Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 22:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Don Limuti: on 8/7/13 at 19:18pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve, I was trolling the essays to see if there was anything I had...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:41am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/6/13 at 0:07am UTC, wrote Dear Steven, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Antony Ryan: on 8/3/13 at 20:20pm UTC, wrote Steve, I'd be delighted to - I did reply, but there is a system bug so may...

john selye: on 8/2/13 at 1:39am UTC, wrote Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to...

Manuel Morales: on 8/1/13 at 22:05pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve, As I stated in my email the other day, I found your inquiry to...

Antony Ryan: on 8/1/13 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Steve, I'm glad I could help! I think you've got a very similar way of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Precognitive Quantum State: What Can We Know? by Steven Lee Coleman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steve Coleman wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Essay Abstract

The existence of quantum state prior to measurement is examined. Through the application of a thought experiment in Special Relativity an argument is made for the required indeterminacy of a quantum state before the measurement is made.

Author Bio

Mr Coleman is an analyst working at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, working off hours on a personal quantum realists unification theory. This new theory is based primarily on first principals of Thermodynamics and Special Relativity. He has an expressed interest in collaboration and sharing of ideas with any like minded quantum-realists centric experts in their field of study.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 20:12 GMT
Steven,

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


Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Hello Steve,

I read your essay several times, and that's saying something, and while I think it's well structured and cogent, and to the point, and worthy of my highest rating so far, I wonder whether you have ever sat back and contemplated the framework within which your ideas exist. The math is trying to describe relative space and relative time, yet itself relies on absolute space and absolute time for its consistency; without consistency math makes no sense whatsoever. If the alien clock tells time aboard ship, then I wonder which math it is using, it can't rely on absolute space and absolute time because they do not exist aboard a ship traveling at the speed of light. If math is a universal language, which fails at relativistic speeds, or singularity, we can justifiably say that a math based clock can't tell time within the quantum domain. I for one, do not relay on a math based clock in my essay, and while my essay is primarily philosophical, I would consider commenting on the quantum domain from within its context. If you have time to read my essay, please point out its contradictions, or ask a question.

Well Done! And good luck in the contest.

Zoran.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Coleman replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 04:41 GMT
Zoran,

Thank you very much for your kind words of encouragement. I look forward to reading your paper as well.

I knew that the concept of time (both in human experience and in the mathematical context) was going to be one of the hardest things to get ones mind wrapped around, but to address those specific issues directly, I would have had to stray from the subject matter that I was required to address, and thus the paper would certainly have been less to the point. Unfortunately under the rules of the essay I was not able to expand upon that, not only because of the size limitation, but also in that the answer gets directly into my personal theory, a topic of which is explicitly off limits to the essay contest. Suffice it to say that the very issues that you are now contemplating are actually all part of the answer to the many paradox if you think about it hard enough. It took me the better part of three months to work through the many can-of-worms issues that I saw coming out of this same thought experiment, but I finally became convinced that it all works out given the proper definition of time. I hope to address that and the absolutes you speak of in my future paper, should I ever find enough personal time to complete it.

The math that you are speaking of is always from within the reference frame in which you are basing your analysis. Remember, time is relative, so things only need to 'add up' within their own reference frame. When looking across reference frames you will always find a paradox waiting. So be very careful what reference frame the things that you are comparing actually come from and things will always make a lot more sense.

Steve.

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Steve,

It is an interesting and thought provoking attempt to clarify what does seem to be an intractable problem.

While it's not the topic of my entry in this essay, I would like to offer what I think is a minor adjustment to our concept of time that seems to have some consequence as to how we consider this situation. One which does lead to the 2nd solution, so you might find it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Coleman replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 05:30 GMT
John,

You are very astute with your analysis of time, so much so, that you partially described a core part of my theory paper that I have been working on for the last three years. There is quite a bit more to it than that, but from your description I can see that it might be interesting to compare notes sometime in the future after the contest is over. The part that you are missing, and may want to think about, is what is the structure of space-time itself, and how exactly time flows in that context given your model of discrete events.

As for you statement on 'no internal activity' in the ship while operating at the speed of light, this makes perfect sense given that it would take zero time, in the pilots reference frame, to arrive at the destination. How could the pilot move around the cabin if they have zero time to do it in?

Yes, the thought experiment might be silly, but if it got you to thinking then it still did the job. I decided that if the target audience was to be a popular science magazine I had better simplify and explain things for the people just picking up the magazine to learn. As for your fire log example, the log experiences no change in its local clock or its reference frame. Only the photons when leaving the log have their clock affected in any way.

Thanks for the feedback.

Steve.

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 10:06 GMT
Dear Steve and John,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay.

Instead of just thought experiments...

I Have a suggestion for you,Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

later try changing values...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
Steve,

I tend to see spacetime as a system of correlating measurements, rather than the actual mechanism many purport it to be. Remember that "historically" time is viewed as a singular flow, or narrative and yet we only detect it as motion, of which there are all sorts and speeds. So how does one go about coordinating all these motions to one universal flow? Consider how the calendar...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 14:23 GMT
Your insights into relativity were very interesting. I particularly like the idea that the wave-particle structure of particles validates extending the dilations and contractions of time and space observed in Special Relativity to the particulate level.

Thus, there are no absolute measurements.

Perhaps it's even simpler to state that beings on different planets observing a particular cosmic phenomenon would all come up with a different measurement of it – and all of them would be valid.

However, the larger question arises - how do these different information networks function? In this non-deterministic universe, how do any beings on any planet come to have objectivity – or any verifiable measurements at all?

