High Fidelity

Unfortunately, the previous report has a clumsy typing error.

Certainly, Kaluza considered gravitation and electrodynamics, no thermodynamics.

I'm sorry. Your notes can be correspond to the address: asilin@list.ru

I think the work of John Stachel in uncovering "The Other Einstein," who "plagued" himself with doubts about the reality of the continuum, way back at the beginning of the 20th century, is important to recognize in this discussion.

Einstein's problem was the "too great" information of the continuum, as he discussed with his former student, Walter Dallenbach, in a letter dated sometime in 1916.

"You have correctly grasped the drawback that the continuum brings," writes Einstein (as translated by Stachel). "If the molecular view of matter is the correct (appropriate) one; i.e. if a part of the universe is to be represented by a finite number of moving points, then the continuum of the present theory has too great a manifold of possibilities. I also believe that this 'too great' is responsible for the fact that our present means of description miscarry with the quantum theory. The problem seems [to me] to be how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a continuum (space-time) as an aid. The latter should be banned from the theory, as a supplementary construction, not justified by the essence of the problem, [a construction] which corresponds to nothing 'real.' But we still lack the mathematical structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this way!"

Of course, the point that must be made is that the subsequent development of the wave equation does nothing to ameliorate this problem. The schizophrenic foundations of quantum theory still plague us.

Really, this drawback of the theory.

Moreover, quantization of gravitation by the offered method has "Action at a distance". The problem of Ernst Mach is appear - the instantaneous influence of the long-distance neighbourhoods of the Universe.

It is possible to consider two ways of the solution of this problem.

1) Vladimirov considers influence of all other microparticles of a measuring device (all microparticles of a surrounding medium). The basis of this method has been made by Fokker, and added by Feynman and Wheeler in the theory "Interaction with the absorber as the mechanism of radiation", 1945.

2) It is possible to consider only those particles, which influence from the point of view of the entropy process. I.e. return to a problem about radiation of black body. There is a difficulty: appear a gravitation depends on a entropy. However, thus we should consider only the open systems.

In the Book P.Fraenkel, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, FOUNDATIONS OF SET THEORY, North-Holland, 1958 you can read following :

"The bridging of the chasm between the domains of the discrete and the continuous,or between arithmetic and geometry, is one of the most important - may, the most important - problem of the foundations of mathematics....Of course, the character of reasoning has changed, but,as always, the difficulties are due to the chasm between the discrete and the continuous - that permanent stumbling block which also plays an extremly important role in mathematics, philosophy,and even physics."

This is present day problem or not to comparision of 1958 ?

Because "discrete" and "continue" are very abstract notions, in future for concreteness we will talking about discrete and continue symmetries.Then we will see that problem solved or not.

We have 2 different kinds of symmetry: discrete and continous.

Basic difference between them:

Discrete symmetry is static symmetry (reflections,parity,etc). Not demanding motion,change in time.

Continous symmetry is dinamic symmetry.Demanding motion (rotations,translation,shifts,etc), change in time.

The motion supposed to be different velocity (from small to relativistic).

When we going to relativistic velocity object get different Lorentcian deformations and continous symmetry lost its sense.

We get some kind of self-rejection of continous symmetry.

1)Does discrete symmetry only real symmetry?

2)There are exist some universal symmetry where included both symmetries discrete and continous?

I introduced some universal symmetry call Metasymmetry where included both symmetries discrete and continous?

Now to Methasymmetry. If we try to represent discrete symmetry and continuous symmetry with minimal means by using at least two symbols, what should we do? We can use signs 0 and 1 Then the minimal discrete symmetry may be represented as 10 or 01 and minimal continuous symmetry as 11.In this case, to represent continuous symmetry we used some APPROXIMATION without which our reasoning would be impossible. Now, going back to symmetry between the discrete and the continuous we may use representation of one version as 1011. What can be said about Methasymmetry now? A general conclusion is as follows: the ratio of the total number of zeros (unities) to that of unities (zeros) makes up certain invariant ratio of 3:1 or 1: 3. This is the numerical measure of Methasymmetry.

