CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
Is Bit It? by Jennifer Nielsen
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Essay Abstract In his famous “It from Bit” essay, John Wheeler contends that the stuff of the physical universe (“it”) arises from information (“bits” – encoded yes or no answers). Wheeler’s question and assumptions are re-examined from a post Aspect experiment perspective. Information is examined and discussed in terms of classical information and “quanglement” (nonlocal state sharing). An argument is made that the universe may arise from (or together with) quanglement but not via classical yes/no information coding.
Author Bio Jennifer Nielsen is a PhD student in physics at the University of Kansas. She has a broad base of research experience including work in galaxy evolution, quantum optics and protein crystallization. She enjoys applied probability (poker), art, and amusing herself wondering (with obvious futility) what it would be like to ride around on an electron.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 23:06 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
Thanks for an interesting essay. I especially enjoyed your physical example of Gödel's theorem: "from within a GameBoy universe, the GameBoy cannot be entirely encoded and explained."
I also enjoyed your discussion of physical (thermodynamic) entropy and information (communication) entropy. ET Jaynes, the first to extensively link the two in 1957 reminds us of "...a persistent failure to distinguish between the information entropy, which is a property of any probability distribution, and the experimental entropy of thermodynamics, which is instead a property of a thermodynamic state... [Many] authors failure to distinguish between these entirely different things [leads to] proving nonsense theorems." Your observation that "there's no reason to quantify a quantity" seems original and worthwhile.
Also you mentioned that "anything you and I perceive... may be represented...". This establishes a link between perception and the physical world, while yet distinguishing between the two.
You ask, with Lee Smolin, "What is the substance of the world?" I hope you will enjoy reading
my essay, where I make an attempt to answer this.
You make numerous mention of post-EPR, post-Aspect, but it is not really post-Aspect. It is post-Bell. Nothing in Aspect's experiment argues for non-locality. ALL non-locality arguments are based on Bell's inequality. If Bell made any mistake in his simplistic inequality, all of the following experiments do not prove, or even suggest, non-locality. Currently it's not fashionable to even suggest this, but it's good to keep in mind.
Michael Crichton had the right idea.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 00:56 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, Edwin! I greatly appreciate it.
It's hard to get a grip on reality itself--while I tend to be of the school that says "Science is what we can say about reality", I also think it's important we try to say more and more. Kudos for taking a whack at this, I'll check your essay out.
As far as Bell goes you make a fair point. Have you heard of other similar contemporary inequalities such as Leggett/Leggett-Garg? (I don't have the link to Leggett's paper on hand at the moment, but here's a piece about it http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5133 ).
As far as perception and reality goes -- heh -- this is why I'm not in neurology or philosophy! J/k. It's one of my favorite topics, but as far as solving or rejecting the hard problem of consciousness goes I am not sure how close we are. I do think physics will be crucial to getting a better grip on this as well.
Cheers and good luck,
Jenny
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:15 GMT
Jenny, you are correct that Bell's is not the only inequality. What I meant was that, if his basic argument 'proving' non-locality had never been presented, I don't think there is anything in the data that would prove it. Nature doesn't agree with Bell, and he concludes from this that local reality is non-existent. However Bell also suggested that what is proved is a lack of imagination.
Good luck in the contest and in your career.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
Another possible point I thought of later is that Aspect and Wheeler were contemporaries ^_^ But I do think it took a while before the result of the Aspect experiment and the others like it thereafter were generally accepted (correctly or incorrectly) as a hard-to-dispute win for non-locality.
It's definitely true that we need more physicists with imagination; if somebody could reinterpret Bell's logic that would be quite a development.
Cheers and good luck -- I have my code now so I will be reading and rating :) I'm excited to be part of the community.
Best of luck!
Jenny
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:47 GMT
Hi Jenny,
It *is* an exciting community. There are academics here, and also those who have been out of academia for long enough to have escaped the very real constraints that apply. For example, a surprising number of essayists have dealt with the fact that 'meaning', 'knowledge', 'awareness' and other aspects related to information inherently imply consciousness. Very few academics will touch this topic, at least not physicists.
You have read my essay and have some idea of my built-in bias, which is that numbers and 'bits' are derived from physical reality, not the other way around.
Wang Xiong's treatment of information as symmetry breaking, Mark Feeley's treatment of probability in QM, McHarris' essay on non-linearity, Janzen's treatment of time and relativity, Gordon's analysis of Bell's inequality and Vishwakarma's essay on the stress-energy tensor are examples of why FQXi is a great place! There are many, many more.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 01:10 GMT
P.S. Yes I find the distinction between info entropy and physical entropy important although I think ultimately they may reduce to a similar concept
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:10 GMT
I agree that they are similar in form, just as electric potential and gravitational potential are similar in form. But I don't think they are identical, and it seems (to me) that the Holography Principle and other ideas are based on the identity of information entropy and thermodynamic entropy. -- Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Aha, there's an interesting take. I think for foundations to go forward it's of utmost importance to be sure of what exactly we are saying particularly in descriptions and interpretations and to weed out all and any obscurum per obscurius, but part of it is the field has grown exponentially at a very high level and some things will take time to sort out and settle. I find information theory exciting but it's still young.
Have you seen any of the stories on D-wave or the new quantum computers and computing languages? I think it's using tunneling and not a truly "quantum" computer in entirety that they have built, but it's fascinating.
Roger Granet wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:57 GMT
Jennifer,
Hi. First off, you're a very good, fun writer. After you become a famous physicist, I think you could make a second career in writing physics books for the lay person, like Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, etc. have. My only other comments are:
1. In regard to the quote "Physicists like to say that all science is either physics or stamp
collecting", because I'm a...
view entire post
Jennifer,
Hi. First off, you're a very good, fun writer. After you become a famous physicist, I think you could make a second career in writing physics books for the lay person, like Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, etc. have. My only other comments are:
1. In regard to the quote "Physicists like to say that all science is either physics or stamp
collecting", because I'm a biochemist/cell biologist, I resemble that comment! :-) This next part isn't meant in a critical way but only as an observation and a "Hey, biochemists are scientists, too"-type, rah, rah attitude. Given that I don't do physics, I can't say for sure, but from what I read, I do think physicists and mathematicians could learn some stuff from biochemistry in that:
A. We have to think in terms of physical mechanisms in which molecules and things are actually moving and doing stuff. Unfortunately, modern physicists seem to focus so much on the math that they don't really care about explaining phenomena in physical, "mechanical" terms. For instance, why does a negatively charged thing attract a positively charged thing. We can describe it mathematically, but what is the mechanism that pushes/pulls these two things together. Exchanging photons between them doesn't seem to explain anything to me. If you and I throw a ball to each other, we don't necessarily move closer or farther apart.
B. We have to think about possible artifacts interfering with experiments. Taking things out of the natural, physiological system can very often alter the results compared to what is obtained within that system. Many things in math and physics seem to ignore this possibility. Also, I assume physicists have positive and negative controls for experiments? We have to do this kind of thing for every experiment.
C. Many emergent phenomena may be ultimately derivable from physics, but I'm guessing it's faster to do biological experiments to figure out how a cell works than to derive the workings from electrons, protons, math, etc.
2. My view is that whether the universe is made of its or quanglements, both of these are existent entities. Maybe, faster progress would be made in answering questions like Smolin's "what matter really is" and "why is there something rather than nothing?" if we argued less about what to call these fundamental existent entities and worked more on how such an entity might produce the universe we live in. That's what I try to do in my essay and at my website:
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite
Anyways, I think yours was a very good essay and I look forward to seeing your name in a future newspaper article about winning the Nobel Prize! Good luck!
Roger Granet
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:14 GMT
Roger,
Thanks so much! I am truly humbled by your comments.
I also really appreciate your commentary on the "stamp collecting" comment -- I've often thought it was slightly unfair, which is one of the reasons I append that physics is just "dumping the stamps and plotting motion". One of my favorite thinkers, Ilya Prigogine, is actually a chemist -- it seems to me that much work in...
view entire post
Roger,
Thanks so much! I am truly humbled by your comments.
I also really appreciate your commentary on the "stamp collecting" comment -- I've often thought it was slightly unfair, which is one of the reasons I append that physics is just "dumping the stamps and plotting motion". One of my favorite thinkers, Ilya Prigogine, is actually a chemist -- it seems to me that much work in thermodynamics has been and inevitably will be done by chemists and biologists. Understanding how physics applies to life has to be one of the most exciting (and insanely complicated) endeavors of all time -- I do not envy all the complications life scientists must examine.
