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

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 8/7/13 at 8:28am UTC, wrote Dear Dipak, I am pleased to read your essay with a very deep ideas and...

Dipak Bhunia: on 8/7/13 at 2:29am UTC, wrote Dear Paul, Thanks for the comment on my essay. Yes with in the range of...

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Dipak - nice essay. I particularly enjoyed your discussion of non-void...

Dipak Bhunia: on 8/6/13 at 3:36am UTC, wrote Dear Amazigh, Thanks. My best hope for you in this contest. Regards ...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 22:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Dipak, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Antony Ryan: on 8/5/13 at 12:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Dipak, I had already rated your essay. Best wishes, Antony :)

Dipak Bhunia: on 8/4/13 at 10:50am UTC, wrote Dear Prof. Corda, Thanks for the comments on my essay what we have started...

Christian Corda: on 8/3/13 at 15:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Dipak, I have just read your pretty Essay as I promised you in my...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


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.


FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: ‘It from bit’ equally ‘bit from it’ by Dipak Kumar Bhunia [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

Essay considers nature as digital (‘it’) including its digital observers like us. Because, analog part of nature, if that would be fundamentally there, does not emit digital information to detect it digitally or, even, non-digitally. There’s only a digitally perceivable ‘it’, which is a sum of all intrinsic quantized systems or wave-corpuscular-phenomena (WCP) ranging from micro to macro scales including macro-most, i.e. universe; where quantization in each of those WCP is due to presence of some quantized common parameters (‘bit’) therein. Since de Broglie’s wave-corpuscular inverse relation, between two of such ‘bit’s (mass and wavelength), is common in all WCP, it can be stretched to a common inverse relation by inducting other ‘bit’s like space, time, motion etc. That new relation depicts ‘it’ as a product of its two inverse sets of ‘bit’s where ‘it’ and ‘bit’ are inseparable.

Author Bio

A learner of philosophy linked to ground rules of nature, an independent thinker, associated with charity and graduated in Science. Current essay is partially based on some core ideas in his paper which is now waiting for publication in winter issue 2014 of ‘Galilean Electrodynamics’, from USA.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Dear Deepak,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. Why do you think you are digital?

and do you think you can produce matter just by your thinking?

and ...



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 from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu

Thanks for your comments and also for your's submitted essay, which is really encouraging.

The observers like us are digital, including instruments therein, because we are constituted by quantized or digitized ingredients or wave-corpuscular-phenomena and we are fundamentally unable to detect any analog messages apart from digital.

Of course according to modern scientific understanding, "matter" rather wave-corpuscular-phenomena, can not be created merely through thinking, because that process of thinking too inclined towards a digital process apart from spiritually mystic process of analog types.

The essay is fully based on all common experimental and established understandings in mainstream physics, particularly from cosmology, astrophysics,special relativity, quantum mechanics and so on.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Thank you for presenting a good essay. best wishes, I sent you a personal mail. You can contact me there also later...

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 16:33 GMT
Mr. Bhunia,

I thought your essay was very interesting.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 06:42 GMT
Hi Joe

Many thanks for the little & inspiring tweet comment.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share


Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:54 GMT
Hi Joe

Can you consider my essay for any rating?

Regards

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 01:31 GMT
Dear Dipak

I totally agree with your conclusion : "Therefore,‘it’ and ‘bit’ are never separable from each other within the range of the digital observ ation of nature"

Wishing success to you.

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?

The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.

The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.

B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?

It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .

C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?

Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.

D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?

The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.

E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?

To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:

2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :

“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”

That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.

I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.

Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.

To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.

Hải.Caohoàng

Add another problem, which is:

USE OF THE EQUATIONS AND FORMULA IN ESSAY

There have been some comments to me to questions is: why in my essay did not use the equations and formulas to interpret?

The reason is:

1. The currently equations and formulas are not able to solve all problems for all concerned that they represent.

2. Through research, I found: The application of the equations and formulas when we can not yet be determined the true nature of the problem will create new problems - there is even more complex and difficult to resolve than the original.

