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

Peter Jackson: on 8/7/13 at 23:11pm UTC, wrote Tom, I don't think I've had so many voters before. I only managed to read...

Thomas Ray: on 8/7/13 at 18:03pm UTC, wrote Oh well, then. :-) Just another of those uncountable infinity of things...

Lev Goldfarb: on 8/7/13 at 17:42pm UTC, wrote No, I did the math: way higher number of ratings.

Thomas Ray: on 8/7/13 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote Isn't the number of entrants also larger? Haven't done the math, but I...

Lev Goldfarb: on 8/7/13 at 16:19pm UTC, wrote I agree about the changes coming, but do not agree about "it's really the...

Thomas Ray: on 8/7/13 at 15:59pm UTC, wrote Don't ask! :-) Ah, it's really the same as it always has been. I expect...

Lev Goldfarb: on 8/7/13 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Tom, now that we are next to each other, I want to ask you: What do you...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." 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...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

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...

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


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: The Common Mechanics of Quantum Computing and the I Ching by Thomas Howard Ray [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Essay Abstract

Can one distinguish in principle between the results of quantum computing based on the idea of quantum entanglement, and those of any other oracle? We examine the role of physical information in computation and computability, and whether the most popular idea of quantum computing is compatible with the physical principle of thermodynamics.

Author Bio

A technical writer and editor by trade, Tom Ray is an independent researcher with a primary interest in the mathematics of complex systems.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Tom,

Welcome to our neglected contest. ;-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:01 GMT
I second that..

Welcome Tom! It is good to see you made it into the contest. I'll have to read and see what refinements were added in the final draft.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT
Thomas,

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


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:26 GMT
I can see that you, as most others, have, unfortunately, been 'baptized' by a score of one: I can tell you that this time this practice came back with a vengeance (which is only to be expected).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 21:08 GMT
Hi all,

Lev, Jonathan, James Lee ... thanks for the moral support -- I'm sure we'll have a great dialogue.

Who *is* that jerk? I can make a good guess. Well, I suppose if we agree to enter, we have to suck up the bad with the good.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 01:09 GMT
Dear Tom

Congratulations for your essay. You tackled so many subjects, but all somehow related to probability. I could not comment with any confidence on your conception of orthogonal continuity/discreteness and other ideas, but your approach is sufficiently different from mine - a bottom-up modelling based on ordered transfer of angular momentum in a lattice, that I will simply and sincerely wish you the best in this contest.

Oh and I know that "Time after Time" song - someone should write an essay about the connections between physics and music - Newton's color scale, Einstein's violin playing, Pythagoros' scale, The Itsy Bitsy 'connection' Feynman's discovery of Tuvan throat singing, etc!

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 10:33 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for reading, and for being old enough to remember that silly song. I tried without success to find a reference to it.

My essay is not about probability per se. It's about the hazards of applying probability theory to the computation of deterministic measures. We would probably all agree that 2 + 2 = 4, right? Could we agree so confidently on the representation of the outcome -- {1,3}, {2,2}, {3,1}, {0,4}, {4,0}, {1,1,1,1}? Maybe if we all got together and compared our simple sets we might conclude that they are identical; would we likewise agree that *War and Peace* is identical to *Slaughterhouse Five*? (see my technical note.)

The overreach of quantum computing based on wavefunction collapse and superposition dramatizes how little we know of numerical implementation of linearly superposed quantities. That's one reason I have such high regard for Lev Goldfarb's program, which differentiates sets of characteristics by a time-structured order which is not accommodated in a static mathematical model.

Looking forward to reading your paper as always!

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:11 GMT
Thanks Thomas -

"Maybe if we all got together and compared our simple sets we might conclude that they are identical" That is very probable - one of my main gripes in physics is that mathematics and theorizing allows us to make very different theories about the same phenomena (Schrodinger wave & Heisenberg matrices for example) - but one is always 'closer to nature' and can lead to new developments.

Thanks

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 14:52 GMT
You make a really good point, Vladimir -- and it's why I have high esteem for Christian Corda's support for 't Hooft's universal application of the Schrodinger equation. No room for ambiguous interpretations and misinterpretations there.

I haven't forgotten you -- there are always a few essays I save for the end, because I expect to be delighted, being familiar with the authors' previous works; yours and Professor Corda's are among those.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Tom,

Thank you for such a thought provoking essay here. It is an unknown possibility to combine Quantum computing with classical thermodynamics, quite interesting.

