CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Most Beautiful Experiment of All Times by Stefan Weckbach
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
Essay AbstractIn this essay we examine the role of the digital as well as the role of the analog in modern physics. We search for similarities as well as for differences between these two modes of description. By exploring the limits of these modes, we show that they hardly can be considered as the last words about the foundations of reality. Finally we expose an Gedankenexperiment that, if it could indeed be executed in reality, could shed new light onto the question about nature being either digital or analog.
Author BioThe author's main scientific interests are mathematical undecidability, algorithmic information theory, questions concerning consciousness, human free will and logics. Additionally he is interested in various interpretational questions about quantum mechanics.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 04:42 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,
Good to see you here. In one remark you speculate that a new theory might show "one or both of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as special cases of limited applicability." I am beginning to believe that General Relativity is of limited applicability in a 'flat' universe, the applicability being focused on black holes and neutron stars. In my essay I show Doug Sweetser's beautiful diagram that illustrates the "choice" of whether to use either the 'potential' of QM or the 'metric' of GR. I also conjecture that gravity is irrotational, although this seems to conflict with the 'weak field' GEM equations of GR. Such a change will have consequences, such as for gravity waves.
You also state that "some physicists believe that...particles...do *not* have any well defined properties until those properties are measured." This is potentially the most important current question in physics, and Brian Whitworth's essay explores the consequences of this. I challenge this in my essay and on Brian's page and my own page. I won't repeat them here, but would welcome your comments on this issue.
Finally I invite you to consider my 'particle plus pilot wave' approach, which differs from Bohm's treatment in that his pilot weave is a 'quantum field' [whatever that is] while mine is a real [gravito-magnetic] field of the type I think deBroglie and Einstein would have preferred.
Thank you for pointing out that if the "elementary particle split itself" to pass through the slits, it always nevertheless has to "reunite with its parts" to form a well defined point at the screen. I believe that you have addressed major questions of physics that must receive our attention. I also appreciate your focus on information and computing, but need more time to digest these.
Good luck in the contest,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 12:31 GMT
Hi to both of you and to all,
Indeed it's good to see you again on FQXi.
Very interesting essay.congratulations and good luck.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Edwin,
thanks for your positive comment and the evaluation of my essay.
Unfortunately i can't comment on your issues outlined on Brian Whitworth's page, because i don't understand the the precise phyiscal mechanisms with which you want to restore Einstein's locality and physical realism at the same time.
Good luck also in the contest,
Stefan Weckbach
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 01:39 GMT
Hi Steve,
hope you are well and thank you for your kind words.
Have you plans to participate too at the current contest?
Greetings,
Stefan Weckbach
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 12:56 GMT
Hi dear Stefan,
You are welcome,sincerely.
That goes.Thanks.I survive in a bizarre world.I search the big forest hihihi.
For the contest,no I can't resume.And I have a problem of adaptation for the system and the management.But I must adapt me, it's essential and important even!
I don't know how I must do in fact.Even here in Belgium I don't know how I can create a society or a company.It's the life.
I wish you still a very good contest, your essay is relevant.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 15, 2011 @ 03:20 GMT
Stefan, thanks for the response. I don't wish to clog up your page with the discussion of entanglement and Bell's inequality issues, but I am continuing with them on my page, and hope they answer some of your questions. Of course I would be happy to answer more if you have them.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
narsep wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
Having only a glance to your essay I was trapped by the number 123(124). It is astonishing that I have reached to the same number by an holographic approach (essay programmed for the future) of the Universe. I hope to find the time needed to read your essay in detail and respond appropriately.
best regards
narsep (ioannis hadjidakis)
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Narsep,
for further information about the cosmological and holographic information bound of 10
123, you should read the following paper of the british physicist Paul Davies: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703041.
Besides this, Seth Lloyd has calculated this number by using a different way. His conclusions are exposed very clearly in an article of the german edition of scientific american, 1/2005 (see my references). I am sure that this article also has been published in one of the american editions of the journal. The german title of the article is "Is the cosmos a computer?".
Best Wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
narsep replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
Thanks o lot for the complementary information.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Dear Stefan and Narsep,
I have wondered if 10^123 is a geometrical power of Dirac's Large Number ~10^123~(10^41)^3 in 3 spatial dimensions. Either that, or it is "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy (such as the "Multiverse" scale that I mention in my upcoming continuous vs. discrete essay).