I hope so that : you will sympathetic and consideration to avoid misunderstanding my comments.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 03:02 GMT
Dear Hoang,

Thanks for your comments. But I doubt whether there would be really any 'absolute theory' of anything or nature forever for the observers like us. Because an absolute theory should have to be passed through tests every time and enough to disqualify even by a single test. Because our technological reach changes almost in every day as well as wisdom or perceptions about anything or nature is equally changing as well accordingly. At present, the property of quantization in all scales of systems (or wave-corpuscular-phenomena) is appeared as common in all micro to macro scales of systems in nature. Each of those scale specific quantize magnitudes are universally absolute to all observers' frames of reference but simultaneously relative to the magnitude of other scales.

Otherwise its good.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:58 GMT
Dipak,

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

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 03:57 GMT
Jim,

Thanks for good presentation. Apart from Anthropic views, both of our essays are probably on the same direction. Right now, we are not certain whether conscious part in an observer is analog in type or that could be explain digitally in near future as a super simulated artificial intelligence through neuro-digital-ways.

As per current understandings, the Nature is there with all its inner dynamics and configurations of it's ingredients including digitized (and may or may not other types of) observers. Such an intrinsically digitized Observer (like us) would have only its own view or perception about that nature through his own range of observations. There would be remain the nature if there at any moment no observers like us. Therefore, he can not anthropically create any thing in nature as its one of parts, apart from his own views depend on the current observations. Those views have also the step wise modifications over the ages simultaneously along with the changes in wisdom based on the technological advancements.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Kumar,

Thank you for reading my essay and inviting me to read yours.

Yes, I like to have some poetry and visualization when it is possible.

You tell us that each access to reality is digitized and I agree.

But it occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics.

Myself I did measurements of the frequency of ultrasable clocks in the past; there I recovered the structure of rational numbers, you can easily google with the keyword "number theory and 1/f noise" and find my contributions. This is well in the spirit of what you are writing. Quantum physics is more seriously difficult in this respect in the sense that it undress in bits (the eigenvalues of qubit observables) and it is much more difficult to organize them. In addition the observer participates in the undressing as Wheeler explained.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Dipak,

May be you can browse this very well documented archive

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/
physics.htm

Best regards,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Dear Michel

Thanks for the archive. Yes, of course, it "occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics". From macro level it appears that "access to reality is digitized" but not necessarily always quantized; and from micro level access to reality is quantized but not merely digitized.

Best wishes

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Dipak Kumar Bhunia,

I have read your paper and believe we overlap as follows: you support that nature is not (or cannot be proven to be) analog, and consider observers (us) to be digital: "then nature that perceives through such digits or quantum must appear as a digital." [and] "the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit. "

This is a well-thought-out proposition, and the locus of our agreement seems to be here. I tend to believe that the deeper levels are non-digital, but, as you may recall, I view the transfer of information as energy transfer, that does, or does not cross a threshold. This is the digitization you refer to. If the threshold is crossed, then the digit is '1', else '0'. This sets the digital limit of observation. The crossing of the threshold results in a change in form or 'in-form-ation' of the contextual structure, and becomes 'information' at this point. It is, of course, the basis of all our observations.

The details of the observed world are so rich that we cannot expect any two essays in this contest to agree upon all of them, but the basic mechanism seems to be in agreement.

Thank you for reading and commenting upon my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Edwin

Thanks for the reply.

Then all our quests seem to be such step after step

'agreements'towards truth over the ages.

All my best wishes & regards.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Dipak

Thanks for your comments

Can you please demonstrate my definition for information - Information is defined as : The absorption and transmission the impact of material - Will is "enough to disqualify even by a single test" ?

I always wanted to meet someone to do that, hope so that is you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Hoang

I'm "absolutely" agree with you. But hopefully the "communication" through the "messages" what I made to you may create a different "impact".