"Unfortunately, modern physicists seem to focus so much on the math that they don't really care about explaining phenomena in physical, "mechanical" terms. For instance, why does a negatively charged thing attract a positively charged thing. We can describe it mathematically, but what is the mechanism that pushes/pulls these two things together. Exchanging photons between them doesn't seem to explain anything to me. If you and I throw a ball to each other, we don't necessarily move closer or farther apart."
Oh man I feel your pain here. When I was a junior in physics it suddenly dawned on me that charge was just a word for a phenomenon. I went running around all over the place in some sort of pre-breakdown state asking professors "What is charge!?" A few of them just kind of giggled at me, and then one of them asked rather Zen-ly, "What is mass?" in which case I was left even more baffled, until I stumbled into the rather punk rock postmodern astrophysicist prof who was smoking outside and who assured me that everything in science was approximations and advised me to take up meditation.
But taking on mass, taking on charge -- taking on consciousness -- that is taking on being, or "isness" -- rough stuff! I hope we can get closer and will have a better idea on this in the near future (perhaps the discovery of the Higgs will help a little -- although again, we're talking in terms of carrier particles) but how close we can get in terms of language may be limited. Max Tegmark is arguing the universe is mathematical in a recent publication; I tend to default to a stance more like Smolin's I quoted in my last section, but I'd have loved a chance to read Tegmark's book and see his ideas again before I wrote my essay. He and Penrose have an interesting long term debate on Godel's theorem and the brain that you might find interesting as a biologist.
But I am babbling on and on...thanks again, and I'll search amongst the essays for yours if you have writen one, or you could be so kind as to link it! I'd love to see what you have to say. :)
~Jenny
view post as summary
Roger Granet wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:44 GMT
Jenny,
You actually seem like a nice, normal physicist! :-) Actually, I shouldn't talk; there are lots of very nice, but pretty weird chemists and biochemists. But, the nice part is what counts, I guess!
I know what you mean about running around asking what is charge and what is mass. It took me many years to understand how ATP actually provides energy to things in the cell and to visualize things in terms of molecules moving around and bouncing into each other. That's been real helpful for me, at least, in trying to understand all this stuff. But, there's a long way to go! Your punk rock astrophysicist prof. was probably right!
I agree that taking on being and "isness" is pretty hard, but I don't think it's insoluble. I think humans can figure it out, but we can't give up just because it seems hard. It's like that famous quote about the surest way to success is to try just one more time. If you're really bored sometime, my own views on this are at my last FQXi essay (analog vs. digital) and at my website at:
sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite (3rd link down for the why something rather than nothing stuff).
If you've eaten your carrots, and your eyesight is good, my current essay is at:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Granet_fqxiessay
2013final.pdf
Unfortunately, it came out as real small print even though it looked fine when I was typing it on my computer. But, I used the computer's text editor so that's probably why. Any comments you have would be great!
I bet you'll be a great physicist because you can already see why it's worthwhile trying to understand physical mechanisms. You're already way beyond many of the full professors on that! See you!
Roger
report post as inappropriate
Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 10:10 GMT
One of the better essays I have read, and rated as such. Thanks.
Could you kindly rate mine please, and a opinion would be appreciated.
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 11:33 GMT
I certainly will rate yours (and all the kind people who have commented on my essay) when I get a rating code! For some reason still awaiting mine.
Cheers!
Jenny
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:17 GMT
Jenny, I have not rated you yet, but agree it is a good essay. For some reason, a troll is giving everyone low scores when they are posted. This did not happen in previous essays. But I notice that, instead of your name, Brendan Foster's name shows up as "Created by". Also, you do not show up in your comments above as 'Author' [look at author's comments on other pages.] Brendan also shows above your Abstract, where your name should show. So I would email Brendan Foster, who is an FQXi administrator, to ask what the problem is. If you got an acceptance email, it probably has an address to start with.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:32 GMT
Hi Jenny,
I'm glad to see you got the details straightened out. You now show up as author, and I assume can rate, etc.
I wanted to thank you for your comments on my page, and also follow up on one of your questions. Specifically, you asked me: "Are you familiar with the idea of Roger Penrose that gravity and mass is what causes decoherence? Was wondering how you would interpret his ideas." My answer, in brief, was: "I don't buy his idea of gravity and QM nor his and Hameroff's idea of consciousness as the QM of microtubules...".
But that is my opinion. I noticed yesterday that Phys Rev Letters just published Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021302 (12 July 2013) "Effective Field Theory Approach to Gravitationally Induced Decoherence", to the effect that: "Adopting the viewpoint that the standard perturbative quantization of general relativity provides an effective description of quantum gravity that is valid at ordinary energies, we show that gravity as an environment induces the rapid decoherence of stationary matter superposition states when the energy differences in the superposition exceed the Planck energy scale."
If you are interested in that topic, you may wish to check that out.
Thanks again for your comments and good luck in the contest.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Jennifer.
I enjoyed reading your essay because I felt you have an intuitive dissatisfaction with the fundamentals of physics. Welcome to the club. As an academic you have the advantages of knowing the subject and the math in depth, but the disadvantage is that you are expected by professors and colleagues, to 'toe the line' of accepted theory - very basic things that are now accepted without question. Freewheelers like me can dare to question these fundamentals openly not being accountable to the system.
You said "quanglement implies something more, a connection that doesn't rely on codified information at all". In my current essay I concluded that It=Qubit. For me these were not just words but are based on my work-in-progress
Beautiful Universe Theory also found
here. The theory proposes a universal lattice made up of qubit-like nodes exchanging angular momentum causally and locally to describe all of physics. These nodes may well be the 'something more" you mentioned?
With all best wishes for your success
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 00:11 GMT
Dunno if I'd classify it as a dissatisfaction with the foundations of physics but I have a dissatisfaction with considering any explanation (or at the very least any of our current explanations) final. I came to science because I am big on empiricism (somewhat obviously, I guess) but I do think science is about exploring reality on a fundamental level, and I appreciate that FQXi is encouraging this side of the "ballgame" so to speak. Obviously more immediately practical areas will garner more funds, but paradigm shifts become inevitable after lots of information is gathered and I think formalizing how people are processing all the new information through essays is extremely important and can lead to "aha" and (heheh) "Eureka!" moments.
I will check out your essay and am interested in your concept of a "something more." While I took a relativist approach in the end of my essay (I don't literally think that photons and electrons are mythical as Crichton indicated, although I do think that they are essentially models not the deepest reality), I believe that we are going to get closer to understanding it in the near future. It's been a while since the last major shift in understanding (relativity & quantum mechanics). I do suspect people who think about it deeply are going to be rewarded again soon.
Cheers...
Jenny
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 08:35 GMT
Jennifer - grateful as we are for fqxi to give opportunity for potentially left-of-field ideas to be heard I think they do not go far enough - they are too worried about supporting the wrong horse. That the fundamentals need to be challenged is their whole raison d'etre but they have shown no willingness to support researchers like Eric Reiter's
unquantum work who has experimentally proven that the point photon concept is wrong.
You said "It's been a while since the last major shift in understanding (relativity & quantum mechanics). I do suspect people who think about it deeply are going to be rewarded again soon." Yaaaaay!! Its been some 30 years! I think you have not tried to challenge one of those foundational issues, or even a simple theory about why diffraction occurs, to say that! The current impasse is becoming obvious to more and more people, though, so you may be right after all.
See My last year's "Fix Physics!" essay for an outline of what I think should be done.
BTW What is the difference between an "Aha!" and a "Eureka!" moment? The former elicits responses like "well, well!" - the latter "A towel! A towel!"
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:25 GMT
Dear Jennifer
An interesting description, but concluded somewhat "vague" - I enjoyed your excerpt: ""A hundred years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer and better fantasies. And...
view entire post
Dear Jennifer
An interesting description, but concluded somewhat "vague" - I enjoyed your excerpt: ""A hundred years from now, people will look back on us and laugh. They'll say, 'You know what people used to believe? They believed in photons and electrons. Can you imagine anything so silly?' They'll have a good laugh, because by then there will be newer and better fantasies. And meanwhile, you feel the way the boat moves? That's the sea. That's real. You smell the salt in the air? You feel the sunlight on your skin? That's all real. You see all of us together? That's real. Life is wonderful. It's a gift to be alive, to see the sun and breathe the air. And there isn't really anything else."10 – Michael Crichton,The Lost World" - Wish you success and happiness always.
