The Universe Is Not a Computer by Ken Wharton

Dear Ken

First of all it's great to know that we are neighbors living in San Jose. I also have been a part-time lecturer at San Jose State in the past and have several faculty friends there. I would like to get in touch with you and meet you if you would like to share the mutually beneficial results of our work.

Your conclusion -"The universe is not a computer" is fully vindicated by the results presented in my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe". It is shown that the observed universe behavior can be predicted via proper inclusion of the missing physics of the well-known spontaneous decay of particles. This new physical understanding that is missing from QM and GR provides a better alternative than merely using an alternative mathematical scheme to solve the QM mysteries, inconsistencies, and understanding the universe. Inclusion of this missing physics provides the degree of freedom in the universe that a computer does not have. The QM uncertainty is shown to be an artifact of this degree of freedom so far ignored in physics/cosmology theories. There is no need to "....assuming the NSU must be correct, and using suspiciously anthropocentric reasoning to recast the universe in an image of our quantum calculations" as you have rightly said in your paper.

My paper provides a new fundamental understanding of the Cosmological Constant and relativistic universe expansion based on spontaneous motion. The current QM and GR paradoxes and inconsistencies are shown to be artifacts of the missing (hidden) physics of the well-known phenomenon of spontaneous decay. A new Gravity Nullification Model for Universe Expansion (GNMUE) is proposed that integrates the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion into a simplified form of general relativity. The model predicts the observed expansion of the universe and galaxies and other data. The model provides answers to key fundamental questions and resolves paradoxes among general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. It also bridges the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity theories via revealing relativistic understanding of the inner workings of quantum mechanics. The impact of the new understanding on widely-accepted fundamental assumptions is discussed and a new wholesome perspective on reality is provided.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. Please feel free to get in touch with me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Ken

Nice essay. I hadn't before given much thought as to why most physicists do not

like the idea of future boundary conditions. I like your anthropic explanation.

From reading some of your other work it seems you are mostly interested in Lagrangian field theory rather than Lagrangian mechanics. For this reason, I'm curious to know how you imagine describing an electron?

If you imagine the electron as being a soliton, then we agree on that. On the other hand, I think that looking for a nonlinear field theory of the electron is jumping way too far ahead in terms of our current knowledge of physics because the length scales are too small. The experimental bounds on detecting internal structure of the electron charge-center suggest it would be a rather small soliton (< 10^(-19)m), which is an awful lot smaller than the electron Compton wavelength and I think too small to be relevant in quantum mechanics.

So the way I imagine future boundary conditions most directly playing a role is through Lagrangian mechanics (2nd or higher order) not field theory. I touch on this in my essay (briefly in Section 2.1). Hope you find it interesting.

Good luck with the essay!

Andrew

Ken.

To simplify; I found mapping abstraction back to reality does not describe nature using present mathematics. Substituting the strict disciplines of logic however allowed a model which appears to give far more consistent results.

The model challenges a few assumptions which I identify. I assume you haven't yet read the essay? It's quite dense but mainly conceptual. Too many and too little time I know. (I'm mainly in astronomy and quantum optics so speak different languages anyway).

Your rationalisation of the theoretical background to my work is none the less very helpful and encouraging. I hope to cite your work.

I do hope you can read mine and comment, and forgive the Shakespearian metaphors to help kinetic visualisation!

Best wishes

Peter

Ken

I like your paper, and think that this issue of the universe being or not being a computer is important. I don't think there is any conflict if we say that evolution of the wave function is deterministic. So its not so much that there are future boundary conditions, its that we can know some probabilities with certainty. We know that we are mortal for instance. We can not escape the unbearable certainty of some outcomes. There are certain two state systems.

Determinism is a tricky thing. There are two types that I can articulate, one is cold determinism of the classical, and the other is the warm determinism of the quantum. Determinism is a foundation it seems, but the universe seems to prefer the latter over the former.

In any case, it seems that you would agree with the statement that quantum universe is certainly more relevant than the classical one, would you agree?