However, I did not defined an "absolute theory" as merely "The absorption and transmission" of "information" to and fro the wave-corpuscular-phenomena. Rather I mean by that about our whole views related to the digital nature. I hope you must agree with me that (as per our ever changing views of the same nature with the progress of ages)our absolute theory concepts, say from Pluto or Aristotelian to Eisenstein or Quantum Mechanical, how it has step wise changed particularly with the advancement of our technological capabilities? That is why I wrote to you, I've doubt about any of such "absolute theory" concept for ever for the nature. Obviously such an "absolute" theory should have to pass through all the tests with time but could be enough to disqualify even by a single test which may contradict that theory. For example you can realize what was the fate of the classical ether theory in 19th century. There may be so many other similar examples too.

Thanks for your "communication".

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Thanks for your comments over at my essay. I enjoyed yours too! Logical approach to explore whether reality is analogue or digital, followed by a thorough examination of Bit from It and It from Bit, concluding that they are "mirror" like in their foundations - something we seem to agree upon.

The left handed nature you mention also seems to be back neutrinos nature versus antimatter.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Antony

Thanks for agreeing on my mirror concepts.

I'm also wishing you best in the contest.

Can you consider me for any rating? I'll doing of you.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Yes let me know on my thread if you want me to rate soon, otherwise I'll probably do so when I've read all essays.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 11:05 GMT
Dear Antony,

I have rated your essay on 13th july 2013.

Can I expect any rating from you for my essay.

Thanks and regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT
Dear Dipak,

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


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
Dipak,

I found that a very original and fascinating essay, carefully constructed and argued and certainly with some likely truths. I liked your

"intrinsic quantization in both 'bit' and 'it" qualified by "observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels"

I did felt the lack of a comprehensive definition of the difference between digital and analogue as you saw them, but that wasn't important as it allows each reader to apply his own if he wishes. I'd none the less be interested in your specification.

Finally I very much liked and agreed with your concept of time as a left handed flow and Inertial Anti-time: "there would be a mirror image counter part of t" That is somewhat consistent with a finding of my own in an earlier paper on astrophysics (not discussed here), but a very original approach.

Lastly the important; "Special Relativity Principles correspond to c becomes Local", which I also argue and rationalise in my last two essays here, but still seems poorly understood by most. Some consequences of that model are applied to build an ontological construction in my own essay with, I hope interesting results. I hope you can find a chance to read and rate it. Your own position is ridiculously low and I'm very glad to assist you to a better place.

Well done

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Peter

Congratulations for your "IQbit"; and also thanks for some inspiring comments on my essay. I really like your essay very much as well.

"The correlations predicted by QM appear classically impossible without spooky action at a distance or superluminal signalling" in entanglement processes is definitely inevitable. But I like to say here(in support of you) whether an intervention of a "mirror" in between two or more entangled particles would be more helpful to understand that event better?

If two entangled particles or systems or a wave-corpuscular-phenomena (say A & B)suppose to have an 'inseparable & imaginary mirror' in-between. Then image counter parts say A2 & B2 of both A & B are also inverse to other parts say A1 & B1. Therefore, any change which can occur in say in A1 must be instanteneously create a change in the B1 part too. In my essay, it can define that, in mirror image (and inverse)relationship in-between 'non-void space' and 'non-void Anti-space', as far as A1 & B1 in once entangled A & B would be separated in 'space' their mirror image counter parts A2 & B2 would be instantaneously come closer and closer together in 'Anti-space' and vice versa. That is, the entangled pair of particles can be considered that they are never been completely separated in terms of their 'Space' & 'Anti-space' or 'Time' & 'Anti-time' or 'Inertial mass' & 'Inertial motion'.

I definitely rate your essay at higher end of the scale and of course I would be glad to have your assistance for "better place".

Thanks & regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT
Dipak,

I agree you proposition of mirror symmetry, but as the real relation between the so called 'singlet state' pairs, so I don't need to invoke and real 'anti space' to find the same result. I've scored you essay very high as I am convinced the solution is correct and valuable, however described.

