An Acataleptic Universe by Philip Gibbs

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

Hi Philip,

Though ''observational evidence for the existence of black holes in our galaxy is highly convincing'' nothing indicates that a black hole actually does have an event horizon. If nothing can escape from behind the horizon, no photons nor gravitons, then you'd say that the mass inside the horizon cannot be expressed as gravity outside of it. If an outside observer cannot interact with what's inside of it so to him all positions within the horizon are physically identical, then you'd say that its diameter cannot be non-zero, that is, if a physical spacetime can be defined as a space where the lengths of rods and the pace of clocks is different at different points, however slightly.

Another point is that though energy is quantified, that does not mean that there is a universal minimum building block of energy or space.

According to Planck's law, in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies, temperatures, so we need more and more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels, the energy gap between subsequence levels can become arbitrarily small: though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum, so the Planck length and Planck time etc. have no special significance. The Planck constant h is like the number 1 in mathematics, encompassing all values between 0.5 and 1.5, so if we can improve the accuracy of the measurement of the Planck constant at a higher energy and can add a further decimal to it, then we can write that number as 1.0, which encompasses all numbers between 0.95 and 1.05. So if in our equations we set h = 1, then every time we add a decimal to the Planck constant and set it again at 1, then we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10.

Though there is no smallest distance, to what extent spacetime itself is detailed somewhere depends on the energy density in the area: the higher, the more detailed the spacetime area is or the higher the 'information density' is, whereas the emptier it is, the less defined it is, the smaller its information content is.

Though ''Energy conservation in general relativity is real, exact, non-trivial and important'' indeed, the problem is that its creation at the big bang (if and when we actually do live in a big bang universe) constitutes a huge serious violation of the same law.

As to ''Redundancy is in fact the key ingredient of the holographic principle'', if the distance and relative motion of particles affect the properties they 'observe' each other to have, the 'bits' they exchange, then a particle at all times is completely informed about the nature, position and motion of all other particles within its interaction horizon, its universe. A particle then is like a hologram fragment which contains all info of the entire hologram: like the information of a hologram fragment is vaguer as it is smaller, the information a particle carries or represents is smaller, less definite as its properties are less defined, that is, as its energy is smaller, as its interaction horizon, its universe is smaller, less defined, in which case there's no redundancy.

As the observer and his observational devices are part of the particle's universe so are themselves depicted in the hologram fragment he inspects, he cannot but affect what he observes as he involves it in an observation interaction. If an experimenter can affect whether the answer he asks a system with some device is yes or no, then answers aren't as unequivocal, as absolute as Wheeler wants to believe is possible.

''But no amount of philosophizing can tell us if this is how the universe works. There is no point in asking where the information comes from, or where it is stored.'' If the universe would only contain a single charged particle so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it cannot be charged itself, meaning that a property (it) only exists, is preserved in interactions (in the exchange of bits) between charged particles, so the bits are no more fundamental than the its.

By regarding the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as whole, as 'seen' from the outside, so to say, we in fact say that it owes its properties to something outside of it, interacts with, i.e., that it has been created by some outside intervention, in which case the holy grail Wheeler is looking for is beyond his reach.

I think that the universe can only be comprehended from within, if we realize that particles and particle properties, its, are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of the exchange of bits.

Regards, Anton

Dear Philip,

I have read your article, but afraid I understand it not so well. The universe really accelerates (I mean its expansion that maybe only with acceleration, that I got with own methods.)

I just asking you to look mine article, hoping it will interested you. I will very thankful to get some your comments.

Best wishes,

George

ARTICLE

Dear Philip Gibbs

The essay is very interesting.But when It from bit - where are bit come from?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the links. As one can fall into a black hole, I can imagine the mass or gravitational field within the horizon to continue outside of it. However, if when nothing can escape from behind the horizon so an observer outside of it cannot interact with what's inside of it, then the area the horizon encloses still would be a space where all points are physically identical to him, which I think is impossible.