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT
Stefan Weckbach,
I rather enjoyed your article. My article which appeared illustrates some of my work on the equivalency between 3 and 4 qubits entanglements with a black h ole and entanglements with the AdS_7 spacetime. This touches on elements of your paper.
The entanglement entropy for black holes is equal to the determinant of the SLOCC group. For the 3 qubit system system this is a hyperdeterminant, where there are terms for the standard bipartite entanglements as well as for the W and GHZ states. For the 4 qubit case there are coset realizations. The entanglements are holographic, and in what I am working on there should be a correspondence with an entanglement entropy on AdS_7, with cosmological implications with the conformally flat boundary.
The 400 to 500 bits and possible 10^123 entangled bit flips corresponds to the total number of elementary particles, or string modes possible. The E_8xE_8 has 2x248 = 496 particle states. This is remarkably close to this estimate here. The implication is that the universe may only contain one of every type of elementary particle. So the electrons running around the circuit board in my computer, is the same as all the electrons in the entire universe. This holographic projection of fields onto the AdS boundary, or equivalently the cosmological boundary, is a form of Feynman’s original concept of the path integral where a particle in effect covers the entire universe.
Check out Phil Gibb’s paper and mine, which are remarkably parallel.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
i read your essay and another paper of yours i found in the internet. I am impressed by your broad mathematical skills and your creativity. Unfortunately i cannot comment on your ideas because of my lack of mathematical background. But your results are very interesting, thought-provoking and maybe lead to more insights about holography, entropy and entanglement.
Regards,
Stefan
Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 22:24 GMT
Hi Stefan,
Good to see you participating in the contest!
Regarding the discussion of the nature of particles in Section 4, I just wanted to mention that if instead of "particles" we think in terms of events (followed by other events), things might look less mysterious.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT
Dear Lev and Stefan,
I think that Stefan and I are close in some ways in the definition of particles. The Multiverse is an infinite Cantor set, our Observable Universe is a self-similar fragment of fractal dust of that Multiverse, and at some scale it is appropriate to consider fundamental particles as self-similar fragments of fractal dust, ad infinitum...
These fractal fragments also have quasiparticle properties that yield Discrete Particle vs. Continuous Wave Duality.
I'm still waiting for my essay blog to go live...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Ray,
yes, i think the only way to implement "infinity" into our physical descriptions without making ultimate reality an infinitely complex thing would be to consider fractals. They are highly redundant and therefore compressible and describable.
basudeba wrote on Jan. 19, 2011 @ 09:33 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your paper is quite interesting.
While many predictions of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been proved, GR has not been proved in laboratory experiments and there is no unanimity among the various versions of QM.
You say: “infinities could be no more than mathematical idealizations”. Generally, infinity is used in physics as a very big number that has properties like other numbers of the number sequence. This is not correct. Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars. The number sequence arises out of the mechanism of our perception: two is one plus one; three is two plus one etc. Infinity is like one: without similars, but while the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. Hence no mathematics is possible using infinity and renormalization is mathematically void.
The answer to the question posed by you: “if the conceptual use of infinitely changeable quantities, be them size, duration, energy or whatever, does make ontologically sense or only reveals our misunderstanding about the universe” is that change is essential for perception (without a change in the object or the background structure, no perception is possible). The universe is a closed system where every particle interacts with every other particle. Our inability to study the total dynamics leads to our misunderstanding about the universe.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle has been a most misunderstood statement. Kindly read our essay on its proper interpretation. Similarly, there are alternative explanations for Young’s double slit experiments and diffraction experiments. Wave and particle represent two different aspects of the same thing, but as waves and particles they are different. Wave represents the field. Particle represents the confined field. The interaction between the particle and the field appears as the force experienced by other bodies in the field. Separately, we have derived all fundamental forces of Nature from a common source. Gravity is the first force that is responsible for structure formation and stabilization. It is a composite force and not a single force. Other forces can be derived from it without GR. Soon we will publish the detailed theory.
Regards,
Basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
basudeba wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 07:19 GMT
Dear Sir,
We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.
As we have explained in our essay,...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.
As we have explained in our essay, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called “here-now” and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It’s true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.