But there is then no inevitability about FTL because there is another parameter not allowed for by Bell. The pairs have opposite spin but the same spin axis orientation as orbital angular momentum. Detector settings will then be reciprocal, and uncertainty increase at each detector when settings are not identical or opposite around the 360 degree orbit. I hope you then also consider mine worth a top score. The experimental evidence of this is shown in the link to the expanded essay in the top blog post, with the additional figure towards the end.

Best of luck in the results.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Dipak

Ether theory was rejected by a theory is not enough of ability to explain for the light , so there is still a debatable issue. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not convincing enough when they have not be to define and explain what is light?

Ether theory is not yet perfect, but the theory and methods used to disprove it that be even vague more than it .

So can not accept that it has been rejected completely.

Can you provide another example?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 06:33 GMT
Can you digitally detect a perfect vacuum in space?

Bookmark and Share


Hoang cao Hai replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
By using absolute theory can determine that:

1. The concept of the "vacuum" - is have nothing - is a vague imagination and unrealistic. So will be can not any measure can be specified to it.

2. Digital is just a "skill" to support our ability should be can not used as to determine anything - if we still can not precisely define it by inference consistent with reality.

Your opinion is : can not have "absolute vacuum" - is very accurate - because the concept of a vacuum is can not exist, as mentioned above.

In this case: the absolute reflected in the ability to identify the problem of "vacuum" and the result will is: Absolute can not exist one thing that is "have nothing" like the vacuum .

It's fun to talk with a funny people like you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 04:20 GMT
So? If "concept of the "vacuum" - is have nothing - is a vague imagination and unrealistic. So will be can not any measure can be specified to it"... then why the most funny people like you are wasting your time to proof "ether" back". I will be happy if kindly stop here to reply!

Thanks!

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 14:40 GMT
Hi Deepak -

I think many of your conclusions concur with mine, though I produce a more structural, or physical version of the Cosmos.

It seems you conclude that It and Bit are correlated, which is the same conclusion I reach - but again in different terms.

I hope you'll be kind enough to read and rate my essay, and I wish you all the best in the competition,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 10:05 GMT
Hello John,

Thanks for your reply on my essay. I read your essay as well. I rated your essay and I also request you too to rate my submission.

However, instead of simply 'bit' in your essay, I call rather 'vbit'. The three vbit's: inorganic, organic and neuro-cognitive are e comprised the nature 'it', where 'it' and 'bit' are inseparable. We are proceeded towards obviously same direction of thinking but approaches are different.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Kumar,

Thanks for your attention to my work. I understand that it written not vein because many people have reading it with enough interest. I have rated your work by quick acquaintance as a good, but my comments I hope I will send you later (now is tensioned time, as we understand!) I can just suggest you to use more references and more certainly formulated conclusions/resume. Please in your free time to read the references in my work. I hope that these will some useful and interesting for you. Particularly about old dilemma of duality problem, you can find some more.

I wish you all of the best,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
George

Thanks for your comments and rating on my essay.

I also need to keep in touch in future and sincerely want your

precise constructing comments.

Wishing you best in contest.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 20:19 GMT
Hi Dipak,

Enjoyed you essay. I think it is just the two of us who say "two sides of the same coin" as describing the situation of -it from bit or bit from it-.

We differ a bit in how to interpret the deBroglie wavelength. I believe the deBroglie equation is a better wave equation than the Schrodinger for photons and particles below the Planck mass. Above the Planck mass I believe that masses no longer have the property of wavelength, and essentially become "analog" to use your phrase.

Still we have a lot in common.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 02:32 GMT
Hi Don,

I enjoyed your essay equally.

Obviously,above Planck mass, the wavelength of particles/systems are not visible or may not even perceivable to us, but you must agree that if one can manage to see the same masses from other side of the "coin", a kind of scale specific quantize "radius" could be visible or appeared there.

I again convinced from your essay that, to understand better about any "analog" part (if any) for nature, your quote from Ramakrishna related to the example of a salt grain (consider a "digital observer" in my essay)who tries to measure the depth of a sea (say that "analog" part of nature)would be good proposition what I wrote. A salt grain can not measure the depth of sea by simply dipping into that sea. That's the limitation for a salt grain. Equally there is a limitation for the digital (or quantize) observer to observe "analog" part of nature in its deeper level if there any.

