An Acataleptic Universe by Philip Gibbs

Dear Sir,

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to explain. Kindly bear with our lengthy explanation.

When Mr. Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Mr. Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Mr. Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Mr. Kennard's formulation is therefore totally different from Mr. Heisenberg's. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Mr. Kennard's formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Mr. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. "Spontaneous" creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Mr. Kennard's formulation and not in Mr. Heisenberg's formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.

The uncertainty relation of Mr. Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error-disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Mr. Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.

Mr. Ozawa's inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.

While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement, these are not always externally apparent. Various circulatory systems work within our body that affects its internal dynamics polarizing it differently at different times which become apparent only during our interaction with other bodies. Similarly, the interactions of subatomic particles are not always apparent. The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally. The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps. Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us. We may quote an example.

Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed.

All information requires an initial perturbation involving release of energy, as perception is possible only through interaction (exchange of force). Such release of energy is preceded by freewill or a choice of the observer to know about some aspect of the system through a known mechanism. The mechanism is deterministic - it functions in predictable ways (hence known). To measure the state of the system, the observer must cause at least one quantum of information (energy, momentum, spin, etc) to pass from him through the boundary to the system to bounce back for comparison. Alternatively, he can measure the perturbation created by the other body across the information boundary.

The quantum of information (seeking) or initial perturbation relayed through an impulse (effect of energy etc) after traveling through (and may be modified by) the partition and the field is absorbed by the system to be observed or measured (or it might be reflected back or both) and the system is thereby perturbed. The second perturbation (release or effect of energy) passes back through the boundaries to the observer (among others), which is translated after measurement at a specific instant as the quantum of information. The observation is the observer's subjective response on receiving this information. The result of measurement will depend on the totality of the forces acting on the systems and not only on the perturbation created by the observer. The "other influences" affecting the outcome of the information exchange give rise to an inescapable uncertainty in observations.

The system being observed is subject to various potential (internal) and kinetic (external) forces which act in specified ways independent of observation. For example chemical reactions take place only after certain temperature threshold is reached. A body changes its state of motion only after an external force acts on it. Observation doesn't affect these. We generally measure the outcome - not the process. The process is always deterministic. Otherwise there cannot be any theory. We "learn" the process by different means - observation, experiment, hypothesis, teaching, etc, and develop these into cognizable theory. Heisenberg was right that "everything observed is a selection from a plentitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future". But his logic and the mathematical format of the uncertainty principle: ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π are wrong.

The observer observes the state at the instant of second perturbation - neither the state before nor after it. This is because only this state, with or without modification by the field, is relayed back to him while the object continues to evolve in time. Observation records only this temporal state and freezes it as the result of observation (measurement). Its truly evolved state at any other time is not evident through such observation. With this, the forces acting on it also remain unknown - hence uncertain. Quantum theory takes these uncertainties into account. If ∑ represents the state of the system before and ∑ ± ∑ represents the state at the instant of perturbation, then the difference linking the transformations in both states (treating other effects as constant) is minimum, if ∑

Hi Philip,

I have read your essay. Not bad at all, although looking for something more radical that can tell us the secret of the 'Old One' as Einstein would say. Also thanks for providing the opportunity for vixra authors. I am one.

1. Just the same question I have asked others... In your essay and similar ones, you say, "We just answer yes/no questions". BUT what is THE QUESTION? Is it 'have you submitted an essay to FQXi'? Surely, not! Wheeler says the question must be at the'very bottom' and Paul Davies says it must 'occupy the ontological basement'.

Well for whatever it is worth I have asked what that question should be in my contribution, 'On the road not taken'.

So what exactly can THAT QUESTION be?

2. You talk of smooth spacetime. Are you by any means suggesting that space is continuous? Because if you do I might be taking you up on that.