When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, ‘which of the pairs has gone with the traveler’, the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).
Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a ‘perfect fluid’ and not an ‘explosion of gases’ that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg’s mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles.
Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.
Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein’s mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.
Regards,
basudeba.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 14:44 GMT
Hi Stefan, I liked your essay very much in it's simplicity of thought. I agree that the particle/wave duality needs to be resolved in a common sense fashion. I believe that an Archimedes screw analogy does just that. What do you think?
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Alan,
can the Archimedes screw analogy explain the behaviour of sinlge "particles" ("waves" or whatever) in a Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer?
Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 10:18 GMT
I assume it's a similar question to whether it can explain the YDS. In time I think it can. The double-slit experiment requires a modelling of the edge of the slit which is made of metal. This requires an initial modelling of the hydrogen atom, which is essentially a proton with an 'orbitting electron effect'. Until we get a simluation model of the hydrogen molecule, we can't model the more complicated elements or compounds. It's the same with so called fundamental particles, we have to take the precise modelling one step at a time. I hope you can give the spinning helix idea some thought. Imagine if Newton had announced it as the particle which must exert his unseen force of gravity! History would have been totally different. No Einstein talking about a 'fabric' of spacetime hundreds of years later for one! Kind regards, Alan
report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 23:47 GMT
Stefan,
I'm merely an innocent bystander, but I'd like to express few thoughts about Bell theorem tests. BTW, I'm assuming that particle-wave duality is actually an oscillation between states.
I think that the only way that the emission of a single 'particle' can be determined is through the detection of single particles in a test without 'grating'. That a particle state manifestation is emitted rather than a wave state manifestation is undetermined.
I suggest that even in quantum Bell test experiments that emitted low mass elements are propagated only in their wave states and are manifested in their particle states only on detection.
Moreover, when a 'grating' device is used to split the element, it can only be of such separation distance that a wave portion can pass through all the grating openings. I assert that's because it is a wave being split into (two) independently directed wave fronts, still representing a singular wave. Each wave front can be independently detected as a quantum particle, both still representing the original singular wave.
Thanks for your consideration,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Jim,
you wrote
"Each wave front can be independently detected as a quantum particle, both still representing the original singular wave."
I think this can easily excluded via experiment. If an original singular wavefront splits and the new wavefronts could be independently detected as a quantum particle, there should be multiple detector clicks for a single emitted particle (and additionally multiple portions of the original particle's energy would be detected).
I have discussed this issues a while ago in the following fqxi-blog:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/631 (starts by John Merryman wrote on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 16:49 GMT).
I think this thread could answer your questions more rapidly than i could do it here.
Regards,
Stefan
Anonymous replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 22:19 GMT
Stephan,
Sorry I haven't explained clearly - I suggest that each partition of a single light wave, even of quantum emission energy, contains the identical information of original emission. There is no "new" wavefront, only independently directed wavefront extensions of the original wave 'extruded' from the grating.
If multiple particle detections are produced, by physical partitioning and extension, from a single wave emission, they should all exhibit identical characteristics without any 'spooky action'.
Speaking of spooky actions, did you intentionally refer me to the following blog entry for clarification?
"The physics sounds exciting, but the philosophy is wretched. The difference between Buddhism and monotheism is the difference between unity and unit. One is a state of connectedness and the other is a set. Multiverses are not about unity, or connectedness, they are just more sets!!!!!"
There is no need to respond further unless you intended a different blog entry.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 07:48 GMT
Dear Jim,
no i intended you to read Constantin Ragazas proposal to explain the double-slit experiment and my discussion of this proposal with him. The whole discussion starts under the entry of John Merryman. (you must click "show all replies (95 not shown)" to have access to my comments there.
James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 01:22 GMT
Dear Stephan,
Ha! Thanks so much for the navigation pointers. Your intended reference was most appropriate and enlightening. I'm afraid that in my frequent sub-quantum energy state I sometimes wander a bit.
I did find this quote in wikipedia's 'Double-slit experiment' entry, '
Summary' section:
"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. After many photons are emitted one at a time, and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film, the pattern of interference remains the same, even though each photon produces only a dot on the film. The clear implication is that for each photon, something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself so affecting the probability of its dot position.[14] (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too [15].)"
ref. 14ref. 15I also highly recommend the section '
When observed emission by emission' which discusses how When observed emission by emission of quantum electron wave packets produce single electron detections that, accumulated over time, produce an interference pattern as if they had propagated through both slits. Most enlightening!