And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with 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
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 20:14 GMT
I think it's important to realize that an essay isn't going to come to the final conclusions about the universe but I am hoping that properly defining "it" and "bit" and "Information" and "quanglement" may help us get started on something more final than what we have now!
Thanks for your comments. I just received my voting code and am going to start reading and commenting on others' papers.
Cheers and good luck.
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
I agree with what Roger says. Excellent style, charisma and content. You've done a great job with quanglement and I like that you question the fundamental nature of the Universe with such passion and humour. I am working on a cosmogony theory away from the essay, that I think ought to (partly) unify the four forces of nature. It relates the mass of the proton, neutron and electron to 99.99999% of prediction and is testable given a suitable computer simulation. Anyway, the offshoot of this is may essay which only touches upon my main theory via simplexes. I'd be grateful if such a rising star could take a look at it. I'd love to collaborate with somebody like you in future!
All the very best,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 20:12 GMT
Thank you Antony -- I greatly appreciate your comments!
I'll check out your essay and be happy to chat more about your theory.
Cheers,
Jennifer Nielsen
Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
Thanks Jennifer,
I very much look forward to that and further discussing your work
Cheers,
Antony :)
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 20:22 GMT
Ms. Nielsen,
I thought your essay was utterly fascinating. It was written in such a clear expository fashion, this old reader who knows nothing about physics or video games actually understood every one of the points you were making. You were not trying to make points. Your arguments looked solid to me, and your poetic ending was sublime.
Thank you for submitting your essay.
Perhaps you might have to settle for voting in the general community box.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 00:33 GMT
Joe,
Thanks so much for your comments -- I'm delighted that you found it understandable. I teach physics in the summers to incoming freshman pre-medical students, and my deepest hope is that some of them leave having internalized the scientific method and made it their own. To me the power of science is that any person can use the scientific method to make discoveries for themselves once it is taught to them, and is thus one of the most empowering approaches to participating in "reality" (whatever that is). So science, to me, is a universal thing, not something that should be reserved to a few people who have studied intense mathematics or are going for PhD's. :) I like that FQXi is opening the playing field and potentially rewarding people who give deep thought to these things regardless of whether science is their profession or not.
Will browse for your essay, or you can link it to me if you have written one! Otherwise (if you are just a reader) kudos for reading and learning with us and submit next time :D
Jenny
Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Jenny,
My essay is called BITTERS. I do hope you can find a bit of extra time to comment on it.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 19:28 GMT
Jenny,
I have just checked my essay and I was delighted that you did leave a comment.
Because I believe that the real Universe consists of unique, once, there are no measurements in it.
Thanks again,
Joe
report post as inappropriate
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
I too think it's very cool that we can say all that in binary lol. Good to see yet another woman on board -- and I hope you won't mind me burdening you with certain responsibility by pointing out that out of the handful of us taking part this year in this traditionally male-dominated discussion, you're the most qualified. I loved how you summarized our typical female sensibility and pragmatism in the concluding quote from Michael Crichton. Thanks for all good laughs! I dare say that I too have a few laughs in my essay. I invite you to read and comment on it :)
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 00:22 GMT
Laughter is the best medicine for all of us, sometimes especially physicists! :D
I will read your essay soon. Excited to finally have a community code so I can take part in the ratings etc!
I hardly feel the most qualified but I have at the very least put in a lot of (sometimes awkward) thought! :D
Glad to see there are other "gggrrls" in here-- high five and mega kudos!
^_^
Cheers!
Jenny
Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
Very cool essay! You made several excellent points and not once did I become dizzy with words I couldn't pronounce or mathematical symbols I've never seen before. (AND, you have a sense of humor . . . so . . . are you really a physicist ? ? ?) If you teach half as well as you write, then your students are indeed, very fortunate. Two pho-thumbs up from me on your essay.
Would you also consider reading mine? I was deeply struck by your comments about, "the power of science is that any person can use the scientific method to make discoveries for themselves once it is taught to them, and is thus one of the most empowering approaches to participating in "reality" (whatever that is). So science, to me, is a universal thing, not something that should be reserved to a few people who have studied intense mathematics or are going for PhD's. :)"
I'm beginning to wonder if stating my author credentials as simply, "a non-specialist member of the general public" was a mistake; so far, I've not even had a response to questions and comments I've made on other people's essays. (Although I still think that mentioning I'm a lawyer would have been far worse . . .)
Here's the link to my essay (and I promise I won't sue, or tell anyone if you read it.)
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1910
Best to you,
Ralph
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
Thank you, Ralph! Don't worry about your bio -- the "III" after your name was enough to convince me you were someone important ;)
I will definitely take a look at your paper, and thank you for commenting (and forgiving my early AM facetiousness!)
I am glad that my comment stood out to you and I appreciate that you enjoyed my essay; I certainly had a lot of fun with it myself after I began writing it, despite much staring at a blank computer screen with a more blank expression and even more blank mind before anything finally came out.... :P
My dad is also a barrister--you guys deal with the law, this is natural law -- close enough, right? :)
*clicking paper now* Good luck in the contest !
Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
Well no wonder you're so brilliant - you're Dad is a lawyer!!
Whew . . . I understand the 'blank' expressions, blank mind, etc. If anyone had taken a picture of me the first couple of days after I 'tried' to begin writing, they might have mistaken me for 'a cow straddling a railroad track staring at an oncoming train' . . .
Again, I really enjoyed your essay. If you are so inclined, I would enjoy keeping in touch. (If nothing else, I can whine about the cost of having 2 sons and a daughter in college at the same time . . .)
Best,
Ralph
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 23:49 GMT
My email is JLNielsen@KU.edu and like most of the "youth" I'm on all too often logged in on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/JennyLN. I run a little physics forum/group on there known as "Jenny's Think Tank and Holistic Comedy Bar" (the "holistic" being a reference to Doug Adams book, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"). Anyone who likes is quite welcome to saunter over there :)
Cheers and thanks for the comments!
Jenny
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Heh, this is my editing face:
Meme - Editing Face
Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
Nicely written and deep.
But I don't see 'quanglement' as a primary concept.
If one refers to non-locality, one can violate GHSH inequality without entanglement as explicitely shown in in Sec. 3.1 of my essay.
Anyway, there are a lot of potential quantum structures to deal with that
can lead to quantum Gameboys and further FQXi's.
Have a nice not too binary day.
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 16:49 GMT
If you can prove that CHSH can be violated without entanglement that is quite an accomplishment! Kudos for trying and having the confidence you succeeded -- good luck in the contest. I'll study your proof. Would like to know what the "potential quantum structures to deal with that" refer to, perhaps a perusal of your essay will help.
Cheers and take care,
Jennifer
Michel Planat replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 12:17 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
The conventional proof of CHSH is given in Sec. 3.1 of the essay. It applies equally well to all squares of four n-qubit observables. The example provided is without entanglement. A step further you get the famous Mermin's square of Fig. 3a that contains 9 such CHSH proofs, and so on. As there are 10 such Mermin's square, there are 9x10=90 distinct two-qubit CHSH proofs. There are 30240 CHSH proofs with thre qubits, this number has to do with the 12096 3QB pentagrams, each of them containing 15 CHSH proofs, corresponding to the edges of the Petersen graph. The 15 CHSH proofs (that are 1x1 squares can be seen at the edges of the line graph of the Petersen graph, not shown in the essay).
The significant step in the essay is being able to see the geometries (Fano planes, Mermin's squares and so on) as being controlled by the dessins d'enfants). Don't refrain to ask me the questions you like when you study the paper.
Thank you again for your interesting essay.
Best wishes,
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 23:51 GMT
Thanks Michel! Will check it out. Been really busy past week but will try to spend some more time in here reading, learning and evaluating! Good luck in the contest!
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:11 GMT
You know, it would be cool if our names auto-linked to our essays when we posted :) Would make it a lot easier to click and read all of your papers. (But I am searching through the list when FQXi loads in...it's been a bit splotchy probably because so many people are logged in...)
Michel Planat replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT
Sorry about that. The link to my essay is here
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 19:47 GMT
Jennifer,
I just read the comments on your paper and plan to read your paper soon but I thought I would direct your attention to the
Master's Thesis of Mateus Araujo Santos; he re-examines Bell's Inequalities and then proceeds to develop what he calls "Boole Inequalities." His abstract:
"In this thesis we explore the question: 'what's strange about quantum mechanics?' This exploration is divided in two parts: in the first, we prove that there is in fact something strange about quantum mechanics, by showing that it is not possible to conciliate quantum theory with various different definitions of what should be a 'normal' theory, that is, a theory that respects our classical intuition. In the second part, our objective is to describe precisely which parts of quantum mechanics are 'non-classical'. For that, we define a 'classical' theory as a noncontextual ontological theory, and the 'non-classical' parts of quantum mechanics as being the probability distributions that a ontological noncontextual theory cannot reproduce. Exploring this formalism, we find a new family of inequalities that characterize 'non-classicality'."
