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.

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

Bloogsy Provider: on 9/6/18 at 13:53pm UTC, wrote We for the most part welcome your information and are certain it will...

Nancy Chopra: on 7/26/18 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote I really like the information present in your post, it is very informative...

Ludhiana Call Girls: on 7/18/18 at 9:13am UTC, wrote Well done for giving such a unique piece of information. The write-up given...

Simmy Chopra: on 7/13/18 at 7:07am UTC, wrote Thank to give us the best information. A really likeable article, ...

Kezia McDonald: on 5/11/18 at 11:25am UTC, wrote https://liveassignmenthelp.com

Julie Bindra: on 4/17/18 at 9:37am UTC, wrote I know that the real VISIBLE Universe consists only of one single unified...

Julie Bindra: on 4/17/18 at 9:12am UTC, wrote I am pretty delighted to find this valuable post that is amazingly awesome...

jiya joseph: on 4/10/18 at 11:07am UTC, wrote I didn’t find any details regarding the topic that you have shared here....



FQXi FORUM
September 19, 2018

ARTICLE: The Complexity Conundrum [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 6, 2017 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear Mitch Waldrop,

Nature must have designed the structure of the real visible Universe and made it apparent to every real creature that would ever exist. The real Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All speculation about the complex behavior of invisible quantum particles am unnatural.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Dec. 8, 2017 @ 14:15 GMT
"Yet the mathematics of Hawking radiation is very clear on this point: the quantum state of any one radiation particle is random, and carries no useful information."

The problem is not with the math, but with the misinterpretation of what the math means. A random state DOES contain information. In fact, a random sequence has the highest possible density of information. Problem solved.

"Physicists had to accept that this ’uncertainty principle’ wasn’t just a practical limitation of their measuring apparatus, but a fundamental limitation on the kinds of questions they could ask experimentally."

The uncertainty principle is identical to saying that every measurement must contain >= one bit of information. If you have failed to extract at least one bit of information from a measarement, then you have failed to perform anything worthy of being called a measurement.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT
Robert,

I think you are quite correct in that. I've been musing on a scenario of an electron - positron annihilation event and while it can be seen physically as an instant in which there only exists opposite charge, it also must be reckoned that all the associated spin measurement characteristics must also come into chirality anti-alignment for the opposites to physically merge into that instantaneous transmutation from mass to energy.

So yes, there is all the information there in that one bit. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
John,

I recently came across this quote from Dirac (who first predicted the existence of the positron), in connection with a reading and discussion course I am going to be leading this spring, based on the Quantum Theory selections in the book "What's the Matter - Readings in Physics" (https://store.greatbooks.org/colleges-book-groups/what-s-th
e-matter-readings-in-physics.html) from the Great Books Foundation:

“The important thing about electrons and protons is not what they are but how they behave, how they move. I can describe the situation by comparing it to the game of chess. In chess, we have various chessmen, kings, knights, pawns and so on. If you ask what a chessman is, the answer would be that it is a piece of wood, or a piece of ivory, or perhaps just a sign written on paper, or anything whatever. It does not matter. Each chessman has a characteristic way of moving and this is all that matters about it.” P.A.M. Dirac

I agree. Quantum Physics only describes how things are observed to behave, not what they are, or why they exhibit such behaviors; that is what information is all about - the behavior of measurements of things, rather than either the things per se or their behaviors. There are "things", "behaviors of things" and "measurements of behaviors of things" and they are all different. Physics has confused them. Here are some additional thoughts on the subject, that I have been putting together, for the above mentioned course: What Went Wrong with the “interpretation” of Quantum Theory?

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Dec. 9, 2017 @ 20:13 GMT
Thanks Robert,

I'll make note. Sounds like good reading. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 8, 2017 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Robert H Mceachern,

The real visible Universe consists of only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly eternally illuminated by finite non-surface light. Reality contains no humanly contrived abstract finite INVISIBLE “uncertainty principle.”