Thanks for your directions!
Jim
report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear Stephan,
So what I'm suggesting is that even a single quantum packet of light, emitted individually, is non-locally dispersed throughout spacetime as it self-propagates. When it encounters a two-slot obstruction, for example, it is physically partitioned, emerging from the slots as two now independently directed waveforms still representing the original emission. As they each radiate from their origin (one of the slots), they interfere with each other. Eventually, one of the concentrated waves produced by the interference of the two waves partitioned from the single wave packet originally emitted is obstructed by the detector screen, collapsing into a detected photon as the waves' momentum is materially absorbed.
Perhaps you can better explain the observational evidence? I admit I don't have enough energy to chase any more rabbits, though.
Sincerely,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 08:01 GMT
Dear Jim,
if that would be the case, the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer (without the second beam-splitter) should be able to detect both independently directed waveforms. But that's never the case. For every "particle" that goes through the first beam-splitter, there only one and just one detector clicks for each partitioned waveform.
Sincerely,
Stefan
James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 08:48 GMT
Sorry - but my failure to be clear again. I didn't clearly explain that I've now modified my assertion to better fit the data: that for each emission of a single quantum wave packet a single wave is detected.
I still assert that it is two independently directed waves being partitioned from the initial emission by the grating. The two independent partitions interfere with each other, but the product of the two emergent waves collapse to be detected as a single photon.
As I understand, this fits the evidence since the single detected photon is not aligned with either slot, as is the case with a single slot experiment: it is statistically aligned with an apparently random position within an interference pattern that eventually emerges following a large number of individual quantum packet emissions.
In other words, you are correct that a single particle is produced by each quantum emission, but its detected location is produced by the interference of independently directed waves passing through the grating.
I think this best fits the evidence.
I hope I've now explained clearly. I really appreciate your patience!
report post as inappropriate
James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Stephan,
Please excuse me for omitting the proper salutation and signature in my previous message(s) - I'm a barbarian by nature.
Sincerely,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Dear Jim,
you are right, it seems that if the detected location is produced by the interference of independently directed waves passing through the grating.
But if we observe one of the two slits to look which slit a particle went through, the interference pattern doesn't build up, but only a pattern behind each of the slits that we know from single-slit experiments. So the two "waves" cannot be independent from each other. Otherwise there should be nonetheless a kind of interference pattern at the screen (though different from the interference pattern for the case that we don't measure a slit, but nonetheless interference between the two waves that you describe - towards their way to the screen).
How can you explain this with "real" waves?
Sincerely,
Stefan
Anonymous replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Stephan,
Sorry for being so dense, but I don't quite follow you: what is the experimental condition where one of the slits is monitored to determine which slit a 'particle' went through - how is that accomplished?
I see that quantum emission single slit experiments produce a distribution of detections behind the slit, as a single wave collapses to produce the particle detection.
As I understand, in the two slot experiment the waves must be independently directed or no interference pattern could be produced.
More directly, can you explain, for an individual quantum emission single slit experiment, how a localized particle could always find its way through the slit, when it would frequently be absorbed by the grating material? How does a localized quantum particle even propagate through spacetime except as a wave?
Thanks,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Jim,
"what is the experimental condition where one of the slits is monitored to determine which slit a 'particle' went through - how is that accomplished?"
I don't know for sure, but i think some "properties" of a particle (be it magnetic spin, mass, charge or energy or whatever - you should read up on the experimental reports) interact with another particles properties (an atom...
view entire post
Dear Jim,
"what is the experimental condition where one of the slits is monitored to determine which slit a 'particle' went through - how is that accomplished?"
I don't know for sure, but i think some "properties" of a particle (be it magnetic spin, mass, charge or energy or whatever - you should read up on the experimental reports) interact with another particles properties (an atom or an experimental device).
"More directly, can you explain, for an individual quantum emission single slit experiment, how a localized particle could always find its way through the slit, when it would frequently be absorbed by the grating material?"
Obviously such a "particle" gets not absorbed by the grating material, otherwise it couldn't also hit the screen anymore.