But why are you entangling your excellent essay with 'SPACETIME'. Why don't you consider taking space as space and time as time..........

Mean while...

I am requesting you to go through my essay also and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
SNP,

Thank you for reading and commenting. You ask, "Why don't you consider taking space as space and time as time ..."

Quantum mechanics in the Hilbert space already takes space as space, by 2-dimensional complex analysis, without a time parameter. That is, in the complex plane where points are analyzed as lines, any representation of time is necessarily unitary, a point where t = 1 for every discrete measurement.

Classical mechanics of continuous measurement functions must include a simple time parameter of reversible trajectory (so that the equations of motion are as valid in reverse as forward in time). Equations of motion in quantum mechanics are replaced by evolution of the state vector and classical time drops out of the equations altogether.

Hermann Minkowski showed mathematically, and Einstein co-opted for physical applications, the model of a continuous spacetime -- IOW, neither space nor time by themselves are physically real (Galilean-Newtonian physics); the physically real entity is spacetime (relativistic physics), a theoretical fact which is experimentally valid and not falsified.

Just as I question whether quantum computing (at least, a quantum computation model that depends on entanglement and superposition) can overcome thermodynamic decoherence, I question whether any complete physical theory can be non-relativistic.

I'll read and comment in your forum when I can.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 13:58 GMT
Tom,

Is this the right reference to the song?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_%281947_so
ng%29

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 14:29 GMT
Lev, am I missing something? The link says no such page exists. The date (1947) could be right. I don't know, it was just a silly thing, a fleeting novelty I think.

Bookmark and Share


Lev Goldfarb replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 15:46 GMT
Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1947_son
g)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
Same problem, no content

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Thomas

A coordinated and harmonized very interesting - I also noticed : "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses" - wish you success.

And 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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 15:06 GMT
Hello Tom,

Just to share a few words of encouragement essay...

And I like that part of starting Schrödinger's experiment with a

dead cat! Never had that before.

Since superposition of a dead/alive cat has been advocated, I wonder whether dead cats can also be resurrected by Quantum measurement and Participatory observers since the probability of 'wave function' collapsing and cat in alive state is not zero.

Certainly, a riddle/ gedanken experimenten for Quantum mechanics and Quantum computing with Qbits to resolve.

You may wish to evaluate my essay, if you get the time. Criticism and disproof of my arguments are particularly welcome.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 14:03 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for reading and commenting. You write, " ... I wonder whether dead cats can also be resurrected by Quantum measurement and Participatory observers ..."

Sure they can, in infinite time. Frank Tipler examined this consequence thoroughly in *The Physics of Immortality.* All experiments, however, are conducted in finite time. Without the ability to make closed judgments, we really know nothing at all in any objective way.

"... since the probability of 'wave function' collapsing and cat in alive state is not zero."

If the probability of wave function collapse is zero, however, there is also zero probability that the cat exists either in superposition or in a perpetual state of "death." This is the principle (noncollapse) that supports Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum theory -- I agree with Hawking's purported opinion that Everett's interpretation is trivially true, because it follows from what we do know, objectively, of quantum mechanical results, without adding the mysticism of entanglement, superposition and nonlocality.

I'll read and comment on your essay when I can.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Tom,

The density and regularity of pleasant surprises was shocking and far greater than expectations, but I commend your deep and careful thought and logic as much as the consistent conclusions and clarity of style.

But is it you whose evolved your views or just me Tom? Or perhaps it's 'just my magination running away with me', but the consistency of our conclusions, if from entirely different approaches, is not something I expected at all. There were a few nice original surprises of content too. 'It' was even a 'bit' like opening presents for all at Christmas, but with some for me too. Ever played Santa before?

I also found the content eminently more readable than in previous years, but the nicest part, though I know we shouldn't be judging on such grounds, is that I could find nothing to actually dispute. Details perhaps, ..but life's far too short! (I was even blogging recently in APS (Theo.Phys) suggesting annihilation without radiation!)

I do hope you find you can say the same of my essay, a little more (too?) dense perhaps in constructing an ontology to derive the same result. It's certainly written in a different dialect, but the world is locally real. You'll find Bill McHarris also agrees. I look forward to your always critical review and comment. Mind you, ..I'm now far less sure you'll object and reject so much!