Based on your comment, "It's definitely true that we need more physicists with imagination; if somebody could reinterpret Bell's logic that would be quite a development." I thought perhaps you would enjoy Mr. Santos' paper.
With regards,
Wes Hansen
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear Jennifer
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly...
view entire post
Dear Jennifer
Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?
I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.
I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.
Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/
Pdf download:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf
Part of abstract:
- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .
Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .
A
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT
……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT
. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .
B.
Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT
Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……
C
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT
"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT
1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.
2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.
3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.
4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?
D
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT
It from bit - where are bit come from?
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.
Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..
E
Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.
I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.
===============
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 of masses and initial values of velocities....
Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.
I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 23:58 GMT
Oh indeed, I'm not one of the "magical thinkers" -- while I enjoy the sometimes apparently quasi-mystical topics such as nonlocality you'll note I backed all of my references with actual experiments such as the ever well known Aspect experiment and the recent tests by Gisin's team of "multisimultaneity."
I basically am arguing in my paper that "bits" are made of "its" and that "its" are possibly made of "inter-its". I think that you can easily argue that you need "it" to have "bit" but that it is much harder to argue that "it" can arise without "inter-it" -- ie nonlocality/quanglement as a resource. In my thinking nonlocality is a primary concept and is not mystical but rather just a fundamental resource/aspect of reality that isn't yet understood very well (and which cannot be reduced to "bits"). I argue that quanglement may help build up spacetime itself, but that "bits" flow in time and are limited by spacetime restraints such as the light barrier. Thus classical information is a result of matter, but matter may be more than it seems. The argument is a bit subtle and I'd like to explore it in more detail in both original research and in a longer piece.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
You are correct,
I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....
It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.
I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.
Now in this context, can we create material from information...?
You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
report post as inappropriate
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 10:50 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
I think you have gift for writing in a style that is accessible to the lay audience. As I was reading your essay, the thought crossed my mind several times that this could have been an article in a popular science magazine.
I was not previously familiar with Penrose's concept of 'quanglement', also the term 'inter-it' seems quite appropriate for a description of the components of an entangled system. This was a refreshing read.
All the best,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 00:02 GMT
Thanks Armin -- while I've been keeping up with entanglement research and thinking about it on my own for many years, I only recently encountered Penrose's "quanglement" concept. I've been playing with the idea that there are two kinds of information -- "normal" info limited by the light barrier and quanglement, which is nonlocal and is not limited as such. I think the types of info differ in how they behave in time, but I didn't have a lot of room to expand on my ideas on time here.
Cheers and thanks for commenting -- if you have written a paper I will definitely check it out.
Good luck,
Jenny
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT
Hi JENNY,
01001001 01110011 00100000 01000010 01101001 01110100 00100000 01001001 01110100 00111111
On fantasy island, that's how to say 'probably' nice in binary language.
You can check me out on
reality island and see if we speak the same language.
10101+101=000
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Thanks Akinbo! Checking it out now!
Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT
Jennifer,
What an excellent essay; I tend to agree with Roger Granet above and the physics community could certainly use a few more feminine perspectives . . .
In your conclusion you state, "[...] It is not at least in the classical sense a 'put up job'; if we ever find it resembling one, it's generally because we put up the 'job' ourselves, and IT"S ALWAYS WISE TO CHECK FOR WHAT...
view entire post
Jennifer,
What an excellent essay; I tend to agree with Roger Granet above and the physics community could certainly use a few more feminine perspectives . . .
In your conclusion you state, "[...] It is not at least in the classical sense a 'put up job'; if we ever find it resembling one, it's generally because we put up the 'job' ourselves, and IT"S ALWAYS WISE TO CHECK FOR WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS REALLY REPRESENTING." In order for models, mathematical or otherwise, to be ontologically meaningful, all variables must have a real-world referent! Certainly one learns this in Differential Equations and Daniel Schwartz delves into the subject rather formidably with his
dissertation on approximate reasoning. So since the inseparability of Hilbert Space describes Quantum entanglement and Quantum entanglement is robustly supported by the Aspect experiments, the Mach-Zehnder experiments of Herzog et. al., and now the multi-simultaneity stuff, what real-world referent does the Hilbert Space refer to?
I posed this question to Phil Gibbs on his section of this forum but he doesn't feel the Hilbert Space needs a real-world referent. Thinking William Tiller's proposed "Deltron Moiety" might fit the bill, I asked Dr. Tiller, in a private correspondence, how the Hilbert Space fit into his theoretical framework. His response: "Since my duplex space model has both mathematically real and imaginary parts, it would seem to have to have a relationship with Hilbert space but I have not yet explored that." Perhaps he will explore it in the future . . . In any event, it seems to me the question deserves a bit of imagination thrown at it!
I thought the Crichton quote at the end of your essay was a really nice touch. I'm originally from Nebraska but after a stint in the Marine Corps I fell in love with the sea (I'm an old-school diver); so allow me to share a favored quote from
Steven Callahan:
"I wish I could describe the feeling of being at sea; the anguish, frustration, and fear, the beauty that accompanies threatening spectacles, the spiritual communion with creatures in whose domain I sail. There is a magnificent intensity in life that comes when we are not in control but are only reacting, living, surviving. I am not a religious man per se. My own cosmology is convoluted and not in line with any particular church or philosophy. But for me, to go to sea is to glimpse the face of God. At sea I am reminded of my insignificance - of all men's insignificance. It is a wonderful feeling to be so humbled."
Best regards,
Wes Hansen
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 15:20 GMT
For whatever reason the link to the dissertation of Mr. Schwartz doesn't respond in the proper manner so:
http://dr.archives.pdx.edu/xmlui/handle/psu/4542. Yeah, this one works; I didn't include the preceding "dr" in the previous HTML tag . . .
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 23:46 GMT
Thank you Wes! I appreciate your kind comments and am happy you found the essay readable. I will check out Phil's thread in more detail and consider this Hilbert space real world referent problem; I think it does need at least some connection to how the real world operates, but whether the space itself is physical in and of itself rather than representative of some more abstract component of reality is debatable I think. It's interesting to see this being brought up as part of it it/bit debate and I think it's highly relevant.
Cheers and I would love to check out your paper -- link me, but I'll also search for it!
Cheers,
Jennifer
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 23:06 GMT
Dear Jennifer Nielsen:
I read your essay and your answer to Dr Corda I underestand you are a physic student. That it is why I writing you, because I did not understand one bit of your essay. Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your...
view entire post
Dear Jennifer Nielsen:
I read your essay and your answer to Dr Corda I underestand you are a physic student. That it is why I writing you, because I did not understand one bit of your essay. Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your discipline among the sciences, it is the one that make more use, of what everybody call’s “time” and it is being used, without knowing its definition and which is more important the experimental meaning, by the way is just a remnant word without physical existence.
So I sending you a summary of my essay "tHE DEEP NATURE OF REALITY" because I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( nobody understand it and is not just because of my bad English) “Hawking, A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Thanks Hector! Apologies I've been away from the contest a few days -- I will definitely check your paper out.
Cheers and best wishes!
Jennifer
Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Hello Jennifer,
You obviously appreciate the relationship between (it) and (bit) in the classical computer science sense, that is, where (it) must precedes (bit), and Wheeler's proposition that (information-bit) precedes (material-it) in the quantum mechanical or primordial sense. Apart from the nature of the primordial bit I see no contradiction in these two positions because I see them as...
view entire post
Hello Jennifer,
You obviously appreciate the relationship between (it) and (bit) in the classical computer science sense, that is, where (it) must precedes (bit), and Wheeler's proposition that (information-bit) precedes (material-it) in the quantum mechanical or primordial sense. Apart from the nature of the primordial bit I see no contradiction in these two positions because I see them as complimentary.
You define "quanglement" as (nonlocal state sharing), but may I ask how absolute you believe this state sharing is? I ask this because it seems to me that two entities, whether material or not, and whether entangled or not, which are at a distance to each other, can not have the same state if the environment within which they exist is different in any way. In other words, are you talking about an absolute abstraction, or something which in reality would most likely be seen as the hidden inclinations of two quantum entities being entangled such that they are seen to have an external and identical nonlocal response to a change in the others state, even though these hidden inclinations after entanglement are not identical, but simply constitute a conclusive tendency?
