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]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Essay AbstractCan 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 BioA 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
Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 17:50 GMT
Tom,
Welcome to our neglected contest. ;-)
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 give your blessings. 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.
view post as summary
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
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
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.
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)
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Lev,
Okay, I got to the link. No, the song I'm talking about is not the famous standard. It's just a continuous repeating of
Time after time after time after time after time after time after time ...
After time after time after time.
(refrain)
Time after time
After time after time after time.
:-)
hide replies
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
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 after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :
THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT
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.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. :)
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
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?
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
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 16:44 GMT
Hi Tom,
"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."
Well, such an IT is going to have characteristics and mechanisms that set the physics constants c, h, G, etc. In that sense, it still is physics. One day, we'll have to try to figure out how to change those values, particularly c and G, if we ever hope to travel faster than c.
It is still my contention that wave-function phenomena is part of the IT and part of consciousness as well. Neurons firing in sync is supposed to cause consciousness. More like neurons firing in sync allows consciousness to experience the brain and nervous system, as if consciousness was an all pervading field that can slip into the physical universe through the brain, using the brain as a conduit. This is nature, but not 21st century physics.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 12:09 GMT
Hello again Jason,
I'm afraid that if you mix your belief system with science, you're going to be disappointed in the limitations of both.
The physical constants don't need a creator; they are merely measured values that we insert into theories to make sense of the numbers. There's no controversy about where they come from; we don't base our scientific conclusions of the nature of reality either on what we measure or on what we believe nature to be. We base our conclusions on correspondence between the theories we construct and the measurements those theories predict.
Best,
Tom
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 23:16 GMT
Hi Tom,
The words I've been using are causing to resistance to the ideas I have. Let me try another approach. I want to use a word like viscosity to describe what I think is happening. I imagine there to be a viscous like substance that exists beyond universes and dimensions. Ordinarily, I would prefer to describe it as an aether or a spirit medium, but for now, I will describe it as something that is very viscous. Imagine that this viscous substance is poured into certain domains of mathematical physics (the mathematical physics that is reality, not just a mathematical model). It is this viscous medium that has physics constants as properties (for reasons beyond 21st century physics understanding). If I were talking to believers, I would call this viscious medium the spirit of God. If I were talking to occultists, I would call it the aether. If I were talking to physicists, I would deseribe it as the invisible/undetectable medium that "breathes reality" into the domain of mathematics. At the smallest scales, this viscious medium would be the wave-function that participates in unseen interferences patterns of the 2 slit experiment (and every other quantum system).
The Higgs field, all known fields, and every field yet to be discovered owes its existence to the presence of this viscious medium. In reality, this viscosity of this medium is too small to be detectable.
I mean viscosity in the "trying to stir it" sense, not the molecular electrostatic sense.
Scientists should think in terms of this medium breathing "reality" into physics equations. That's what I'm saying.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
"Scientists should think in terms of this medium breathing 'reality' into physics equations."
Should they? What physical measurement differentiates a breathing medium from no medium at all?
Tom
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 01:29 GMT
"Should they? What physical measurement differentiates a breathing medium from no medium at all?"
The fact that there are thousands of mathematical physics theories that don't describe reality at all. A mathematical physics theory is not a sufficient condition to bring a universe into existence. It takes something specific to "breath life into it", to make it real; it takes something that is capable of enforcing laws (of nature) and physics constants. Take a look at the Casimir effect. There are these quantized fields that pop into existence when we arrange plates & potiential energy wells in certain ways. There are wave-functions that pop into existence in infinite potential energy wells. That's what I'm talking about. It looks to me like wave-functions exist as things that just pop into existence and act like quantum system.
Without a "viscous medium", what else is there to enforce the laws (of nature) and physics constants? What else is there?
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 13:13 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
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
"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?"
Is there any place in the universe where the speed of light is not guaranteed to be constant? Or the Planck constant? Or the gravitational constant? It is literally an act of faith that nobody questions these values.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 18:51 GMT
"Is there any place in the universe where the speed of light is not guaranteed to be constant? Or the Planck constant? Or the gravitational constant? It is literally an act of faith that nobody questions these values."
You might say that it's faith to "believe in" the principle of uniformity (that the physical laws are the same in every part of the universe), only because we can't observe every part of the universe. If this principle isn't true, however, *nothing* that we know about physical science is true. So if you prefer to believe in the supernatural, that's fine with me. Personally, I'm not giving up on science until I'm finished exploring its potential.