This idea independently close to John Wheeler's "It from bit".

In Nature we often come across the ratio 3:1, or 1:3, the sequence being of no importance:

1. Space is 3-dimensional and Time is 1-dimensional.

2. Only 3 elementary particles are stable with a half-integer spin (proton, electron, neutrino) and 1 is stable with an integer spin (photon),

3. 3 of 4 fundamental interactions (strong, electromagnetic, weak) are relatively closed by their intensity magnitude but are greatly different from gravitational Again the 3:1 ratio.

4. In the Standard Theory of weak electric interaction bosons (W, W-, Z) have a mass but a proton does not. Again we have the 3:1 ratio.

5. Beta decay where 1 neutron converts into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. Again the 3:1 ratio.

6. Mmin u-quark/Mel 1.5Mev/0.51 Mev = 3:1 ratio.

3:1 may be the fundamental symmetry of the Universe?

The binary representation of 3:1 ratio is 11:1.

Just one symbol used.

It from bit or not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Yuri Danoyan; 07-18-2008 at 04:28 AM. Reason: multiple post merged

Join Date: Jul 2008 | Posts: 123 | Location: Utah

It from bit? Does John Wheeler was right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Wheeler-brilliant scientist died 3 months ago.

I would like talking about contradictory part his legacy written in the J. A. Wheeler, It from bit, At Home in the Universe, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1994, pp. 295-311.

But first of all i want reminding some quotation from other book,"Geons,black holes & quantum foam" John Archibald Wheeler's autobiography with Kenneth Ford Norton, 1998

Wheeler summarizes his work as follows:

"I think of my lifetime in physics as divided

into three periods. In the first period,

extending from the beginning of my career until

the early 1950's, I was in the grip of the idea

that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for

ways to build all basic entities - neutrons,

protons, mesons, and so on - out of the lightest,

most fundamental particles, electrons, and

photons. This same vision of a world of simple

particles dominated my work with Feynman.

We were able to formulate electrodynamics in

terms of particles acting at a distance on one

another without the need for intermediate

electric or magnetic fields. ...It did ... make a

most remarkable prediction about a

hypothetical world containing only a few

particles ... In such a simpler world, the

future would affect the past.

"I call my second period Everything Is Fields.

From the time I fell in love with general

relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in

my career, I pursued the vision of a world made

of fields, one in which the apparent particles

are really manifestations of electric and

magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and

space-time itself.

"Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that

Everything Is Information. The more I have

pondered the mystery of the quantum and our

strange ability to comprehend this world

in which we live, the more I see possible

fundamental roles for logic and information

as the bedrock of physical theory. ...

I continue to search."

Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam - pp 63-64

I would like drew attention of Forum participants to last part of John Wheeler research.Does we get some confirmation about it?

I presented my simple interpretation John Wheeler's idea "It from Bit.If we rewriting some numbers(for examples: symmetries, dimensionless constants,different dimensions D=3,D=11,D=12, etc) from decimal code to the binary code and vice versa, we get more information."More is different".Quote from mentioned book P.341.

My confirmative posts:

1)Discrete and continue symmetries

2)What Wolfgang Pauli does mean?

3)Wonderful number 12 on the spectrum of elementary particles

We vill show that next decimal numbers in binary code:

3 to binary 11 as a sign of symmetry

11 to binary 1011 as a sign of metasymmetry

12 to binary 1100 as a sign of antysymmetry

John Wheeler book

At Home in the Universe (Masters of Modern Physics) (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/Home-Universe-...6585362&sr=1-4

Already Lagrange wrote in 1757 in Theory des fonctions analytiques:

".. the principles of the differential calculus free from all considerations of the infinitely small or vanishing

quantities, or limits [etc.] reduced to the algebraic analysis of finite quantities."

Virtually all Wilhelminian mathematicians including Dedekind, G. Cantor, and Hilbert preferred to make this pragmatism a seemingly rigorous theory.