I would also like to point out that the actual contribution of a neuron to a greater state is determined by a number of discharges which attempt to associate a set of like inputs with one or more output paths in a strong fashion, each post synaptic neuron resisting according to its own possibility of translating input into output in a strong fashion, thus giving rise to a hierarchy of resistance. And so even in neuronal translation of input into output there is a probability of success or failure dictated by a hierarchy of probabilities. When we remove a neuron from its natural environment we find it behaves in an "on/off" fashion, but that completely misses the point that its true nature and its information contributing power is only discernable within its neural arrangement, i.e. within its environment. I find myself agreeing with Prof. Unnikrishnan who in his essay (1883) brings to bear on the reader the relationship between the quantum's information carrying capacity and its environment, and how any measurement can not but effect both the entity and its environment. And in this I hope you see where the above question comes from.
Zoran.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:52 GMT
My opinion (which is actually not particularly unusual amongst physicists studying nonlocality) is that quantum particles which are entangled are part of a larger system and are in some way one system. Mathematically, with entangled wave functions, they are part of the same larger object, and nature reflects this. I believe the "share" is an absolute entity and a quantum resource different from any connection we can describe classically. The objects aren't "connected" classically; they are one.
Cheers,
Jennifer
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT
Hi Jenny,
As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.
"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…
1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?
2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?
3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?
Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons
4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"
Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.
Best regards,
Akinbo*If you want to pose same questions on your facebook forum do let me know the most popular binary answer.
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 10:26 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
As promised in my Essay page, I have read your pretty Essay. Congrats, I have found it fantastic! I strongly appreciated your ability to join and mix profound physical concepts together your intriguing sense of humour. From the pure scientific point of view, I liked both your invoking Godel's theorem concerning the limitation of binary code and your discussion on Quanglement.
Thanks for giving me such a enjoyable reading, I am going to give you an high rate.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Madam,
Discovery of the Higg’s particle has not yet been confirmed with 100% certainty as the mass difference between the Atlas and CMS is huge. It does not provide mass to the universe, but is supposed to provide mass only through weak interaction. Most of the mass in the universe comes from the strong interaction.
Cutting across the clumsy jargon, it can be said that a bit...
view entire post
Dear Madam,
Discovery of the Higg’s particle has not yet been confirmed with 100% certainty as the mass difference between the Atlas and CMS is huge. It does not provide mass to the universe, but is supposed to provide mass only through weak interaction. Most of the mass in the universe comes from the strong interaction.
Cutting across the clumsy jargon, it can be said that a bit represents whether something matches a concept or a product by signaling 1 or 0, where the answer yes or ‘on’s are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the no or ‘off’s with 0. The superposition of states is really not a ‘state’ – there is nothing like an ‘undead’ cat – but indicates our lack of precise information in a sensational way. Every quantum phenomena including entanglement, spin, tunneling, and so on have macro equivalents. There is no quantum weirdness, but only weird ideas to be discarded. You can read our essay: “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published on May 31.
EPR sensationalized entanglement by stretching it to infinite distance, though in reality, it never exists beyond a limited distance. We cannot impose our ignorance or inability to measure to describe time evolution of the universe. The Moon will continue to exist and the up-down quark conversion will continue even when we are not looking at it. There is nothing like observer created reality, as observer is not part of any equation. It only observes and may be cognizes or communicates the state; but does not affect it.
The concepts of “information that isn’t information”, “outside of time” and “going backwards in time” are good fiction, but not physics. Consider: A + B → C + D.
Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn’t act on C and D as they don’t exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be:
B + A → C + D and not B + A ← C + D.
Hence it does not affect causality. There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect.
“Quantum correlation is a basic (i.e. primary) concept”, because macro objects like molecules and above do not have creative chemical capability that micro objects like atoms or below have. The quarks combine to produce an object with different characteristics from that of the individual quarks. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water, whose characteristics are different from the individual components. But molecules combine like mixtures: linearly adding their characteristics. But the characteristics of quantum particles are also ordered and not random.
The problem with Gödel and others is that, they relied on abstract mathematical structures to build physical theories. But mathematical structures are different from physical structures. Mathematics is related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph – the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.
The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance – linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.
How long will we continue with such fiction? When will we end the superstitious belief in the ‘established theories’ and start applying our mind? Why must we continue with a ‘cut & paste’ job? When will we start doing some original work? Is there no future for physics?
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 01:49 GMT
Dear Madam,
We find you mentioning to Dr, Klingman that you are interested in perception and consciousness. We have dealt with this subject extensively in our essay, which was highly appreciated by Dr, Klingman (you can see it in his thread) and others. You are welcome to visit our essay.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 06:46 GMT
Jennifer,
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
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 09:13 GMT
Dear Jennifer. 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.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:01 GMT
Thank you Vladimir! I believe I gave yours a good rating. Apologies if I did not leave a comment; I will be catching up on all of this (a bit late in the game, I realize!) this evening.
Cheers!
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 10:21 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
I've re read your essay and now rated! I think yours well deserves to win a prize! Hope you're happy with the score!
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 15:12 GMT
Jennifer,
Per your request, a link to my simple essay,
The Emergent It: A Collective Awareness. Also, I see that the link to the Mateus Araujo Santos paper, Quantum Realism and Quantum Surrealism, does not respond as expected - I have no idea why. Anyway, the paper, which I think you would greatly appreciate (it comes from the blog of Stanford physicist, Nick Herbert), can be found at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1208.6283. I don't know why I'm having such trouble with links only on your section of this forum; I'm thinking some kind of quanglement conspiracy may be involved! The link works this time and, once again, the abstract:
In this thesis we explore the question: "what's strange about quantum mechanics?" This exploration is divided in two parts: in the first, we prove that there is in fact something strange about quantum mechanics, by showing that it is not possible to conciliate quantum theory with various different definitions of what should be a "normal" theory, that is, a theory that respects our classical intuition. In the second part, our objective is to describe precisely which parts of quantum mechanics are "non-classical". For that, we define a "classical" theory as a noncontextual ontological theory, and the "non-classical" parts of quantum mechanics as being the probability distributions that a ontological noncontextual theory cannot reproduce. Exploring this formalism, we find a new family of inequalities that characterize "non-classicality".
He calls his new family of inequalities "Boole Inequalities" . . .
With regards,
Wes Hansen
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 01:32 GMT
Jennifer,
I'm impressed with your essay. It's stated using popular technological terms, is deceptively simple in language -- easy to follow, but quite profound in meaning.
"Bit in some sense may very well represent what we can detect and manipulate about “it”, but quanglement implies something more,a connection that doesn’t rely on codified information at all."
Good word play -- like skillful fencing. I would like your opinion on my essay, "It's Good to be the King"
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 17:18 GMT
Jennifer,
I can't understand how we haven't enquangled before. An exceptional essay in all ways. Empirical is us, praps even more I than thee, and we look from deal with the same areas; galaxy evolution, quantum optics, Godel's theorem ...applied probability (poker). D-wave, quantum computers, Aspect experiment, (did you know of the orbital asymmetry in his vast majority discarded data?)
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
ooops!, wrong button! Cont...
also;...Smolin; "the universe is not identical or isomorphic to a mathematical object," but I don't agree your stamps. I propose they're jigsaw puzzle pieces and we can see when the picture is right (I hope you'll examine mine).
But beautifully written with a fresh non-affected non-jargon style, and right on the money with the subjects, construction and...
view entire post
ooops!, wrong button! Cont...
also;...Smolin; "the universe is not identical or isomorphic to a mathematical object," but I don't agree your stamps. I propose they're jigsaw puzzle pieces and we can see when the picture is right (I hope you'll examine mine).
But beautifully written with a fresh non-affected non-jargon style, and right on the money with the subjects, construction and arguments.
You say to Edwin; "It's hard to get a grip on reality itself". So true. That's been my own 40 year quest. And "..if somebody could reinterpret Bell's logic that would be quite a development." Ah! yes, ..well, I do use the hidden freedom between binaries to offer an EPR resolution without FTL if that's of use? But it predicted Aspect should have found an 'orbital asymmetry'... A bit lucky I checked. But enough of me! You wrote;
"..it is obvious on some level that the two objects entangled in acausal correlation are involved with one another more profoundly than the two objects exchanging causal info in time via a transactional game of information ping pong. Something important is being shared here, even if we can't directly exploit it..." ..."a reality state in and of itself, a state which is shared by multiple particles." Full marks for that alone. But perhaps we now CAN 'exploit it'!