Tom
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 23:04 GMT
Tom,
I think that the wave-function is describing a real phenomenon of nature. After all, why would opening a second slit create an interference pattern, one photon at a time, if the wave-functions of two slits were not interfering with one another. Some have suggested that individual photons are somehow interfering with themselves to create the interference pattern. But if that were true, then someone would have to come up with the mathematics to describe a photon interfering with itself. But why would you need that if you already have wave-function mathematics as QM solutions to the double slit experiment? Parsimony of explanations, right?
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 23:54 GMT
Jason,
Do you understand my explanation of the two slit experiment in the essay?
Tom
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Tom,
I took another look at your explanation of the two slit experiment. Sorry, I couldn't really follow it. But I did notice this paragraph,
"What both the Hilbert space quantum
mechanical model and the I Ching cannot do,
however, is to reproduce the continuous
function of field dynamics, Einstein’s choice
of Minkowski space which gives meaning to
the metric tensor because it includes a time
continuum."
What caught my eye was that it sounded like you were saying that quantum mechanic models are not continuous. I'm not sure what you're referring to because one of the characteristics of wave-functions is that they are continuous and singlevalued.
What I didn't see (or maybe overlooked) is the idea that wave-functions are describing a real phenomena of nature. Yet such a phenomena is not made of standard model particles or anything that we know of as a real substance. Heck, even the Higgs field is more real then wave-functions. At least we found indirect evidence of a Higgs particle. But the wave-function, which has this peculiar ability to enforce the Pauli Exclusion principle (Hydrogen atom), and interfere with other wave-functions, is nevertheless not any kind of physically tangible substance that we've experienced.
And yet, whatever this e^i phenomena is, it permeates literally EVERYTHING.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 10:23 GMT
"What caught my eye was that it sounded like you were saying that quantum mechanic models are not continuous."
Of course they're not, Jason. Quantum mechanics, like statistical mechanics, describes the behavior of discrete particles.
"I'm not sure what you're referring to because one of the characteristics of wave-functions is that they are continuous and...
view entire post
"What caught my eye was that it sounded like you were saying that quantum mechanic models are not continuous."
Of course they're not, Jason. Quantum mechanics, like statistical mechanics, describes the behavior of discrete particles.
"I'm not sure what you're referring to because one of the characteristics of wave-functions is that they are continuous and singlevalued."
You're confusing the quantum mechanical wavefunction, which is probabilistic and therefore describes particles in superposition, with classical wave propagation. The latter is the collective motion (consisting of peaks and troughs) of particles though a medium, like water waves. The motion is continuous, but not -- unless the wave is a soliton -- single valued. I think what you mean by single valued is what the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics calls collapse of the wave function. A continuous wave potential does not collapse -- which is how we get alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Everett's many-worlds hypothesis.
" . . . the wave-function, which has this peculiar ability to enforce the Pauli Exclusion principle (Hydrogen atom), and interfere with other wave-functions, is nevertheless not any kind of physically tangible substance that we've experienced."
The Pauli Exclusion principle refers to particles, not waves. Waves always interfere with each other; they reinforce and destroy. Statistics governing this kind of motion are called Bose-Einstein, because massless particles (bosons) act as an ensemble -- any number of them can simultaneously occupy the same point in spacetime. Fermion statistics govern discrete particles that have mass (fermions), and the Pauli Exclusion principle is what allows us to tell one from another -- no two fermions can occupy the same state at the same time.
All of this is a part of our physical experience, the continuous wave and the discrete event. The foundational question is that of whether any "tangible substance" exists at all; space and time may be all the substance we need to have mass and energy.
Tom
view post as summary
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 19:53 GMT
Tom,
I believe that the wave amplitude, Psi, this thing that interferes with other wave-functions, is the SUBSTRATE of REALITY. The wave amplitude is what has the physics constant c attached to it.
The probability of (psi*)(psi) is what we measure as probabilities.
All this Hilbert space mathematics is just overhead above and beyond what nature is really doing. Physicists have to use mathematics to solve QM problems. Nature doesn't have to solve problems. It just acts the way it would naturally act.