Cheers,

Akinbo

I had another look at my "long comment". I think it was too long - though there is a lot there that's worth thinking about. Anyway, I'll keep this shorter. Since you like the idea of particles from gravitational fields, I thought you might like to read a few paragraphs (only 3 or 4 short ones) showing how particles from gravitational fields can explain why planets orbit in the Sun's ecliptic plane -

A few words on p. 27 of http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0196 (the section called "CHALLENGE - Explain To The Layman How Gravity Accounts For Dark Matter and Dark Energy Without Using Any Mathematics (this could have been given subheadings of its own - about Kepler's laws of planetary motion, tides, orbits, but my abstract's long enough)" reveal why things in the solar system orbit the Sun's ecliptic plane.

Those words are - "the more mass a body possesses, the more gravitation is diverted to play a part in that body's formation". Agreeing with Einstein's theory that gravitation is a push created by the hills and valleys of curved space, gravitational waves are a repelling force (this aspect of gravity is normally referred to as Dark Energy) refracted towards the Sun's centre. The waves ultimately originate far out in deep space where they push galaxy clusters apart. As they pass the solar system's outer boundary, some waves are refracted by the Sun's mass like ocean waves passing an island (some are refracted towards the island and cause waves on its beaches).

Having given the planets a push which keeps them in orbit and prevents them flying off into space, the waves arrive at the Sun where they interact with electromagnetism to form the masses of subatomic particles (mass being produced by G-EM interaction was proposed by Einstein in a 1919 paper) ... and to form the strong and weak nuclear forces within atoms (nuclear forces are a by-product of G-EM interaction). The rotating Sun bulges at its equator and therefore has a larger equatorial than polar diameter, and more mass at its equator. This means more gravitation has been diverted to that region. Planets are also made from G and EM interacting, and must consequently lie in the path gravity waves took from the outer solar system to the solar equator (more gravitation was diverted here - so if planets are created by G and EM, it follows that they'd be created where the gravitational "current" is greatest).

For simplicity, we say the Sun's gravitation is strongest at its equator and planets are compelled to orbit in the ecliptic plane.

Hi Philip,

That old bibliographical review is a MASTERPIECE in bold letters. Really fantastic. No flattery intended. There should be a forum to discuss it.

As this forum may not be ethically correct, I will restrict myself to two posers:

1. What if monads are Nature's Cellular Automata?

If you dont know much about monads, see Leibniz monadology reference in my essay.

2. If space discreteness is in the form of monads as the Pythagoreans postulate, will you regard their emergence and annihilation as a "fundamental space-time event"?

Food for thought only... I may possibly continue this on your blog.

All the best,

Akinbo

(taojo@hotmail.com)

Phil,

Great essay, well done. I think it deserves it's spot. There's a lot of common ground with mine, and I'm convinced a lot of truth, however 'outlying'.

I also refer briefly to von Weizsäcker as his work is analogous to the 'sample space' subsets I discuss leading to the additional parametrisations which expose von Neumann's solution to the EPR paradox as correct. I even then found the predicted 'aberrations' existed in Aspects discarded data!!

Your; "From layers of quantum uncertainty built upon fundamental information there is hope that spacetime and matter emerge in a natural way." I think I show that you're spot on!

You ask; "With multiple quantisation the values of the probabilities themselves are replaced with further wave-functions ad infinitum. In such a world, can we hope to determine anything?" I propose yes. Again I think I show this "simplifies" physics greatly (if not the maths!).

Then; "Bringing together different theories often forces almost unique conclusions." Excellent point. In fact in the EPR case Bell's dream of no boundary between SR and QM is emergent (my conclusions like yours are pretty unique, as you know!)

I think your reference to lie algebras is also important, and closely analogous to my last figure (experimental result) proving my thesis. I can't recall if I mentioned Clifford or Lie algebra now (I had to squeeze it by 10%!) but did last year with Hoft fibration and have discussed it on the APS blog. I know little of it but am sure it's rich vein I hope you'll follow.