Congratulations on a brilliant job, also showing tremendous insight and honesty, two commodities in oft intermittent supply. I really look forward to your comments on my own essay, which I think you may be well qualified to make.
PJ's reeally cool essay.Best wishes and best of luck in the roller coaster run in.
Peter
PS; You may also be interested in my last 2 (top 10 community!) essays describing the underlying physical mechanism/model, and in checking out the cyclic galactic evolution sequence that appeared in the puzzle picture.
2020 Vision. 2011. and;
Much Ado about..; 2012.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 00:34 GMT
Thanks for the note, Peter! If you are on Facebook feel free to keep in touch at http://www.facebook.com/JennyLN, or my email is JLNielsen@KU.edu. I enjoyed your paper and will read your others :) It's cool we have research areas in common! I'm fairly new to the blogosphere but I will definitely continue to be around ;) ^_^
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 03:41 GMT
Jennifer,
Imagine two "entangled" coins, quarters let's say, floating motionless relative to each other in outer space, either ten feet or ten light-years apart, such that the "tails" side of one coin faces the "heads" side of the other. They are thus anti-parallel.
But what is the state of each individual coin, heads or tails?
If you cannot answer this question about simple macroscopic objects, why would you suppose that being unable to answer the analogous question about entangled electrons, provides any evidence of "spooky action at a distance"?
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT
Hello Rob,
When I look at one of the electrons, I immediately impact what the other one is. Each time I check, the spin result changes, and the other one has changed in sync.
No classical system works like that!
Cheers,
Jennifer
Robert H McEachern replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:09 GMT
Jennifer,
When I look at one of the coins, I immediately impact what the other one is. Each time I check, (along a different observation axis) the result changes, and the other one has changed in sync.
SOME classical systems works like that!
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 08:11 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
While I enjoyed your lucid essay, I had objections to a couple of points. You wrote:
> And we know, in a universe post EPR "spooky action at a distance" and post Alain Aspect's experiment to test for EPR's validity, that quantum systems possess another intriguing quality that is sometimes seen by entrepreneuring reality hackers as a potential workaround for the limits...
view entire post
Hi Jennifer,
While I enjoyed your lucid essay, I had objections to a couple of points. You wrote:
> And we know, in a universe post EPR "spooky action at a distance" and post Alain Aspect's experiment to test for EPR's validity, that quantum systems possess another intriguing quality that is sometimes seen by entrepreneuring reality hackers as a potential workaround for the limits of information: nonlocality.
While this is the mainstream view, there are
approaches to QM that exhibit local realism despite Bell's Theorem. The problem is that Bell's theorem applies only to formulations of QM over complex numbers, whereas QM can be formulated over quaternions or other Clifford Algebraic numbers. These formulations have quite simple realistic models.
> If we trust Kleene's interpretation, since binary code represents such a formal system via which we can express elementary truth statements, what we can say with binary code is limited by Godel's theorem.
If I remember correctly (and it has been 40 years since I studied it) to meet the pre-conditions of Godel's Theorem your system has to be capable of representing ALL of arithmetic (i.e. addition and multiplication on arbitrarily large integers). Actual computers (having finite word sizes and finite resources) cannot do that, so I think the theorem applies only to abstract mathematical systems. I do not recall if there are some incompleteness results related to finite machines but that would be what you need for your argument.
> It is fascinating to realize that anything you or I perceive via sight or hearing each day may be represented in on/off neuron switches in our brains/minds... This information travels at the limit of the speed of sound-a physical limit. The ultimate limit on how fast we can get this sort of information across is via the speed of light.
There is a very interesting field of research termed Pre-Stimulus Response that demonstrates this is an overly simplistic view. From a
meta-study of the field:
"More than forty experiments published over the past 32 years examine the claim that human physiology predicts future important or arousing events, even though we do not currently understand how such a thing could be accomplished... human physiological measures anticipate what seem to be unpredictable future events by deviating from a baseline before an event occurs, in the same direction that they will continue to deviate after that event occurs. "
> Are we living in a "matrix" ? Is digital information literally all everything comes down to?
In my essay
Software Cosmos, I take the concept of a simulated world seriously enough to suggest how the simulation could work and propose (and carry out) a test to see if we currently live in such a virtual world. I hope you get a chance to read and comment on it!
Hugh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 20:13 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
Clear logic, and wide dynamic range. And high marks.
Would you agree to have a Siri clone of yourself made available for my iPhone.
I want one!
Thanks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Member Howard N Barnum wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 22:37 GMT
Enjoyable read, thanks. I got a pretty clear picture of your views on these matters, and on most of them I think you did a good job of conveying some
important things to a fairly general readership. I have some comments a few of which might be useful to you in polishing the essay for publication, and many of which are just me trying to figure out how our views differ on certain things,...
view entire post
Enjoyable read, thanks. I got a pretty clear picture of your views on these matters, and on most of them I think you did a good job of conveying some
important things to a fairly general readership. I have some comments a few of which might be useful to you in polishing the essay for publication, and many of which are just me trying to figure out how our views differ on certain things, like the nature of the quantum state (real versus encoding of information about aspects of reality), and of entanglement and nonlocality.
Don't take any critical comments below as harsh criticism, I liked the essay and will rate it highly...
It was very nice that you emphasize that quantum "nonlocality" does not allow signaling. To me, that is one of the more remarkable things about it, and occasionally is downplayed.
Why do you say "quanglement" is "more primary" than the sorts of physical processes that convey classical information?
Not sure I would agree that "nonlocality is the best explanation for
entanglement"... perhaps it's reasonable to say the reverse, if
nonlocality is interpreted as violations of Bell-type inequalities...
i.e. there being no "beables" in a relevant portion of spacetime (e.g. the intersection of the past light cones of the correlated events, or something along those lines, on which we can condition to remove the correlations...
I like your characterization of entangled particles as
"involved in acausal correlation" ... rather than "superluminally
causally related", etc...
I'm not keen on the term "quanglement", though... I think it will go the way
of Nick Herbert's "quon" for quantum particle.
"quantum correlations are directly caused by the quantum state"
... why not just say "described by the quantum state"?
"quanglement represnts an alternate form of is-ness" seems more ontological
than I'd prefer to be about the quantum state, but a nice way of
putting it. I guess I don't mind saying there's some is-ness to the quantum
state, in that it is telling you
what is in fact the right way to bet on events, and therefore telling you something about the world... this is an is-ness that is in many
ways quite different from viewing it as an object that exists in a sense
similar to the electromagnetic field in classical physics... or rocks, chairs,
and trees...but I think you were trying to convey in your essay, that it is indeed different...
"We can see via tests of multisimultaneity that entanglement doesn't
suffer being younger sister to any event containing her."
I wasn't quite sure what that meant... also it would be nice to hear more
about what a test of multisimultaneity is.
Again, very nice job.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 00:46 GMT
Dear All,
It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi...
view entire post
Dear All,
It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all
the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.
iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.
One of the sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
the second sub series is always defined by the equation
Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i
Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.
Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation
Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i
Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".
Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.
Examples
starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2
where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5
-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5
Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 2 5 13 34 ...
Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2
where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 3 8 21 55 ...
Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)
The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.
As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.
The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.
I have put forth the absolute truth in the
Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.
I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of
zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.
All this started with a simple question, who am I?
I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.
I super positioned my self or I to be me.
I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.
I am phi, zero = I = infinity
I am human and I is GOD.
Love,
Sridattadev.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 17:19 GMT
Jenny,
You have a real gift for translating complicated physics into pleasing language, which deserves on its own the high marks I'm going to give your essay. Thanks for a great read.
I'm afraid that
my own view, however, does not accept quanglement or nonlocality. I see the former as unreconstructed mysticism and the latter as another way to say that quantum theory isn't at all coherent without infinite extension, such that its experimental results only beg the question.
I do hope you take seriously Rob McEachern's question. It's a nice metaphor for a classical universe in a 2-valued state of relative rest.
All best wishes in the contest,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 18:45 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
Your clear writing is refreshing, as are the whimsical touches.
I am sure, however, that you prefer to discuss content rather than style. So, let's do that.
One very important idea is on pages 7 and 8. Lee Smolin, and others, have asserted that things have an "itness" (i.e., inner reality) which eludes human knowledge. According to this way of thinking, science...
view entire post
Hi Jennifer,
Your clear writing is refreshing, as are the whimsical touches.
I am sure, however, that you prefer to discuss content rather than style. So, let's do that.