"I see that quantum emission single slit experiments produce a distribution of detections behind the slit, as a single wave collapses to produce the particle detection."
I do neither believe in particles, nor do i believe in waves as the ontological basement of reality. I rather think that the answer to that puzzle can't be found within the framework of ordinary 3D-spacetime. Imagine an electron going through the double-slit experiment. If it would be separated into two independent waves, what happens with the electrons' charge, mass, energy, spin? We could measure it imidiately after it went through the slits, but we could also don't measure it, or measure it after it moved 100 meters. Why should an electrons' wave know that at some point of a screen "it" is detected and therefore the other valid points at this screen should register it with probability zero? The potential points on the screen to register such an electron could be far away from each other.
We could have a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer and send a single electron through it. Every arm of the interferometer is 1000 meters long. There's no second beam-splitter and the two arms do not cross one another but are 2000 meters away from each other. What happens with the wave that hits the detector which doesn't click? Why can we measure the electron's properties (charge, mass, energy) at the detectors which clicks? Are there only empty waves under way with only the description - information - about the electron's properties and such properties are only re-constructed in the moment of a measurement? If so, doesn't this mean that we have to redefine our concept of matter's properties in some way and also our definition about physical space? How can the one arm of the interferometer "know" that the other arm has registered the electron and therefore need not construct the electron's properties twice (it can only be detected at one detector, at one time). If we involve entanglement into the picture to explain those "spooky action at a distance", why should we therefore need physically extended waves to transport information through spacetime?
Sincerely,
Stefan
view post as summary
James T. Dwyer replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT
Dear Stephan,
Thanks for explaining. I'll have to stick with existing experimental evidence until better data becomes available. You did cause me to refine my assessment of that existing data - thank you very much!
Best wishes,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Dear Jim,
thank you too for your patience and for visiting my page.
Best wishes to you, too,
Stefan
hide replies
Thomas J. McFarlane wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 07:00 GMT
Dear Stefan,
I enjoyed your interesting essay. One passage of particular interest was your consideration that "Fourthly, we could reason that there must be somewhat a metaphysical realm that is able to transcendent both possibilities, the digital and the analog. The latter option seems to be the most promising." This option is quite similar to the conclusion of
my essay which may interest you. Both of our essays also touch on the question of the denumerability or non-denumerability of quantities in physical theories and measurements.
Regards,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Tom,
i read your essay and enjoyed it very much. Very clearly and consequently argued lines of reasoning.
"Insofar as the distinctions we use to describe order are free imaginative constructs, they are not so much properties inherent in reality itself, but the basic elements that make it possible to characterize and describe a cosmos at all. We may then redefine objectivity in purely mathematical terms, without any implication of an independently existing substance."
Yes, that's my line of thinking too. George Spencer-Brown has outlined the universal basement of distinctions in his famous book "laws of form".
All physical processes, be them human beings or just physical facts, must obey these laws of distinction as long as they are coupled to "duality". A fact is a provable distinction, means a 1 bit decision. If one cannot decide a thing, there's no information and hence there are no "facts".
There may be a metaphysical realm where the duality of mutually exclusive alternatives is transcental, and i thing QM is a hint in that direction.
"Because the cosmos is discrete, this suggests that its complement is a continuum—not the mathematical continuum which has definite structure, but an indefinite continuum, a formless void (i.e., the original meaning of the Greek word chaos) that lacks any order and is thus beyond comprehension in terms of concepts or distinction."
Yes again. One can think about "infinity" as "undefined" - it has no borders that could make a distinction. Hence it is "un-definite", "undefined".
My standpoint is that maths can never capture the whole ultimate reality. denumerability and non-denumerability are concepts intimately related to determinism. But no exclusively mathematical and therefore deterministic proof can prove the exclusiveness of determinism/mathematics. This does not necessarily mean that ultimate reality couldn't be exclusively deterministic/mathematic, but i strongly think that it underlines that mathematics is limited for the same reasons why distinctions are possible in this world: namely because limits are the operational basement to produce facts and hence information.
Thanks for visiting my site,
all the best
Stefan
Thomas J. McFarlane replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 04:29 GMT
Stefan,
Thanks for your reply. I'm familiar with Laws of Form. Perhaps you know of the related work by
Lou Kauffman.
