put differently, in your present context as the participant observer per se, you cannot possibly differentiate between Higgs fields for it is something you may only BE, it is not a situation you may observe. Our idea here of Higgs field is as the observer proper or "phase-space" or wave speed h0 i.e. as the conservation law or simply conserved current of Noether's theorem vis-à-vis observables as the continuous symmetry. Our idea of Higgs particle is as the wave front h0, so then the wavelets (Eh) emerge from its dynamics.

In my essay Software Cosmos I make a distinction between "explicate" space (that observers can measure) and "implicate" space (that they cannot). Yet it is within implicate space that dynamics occurs.

I would be most curious what you think of my construction for implicate space, and whether you find similarities with your own thinking.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

You have presented a very interesting set of ideas, along with an insightful perspective. I want to pick up on one in particular:

> Put differently, in your present context as the participant observer per se, you cannot possibly differentiate between Higgs fields for it is something you may only BE, it is not a situation you may observe. Our idea here of Higgs field is as the observer proper or "phase-space" or wave speed h0 i.e. as the conservation law or simply conserved current of Noether's theorem vis-à-vis observables as the continuous symmetry. Our idea of Higgs particle is as the wave front h0, so then the wavelets (Eh) emerge from its dynamics.

In my essay Software Cosmos I make a distinction between "explicate" space (that observers can measure) and "implicate" space (that they cannot). Yet it is within implicate space that dynamics occurs.

I would be most curious what you think of my construction for implicate space, and whether you find similarities with your own thinking.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi

(Google translate)

I understood the essence of your essay. You want to simplify access to the wave functions. You indicated that the formula 4 which is important to me also. Maybe it's a connection between our approaches. As a meteorologist I know very little about the wave functions. But it is certain that Qbit opposite of the Bit. If you look Taijitu symbol, we can write inside /Bit, it, Qbit and light/ I guess. What do you think?

You said:

The singular and simplest claim (or prediction) one can make based on the data indicated by equation (1) is that man h0 is to be the effective Planck constant,

(or Newtonian constant, or Einsteins etc indeed the effective universal constant or

I think that it can not be Newtonian constant, or Einsteins.

Your thesis if you realise them can be anather half of reality.

My half is matter.

I alredy rate you on 21. Jul

Nice your essay by the way!

Best wishes,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

(Google translate)

I understood the essence of your essay. You want to simplify access to the wave functions. You indicated that the formula 4 which is important to me also. Maybe it's a connection between our approaches. As a meteorologist I know very little about the wave functions. But it is certain that Qbit opposite of the Bit. If you look Taijitu symbol, we can write inside /Bit, it, Qbit and light/ I guess. What do you think?

You said:

The singular and simplest claim (or prediction) one can make based on the data indicated by equation (1) is that man h0 is to be the effective Planck constant,

(or Newtonian constant, or Einsteins etc indeed the effective universal constant or

I think that it can not be Newtonian constant, or Einsteins.

Your thesis if you realise them can be anather half of reality.

My half is matter.

I alredy rate you on 21. Jul

Nice your essay by the way!

Best wishes,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi:

I was trying to understand your axioms but somehow I am missing the point. There seem to be too many notions that remain undefined.

All the best in the contest.

Cheers

Olaf

report post as inappropriate

I was trying to understand your axioms but somehow I am missing the point. There seem to be too many notions that remain undefined.

All the best in the contest.

Cheers

Olaf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi idika,

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.

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Chidi,

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.