One very important idea is on pages 7 and 8. Lee Smolin, and others, have asserted that things have an "itness" (i.e., inner reality) which eludes human knowledge. According to this way of thinking, science gets at relations among things, or the structure of the world, but does not get at the actual being of things. Returning to the analogy at the top of page 8, we would say that physics dumps some entities out of the box, but what these things are, we don't know. Maybe they are stamps, maybe coins, maybe jelly beans, maybe positive integers, maybe something else, and maybe some combination. We don't know.
The next step is to argue that, for purposes of human knowledge at least, it doesn't matter what they are. The step after that is the big one. Some people would argue that reality is only the structure, the relations, the interconnections. There are no items in the box. Nonetheless, on this view, though the nodes are really non-existent, we can still trace the pattern of connections.
I think that the slogan "It from bit" is often intended to summarize this approach. Reality is at bottom an abstract mathematical object, contrary to what Smolin said. The world we experience, and indeed we ourselves, are built out of these abstract structures. By contrast, "Bit from it" is a slogan for the belief that the ineffable what-it-is does matter. Both we and our world are something other than mathematical or informational structures, where "information" is defined in Shannon's abstract sense.
I'm not sure how quantum entanglement (or "quanglement" in Roger Penrose's terminology) fits into this picture. The point might be that quantum entanglement is evidence for the "bit from it" view. The reason is that the relevant phenomena cannot be fully described by any standard informational structure. If the phenomena cannot be so described, then we should not think the phenomena are purely informational. As I said, I am not sure that I have interpreted the argument correctly. If this is something like what is intended, then this essay provides a new and interesting argument for "bit from it."
Laurence Hitterdale
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 02:18 GMT
Jennifer,
One way I've found to examine a problem is to consider the various mirror images and consider what anomalies arise.
What if we were to look at some form of universal wholistic state as the default. Then entanglement would seem logical and our point oriented reference frames would look haphazard.
Consider the concept of four dimensional spacetime; What are three...
view entire post
Jennifer,
One way I've found to examine a problem is to consider the various mirror images and consider what anomalies arise.
What if we were to look at some form of universal wholistic state as the default. Then entanglement would seem logical and our point oriented reference frames would look haphazard.
Consider the concept of four dimensional spacetime; What are three dimensions, other than a further abstraction of the coordinate system and don't they simply model space from the perspective of the center point, much as longitude, latitude and altitude model the surface of the planet? What is the time coordinate, other than the narrative sequence, which is an effect of change, as viewed from the singular perspective. It isn't that the present "moves" from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what is, turns future potentials into past circumstance. It is just that from the intellectually reductionistic perspective of the individual, we experience a sequence of events.
Supposedly entropy creates the "arrow of time," but entropy only applies to closed systems. Universally energy is conserved and is generally the medium to the message of information. Since energy is conserved, in order to create new information(a consequence of energy being dynamic), old information has to be erased and that is the "arrow of time." Meanwhile that energy continues to erase the old and eventually the past becomes as unknowable as the future. Events are understood to be subjective perspectives when they are occurring, so given perspectives continue to evolve, the idea of what is past being unchanging, is an idealization. The past and future do not ontologically exist, so it is an epistemic abstraction to consider either to be "set in stone."
So we have this "sea" of energy and information is an expression of its interactions and subject to the physical distinctions and connections, not our Escher sketch view of them.
For example, it is considered that "space expands," yet we conveniently have this constant speed of light against which to judge this expansion. Where does its metric come from, if space expands? "Space is what you measure with a ruler." If space expands, why is the "ruler" constant?
If you chose to climb the ladder of theory, test every step.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Richard N. Shand wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 19:02 GMT
Jennifer,
Thank you for your brisk and refreshing essay. I very much agree with you that "quanglement is a reality state in and of itself".
According to quantum information theory, the information content of a system (bits) is acquired by discarding knowledge of quanglement. In this way, classical spacetime emerges concurrently and reciprocally with quanglement. (See my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)
Best wishes,
Richard
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Hi Jennifer
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
Hi Jennifer
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.
Good luck,
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:57 GMT
Dear Jenny ,
I hope my translation is good!
I enjoyed reading your essay, very nicely.
Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question :
In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.
I think there is no separation between bit and it, like space and time.
For me, there are two points of view :
1-« And there isn't really anything else. »–Michael Crichton, The Lost World
2-Otherwise, I say there isn't really anything else than 0 and 1.
You say : «..that electrons which have interacted may become entangled..»
I am not physicist, « quantum entanglement » is ordinary and simple interaction or something else ?
Can you bring me an example in classical world ?
No trivial example because I try to understand deeply the Nature.
With accessible words, if possible, please.
I will rate highly your essay, after that.
And good luck.
Please visit
My essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:46 GMT
Checking out your essay!
I think that reality is not based on information, but rather that what we typically think of as information is based upon reality. However I believe that another kind of information, quanglement, may be at the heart of reality.
Quantum entanglement is not a simple and ordinary physical interaction, at least not in the sense that it is classical. It is not possible to describe in classical mechanics. The simplest case is electrons which are entangled in terms of spin. When one pair is found to be spin up, the other will be found to be spin down. When you measure the electron, it changes the spin. But if you change the spin of one, the other will immediately change as well, no matter how far away that electron is.
Cheers!
Member Carlo Rovelli wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT
Jennifer, Wheeler point was not that classical physics is based on information: it was that quantum physics is based on information. There is no "post-Aspect-experiment perspective". With all its interest, what the Aspect experiment has done is nothing else than confirming what was written in any introductory quantum-mechanics book. Aspect experiments (and similar) have not changed by a bit our understanding of the world. They have only confirmed what we knew already. And what John Wheeler in particular considered clearly established.
carlo
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Carlo,
I've argued in my essay that both classical and quantum information are based upon reality (rather than reality based on info) but that quantum entanglement is another form of information entirely that may be at the heart of things. I think if what Wheeler considered was established we would not be having this essay contest :)
forgive my cheekiness,
Jennifer
Jacek Safuta wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 08:54 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
If you were bored one day in the lab at KU please try to carry out my simple spin experiment with your students. http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027
Maybe we could find out if “bits are states representing information about a system” or they are also parts of that system?
“He (Raamsdonk) argues that classical connectivity in spacetime geometry arises by entangling the degrees of freedom associated with two regions of spacetime…” And I would ask what if these two regions are only manifestations of e.g. two electrons?
You have cited Crichton and this is all about our perception and in that sense (and of course not literally) I think that we live in a “Matrix”.
Best regards,
Jacek
report post as inappropriate
john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:06 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
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 06:05 GMT
Oh Jennifer, that's a beautiful concluding part from you, ever I've seen here. So many many thanks and obviously "laughs" for our living in "sun" and "sea".
However (now seriously), that "quanglement" issue may also be a localize issue in future, who knows, in an enough span of 'hundred years'!
I invite you in my essay (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855)where I tried to draw a picture of reality, within the digital limit of our observations,(which includes all 'It', 'Bit", observers like us and of course information as an image of all those). We can imagine there a picture of any kind of particle systems (irrespective of all micro to macro levels) to possess simultaneously but inversely proportional quantize "Space" and "Anti-space", "time" and "anti-time" and so on.
Right now, I cannot give you proper math model, but there are enough logic behind to say that when two entangled particles are separated (or reduced) in their quantized "Space" there simultaneous inverse quantized "Anti-space" comes into inseparably closer (or say elongated). Particularly, when any one of "Bit"s changes, the other entangled (say as inverse) "Bit"s are also instantaneously become changed. So there will be no need to send any signals between the entangled pairs to exchange information in superluminal or luminal or sub-luminal in types.
You can find there some series of inverse relations as well for the purpose.
Now we are in the very end of this contest to exchange our comments.
This rating reality is basically restrict us to enjoy the good essays in windy time and space. However, I like to rate your essay and also expect rating from you if possible. Above all I am interested some comments from you on my essay.
With regards
Dipak
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear All
Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.
In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this “I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.
Further on, he advises the readers “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”
Did he says anything about Wheeler’s “It from Bit” other than what he said above?
Than Tin
report post as inappropriate
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
Jennifer - what a delightful essay. Despite my initial reaction to Gameboy, Pac-man and Pokemon analogies, I started to get interested when you brought in Penrose’s Quanglement.
The tide turned when I read my favorite paragraph from your essay:
“Yet in a world where nonlocality is now considered the best explanation for entanglement, it is obvious on some level that the two objects entangled in acausal correlation are involved with one another more profoundly than the two objects exchanging causal info in time via a transactional game of information ping pong. Something important is being shared here, even if we can’t directly exploit it.”