Can I expect any rating on my essay?

Regards & thanks

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Dipak,

I am glad to read your lucid essay because you are a student of philosophy, whereas I am a philosopher. It is good to note that you have given equal importance to both It and Bit, and also that both are inseparable. You have given primary importance to ‘digital’ nature of reality rather than to ‘analog’ nature of reality and also you have given reasons for it. Digital nature of reality follows from the quantum mechanics but analog nature of reality follows from the classical physics. For computer programming digital nature is preferred and so you seem to have opted for it.

In the equation (1), m. λ = h/c, here λ corresponds to Compton wave length rather than to de Broglie’s wave length, because you have used ‘c’ instead of ‘v’ for velocity. If you use ‘v’ then λ means Broglie’s wave length. Please check up.

You have treated both micro and macro scales on the same footing based on your concept of MMSS. Thanks for writing a smooth going essay with full of bright and intelligent points, and wish you best of luck in the essay contest. Make your essay available to others in the fqxi essay community by posting in their threads and also for rating; have a look at my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread. More after you post your comments.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 04:42 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Its my extreme pleasure to read your comments and advice.

However in some broader aspect (i.e. for MMSS) in a very generalize sense, I have tried to use the term "de Broglie wavelength" which is nothing but the 'matter wave' in wave corpuscular duality propositions by de Broglie. On contrary the "crompton wavelength" usually used in respect of photons or other micro scales of particles. In Wikipedia also, such terms are almost defined in such a manner.

But, whatever that may be, my sincere thanks and gratitude to you to point it out from one philosopher's point of view. In future I will definitely cautious while I will encounter with these terms.

Also many thanks for your advice how to reach better to the FQXi Community and I will try to do that.

I'm also reading your submission and try to make my comments on it of my earliest.

With my best regards and wishing you best luck in this contest too.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Your essay is truly the work of a philosopher and deep thinker. We share the same digital philosophy so I am rating your essay 8. You may also check my essay which contains a dose of philosophy and a description for 'digital motion'.

My best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 11:53 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for comment.

I am going through your interesting arguments on millennium fork and monads of space as well.

Interestingly, I am also going to rate you at such higher end along with my few comments after finishing your essay.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share


Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:21 GMT
Dear Dr. Akinbo,

Once again! Thanks for the contributing in the topic like monads.

Would there be any elasticity in monads? Why no an extended monad can not be consider as a infinitesimal sphere (3-D obviously) with diameter equal to Plank's length? Even if we can propose any length < Plank's length (Please refer Eq.17 and magnitude of its relevant constant in paragraph no. 6)whether that would be the monad? Are you think a monad is quantized?

However your essay is really impressive! I also consider to rate it equally after receiving your reply.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Helmut Hansen wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 09:31 GMT
Dear Dipak,

when I read your paper I felt indeed some similarity to my own ideas, in particular with respect to your view of the "velocity of light". I am convinced that the "velocity of light" is actually given twice - in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. It follows as such QM as supposed by you.

In my 2012-FQXI-paper "Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature?" I've presented a popular paper about this idea.This idea leads us - as conceived by me - directly into the realm of (Eastern) spirituality.

Kind regards

Helmut

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:08 GMT
Dear Helmut

Really sorry for delay in replying and thanks for your comment.

I think spirituality is very good. It gives peace in mind (how I don't know) but not science. You may agree that that duality is not only in the arena of light but the whole universe is dual, simultaneously left & right. I completely agree with you.

Can we rate each other essays as per our corresponding assessments?

Regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topi
c/1855

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it.