I also like your clarity of writing (again mine ended too dense) and hope it ends up a top scorer. I'd greatly appreciate your views on mine.

Very best of luck

Peter

Hi Philip,

I really like your approach that spacetime and matter should emerge in a natural way. I also like the idea that the key is mathematics of information redundancy bringing symmetry through algebraic geometry. I wouldn't disagree with your approach at all - my essay also has the Universe exist naturally.

Well done and keep up the great work with Vixra.

Antony

Philip,

You have a very refreshing writing style. Informative, non-confrontational, friendly and clear. For example you note [in 9506171] "This style of argument tends to be convincing only to those who already believe the hypothesis. It will not make many conversions." So modest, and gets it out of the way up front. There's nothing wrong with laying out the logic for those who pursue a particular path!

Thanks very much for the link to your 9506171 paper. I found it wonderfully informative. I've made notes and hope to organize them in a comment. You've clearly been considering "It from Bit" for quite some time, as well as the "Theory of Theories" I believe you and I were addressing essentially the same problem: Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics for physics".

From the 1950's I was fascinated by computers, and in the late 60's the appearance of Medium Scale Integrated circuits (MSI) followed by the microprocessor, pulled me away from physics and in 1975 I moved from physics to computer design, but did not cease working Wigner's problem. From your essays, your comments, and 9506171, I gather you took more of a 'soft logic' approach, based on mathematics, whereas I took more of a 'hard logic' approach, based on logic underlying math, and physical reality underlying logic. Now, in 2013, we are still addressing the same problems, but we tend to come down on different sides based on our historical paths. The 'soft' side tends toward 'It from Bit' and the 'hard' side toward 'Bit from It'.

I hope you find my essay as fascinating as I found yours and your 'Small Scale Structure..' paper.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Philip,

I forgot to mention -- in response to Rodney Bartlett you wrote, on May 5 at 07:59:

"One bit I especially like is that the idea of particles from gravitational fields may return."

My model derives particles from gravity (not done in my current essay) and I provide references to related links (such as Burinskii).

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hey Phil,

When I read your essay from the "Digital or Analog" contest I started thinking about something Ben Goertzel had written about some time ago which he calls "infinite-order probabilities on a causal network." So then when I read this current essay with reference to Weizsacker and your demonstration of the Necklace Lie algebras my antenna really started to twitch (did you know a couple of engineers have developed a small pack they strap to the backs of hissing cockroaches which allows them to stimulate the cockroach's individual antenna with a small current hence causing the cockroach to turn left or right? They're able to steer the roaches through rubble on search and rescue missions; how cool is that?). Anyway, it turns out that Ben Goertzel published a short paper Modeling Uncertain Self-Referential Semantics with Infinite-Order Probabilities on his "infinite-order probability" concept in 2008 which was followed by a 2013 paper A Consistent Set of Infinite-Order Probabilities in the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning by David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg. I thought perhaps you would find these papers interesting, all things considered . . .

Hi Phil,

Just to let you know, there's another "viXra" entry in the competition, namely the essay of mine that got posted yesterday; I hope its ratings don't drag down the average for viXra papers by too much! I hadn't originally planned to enter; but after reading your excellent essay, in particular your discussion of the Holographic Principle and its relevance to the topic of the contest, I felt motivated to try and connect this principle to this topic in my own way; you are, of course, absolved of any responsibility for the results!

So, thanks for your essay, and for all your work (and blogging) at viXra!

-Willard Mittelman

Philip,

In saying, "Simplicity has its role but the only hard principles are logical self-consistency and consistency with observation" you certainly stand with me on common ground...

But would you also join me in the school of realism... e.g., that there is an objective reality independent of our observation of same, that a faithful representation of that external reality is presented to the mind by the senses,that what is presented to the mind by the senses has its foundation in reality, so there is nothing in the mind that did not enter through the senses?

Also, in a realistic metaphysics that includes the principles of non-contradiction and causality?