Therefore, the attempt by for instance Charles Francis to deny the role of continuum is neither new nor promising.

I humbly would like to instead consider that already Fourier transform as well as cosine transform convert infinitely large into the infinitely small quantities and discrete in continuous ones and vice versa.

Engineers do perhaps better understand that the question whether reality is exactly identical with either a discrete or a continuous model is a pointless one. Even the notion point, e.g. attributed to a point charge, turns out to be rather inappropriate. Functions like sinc(r) do not exhibit a visible middle point. The same is obvious for someone who looks for the the north pole of earth.

However, wrong belief in arbitrarly man-made mathematical laws and axioms may give rise to a chain of serious mistakes, most likely including EPR too.

Education must make aware of the need to clearly distinguish between objective reality and models of it.

I am claiming having found out that elapsed time in reality is of course always positive, no physical effect can precede the moment of consideration and this still holds for anticipated elapsed time with respect to the only possible choice of the considered moment while ordinary time is just a generalized abstraction from elapsed time and can be extended, flipped, and stretched at will. One has to get aware which time one deals with. The same is true for other physical quantities.

Heisenberg's uncertainty can be attributed to mathematics.

I agree that more than one definition of time is essential. I would suggest a minimum of 3. Although 1 of my 3 namely subjective time could be sub divided into two.ti, which is internally generated subjective time, relying mental reckoning based on internal circadian rhythms and input of general external environmental clues, and te which is time measured with an external timing device of any kind.

Ekhart Blumschein wrote "I am claiming having found out that elapsed time in reality is of course always positive..."

Reality is a very problematic word. How is reality defined in your model? I require 2 distinct realities, objective and subjective, separated by the Prime Reality Interface,across which information such as electromagnetic energy and kinetic energy, is transferred.

Relativity occurs within subjective reality but not objective reality.Objective reality is un-knowable through the scientific method because of the Prime reality interface.It is the realm of theoretical speculation, philosophy and religion, not science. Whether it is discreet or continuous will depend upon the model used to comprehend that reality. By using a particular model,of any kind, a subjective reality is formed, which is not the objective reality under consideration.

I do think you make an excellent point about education. This point applies to all levels of education.

A model is always just a model not objective reality itself.

Also models can and should be superseded when better alternatives come along. This is the nature of progress. Unfortunately this is difficult as careers, whole lifetimes of endeavour and reputations of individuals and institutions are at stake.It will be very hard for some to let go.

Why your assumption that time should be quantised?

Time is a muddle of at least 3 different concepts.Historical time.The past, present,future concepts.Objective time, motion of the matter of the universe along a 4th dimension.Subjective time t, divisible into te and ti measured with clocks or internally within the 3 observable dimensions of space.

(There is also mathematical time that exists only as a term within mathematical formulae.)

Subjective time te gives a regular change that can be considered as a measure of objective time, if assumed to also be a regular change but along the 4th dimension. Objective time can be related to objective motion of matter along a 4th spatio-energetic dimension, that can not be perceived from the 3 observable dimensions of space, except by the clue of gravity.

The position of matter within 4 spatio-energetic dimensions is never static and so no fixed point in 4D space can be given for any object.

The motion of matter along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension is equivalent to loss in potential energy. It is continuous.It is necessarily so, because it is that motion that gives mass energy.This energy change gives the changes experienced as the passing of time.

There may be some confusion with the concept of entropy.An object such as a jug falling and smashing is "loosing" potential energy.It is said that it is "attracted by gravity" to the earth. Actually potential energy is "lost" because all objects will loose potential energy whenever given the opportunity. All of the pieces become a part of the earth.The earth has increased in size and 2 objects jug and earth have become 1, decreasing disorder.

So there is no quantum of time, it is continuous. There is just continuous loss of potential energy as the matter moves towards the centre of the hypersphere.

(The 4th dimension is used just to describe this motion in this model. It has no material existence.)