Congratulations on yours, and the genuinely important 'findings' you present. I hope and expect you to achieve a far higher place this year which, unless I've horribly misread it, will be richly deserved.

very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 23:28 GMT
Hi Peter,

You silver tongued devil! :-)

Actually, it's Lucien Hardy who's responsible for the idea of particle-antiparticle interaction without annihilation.

The reason I didn't reference him in my essay is that Hardy's is a probabilistic argument, and I don't grok the measurement process. However, it seems to assume discrete particles, while my continuous function model (it from bit in one direction and bit from it in the orthogonal direction) assumes no particles in a discrete state, only conservation of angular momentum potentially scalable to infinity.

Of course, I will read and comment on your essay as soon as I can. It will be fun, as always.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:39 GMT
Hi Tom,

I found the essay excellent, and I will have some comments. But since you talk about a condensate in the primordial universe I wanted to alert you to the essay of Royce Haynes, whose Zero K Big Bang model deserves inspection. Of course; he treats the bosonic case, where you are talking about a fermionic condensate.

I first heard about a fermionic condensate from Phil Mannheim at CCC-2, in relation to his conformal quantum gravity, and Gerard 't Hooft commented about this work, in his recent F of P article calling for theories of particle Physics with no adjusting parameters put in by hand. Tony Smith also likes the idea of a fermionic condensate, but his reasoning is somewhat unclear to me. Your paper, on the other hand, makes a good case for why a fermionic condensate is a good spacetime model.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 18:19 GMT
Hello again,

You may also find of great interest the essay of Colin Walker about quaternion spectra, and related topics.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Hi Tom,

I rated your essay. Much of it was over my head. I rated it according to how much it agreed with my world view. I appreciated the references to I Ching and Tarot. You do have this radiance of "enlightenment", this spiritual + intelligent quality that comes through your words and arguments. I appreciate that you see that QM is about available STATES for quantum particles.

On the down side, you (and most of the physics community) are focusing too much on the BIT, not enough on the IT. It's an ethereal IT, not a mathematical IT. It's an IT that you can't observe directly, yet this IT has intrinsic characteristics of the physics constants c, h, permittivity/permeability. The physics community is, overall, avoiding this distinction like the plague.

On the brighter side, I gave you a score much higher than 1. :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
Thanks, Jason! That's very kind of you.

I'm not a physicist, though most of my research is at the intersection of physics and mathematics -- the origin of an organic continuum, as I like to call it.

I regret that you didn't take away from the essay that it's only the continuum of IT that enables mathematics constructed of BITs. I could have been clearer.

All best wishes,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:40 GMT
Hi Tom,

I'm trying to gleen what you mean by, "it's only the continuum of IT that enables mathematics constructed of BITs." The more I think about it, the more I see that the IT is literally beyond human understanding, beyond our ability to measure and interact with. Given this state of affairs that the physics community doesn't know what the IT is, I feel emboldened in believing some of the new age, occult teachings about spirits, a spirit world, astral planes, and etheric planes. Basically, since physics constants are the result of some invisible thing beyond human understanding, why can't there be other kinds of invisible things that would fall under the category of occultism?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
Hi Jason,

"The more I think about it, the more I see that the IT is literally beyond human understanding, beyond our ability to measure and interact with."

Then IT doesn't have anything to do with physics, does it? You can't have it both ways -- a non-interacting something we can't possibly understand, and a physical phenomenon.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Giacomo Alessiani wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 23:37 GMT
Mr. Ray,

really, I enjoyed Your work. Symmetry breaking in sub-nuclear mechanisms.

Positions that I share. I, in my essay I went a little further and I would appreciate an opinion.

I greet You cordially.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 13:35 GMT
Thank you, Giacomo! Certainly I will visit your essay and comment first chance I get.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 03:23 GMT
Thomas,

"We tend to think that only numerical implementation is a precise fit to “reality,” and more“ scientific” because it is constrained by the rules of arithmetic — we neglect the fact that we created the (self consistent) rules of

arithmetic, as surely as generations of shamans and intelligentsia created the

self.."



In non-mathematical and more simplistic terms my "It's Good to be the King," attributes the Anthropic Principle to man's anthropomorphic tendencies, somewhat akin to building our own rules of math. I am impressed with your open realization that human subjectivity could be involved with our theories and beliefs.

