Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Marcel-Marie, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:49am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/4/13 at 19:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Marcel-Marie, We are at the end of this essay contest. In...

Antony Ryan: on 8/3/13 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Marcel, I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many...

john selye: on 8/2/13 at 16:04pm UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...

Antony Ryan: on 8/1/13 at 10:41am UTC, wrote Dear Marcel, I like Double slit experiment discussions. Think you've done...

Stephen Anastasi: on 7/28/13 at 9:29am UTC, wrote An open question is whether the Harmony Set implies quantum duality. In...

Stephen Anastasi: on 7/28/13 at 9:19am UTC, wrote Hello Marcel-Marie So, I find that your essay is very far from mine in...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: It from Bit et al.; Revisiting the Assumptions. by Marcel-Marie LeBel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

Some puzzles or paradoxes are sometimes solved by returning to the original assumptions for re-examination. The 2 slit experiment can be understood as a quantum phenomenon instead of a classical wave phenomenon. For this, the measurement problem is first described as stemming from a temporary quantization due to the constraint applied by the measuring instrument, creating a boundary condition on the probability distribution of the parameter being measured. After suggesting a soliton model for light, this temporary quantization is then applied to the 2 slit experiment. A non-classical explanation is offered for the “interference” pattern resulting in the 2 slit experiments.

Author Bio

BSc Biology 1979, Three years in environment, 28 years in a forensic laboratory in counterfeits.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 23:01 GMT
ADDENDUM

There is only one REAL mystery in quantum mechanics... and it is the usual conclusion of the two slit experiment. Light is a wave and a particle. A mystery is often something simply wrong but that we cannot come to accept.

At the time, Quantum mechanics was full of surprises and we were so ready for the next one. The wave-particle duality of light was readily accepted as Weird instead of Wrong. Wavelets of Solitons (photons) marching in phase will look just like a wave. But it is very different from the usual water or sound waves. According to the Huygens’ principle, we may consider a wave front as made of individual points. In a real wave (water, sound.etc.) each one of these points will assume a direction that depends on its other points on each side. It is like a line of people holding hands and marching as a single chain. With that line you may have diffraction. But solitons are each individual quantum of waves marching each on their own. Sure, if the solitons go through a slit they will come out in phase as a “wave front” but, not being tied to each other, no diffraction will be possible. As for interference, I admit that the 2 slit experiments are classically well described with the wave theory. A wave of solitons solves the wave-particle duality and, after all, (!) does not prevent interference. What is wrong, I believe, is to conclude from the two slit experiment that light IS (ontological) a standard (like sound & water) wave. It did not come out like that in my essay. Well groomed, the solitons can behave like a wave and yet may be caught looking like particles. But light cannot become a particle or a wave at our whim. They are only appearances.

Still, the problem of solitons diffraction.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
Marcel,

You make some interesting points in your essay. In fact, I have also identified a quantum "particle" as a soliton in my own essay ( "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotations and Relative Time" ), and I addressed wave-particle duality at length in my essay last year ( "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" ). With regard to quantum diffraction, I cited the published work of Van Vliet ( Linear Momentum Quantization in Periodic Structures ), who showed if one takes the screen with the slits as a quantum object, the standard diffraction results can be obtained regardless of the nature of the quantum particle. In my own analysis, primary quantum particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks are soliton-like rotating vector fields with quantized spin, with rotation rate f=E/h (where E is the total relativistic energy). These constitute local clocks, which slow down when E is reduced in a gravitational field, thus deriving general relativity in a simple intuitive way. This picture also avoids non-locality, indeterminacy and entanglement. Yes, this is all highly heretical, but is more logically consistent than the orthodox approaches.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 22:13 GMT
Dear Marcel,

So good to see you back. I've probably referred to your 2009 essay on logic more than to any other FQXi essay. Your logic was impeccable. In fact, your first five pages of that essay contain the most beautiful logic I've seen, leading to the idea of universe as 'one substance'. Beyond the fifth page I disagreed with some of your choices. So I'm glad to see that you have...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 02:51 GMT
Alan,

I had already downloaded your essay from the "assumption contest". I thank you for the Van Vliet reference. Do you have the full article ???

Eugene,

The logic is the maths of the universe. Happy you can fathom this. But this one,the 2-slit experiment is said to be the last mystery of QM. For a good reason. There is something wrong in our conclusions. My essay was a last minute entry and I could not give more convincing illustrations and references. I scanned the Internet and there a lot going on with solitons and diffraction..