Regards,

Sreenath

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:11 GMT
Dear Sreenathji,

Thanking you as well.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 04:37 GMT
Dear Dipak

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 relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Best Luck,

Than Tin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:34 GMT
My Dear Than Tin,

Many thanks for your beautiful comment by quoting Richard Feynman. I absolutely agree with you that the nature, particularly our observable of it, is simple in its very fundamental level. It became only complected by us over the last century in spite of some remarkable and commendable achievements there indeed. In my perceptions, its now all about a phase of that quest to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
post approved

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:36 GMT
My Dear Than Tin,

Many thanks for your beautiful comment by quoting Richard Feynman. I absolutely agree with you that the nature, particularly our observable range of it, is simple in its very fundamental level. It became only complected by us over the last century in spite of some remarkable and commendable achievements there indeed. In my perceptions, its now all about a phase of that quest to try to describe an elephant by the blinds (as like us to describe nature)who are able to realize that elephant with in the range of their limitations i.e. only by touching the corresponding parts of its whole body. To some one the elephant appears like a wall (who touched on its ribs), like a snack (who touched on its tail) and so on.

Thanks once again.

regards

Dipak

report post

Bookmark and Share



Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 09:31 GMT
dear Dipak,

I was alerted on your essay by Sreenath, and read it with much pleasure, however you lost me with the formula's.

My perception is that between wave and particle there is an infinity of grey tones like life is in between birth and death.

I valued very high your philosophical part.

So good luck in the contest with "a little help from your friends" we will arrive.

respectfully

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your comments. "Philosophy" is the ever front runner in the race of all fundamental intellectual developments of mankind, which usually begins with imaginations.

I read your essay too. Its impressive. In your essay, "Until an experiment is performed, its outcome does not exist", is on contrary our "digital limit" of observation to see the whole nature; what I tried to write in my essay.

However, all my best wishes for you in this contest.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 11:41 GMT
I have read your good essay, you demonstrate without doubt, the digital nature of the quantum world

"where r is the corresponding quantize radius of all MMSS; and the volume of digital nature might be a sum of all such quantized volumes of systems in it."

this assertion yours is for me the most fundamental, that the sum of surfaces including dimensionless numbers as a measure of information content. Clearly in agreement, for example, you Bekenstein limit: (2Pi R x E) / hc x In2

By its clear exposition, mathematically well-argued, and his demonstration of the use of the strong holographic principle (the information is encoded in surfaces), for all the work, I have given You a rate of 10 points

And notice that your formula: (3pi) / 4, has this remarkable property:

-(1/ {[3Pi / 4]-1}= cos(2Pi/(Phi)^2)

Where Phi is the Golden number.= (1+ sqr(5) )/2

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Angel,

Thanks for yours comments and rating on my essay.

I have also rated you 10 because we concluded in same ways.

Regards & best of luck in contest.

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



sridattadev kancharla wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT
Dear Dipak,

Yes indeed zero = K = I = Singularity = infinity. I wish you all the best in your efforts to explain relative reality scientifically.

Theory of everything is that there is absolutely nothing but I



I have rated your essay as per your request.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,

Thanks for comment and rating me. I also rated for you equally.

I think that we can develop the ideas up to further level in future if we have common interest in the ideas.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 03:59 GMT
Greetings Dipak,

I just noticed your comment on my page, and I will read your essay - which had already caught my attention. I will comment here, when done, especially if I find points to discuss.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 04:53 GMT
Hello again Dipak,

You are correct that we are in agreement on several points, especially that It from Bit and Bit from It are both fundamental. I like the way the digital appearance of nature is derived in your formulation. There was a certain amount of effort to deal with all the abbreviations, however. I have already given you a good rating, and I hope you will consider doing the same. I have given out no 10s, but your essay way well written, your points are well stated and argued, and you deserve a good score - which I provided. More comments later.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for such inspiring comments.

I've already rated your essay with full honor.

With my regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
It appears our comments from last night have disappeared, and I have alerted the FQXi folks. But I wanted again to offer my best regards, and wish you luck.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Dipak,

I have just read your pretty Essay as I promised you in my Essay page. Here are my comments/questions.

1) I think that your statements "The digits or quanta are basic tools (or messages) in any digital observations. Those digits or quanta cannot emit from a non-digital or analog origins" are at the foundation of my solution of the black hole information paradox.