A good read, having the complete absorption of a black hole's matter, along with its density, without the evaporation some pose.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
Hello Jim,

Sure, our theories are free inventions of the mind. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss black hole evaporation (Hawking radiation) however. It fits with all we know of both how quantum mechanics works, and what general relativity predicts. My essay on computability doesn't contradict Hawking radiation -- in fact, it may predict the phenomenon as the product of classical time reversibility. This would require more intensive mathematical treatment, of course.

I'll read and comment on your essay as soon as I can.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Tom,

Some of my comment were only metaphoric.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 08:29 GMT
Dear Thomas,

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

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Thanks, Sreenath! Same to you. Will get to your essay as soon as I can.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 13:12 GMT
"Without a "viscous medium", what else is there to enforce the laws (of nature) and physics constants? What else is there?"

Jason, who says there needs to be some medium to enforce the laws of nature, as if those laws were written on magic stone tablets and subject to judgment by some omnipotent deity? Einstein discovered more than a century ago that a luminiferous ether is not required to propagate electromagnetic phenomena -- likewise, your idea of a singular point of control over all natural phenomena is only a sufficient condition for the reality we experience, not a necessary one.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear T H Ray,

Thanks for writing a highly interesting article and it takes its readers spell bound from the first line to the last one. You essay starts with the quotation, “Your task is not to foresee the future, but to enable it”, seems to me to reflect what I have said in my essay on quantum physics; where I have said, reality is not discovered (as in the classical world) but it is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Tom, I knew I would enjoy reading your piece but I never expected that your essay is so well written and so well thought out. It is a pleasure to read, although I have to read it slowly and several times. Here are the few quotes that I like: "The arrangements, 010 and 101 resemble an I Ching2 oracle where tossing three coins produces two heads and one tail in one case and two tails/one head...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 16:23 GMT
Thank you for the kind words, Leo! I think that what you are disagreeing with, however, is not a disagreement at all. The statement from my essay above refers to Carl Jung's observation that "Whatever is born or done in a moment of time has the properties of this moment in time." You can glean from my other works that a great deal of attention is paid to time as a real phenomenon.

As a continuum of spacetime, it and bit are mutually dependent; however, the fundamental quantum bit (Qbit, or in your terms KQBIT) is primordial only because it cannot exist independent of the continuum. If the continuum could not exist on it own, though, the bit could not be fundamental. I think this perfectly comports with your recursive model: "Space is the child of time and time is the mother of space."

We have a lot to talk about.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 02:18 GMT
Dear Thomas. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Oh and here is the Itsy Bitsy song enjoy the silly nostalgia.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 14:55 GMT
Oh, I remember the "itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini" very well! How about "tan shoes with pink showlaces, a polka dot vest and man oh man, he wears tan shoes with pink shoelaces and a big Panama with a purple hat band!" LOL.

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 11:19 GMT
Dear Tom,

You brought a good quote that cause researchers to "dig" to the most remote meaning of being: " All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses" and " Whatever is born or done in a moment of time has the properties of this moment in time".

And again, you are putting a great question: «Is information identical to time?». In conclusion, the idea of the ancient " As above, so below". Your conclusions all the more convinced of the rightness of David Gross of the "common framework structure" of physics. I think not only of physics.

http://expert.ru/expert/2013/06/iz-chego-sostoit-pro
stranstvo-vremya/

I wish you every success and respect,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 16:24 GMT
Thank you, Vladimir! I hope to get in another read of your essay when I can make the time. I enjoyed it and rated it highly, though it deserves more attention than I can give at the moment.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear Tom,

Great essay and very, very readable. I love the roulette explanation at the start. Very good way to teach the concepts involved. I'm also relieved to hear that the dead cat can be resurrected - even if it takes an infinite amount of time ;)

The positron, electron diagrams worked well too. Well done, I rate it highly - very interesting.

If you find the time, please take a look at my essay. Different approach to yours, but hopefully of some interest.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 10:10 GMT
Hi Antony,

Indeed I found your essay of interest. Commented in your forum. Looking forward to dialogue!

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 07:41 GMT
Hi Thomas,

Thanks for reply. I think your roulette wheel analogy should be used in textbooks - brilliant! Thanks also for your comments over on my page. I'll be able to reply properly early in the week.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 08:26 GMT
Hi Tom,

As promised in my Essay page, I have read your particular Essay.