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Dec. 10, 2017 @ 17:02 GMT
Black hole singularities represent the boundary of what is knowable classically. However, in the determinate geodesics of general relativity, there is no sense to any determinate and therefore knowable paths inside of a black hole.

This article proposes that the many possible paths of a particle at an event horizon are just a result of purely classical chaos. It is just the exponentially large number of paths that preclude knowing what is a fundamentally determinate and therefore knowable particle path.

The interaction of a quantum particle with an event horizon is what results in Hawking radiation and also what results in firewalls and also eternally collapsing objects. Quantum phase has no meaning in the Oppenheimer dust of a classic black hole, but that does not stop very smart people from calculating things like Hawking radiation or firewalls or eco's and then endlessly arguing about them.

Good luck to Brown and Susskind. The complexity of the math of this topic will likely result in a perfectly acceptable and utterly opaque papers that even very smart people will argue about endlessly.

There really needs to be some kind of quantum gravity theory in place before anyone can ever make sense out of the quantum phase noise at an event horizon or any spacetime singularity. What these kinds of papers end up doing is simply showing that science does not yet have a way to handle quantum phase noise at spacetime singularities like black holes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Dec. 11, 2017 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,

On December 7, 2017, I have emailed : “Dear Theoretical Physicist Adam Brown;

You wrote in the opening paragraph of a project Complexity, Black Holes, and Observers that you submitted to FQXi.org: “There are some (abstract) things that no single (abstract) observer can know, even in principle.

I know that the real VISIBLE Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light because no matter in which direction I look, I only see a seamlessly enmeshed plethora of flat, filled in, varied hued surface. I find it doubtful that Nature would have given just this singular observational capability to only me, so I am confident that any real eye could only ever see a seamlessly enmeshed plethora of flat, filled in, varied hued surface. I am confident that the real eyes of the real dinosaurs only ever saw a seamlessly enmeshed plethora of flat, filled in, varied hued surface no matter in which direction they looked during their whole lifetime. As this happened over a million years before man appeared on the planet, I KNOW THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WRITTEN BY MAN CONCERNING INVISIBLE BLACK HOLES AM UTTERLY WRONG.

I know you are an ethical SCIENTIST. Please return the $37,500 you were Granted for your worthless project to the Foundational Questions Institute.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Dec. 11, 2017 @ 16:27 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I failed to mention that although conventional chess game proficiency can be programmed into a computer and simultaneously played by some blindfolded Chess Masters, Grandmaster Fischer Chess games cannot be programmed into a computer, and no blindfolded game could ever be played. Bobby Fischer Chess allows the random first row placement of the eight major pieces at the commencement of each game.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jack Sarfatti wrote on Dec. 23, 2017 @ 01:03 GMT
Sarfatti Commentary #1

1) "Let’s also say that you’ve ringed it with the ultimate sensor array, including enough telescopes, radio dishes, gravitational wave detectors, and the like to measure every quantum of energy emerging from the system.”

The world lines of these detectors is crucial. Detectors on timelike geodesics will not see the same phenomena as COINCIDENT detectors...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hans van Leunen wrote on Dec. 24, 2017 @ 12:45 GMT
It would be better to know first what carries information. Our living space transfers information between discrete objects that are embedded in this field via vibrations and deformations. The information generating objects and the perceiving object have no direct contact with each other. Two categories of super-tiny objects exist that are shock fronts which are triggered by point-like actuators. The one-dimensional super-tiny shock fronts carry a standard bit of energy. Combined at equidistant instants in strings that obey the Einstein-Planck relation E = h v, they implement the functionality of photons. Super-tiny spherical shock fronts integrate into the Green's function of the field. Locally, the volume of the Green's function deforms the field. Globally it extends the field. So temporarily, the spherical shock front owns an amount of mass. However, the deformation quickly fades away.

See> Nature's Basic Dark Quanta; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0241

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.