In other words, the information organisms derive from their interactions with the universe is contiguous with these observers over their evolutionary span: The Cosmos is non-deterministic, but it is not random – its creatures and entities are held in a correlation that produces varying measurements depending on location in space-time.

What is this correlation of entities and observers?

The answer to this question, I believe, reveals the nature of information – and of the Cosmos itself.

I benefited from reading your essay, and rated it; I believe you will find mine (where I develop a Paradigm that deals with this question of correlation) to be a complementary work, and I hope to hear back from you soon. Thanks!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael Helland wrote on Jul. 4, 2013 @ 20:42 GMT
Very clear and easy to read, good work.

I think, without he outcomes of a new experiment, that there are more cards to play, as you say, I'm determining which interpretation is strongest, that is which leads to the breakthrough to quantum gravity that we want.

My essay claims that the state of matter pre-measurement are best thought of as Leibniz's monads and that measurement does not change the monads, or transform them into physical post-measurement matter, but rather measurements creates an entirely new matter in a new medium of information (such as the observers neural network).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
Dear Steve

Your wish also is something that everyone is waiting - hopefully we will be successful - and certainly will must be like that.

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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 09:25 GMT
Steve, a novel approach but one major flaw, length contraction and time dilation could be as fictitious as your essay as demonstrated by the space-time information paradox

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Please see my rebuttal in the comment section of your listing. In short, your experiment appears to be a from of a "delayed choice" experiment which by its very nature, and confirmed in experiment, should logically preclude that result. I'll keep reviewing it, because I am now curious why the math and first law of thermodynamics disagree.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
Mr. Coleman,

It is the real Universe that is travelling at the real speed of light. Real light is actually the only stationary substance in the real Universe that is why real light does not have mass, temperature, or motion.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Coleman replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 22:31 GMT
Your statement makes no sense with respect to the first law of thermodynamics. If the photon is what is stationary then you must be saying that the Universe is what is travelling at the speed of light, which would obviously take infinite energy to do so. Even a very light particle of near zero mass can never obtain that kind of speed much less the Universe as a whole. That is simply illogical.

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
REAL LIGHT IS STATIONARY. IT IS THE ONLY STATIONARY SUBSTANCE IN THE REAL UNIVERSE.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:51 GMT
Dear Steve,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments. I like your field of interest and more on it in due course.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 17:38 GMT
Hello Steve,

That was a very interesting essay. Very readable. A question I have for you is whether something that you measure to exist can stop existing if you travel at speed of light, especially given differing viewpoints of the same event? Also can 1 change to 0 due to length contraction? Kindly see my essay and rate. Give me comments if you like it.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:17 GMT
Hello Steve,

Lovely to see some relativity and having it handled so well in a relevant and intelligent way in this contest. Plenty of logic and good reasoning. The diagram was fantastic of the rocket and from start to finish the whole essay was interesting. Well done! Top marks from me - hopefully help in your ranking!

My essay is a little different, but there is a journey, albeit into (and "back out") of a Black Hole, to examine how information can be observed and released. Then a little entropy comes into play and we seem to find the Fibonacci sequence. Please take a look if you get chance.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 05:21 GMT
Steve,

Just re-read your bio. I too am working on a unification theory, thus far only partly unifying the four forces, but also resolving the three paradoxes of cosmogony. I've related the masses of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.999988% of the theoretical value, and this keeps improving with more mass data from the likes of Cern.

The theory also explains a cosine nature to spin.

If any of this interests you - please let me know on my thread.

Again - best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Steve Coleman replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT
Antony,

Thank you for your small contribution to my essay score. Any improvement in its ranking will certainly help others to discover it and perhaps take the time to comprehend the far reaching implications of this thought experiment. Its implications are staggering and can answer so many open questions if you just think deeply about it long enough.

Knowing that someone like...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 16:03 GMT
Steve,

I'm glad I could help! I think you've got a very similar way of thinking thoroughly. I'd be delighted to keep in touch after the contest. I too want to collaborate with like minded thinkers. I need better mathematicians than me also. Ideally and powerful computer simulation would be on my wish list to test my theory. But similar to your fuller theory, mine too seems to address many unsolved problems in physics, without any fudge factors.

I really look forward to perhaps working with you in the future!

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:37 GMT
Steven

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 07:49 GMT
Steve,

You have offered well written, attractive/readable work. And you are dared to have your own opinion and critical approach to topic, as well as to foundational questions. This only enough for me to rate your work on ,,high,, core - that I am going to do. I am saying in my work one very simple thing that, unfortunately, not so much people are able to perceive - the research science will be dead without viable criticism and alternative approaches! I think my work ES text may deserve to your interest, despite it has some different direction and task.

I hope receive your comments in my forum.

Good luck,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:05 GMT
Hi Steve,

As I stated in my email the other day, I found your inquiry to "...gain new knowledge about the internal state that exists before that interaction." reflective of the findings obtained in the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. It appears we share a similar yet different approach to the topic at hand, I found your essay insightful, original, and a joy to read.

I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 01:39 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


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:07 GMT
Dear Steven,

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 @ 07:41 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:18 GMT
Hi Steve,

I was trolling the essays to see if there was anything I had missed. I found your essay and found it to be a good one that I should not have missed!

You say: there appears to be some things that should not be.... I agree and think there are experiments that can be made.

Please visit my blog, and see if we are not after the same phenomena.

Thanks,

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:06 GMT
Dear Steve,

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

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

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

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

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

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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