2) Your statement that "we can consider that the digital observers (like us) have a natural limit to detect the nature non-digitally, even if it would be non-digital anywhere in its deeper levels beyond that digital limit" is very interesting. In that case, we should always lose part of information arising from nature.

3) By using your statement "Inertial Motion - another 'bit'" and Einstein Equivalence Principle one gets that "Gravitational Motion is the same 'bit' ".

4) You re-introduce the concept of 'ether' as a concept of fundamental continuum in classical physics. What is the difference between 'ether' and 'non-void space'? Also, notice that a perfect void space is forbidden by uncertainty principle.

5) Is there any relation between your quantized time of eq. (19) and the Planck time?

6) Concerning your ideas in paragraph 5, you could be interested to the Theory of Extended Relativity by my friends Erasmo Recami and Robero Mignani.

I think that your final statement "if 'it from bit' then 'bit from it'" is compatible with my one "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow".

I find your Essay intriguing and I bit provocative. As I like people who "think outside the box" I am going to give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Dear Prof. Corda,

Thanks for the comments on my essay what we have started at long before and rate my essay.

Point wise I can reply your questions:

1) Ok.

2) Ok. But some time information can not arise in digital / quantize ways.

3) Yes. It is now also my concern of extreme interests to show Einstein Equivalence Principal in quantum way.

4) However, I'm not proposing the revival of 'ether' in anyway. It is still out of our experimental reach (if it really exists there in nature or not), because the digitized (or more precisely say intrinsically quantized) observers like us cannot define any infinitely extended 'continuum' (whether that would be 'ether' or perfect vacuum or even who knows right now that may be the dark energy too) through our only option of quantized messages/information.

5) Plank time and the example of time in Eq. (19): both are basically quantized, but later defines the quantized magnitude for all scales of particle systems in nature as well as there may be some scales of particles who have even lower magnitudes than Plank.

6) Ok. I'll see that later.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear Dipak,

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

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:36 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

Thanks.

My best hope for you in this contest.

Regards

dipak

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:15 GMT
Dipak - nice essay. I particularly enjoyed your discussion of non-void time (and quantized non-void time).

I wonder if the concept of subtime might provide more insight:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeO
ne-V1.1a.pdf

(I have no idea why the fqxi web site breaks up this url).

I look forward to hearing your views.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Dipak Kumar Bhunia replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 02:29 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thanks for the comment on my essay. Yes with in the range of our digital (or more precisely quantize) range/limitation of observation time should be quantized and inseparable to non-void space.

In the essay it has tried to propose that every particles including universe in nature (IT) as a whole have two simultaneous mirror imaged parts (BITs) and they are inseparable. If anyway it is tried to make some change in one part of such particle, then simultaneously it's mirror part will go through an instantaneous change. For that, no EPR/entanglement like signalling would be needed to exchane in between, and that is not the question of a signal exchange in between two entangled particles.

Actually, we can logically define through the essay that one can not separate any two entangled particles from each other in both of their space and anti-space. Two such entangled particles could be separated in their respective quantize space and time, but simultaneously both will come closure and closure in their respective but inverse (or mirror imaged) and equally quantized anti-space and anti-time.

I think that EPR or entanglement concept is a very limited view about the particles (or systems), through that process one is not perceiving the whole black and white canvas instead is viewing only either its black or its white part.

Moreover, if time is intrinsically quantize with different scales of particle systems (that's in my essay) and since larger systems (with respective magnitude of quantize time)are always comprised by corresponding smaller sub-particles (with their respective other quantize magnitude of time), then obviously there should be always "subtime", subspace, submass-energy and so on in every larger particle systems in the nature. I am absolutely agree with such concept of 'subtime'.

Regards

Dipak

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:28 GMT
Dear Dipak,

I am pleased to read your essay with a very deep ideas and concrete images, evidence and conclusions on the theme of the contest.

Good luck in the contest,

Best regards

Vladimir

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.