Regards,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Neil Bates wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 02:22 GMT
Stefan, I think it fascinating that you come up with an experimental situation, the outcome of which depends on the theoretical computing power of the universe in term of effectively available bits. You may have heard that an open universe implies infinite extent of space, and it seems you refer to the particles and combinations withing the observable horizon of several billion light years. I'm not sure that the number of bits that *could* be used for such a computation means that's what would actually be done in the universe. Are those particles really used, and would our doing an experiment right now actually mesh with the potential capability of all those entities in principle? I think most QI specialists think of the computing being done by dimensions and the associated bit power of the entities actually taking part in the interaction. However, your proposal is creative and merits further inquiry. If the universe does partake of a universal wave function, the logical properties of that could well condition the scope of specific events and projects within that larger universe.
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 09:24 GMT
Dear Neil,
as you surely know, some interpretations of QM take an analog and deterministically evolving wave function as a fact. For example DI or MWI. I pondered about wether those views are really a fact or not.
To "answer" the contest's question more definitely, one has to provide an experimentum crucis that could differenciate between a strictly analog model of reality and other (non-strictly) models. This task seems to be somewhat a variation of the halting problem, because if you can measure some values to - say - the 70 billionth decimal place, that's in no way a proof that nature acts in an infinitely precise manner or not. Even if the next 50 million decimal places are only zeros, you have no garantuee that after that there will again exlusively only follow further zeros and no other numbers.
If we define "information" as something that made a factual distinction in the past (due to measurement-outcomes or mere interactions of particles), then at least within our observable horizon of the universe there should have been produced only a finite amount of information - resulting in our present configuration of the observable horizon. Though "observable" means "factual", we cannot exclude the possibility that unobserved, "counterfactual" information is preserved via an analog and deterministically evolving wave function, be it as many worlds or as other unobservable dimensions.
If the holographic principle is valid, the total information content of a region of space is finite. For our observable universe, this amount of information - due to the holographic principle and the calculations of Seth Lloyd and others - cannot exceed about 10123 factual information units (bits). So, if nature would be able to outdistance this number by a quantum computer's operation that leads to a factual, verifiable output (in my experiment via the factorization of large numbers into their prime components), this would indicate - at least - that the underlying wave function does operate in a counterfactual realm, a realm that cannot be associated with ordinary space and time.
But if nature wouldn't be able to outdistance the 10123 factual bit-flips, this would be - in my opinion - a strong hint for reconsidering a strictly analog and deterministic view of QM.
"Are those particles really used, and would our doing an experiment right now actually mesh with the potential capability of all those entities in principle?"
I really don't know if those particles would be really used in such an experiment, but if the claims of the finite information bound (or let's say, the finite computational capability) of our observable universe is valid (independent of how the universe computes or is interconnected in detail), there should indeed occur a breakdown of the "wave function" at some critical point of my proposed experiment.
Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 20:10 GMT
Hi Stephan,
I enjoyed your essay, which I found very stimulating. I appreciated also the reference to Paul Davies’ paper, about which I have some comments that you might find interesting, since it is closely related to the issues you are dealing with.
Key questions seem to be: How many ‘bits’ of information are there in the universe? And: Shall we interpret ‘information’ ontologically or epistemologically? It strikes me that, either way, information—if it is to be about something—must correspond to physical structure. Is there, then, a limit to how much structure (detail) can actually exist in the universe? Or is the limit simply on what we can know of this structure? I think these are very different questions, but easily confused.
Davies—like many others these days—proposes to explore the idea of information as fundamental, as occupying the “ontological basement”. He contrasts this (ironically, I think) with a view that he characterizes as Platonist. But it strikes me that viewing information as ontologically fundamental is basically an idealist (if not outright Platonist) concept—unless we stick to the view of information as structure. But then, I am not sure on what basis it can be argued that reality has a finite structure. He attempts to do this on the basis of information as dealt with in the Bekenstein bound, and parallel arguments. But this is effectively information in an epistemological sense, which he, like others, assumes can be identified with information in an ontological sense. That seems to be an error. There may be ultimate structural limits; and there may be a correspondence between these and limits of what can be known. But neither should be assumed.