Now I understand why you were encouraged by my essay and left a comment on my web page some time ago (which I will get to later today).
After that point, I recognized that “your connecting the dots” between Penrose, Vedral and the entangled (what I call “dark”) Higgs Boson was pure genius:
“It is thus not only possible but absolutely necessary that classical information is intimately related to how processes evolve in time altogether.”
Well done. Super high marks for a concise, interesting, well researched and inspiring essay.
Kind regards, Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 13:57 GMT
Thank you so much for your kind words Paul, I greatly appreciate it! Thank you for catching the gist of my paper -- I am pleased it stood out.
Will be reading and rating your essay today!
Cheers and best of luck,
Jennifer
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
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
Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
Thank you for your kind message on my blog. I also very much liked your essay. We can further discuss CHSH inequality and more after the contest if you wish. I rated your essay highly on July 11. I would appreciate your own mark. Good luck.
Michel
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Professor Corda,
Thanks so much for your kind words, I am very encouraged that the author of your wonderful paper finds my paper likeable! I am working through the mathematical presentation in yours and am learning a lot, thank you for presenting it here and sharing and thank you for sharing your comments on my thread!
Cheers,
Jennifer
Hi Jennifer,
As promised in my Essay page, I have read your pretty Essay. Congrats, I have found it fantastic! I strongly appreciated your ability to join and mix profound physical concepts together your intriguing sense of humour. From the pure scientific point of view, I liked both your invoking Godel's theorem concerning the limitation of binary code and your discussion on Quanglement.
Thanks for giving me such a enjoyable reading, I am going to give you an high rate.
Cheers,
Ch.
Daryl Janzen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:23 GMT
Hi Jenny,
I was reading your essay on my way home from a trip just now (and really enjoying it, by the way), and when I sat down to get back to it, I got caught up reading the comments here. I see that you've been gone for a while, but you're online today, so I thought I'd ask now if you could read
my essay? I even linked it for you, since you wrote somewhere above that you wished they'd automatically link our essays when we post. That makes two of us! I actually suggested that on the main essay blog after the last contest--but alas, no such luck. Maybe next time...
I'll post again when I get through your essay.
All the best,
Daryl
report post as inappropriate
Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:51 GMT
Dear Jenny,
Thanks for the really great essay. It was so well written and thought provoking. You presented such an elegant discussion. I know from the comments here that you spent a lot of time on it--but honestly, you made it look easy!
You've done a nice job of presenting Goedel's incompleteness theorem, which I think definitely applies to the debate. Something that I've said more...
view entire post
Dear Jenny,
Thanks for the really great essay. It was so well written and thought provoking. You presented such an elegant discussion. I know from the comments here that you spent a lot of time on it--but honestly, you made it look easy!
You've done a nice job of presenting Goedel's incompleteness theorem, which I think definitely applies to the debate. Something that I've said more than once during this contest is that as unrealistic as it may be, I can still think of completely empty space existing, but I can't think of a universe full of stuff in which that stuff has to actually be the cause of existence. I think all the information in the Universe can't bring about the information's own existence. As you said at the end of your essay, "at least we can be satisfied that bits are representing some*thing*"--and I think that really is the bottom line. Actually, the way I think time has to pass, if it's going to pass at all, puts such a huge restriction on existence that the idea of bits coming to be all over the place AND causing their own existence is really untenable--which is really what my essay is about. So I guess the reason I liked the way you handled Goedel's theorem so much--"From within a Gameboy universe, the Gameboy cannot be entirely encoded and explained"--is that it applies so well to a point in the debate that I think is really important.
But you really went beyond all this in a way, and looked at quanglement as something that's got more to it than billiard balls popping in and out of existence all thoughout space, and then bouncing into one another and interacting according to the classical laws of physics. You gave "it from bit" a really fair shot. (By the way, I really liked your "matter does not just inter-act, it "inter-is""). In the end, however, you still find that information's got to be about something, and as I said I agree with that.
Also, I wanted to note that I've read pretty much every Michael Crichton novel. They are all good fun to read, as was your essay. You get a full score from me. I really like the quote you used.
Lastly, I should say that I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you after my first post. I went for supper with some friends and had to finish your essay when I got back.
Best of luck with everything!
Daryl
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Jennifer,
Your post on my blog :
« "Science today has an urgent need for a revolutionary theory, logical and qualitative, on the Functioning of the Universe and affects all aspects: mathematics, physics, philosophical, cosmological, sociological, economic, political, etc."
Do you think such a theory is actually possible? I enjoyed your thoughts though I feel the essay could benefit from some organizational work. Cheers and thanks for rating my essay!! »
Yes, the theory exists. I am writing the book.
If somebody ask me to speak about it, I am ready.
About my essay :
This is not an essay for having the best ranking. I just wanted to draw attention to the duality and see what scientists think about this important subject.
I'm glad I participated. And I had a favorable response. Some refuse to see any track to be the theory of everything. But the truth is that it is the first theory that explains everything.
Quantum mechanics and also relativity, mathematics, philosophy and our reasoning, and so on ...
(I see your rank decreasing. For somebody else rank obtained is more important than scientific value.)
Best wishes,
Amazigh
report post as inappropriate
Franklin Hu wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:30 GMT
While your essay has layperson appeal, after reading through, I'm not sure I have any better idea whether things really can or cannot be represented as binary.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:36 GMT
Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
Jennifer,
Cool essay I must say. I like how well rounded your arguments were regarding the topic at hand. Of all the statements you made the one that strikes me the most is:
"Yet in a world where nonlocality is now considered the best explanation for entanglement, it is obvious on some level that the two objects entangled in acausal correlation are involved with one another more profoundly than the two objects exchanging causal info in time via a transactional game of information ping pong. Something important is being shared here, even if we can’t directly exploit it."
I found your last sentence to be most profound and reflective of the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded and so I have rated your essay highly. Your most intuitive perspective and the manner of which you express it was most enjoyable to read.
I hope that you find the time to
read and rate my essay before this is all over.
Best wishes,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:33 GMT
Thanks so much to everyone who commented ! I tried to respond to everyone but was somewhat flooded with summer teaching and other duties :) If you commented and I read your comment, I made an effort to look up your paper and read/rate (and comment if I had time), but I may have missed some of the comments towards the end.
In any case cheers everyone, good luck in the final rounds, or "good...
view entire post
Thanks so much to everyone who commented ! I tried to respond to everyone but was somewhat flooded with summer teaching and other duties :) If you commented and I read your comment, I made an effort to look up your paper and read/rate (and comment if I had time), but I may have missed some of the comments towards the end.
In any case cheers everyone, good luck in the final rounds, or "good game" if you are done now! I hope to see everyone here again next year!
Best wishes all,
Jennifer
view post as summary
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Thanks all -- learning from all of your comments. In particular researching Bell's theorem and complex numbers and further exploring Godel's theorem. I wish all of you luck in the final judging.
Cheers,
Jenny
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 00:59 GMT
Aha -- I found the "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper -- but there are numerous issues.
Among them:
In his first few equations Christian attempts to establish a local realist interpretation via non-commuting observables--the trouble is his formalism is masking something which is not possible.
In Equation 5 he also shows in his summation that he doesn't really even "get" lambda.
It's my understanding that complex notation should not impact the proof of Bell's theorem; it should hold up in any other established, legitimate write-up of quantum theory.
Cheers! (Just wanted to formalize my opinion on this, if someone can show me a counterexample or another paper I'd be delighted!)
Jenny
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
"In his first few equations Christian attempts to establish a local realist interpretation via non-commuting observables--the trouble is his formalism is masking something which is not possible."
Absolutely wrong. The variables are dichotomous, as clearly explained in
this paper. "It's my understanding that complex notation should not impact the proof of Bell's theorem; it should hold up in any other established, legitimate write-up of quantum theory."
Then you miss the whole point of the proof. Joy gets by classical (non-probabilistic) the same predictions of quantum theory, which Bell's theorem holds to be impossible.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 01:02 GMT
Basically the counterexamples in Christian's paper don't hold the same assumptions as Bell's original theorem, so it's not a disproof. Assuming the new assumptions are relevant, what we have here appears to be a hidden variable theory.
Christian Corda wrote on Oct. 31, 2013 @ 16:59 GMT
Hi Jennifer,
Congrats for the Prize.
You and Cristnel Stoica are the only positive news on the ridiculous and shameful "results" of this Essay Contest.
Cheers,
Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.