Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Thomas Ray: on 11/6/13 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote "In his first few equations Christian attempts to establish a local realist...

Christian Corda: on 10/31/13 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Jennifer, Congrats for the Prize. You and Cristnel Stoica are the...

Jennifer Nielsen: on 8/19/13 at 1:02am UTC, wrote Basically the counterexamples in Christian's paper don't hold the same...

Jennifer Nielsen: on 8/19/13 at 0:59am UTC, wrote Aha -- I found the "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper -- but there are...

Jennifer Nielsen: on 8/19/13 at 0:51am UTC, wrote Thanks all -- learning from all of your comments. In particular researching...

Jennifer Nielsen: on 8/19/13 at 0:34am UTC, wrote Thanks for the note, Peter! If you are on Facebook feel free to keep in...

Jennifer Nielsen: on 8/9/13 at 0:33am UTC, wrote Thanks so much to everyone who commented ! I tried to respond to everyone...

Manuel Morales: on 8/7/13 at 20:15pm UTC, wrote Jennifer, Cool essay I must say. I like how well rounded your arguments...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, Papering over the cracks [1] in physics' view of the world does no..." in More on agency from the...

Lorraine Ford: "How physics sees climate change: laws of nature caused climate..." in More on agency from the...

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

Anonymous: "The confrontation between different viewpoints is always an interesting..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

emma jio: "in your printer have any issues like printing issues or anything which..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Steve Dufourny: "I must insist on a global crisis inside the sciences Community. It is due..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, first to accept the quantum superposition, it is necessary to accept..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "I accept that particles vibrate but have not expressed an opinion on..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
November 12, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Is Bit It? by Jennifer Nielsen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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 :)

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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 :)

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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 !

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Heh, this is my editing face:

Meme - Editing Face

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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...)

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Jennifer L Nielsen replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:33 GMT
Thanks Akinbo! Checking it out now!

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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 . . .

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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?)

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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 ;) ^_^

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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!

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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