In my view, this wave amplitude phenomena, the substrate of reality, permeates all things, and is indistinguishable from what some people call spirit. If there was such a thing as a soul or a consciousness that survived the death of the physical body, it would have something to do with this inter-penetrating substrate of reality that, at the quantum level, interferes like water waves.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:14 GMT
Jason, before Antoine Lavoisier showed that fire results from the chemical process of rapid oxidation, chemists theorized that a substance that might well be described as an "inter-penetrating substrate of reality" that they named phlogiston, was responsible for causing fire. Then they discovered that "positive phlogiston" caused combustible substances like wood to lose matter and non-combustible substances, like iron, to gain matter (rust). They were unbothered by the contradiction.
The lesson here is that when one tries to explain everything from a first and final cause, one explains nothing. The more rewarding path is the enlightened realization that "Nature doesn't have to solve problems. It just acts the way it would naturally act."
The problems are ours to pose, and to solve. Not nature's.
Tom
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 20:17 GMT
From phlogiston to gravitons, which were never found, to Higg's particles, which are not compatible with big bang/inflation theory. Plug in a wrong answer, grind through the calculations, and discover that things don't fit. It's the scientific method.
You know what's funny? I didn't even know there was anything wrong with Higgs + inflation, until I wondered when Higgs particles were created during the big bang/inflation period. It's that interpenetrating aether that flows through everything that alerted me to the problem, like a sixth sense.
http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-could-spell-trou
ble-for-leading-big-bang-theory-1.12804
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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.
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
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
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
James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Tom,
Some of my comment were only metaphoric.
Jim
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
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
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
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
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 rather ‘invented’ in the quantum world. In your essay, you have tried to describe the quantum world through the eyes of Quantum Computing and relating it, in a novel way, to the I Ching oracle. It is good to note that, ‘discrete Bits come from a continuum of Its’, there by claiming priority of It over Bit as in classical physics. But it appears curious to compare predictions of QM to I Ching oracle and thus indirectly saying that measurement results of QM spring from nowhere to correlate with the predicted ones. In order to overcome this unphysical attitude of QM in physics, you have tried to derive the whole of QM from the basics of classical physics (i.e. the continuity of space-time) there by uniting former with the latter and this automatically leads to the long sought theory of QG. Likewise, you have tried to merge fermion statistics with the boson statistics and there by showing that’ the entire universe is not other than locally real’. But, in the end there is no such theory of QG and there is again the ‘uncertainty’ of the quantum world prevailing not only in QM but also in classical arithmetic as it is having a ‘degree of built in computational uncertainty’. So this uncertainty is there even in the classical world as it is based on the continuity of numbers and even quantum computing does not reach that level and a rational research program is at loggerheads.
I hope, you try to fix this unsolved problem in the future and become guiding light to all those who seek an answer to this perplexing problem of QG.
I wish you all the best in the essay contest and urge you go through my essay and post your invaluable comments on it in my thread.
Sincerely,
Sreenath
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear Sreenath,
I wish I could have hired you to write my abstract! :-) It is such a pleasure to receive feedback from one who truly understands what I am saying, because I (as many others, I'm sure) am never quite sure if I have made my points as clearly as they can be made. Thank you.
You can be sure that I'll put your essay at the top of my reading list.
All best,
Tom
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear T H Ray,
Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and I am too going to rate your entertaining essay with maximum score.
All the best,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear T H Ray,
I have rated your essay with maximum score.
best,
Sreenath
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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 in the other. Of course, all possible combinations are actually eight— 000, 111, 010, 101, 110, 001, 100, 011— and an I Ching reading takes six tosses of the coins (or yarrow stalks, or 0s and 1s) to make a complete “hexagram” composed of two “trigrams” one atop the other (fig. 3)" If I may say, KQID also cites Fu Xi as the founder of bagua or 8 trigrams, precursor of I Ching as well as Pythagoras were the founders of digital Existence that bit is it and it is bit: bit = it. And another, "Isn’t this what Wheeler is telling us? – “The situation cannot declare itself until you’ve asked your question. But the asking of one question precludes the asking of another.” “It” – the answer to a question – whether one addresses one’s inquiry to the I Ching oracle, a quantum computer, a favorite deity, or the universe itself – is only “it” for that moment," Fantastic! But this one I strongly disagree, "A rarely spoken assumption of both quantum mechanical formalism – and the I Ching – is that time itself has no physical reality beyond a probabilistic moment." whereas, KQID says that time is real and time is the mother of space-in-time. Everything happens with, through and in time.