Hi Ken,

First, regarding your essay. Title not withstanding, you are not really arguing against the universe as literally a computer a la Lloyd or Wolfram. You only indirectly argue against them by positing a block universe, which certainly can't be computed. So my questions were about trying to pin down your main conclusion. Now, you admit in your reply to me that you don't have a novel argument for block universe, though I assume you want that to be a distinguishing feature of LSU. Another possibility is that you are really arguing for a new time-symmetric interpretation of QM but again, merely being a block universe is neither necessary nor sufficient for that. In other words, there can be block worlds without local time-symmetric processes and there are time-symmetric accounts of QM that are not block world. Yet another possible interpretation of your essay is that you see some necessary connection between LS and LSU or some ontological fact about reality, but of course any such inference would require extra premises not given in the essay. And finally, since we already knew that a time-symmetric psi-epistemic account of the QM could deflate the MP and provide a local picture of entanglement, that can't be your novel conclusion. I think the answer to what is novel in your essay comes at the end and again in your reply to me:

"In an LSU model, once you work backward to fill in the 4D spacetime, you can translate that 4D description to a 3+1D *description* of what is going on between measurements. But I do not think it will be "Newtonian", in that it will not always be a solution to some master differential equation, and I do not think it will be an "explanation", just a movie-like description of what actually happened. For an *explanation*, one will have to consider the whole 4D-LSU picture."

If you could find such a formalism, that might lend some extra credence to a block universe and could constitute a novel time-symmetric interpretation of QFT. If this is indeed the heart of your essay, here's my challenge to you. If the lagrangian density L is a function of the field f and its derivatives, S is stationary wrt to f (LS formalism), and f satisfies the boundary conditions (LS formalism), then L satisfies a differential eqn (NS formalism). If you want your LS soln to allow for a continuously mediated (3+1)D story, then I don't see how L won't be a function of f and its derivatives, thus allowing for an NS counterpart. Can you explain how you plan to avoid this LS-NS correspondence? Isn't there a theorem to this effect? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian for example.

Of course what's interesting about our account http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1393 with the SCC at bottom, is that it's exactly what you are looking for except you would have to give up the continuously mediated (3+1)D description. Even though you say such a description wouldn't be explanatory, you think the lack of such a description entails instrumentalism. An understandable worry, but our view isn't instrumentalism. The key to understanding why is seeing that our "fields" are such that matter/sources and spacetime (the metric) are inextricably connected. So it isn't that some independent dynamical QM entity disappears at one point in some spacetime arena and re-appears at another point in that arena. Our "fields" are spacetimematter fields, not some continuous medium between events. Spacetimematter fields on the graph are the fundamental ontological elements and these are not dynamical entities in some (3+1)D sense, they are inherently 4D. In other words, for you "between" necessarily means "between time-evolved entities." To see what we're saying just flip that perspective, i.e., let "between" give rise to "time-evolved entities involved in processes." Then you'll be asking the right questions, e.g., "What is happening between measurements?" becomes "What is between for measurements?" [Answer: spacetimematter fields on a graph.]. When you take spacetimematter seriously, you have to re-think what you mean by "between", "duration", "distance" and so on, in such situations. This is as big a difference in what it means to "explain" as when we went from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics. You worry that our model is needlessly extreme, but that depends on the pay off right? Gauge fields on links allow us to discharge the mysteries of QM with a psi-epistemic account that explains interference, entanglement, discrete outcomes, all consistent with SR and no MP. It also allows us to explain so-called dark energy and unify GR and QFT. Nor do we give up spacetime as you accuse in your reply, we simply give up the differentiable manifold as fundamental. You are so close to us in spirit, if only you can throw off the remaining chains of dynamism.

Ken,

Thanks for the detailed response. You have provided me with several pieces of information I didn't know, and several other ideas I will have to carefully consider. I share your preference for GR and its few simple principles. However, coming from a math background and working mostly with very nice things like algebraic schemes and complex manifolds, it is hard for me to believe that the physical world is based on similarly nice things. I expect successful theories beyond GR and the SM to still be based on simple principles, but possibly involving arbitrarily messy mathematics. Take care,

Ben

Dear Ken

very nice thoughtful essay, one of the best. A comment: I am a little surprised you do not mention Aharanov's "two-time" formalism (see for example this paper and references therein), as it seems very close to what you are proposing as regards the way time works.

As regards the LSU formalism, this non-local approach is very interesting. You state "Instead of initial inputs (say, position and angle), Fermat's principle requires logical inputs that are both initial and final (the positions of X and Y). The initial angle is no longer an input, it's a logical output."

Yes indeed. What this approach does is very interesting: it puts dynamics into a framework that resembles the process of adaptive selection (the dynamics is offered a variety of choices, and selects one that it finds optimal according to some selection criterion, rejecting the others). This kind of process occurs in various contexts in physics, even though this is not widely recognised; for example it underlies both Maxwell's demon and state vector preparation (as discussed here ). I believe there may be a deep link to the dynamics you describe. This may be worth pursuing.