Causality may be a stumbling block, depending on whether 'emergent causality' refers to some causes of natural effects to be simply unknown... until discovered; or whether it refers to non-existent causes of such effects. If your position is the latter, then prediction with scientific laws is impossible.... Used in this sense 'emergent' becomes for science a fatal emergent-cy. Acceptance of the above means we have minimum common ground for discussion.

If the ground rules above are accepted, then consider:

I take GTR to be an extension of SR to include acceleration and gravitation, that reduces to STR in the 'neighborhood' of an observer. According to MTW, this is true in the tangent hyperplane to an observer's world line. IOW, space is locally flat near any observer.

But STR is an inconsistent system whose first axiom of covariant relative motion is experimentally refuted by the tests of Sagnac, Dufour&Prunier, Ruyong Wang et al, and the second axiom is logically disproved by light beams in opposite directions.... c c = c , with corollary 1 1 = 1. As logicians would say, "An inconsistent system is worse than just being wrong".. For by proving anything is true (or false), nothing can be proven true.

GTR is inconsistent .... whether linearized or not, whether energy is conserved or not, is moot.

Are black holes really credible, Phil? What solution to the Einstein field equations supports the existence of black holes in reality? Two issues to bear in mind are the following:

* All alleged BH solutions to the Einstein field equations pertain to a universe that is spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat.

However, the hot big bang model pertains to a universe that is spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (in two different cases), of finite age, contains radiation and many masses (including some BH said to be primordial), is expanding, and is not asymptotically flat. Thus the BH model and BB cosmology contradict one another; they are mutually exclusive.

* There are no known solutions to the Einstein field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses.

Re: "...but the evidence for black holes is as good as anything we have in cosmology."

Is the evidence as good as the CMB anomalies in the recent Planck temperature survey that challenges the LCDM & Copernican principle with the Axis of Evil, the multiple multipole alignments with the local directions in space, etc?

Re:" the observation that the universe began from a hot dense state."

Not an observation, Phil, but an interpretation of data collected now, not when the universe began.

Re:"The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics apply everywhere"

... if 'everywhere' means everywhere on Earth... Elsewhere is unknown. One example: The inverse square law of gravity does not seem to apply to galactic rotation predictions...

Re:"...non-locality does not violate the causality principle. More besides I do not agree that causality is an essential feature of predictive science." ......" Most people think that causality is fundamental. In these ways and others not covered in this essay my thinking is radically different from any other physicist."

To me causality is a self-evident principle of reality.... Give us an example of violation of causality, Phil, where a real event can have no cause.

Re:"I hope you will submit an essay that explains what you mean by that [aether] because it is not part of any theory I am familiar with."

The essay is on aether as an information channel, addressing the topic specified, not the nature of aether.

From other responses:

Re:"..but I don't think the answers require any kind of physical process like a soul to explain consciousness."

I'm wondering.... how would consciousness, memory and other activities of the mind be explained in physical and material terms?

All the best,

Robert

Hi Philip,

Just read your submission and I have two comments concerning it.

First of all, I want to thank you for the history lesson you gave concerning Noether's paper "Invariant Variational Problems". I am trying to study it, but your submission now gives me a place to place the paper in relation to GR.

My second point is more along the lines of Necklace Lie Algebra 101. I quote your submission; "A necklace lie algebra is a lie algebra built from copies of vector spaces strung together in chains. If the vector space is 2 dimensional you can picture elements of the algebra as necklaces of qubits, and more generally of qudits." The picture I am getting from your description doesn't exactly make sense. I will try to explain. My understanding is that qubits and qudits are one dimensional things. You are putting them in a 2 dimensional vector space and stringing them together. That adds up to three dimensions. Where is the fourth dimension?

I've read very few papers trying to digitize reality and the problem I keep running across is the encoding of spacetime. Yours is the first paper I've read that has gotten beyond the second dimension.

Jim Akerlund