However, I love your insightful wisdom embedded with healthy Descartes' doubts: "Even the most primitive of oracle predictive techniques is judged against collected lore stored in the heads of shamans or in some book or books of “hidden” knowledge. 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 consistent rules of their own predictive systems." Wonderful essay and I hope we continue our discussion later. I will rate this essay the highest that I have given so far. Please look and give me your erudite comment on my essay and grade it accordingly. Thanks, Leo KoGuan.
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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; space tells matter how to move") by replacing the assumption of matter with the assumption of information, implying what we've long hoped for in a unified theory of physics, that space and time alone explain the origin and behavior of matter.
Personally, I long doubted that Hawking's remarkable work in black hole thermodynamics could bridge that gap -- because of Hawking's insistence on information loss. This conclusion sabotaged hope that general relativity and quantum mechanics can be smoothly united -- because it implies that there is no time continuum: information loss is equivalent to quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse, so there's no profit in pursuing the relativity connection further.
When Hawking reversed his opinion (2001, I think, though I wasn't aware of it until a couple of years later) my enthusiasm for unification via a field theory was reignited -- coincident with some intense study of Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture. It wasn't the proof so much that impressed me (hardly anyone thought the conjecture was false); it was the strategy (Thurston's geometrization conjecture). If the manifold of a 3-sphere (an event horizon in physical terms) can be continuously deformed and reformed, this differs from black hole thermodynamics -- how? If there is no singularity that cannot be extinguished in finite time, there is no naked singularity that is physical, and self organized fields account for all the physical effects we ascribe to matter. Furthermore, time symmetry is restored and black hole radiation (Hawking radiation) is a natural physical consequence of the geometry.
With your (Corda's) information-preserving construction at the black hole event horizon, we can now speak of a time-conserving information flow, that smoothly corresponds to the geometric flow central to Perelman's proof. Thus, the evolution from pure state to pure state at the event horizon preserves the symmetry of general relativity, without the assumption of an asymmetric field that led Einstein astray for many years. In my own conception, general relativity's model of a "finite and unbounded" universe -- conventionally considered as finite in time, i.e., bounded at the singularity of creation, and unbounded in space -- remains unchanged when transposed to a model finite in space and unbounded in time.
In the future I expect we will replace black hole thermodynamics with black hole informatics. I predict we will find that the self-similarity of information exchange at *any* event horizon from quantum to classical scales produces a continuous field of interacting waves to which particles owe their existence. Hey -- maybe it really is turtles all the way down. :-)
All best,
Tom
view post as summary
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 12:30 GMT
Bull's-eye, Doug! I expect that science press attention will start picking up steam on this news by the time the academic year rolls in. If Ray Chiao is on board with these results, the buzz will be all the stronger.
I've been drafting a paper to better explain the "middle value" relation that my essay addresses, and which ties into Blencowe's Gaussian ball. I'm seeing the ball as the potential of massless energy (graviton spin 2 particles) with Gaussian normal distribution:
Using induction and the continuum hypothesis, I find that because the fixed congruence condition of twin primes, P_1 = P_2 (mod 2) generalizes to all odd primes*, the smallest magnitude -- i.e., any twin prime pair -- contains the largest differential (infinity), which is the cardinality of the continuum. For example, the set {17,19} with median 18 partitioned {17,18} {18,19} has no zero point as would be the case with {18,18} because the median on R_+ has no clone.
The "no cloning" theorem of quantum mechanics** which rejects the middle value is relevant here, whether we speak of prime integers or discrete particles -- because when we expand the magnitude to any arbitrary P_1, P_2, the mean is a definite finite point. For example, take the set {3, 119} whose mean is 58. In the previous example mean = median, so there is no definite point that partitions the integers, while the case of the relative state 3 = 119 (mod 2) gives us the definite state {3, 58, 119}. Long story short -- and leaving out the complex analysis needed to prove the case -- the implication is that the existence of 2 relative states implies 3 definite states.
All Best,
Tom
* Ray, T. proceedings ICCS 2006
** Wooters, Zurek
hide replies
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
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
should be..
in your work..
JJD
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
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
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 express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.
I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.
There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements – which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.
Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.
This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.
Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.
This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.
However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.
Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.
Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.
The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.
Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.
This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.
Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.
You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.
With many thanks and best wishes,
John
jselye@gmail.com
view post as summary
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
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
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
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.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:43 GMT
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? ;-)
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.
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.
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.
Lev Goldfarb replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
No, I did the math: way higher number of ratings.
report post as inappropriate
Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT
Oh well, then. :-) Just another of those uncountable infinity of things in my life that I can't control.
hide replies
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
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.