In the end, It would be nice to take away the weird part of QM and just keep the rest. But there are thousands of variants of the 2-slit experiments out there..I am looking for those reporting anomalies... I will check your essays more in depth.

All the bests, both of you.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share


Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Marcel,

I have attached both the recent and the earlier papers by Van Vliet, in PDF format.

Alan

attachments: vanvlietMomQuant10.pdf, vanvlietMomQuant67.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 11:13 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thank you for such a nice essay, using theory to explain experimental results. I also feel it is the experimental results that should be the basis, instead of just speculations....

....

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Marcel

Quite right, when the old methods flawed so we should have a new approach for more efficient, your essay will be worth more than when referring to a particular measure .

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
Alan,

Thanks for the Van Vliets.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:20 GMT
Marcel,

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 Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 02:49 GMT
Jim,

Colours and light are in our eyes. Sound is in our ears. Space is in our mind. Time, we feel by consciousness and memory. We create the images and experiences of the universe ourselves by the way we are built, and make it beautiful. Otherwise, it is but a big mush of quiet and dark dimensionless explosions of radiations and scattered particles...

The experience of the universe is created by us, just as our reality is different from that of a bat or of a dolphin.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 14:35 GMT
Marcel.

I thought your essay was quite informative. As a decrepit old realist though, I hope you will not mind if I Wheeler at least one of the assumptions you have made in the addendum?

Is real evident? Yes.

Is real mysterious? No.

Is abstract real evident? No.

Is abstract real mysterious? Yes.

Respectfully,

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
I like this idea Marcel-Marie.

Simply seeing wave as a collection of solitons and particle as singular solitonic propagations could solve a lot of the mystery of QM. As you say above, there is the soliton diffraction problem, but perhaps this is not so big an issue as the questions people wrestle with, regarding this subject. In the August Scientific American, Meinard Kuhlmann states that the idea that 'wave' and 'particle' are distinct descriptions of the same thing (having the same basic definitions as in Classical Physics) could be the main problem, preventing the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics with Relativity, and so on.

This seems like a work in progress rather than a mature theory, but it is a promising approach, and I will give you a good rating.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:33 GMT
Dear Marcel,

A generally interesting work. I agree we have to revisit some assumptions before

addressing the Wheeler’s “it from bit...” gedanken as you rightly pointed out. Some of such assumptions is whether a line can exist with zero breadth or what do you think? I think this is not possible but it is part of our assumptions. See my essay. Thanks.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 08:59 GMT
Hello Marcel-Marie

I am about to read your essay, exactly because the title is about revisiting the assumptions. My own essay drops all assumptions (of which I hope you approve) and finds that the universe has a unique beginning. I wonder how your essay will align with this? Time to find out.

Stephen Anastasi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 09:19 GMT
Hello Marcel-Marie

So, I find that your essay is very far from mine in topic. But it was an interesting read. Thanks. And I think that your idea that the basis is just plain wrong is healthy (I don't much like it when compromise is accepted as truth).

Because you are good at dealing with abstraction you might find my essay engaging. It provides a foundation for building the universe. If you agree with the foundation and construction, a 9 or 10 is a good option to put me in the top 40!

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
An open question is whether the Harmony Set implies quantum duality. In higher dimensionality, I think it does. Certainly it implies superposition, and would explain why two waves can pass through each other, cancel out, yet emerge later.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 10:41 GMT
Dear Marcel,

I like Double slit experiment discussions. Think you've done a super job of this here! I have rated it highly. I like what you said about - "The newly formed box forces quantization within these walls, allowing only a limited set of values to appear. This quantization lasts only as long as the measurement constraint does. Any measurement produces such a constraint on a system. That is, I believe, the source of the measurement problem".

This is exactly the sort of thinking that the contest is designed to encourage. I've spent many hours thinking about the delayed experiment. The results are spooky as Einstein might agree.

What gets me is that there is always a way that nature stops us using this to our advantage. It's like we are being teased by the results.

Anyway, I've approached the contest from a completely different angle, but would be honoured if you could take a look at it. Perhaps there is some overlap - maybe information exchange around a Black Hole may behave like the delayed choice experiment.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:04 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Marcel,

I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

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


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:49 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

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

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.