I find it intriguing for various reasons.

I like the simile between quantum physics and divination system of I Ching.

I think that your sentence "Gravity does not fit into quantum mechanics because one cannot derive a continuum of information from a bit of information, in any non-arbitrary way." is also the core of the black hole information loss paradox that I discussed in my Essay.

Do you think that your suggestion that "the ordered continuum is "It" and that partially ordered measures of information events (the "books" we create from the symbols) are the "bits"" is compatible with my statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

In any case, your Essay is pretty and I strongly appreciated it. Therefore, I will give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:49 GMT
Hi Christian,

I sure do agree that your statement ("Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow") is compatible with the flow of partially ordered information over a continuous manifold of totally ordered information. I think it's even stronger than that -- it consummates Wheeler's simple explanation of general relativity ("Matter tells space how to curve;...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:51 GMT
Ah, the log-in thing again. 'Twas I, obviously.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
Tom,

Catching up with rating and just found you in uncharted territory. Hope this helps. Also hope you've done mine (or better still haven't and it's high!) I think we should organise audio essays in future. My eyes are aching!

It's been a great contest for me as I've found much resonance and some great support and new links to similar work and consistent theory. But how can we ever update ('change') established doctrine?

Very best of luck in the run in.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
Thanks for the boost, Peter! Yes, I gave you my high rating last week.

Best to you, too.

Tom

Bookmark and Share



Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Hi Tom,

I'm making my way through various essays. First I like very much the broad and deep non-physics (at least directly) references in the essay -- Saint-Exupéry, Darwin, I Ching. Also the line "Ever hear of starting the Schrödinger experiment with a dead cat?" is really great.

There is some resonance between your use of self-similarity and that which we use in our essay so I certainly find this interesting. However even more interesting is the "fermionic phase of superfluidity" due to D.S. Jin (I'm going to download this paper to have a look). From the title to the PRL it seems that there is some superfluid phase to strongly interacting fermions which is something new to me. Also this seems to be connected with your figure 4.

Also your paper you mention "So even though scale plays an apparent role (via the Planck constant) in locally definite measures – we ask, is scale a barrier to the indefinite global coherence of the wave function?" This is very interesting as there has been some recent work by Blencowe (arXiv:1211.4751 [quant-ph]) where he gives some calculations to indicate the interactions of bulk matter with the graviton CMB (the graviton version of the usual photon CMB) is responsible for the classical character of the world i.e. bulk matter does not show quantum coherence due to Planck scale physics. This appears to be similar to what you hint at.

Anyway an entertaining and strong essay.

Best,

Doug

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Hi Doug,

I am most honored by your approval. You know that I also think highly of your and your collaborators' research, and the strategy that motivates it.

The "no dead cats" hypothesis is meant to underscore the fact that without an infinite regression to the cosmological initial condition, quantum mechanics is simply not coherent. It becomes a purely operational proposition, not a true scientific theory at all. The interesting consequence of this fact, to me, is that "no dead cats" implies "no dead matter." Consciousness itself regresses to the smallest particle of entangled wavefunctions. I see the entanglement as classical orientation entanglement, rather than the quantum entanglement that entails superposition and nonlocality. I am willing to accept the "no dead cats" hypothesis, which I find dovetails with Murray Gell-Mann's conjecture of a continuum of consciousness.

If you haven't seen it, I think you might find interesting the 2004 Scientific American article on Deborah Jin which includes links to another interesting article by Christopher Monroe and David Wineland.

I'll check out the Blencowe preprint. It does sound very worthwhile! I think there is still a whole lot of wisdom to mine from classical physics.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 12:28 GMT
Doug, thanks for that link to Miles Blencowe's paper! (I was additionally heartened to see that it is not a preprint, but a publication of PRL this year).

Absolutely, we are on the same page here: " ... whatever the final form the eventual correct quantum theory of gravity takes, it must converge in its predictions with the effective field theory description at low energies."

Blencowe is exceedingly straightforward in his explanation of the rapid decoherence that restores normal perturbative analysis of gravitation above the Planck scale. I am reminded of Lavoisier's discovery of combustion as the process of rapid oxidation. We may eventually find that with quantum gravity -- as with combustion -- nothing more is needed except this functional description of interacting fields.