Yours sincerely, with best wishes,
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 22:17 GMT
Dear Dan,
thank you very much for your encouraging words.
You raise important questions and i'll try to adress them:
The platonist's view, at least as i understand it, is that all the abstract information is ontologically present in a platonic realm. It exists without references to time or space, it was, is and will be forever - unchanged. It is static.
The notion of information in the sense i use it, is, that information is not the same as structure. Information-processing (i rather name it "measurement-processes") leads to structure, in this sense information corresponds to that structure only once the structure is actually realized in the physical realm, but the information itself is neither a one-to-one translation of informational structures into physical structures nor is the information fixed in a platonic realm. The real context of that information could probably lie far outside our physical universe. We should not overlook that informational realms could be realms as real as your impression to see the colour "blue" - nonetheless without any information about how that qualia can be interpreted in physical terms(the precise emotional impression of seing blue, feeling it and knowing that it's absolutely real without being able to explain "what" is it that makes it so real - real as the impression "blue", not the underlying physical processes emitted by "blue" material).
My main concern in writing the essay was to offer at least a theoretically feasible way to discriminate between a strictly analog and deterministic evolution of the universe ("wave function") and the possibility that information only comes in finite units into our world (from where however). If a quantum computer could solve some tasks a classical computer could never do (due to a time- or energy-consuming cosmological limit), then we could reason that there is more structure beyond the classical world than the "digital computer"-picture assumed.
Yours sincerely,
Stefan
Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 00:14 GMT
Thanks, Stephan
I would certainly agree that "there is more structure beyond the classical world than the 'digital computer'-picture assumed." I don't believe, however, that Platonic "informational realms" are required for there to exist human perception (the contents of consciousness). I do believe that physical structure is required. But this is probably not the main thrust of either of our intentions, and not something to debate.
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Stephan,
Your well written essay reminded me a lot of the many exchanges we had last summer over just this 'most beautiful experiment'! I couldn't let this opportunity go by without wishing you success with it.
Though our earlier exchanges dealt exclusively with my explanation of the double-slit experiment, my
essay summarizes many other derivations that collectively can give you a much better idea of the coherent whole. You will find in this a consistent simple formulation of much of basic physics.
Fundamental to this is my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law showing that it is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It says that if we know the amount of energy absorbed at a given temperature, then Planck's Formula determines the energy intensity. This I argue explains why the
experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from that of Planck's Law.
Interestingly, and more to the point of our previous discussion, and of your essay, just yesterday I posted a result that I believe you will find very relevant to that discussion, and more. The mystery of the double-slit experiment is accounting for the corpuscular nature of light (photons). The “photon hypothesis” is Einstein's major accomplishment. The other of course being his Constant Speed of Light hypothesis that is the basis of SR.
I think the title of the paper I posted just yesterday will explain why this is so relevant to my explanation of the double-slit. If you recall, I had listed three principles that I claim explain the double-slit experiment:
1)Light propagates continuously as a wave, but interacts discretely
2)Before 'manifestation of energy' there is 'accumulation of energy'
3)The “photon” emitted is not the same as the “photon” detected
Now the drum rolls and the title of my paper that says it all …
“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”This I demonstrate with a very simple and elegant mathematical proof. Thus, Einstein's CSL contradicts the Photon Hypothesis!
I look forward to your comments. Best wishes for a successful contest …
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
Stefan,
You are right. The question is still open like the existence of a Supreme Being. But my bet is on analogue with some evidence from models and assumptions.
Enjoyed reading your essay, Stefan.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
basudeba wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:18 GMT
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.
Sir,
We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.
“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay...
view entire post
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria – suggestions for improvement.
Sir,
We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.
“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest “Is Reality Digital or Analog”. Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or “ultimate” nature of reality.
Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called “established theories” due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.
Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg’s boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb’s law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined “reality” and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.
Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.
A set of thirty-five finalists (the “Finalists”) have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as “Community evaluators”. Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.
Most contestants are followers of what they call as “mainstream physics”. Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.
In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog “refers, at least implicitly, to the ‘ultimate’ nature of reality, the fundamental layer.” He admits that “I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms.” Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about “speculative scenario”. Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.
The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.
The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.
Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) “Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you.” There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.
The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.
Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.
In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.
Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light”.
Regards,
Basudeba.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.