George Ellis

Hi Ken,

I'm very relieved that the Universe is not a computer! Sure, I need to re-read your essay many times to only partly understand it. But I need not know all the rules of hockey to see that a game is brilliantly played.

Best regards!

By the way I forgot to say that I totally agree with your critique of the idea of the universe as a computer. It's a totally overstretched analogy. And what is quite interesting is that if you analyse the flow of causality in computers, they are a classical case of top down action (I sketch this in my own essay). What drives them is the logic of the algorithms they employ - which are abstract entities.

Cheers

George

Dear Dr Wharton,

Your essay is clearly heading in the right direction. But, should this discussion stop at the physical aspect of the spacetime, which is still derived from a mathematical framework? Or have we missed the big picture precisely because of an even deeper bias we have about the spacetime at its most fundamental -- and physical -- level?

In my essay I introduce a model of the universe that resides entirely in ordinary spacetime. In this model, quantum spaces are explained as real but independent spaces, similar to the space of the universe.

However, something is less than ordinary: the hypothesis about the nature of this wrong assumption, which changes the way we see reality. Surprisingly, the hints about this wrong assumption were provided by Minkowski himself, but the scientific community ignored them for the last century.

Cheers,

Gene

Ken,

I agree a Lagrangian approach, indeed I've argued that the centre of a large mass such as a SMBH should not be a singlarity but a point of equilibrium. This is precisely a Lagrangian point, and gives a toroid form of gravitational potential, a form common to all em fields, tokamaks (fusion) and which I deal with every day as an astronomer, as AGN's etc.

So of course maths (see my end note terms) but far more warily. Information theory shows your idea can be taken further (See McEachern essay) because the information possible in a mathematical abstraction is tiny compared to that contained in what it is trying to model (nature). I'm thus far more rigorous in applying the order; Correct concept first, Maths second. This requires the structures of logic, and a fully consistent ontological basis, which few of our theories posses. Expecting maths to accurately match reality is then foolish.

My main point is that, if we drop the series of related and unproven assumptions identified, the gap between SR and QM disappears. SR is derived direct from QM, and consistent with GR. CSL, curved space-time etc are all natural and inevitable consequences and effects of a single and well evidenced (but poorly understood) series of real mechanistic quantum interactions. The picture is Einstein's Local Reality, with causality conserved and paradoxes resolved.

The strict construction of truth propositional logic (hierarchical frames), and Dynamic Logic (interleaved but non interfering modes) are followed.

The evidence is overwhelming, but the big issues with it are that it's;

1. Entirely unfamiliar.

2. So self apparent we can't possibly not already know it.

3. Hiding so close in front of our eyes it forms a layer on our lenses.

4. Far to 'big' and fundamentally important to be recognised or acceptable.

5. Does not require complex mathematics to initially find, just visualisation of the evolution of kinetic effect (a new way of thinking).

6. Although it agrees with the SR postulates, it finds a fault in one of the the assumptions used for SR so must of course be wrong.

Could you see any of that? I'm considering reverting to the incremental approach (paper on resolving the Kantor interferometer issues accepted and due soon). Any other ideas?

best wishes

Peter

Great essay, Ken. Had it been posted early enough, we would've made yours a prerequisite for ours and detailed how we satisfy your desideratum for an LS-only approach to new fundamental physics. Unfortunately, it wasn't in the blockworld cards so (with your permission) I'll have to do so here.

If you're interested in new LSU-inspired approaches (LS formalisms) to fundamental physics which have been vetted and shown to have empirical consequence, read our essay. The LS approach outlined therein was inspired by our LSU interpretation of QM called Relational Blockworld (Foundations of Physics (2008, 2012,) and Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (2008)). In RBW, the manner by which we satisfy Ken's desire for an LS-only formalism (to the extent that it's possible, anyway) is to abandon dynamism altogether, i.e., get rid of (3+1)D time-evolved stories. The fundamental ingredients are relations, as advocated in Rickle's essay. In a sense, we're getting rid of the background/matter distinction in the spirit of Dreyer's essay. Among other things, this idea suggests correlations on a cosmological scale as Weinstein promotes in his essay. Such correlations suggest corrections to Regge calculus cosmology that we used to explain the Union2 supernova data without accelerating expansion or dark energy (Classical & Quantum Gravity (2012)) in direct opposition to the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize citation (Honorable Mention in Gravity Research Foundation 2012 Awards for Essays on Gravitation, http://users.etown.edu/s/STUCKEYM/GRFessay2012.pdf).

Thanks for letting me use your essay to connect with others in the competition, Ken. Good luck!