I think Blencowe's Gaussian matter ball could be found equivalent to my primordial ball of spacetime.

An excellent and groundbreaking paper. Thanks again, Doug.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share


Douglas Alexander Singleton replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:46 GMT
HI Tom,

Glad you liked the Blencowe paper. Yes not only did it make PRL but it was a "focus" article which means PRL wrote up a popular leave exposition of PRL which can be found at http://physics.aps.org/articles/print/v6/78 under the title "Focus: Gravity Makes the Universe Classical". In this exposition they mention Schrodiner's cat and that Blencowe's mechanism may provide a means to explain why one does not see macro mixed state e.g. a half dead/half alive cat) -- gravity decoheres marco matter.

Ray Chiao was the one who pointed this paper out to me and we are trying to understand if Blencowe's arguments would/should lead to the decoherence of superconductor or superfluids which are in some sense "marco quantum states". In other words a macro sized superconductor appears to maintain its quantum coherence which might be bad news for Blencowe's argument since superconductor and superfluids of marcoscopic size are able to maintain their superconducting or superfluids state or long periods of time (for superconductors as long as the liquid He or liquid N is kept topped up). However as well Blencowe considers a non-self interacting scalar field as his "model matter" and superconductors have sefl interactions via phonons. These interactions would probably dominate the gravitational interaction Blencowe considers. But we are still debating this. Also Blencowe's idea seems to a specific realization of how gravity make the world classical.

Best,

Doug

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:14 GMT
Hi Tom,

I'm glad to see you discovered Michael Goodband's essay, and I see you were able to boost his ranking. When I got there last week, his high quality essay was in an unfairly low slot, and I also gave it a boost. I think perhaps MG had a bit of a heavy or slow start, this year, but overall a very fine effort.

Since I already gave you a good rating, I can only hope that others will see the quality in you work - and grade you accordingly. I note that you are doing well, but I hope you are closer to the top at the bell. Good luck!

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
should be..

in your work..

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Thanks, Jonathan. This horse race is one thing (and not a great way in my opinion to judge scientific works) -- my delight is discovering high level and growing support for the relativistic foundation of physics.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:43 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


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Hi Thomas,

I found your statement, "Since input orientation equals position and output result equals momentum, there can be no ambiguity—local realism holds for these simultaneously measured values. The entire universe is not other than locally real." to be reflective of the findings obtained in the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay intuitive, logical, and most worthy of merit.

I wish you well in the competition. You essay deserves to be in the finals.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 23:17 GMT
Thomas - interesting essay and nice connection of ideas. I particularly enjoyed your paragraphs on Feynman’s call to Wheeler, and the one following regarding reversibility. As you will see from my essay, I have a different perspective on this (although inspired by Feynman and Wheeler’s Absorber paper).

My favorite paragraph in your essay is on page 8: “Is information identical to time?” (which you get from Ray’s paper from the 2007 conference on Complex Systems). My point precisely.

However, the most interesting part of your essay was for me the technical endnote, which could almost by itself be considered the key point of all of this.

“countable” doesn’t necessarily imply well ordered ... Yup!

Well done, I gave you a good mark for this paper, and hope that you will review my definition of “countability” in an “eternal recurrence”.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Tom,

Thanks for the comments over on my thread, I've only just noticed them. I've replied to your super questions!

Best wishes for the contest - you have a truly inventive and inquisitive mind!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:08 GMT
Dear Thomas,

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 @ 07:43 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT
Tom, now that we are next to each other, I want to ask you: What do you think of all this madness? ;-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Don't ask! :-)

Ah, it's really the same as it always has been. I expect big changes in format are coming -- for that reason.

Bookmark and Share


Lev Goldfarb replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:19 GMT
I agree about the changes coming, but do not agree about "it's really the same as it always has been". Just look at the number of ratings, especially for the main lobbyists: they have never been so large before.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:07 GMT
Isn't the number of entrants also larger? Haven't done the math, but I think the proportion will be about the same.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:11 GMT
Tom,

I don't think I've had so many voters before. I only managed to read and post about the same as last year.

I like your ensemble plan. Sounds like a good technical writer's needed. Will they allow a non Phys PhD in on he act?

Really sorry yours doesn't look like making the cut. You're in good company.

Best wishes

Peter

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.