The paper you refer to doesn't prove that a black hole has an event horizon, it only proves that it has no surface, unlike a neutron star. In a self-creating universe (as opposed to a big bang universe) a black hole has no surface nor event horizon.

Though I'm familiar with special relativity (SR), my math is rusty, not up to comprehend general relativity (GR) so I try to understand it using what I know of SR -if such a thing is possible. My problem with GR is that while according to Einstein ''the inert mass . . . increases when ponderable masses approach the test body.'' (''The Meaning of Relativity'' p 97) agrees with the notion that particles and particle properties must be both cause and effect of their interactions. However, that there exist solutions of Einstein's field equation ''that ascribe inertial properties to a single particle in an otherwise empty universe'' (''Concepts of Mass in Physics and Philosophy'' (2000) Max Jammer p 157) contradict it since to have properties requires the existence of something to interact with, to express it. Ignoring this, a particle can only have mass in an empty universe if it only is the cause of forces, if its mass is an inherent, privately owned quantity. So my question is whether the energy in some area which goes into Einstein's field equation is, as I suspect, an absolute quantity, only the cause of forces, in which case a black hole indeed would have an event horizon.

A related point is that when we must reject causality (as you do in your 2012 essay), then we can no longer interpret the 'speed of light' as a (finite) velocity of light, but as a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely (see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328), even though it obviously is a limit to the velocity massive objects can move at. So my next question to you is whether a black hole has an event horizon or not depends on whether the 'speed of light' refers to the velocity of light or to a property of spacetime?

From the arxiv paper you referred to:

''A black hole represents the ultimate victory of gravity, where all the mass in the object collapses down to a ''singularity'', a true geometrical point. The object has no material surface. Instead, surrounding the singularity is an ''event horizon'', which plays the role of a virtual surface. The event horizon is a one-way membrane through which matter and energy can fall in from the outside, but nothing, not even light, can escape from within. The region inside the horizon is thus causally cut off from the outside world. In a real sense, the horizon serves as an effective surface, even though there is no actual material there.''

What I object to in this quote is ''the ultimate victory of gravity'' which implies the mass to be the cause of the collapse: if and when the mass of objects indeed is both cause and effect of their interactions, then all objects within the interaction horizon of the star which is to become a black hole is involved in its collapse, which would imply that no information is lost as it does?

As my knowledge of GR is so poor, I'd be very grateful if you would take the trouble to answer my questions,

Regards, Anton

Phil,

Let's philosophize about your ideas.

In all this talk about information and black holes, the information has a carrier. However, if you say that information is fundamental and spacetime and matter are emergent, there is no such carrier. Historically, a similar starting point (note that I'm not saying "identical") can be found in Berkelian idealism, which revolves around the principle "esse est percipi". The object then doesn't exist if you don't observe it (and thus have no information about it).

Now surely you don't want to revisit this Berkelian idealism, so I assume that in your theory information is something that exists in itself, outside an observer, and doesn't have to be "consumed" or "absorbed" by us for a matter particle to emerge, that is, to come into existence. But still, this leaves open the question of how the process of emergence can be detected. In other words: if you want an information based theory to be classified as "physics" - as opposed to a mere metaphysical idea - how can you in principle prove experimentally that information precedes matter?

Best regards,

Marcoen

Dear Philip,

I rate your essay as a most appreciated one for some reasons:

It supports Wheeler's "it from bit" credo and nurtures hope for getting rid of notorious enigmas including Einstein's worry about the now.

It certainly does not matter that I tend to share Shannon's opposite view. All contest winners so far tried about the same as do you.

It will perhaps also not matter much that your reasoning relies at least in part on speculations and denies that "symmetry is just a kind of redundancy". I may be the only lonely one who considers T-symmetry an apparent and redundant one which can be attributed to Heavisides trick of analytic continuation with arbitrarily chosen reference. I would appreciate you proving me wrong in that respect.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Philip

A Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making: it has a beginning and evolves as a whole IN time: as in this universe it is the same cosmic time everywhere, it takes a photon time to travel, so we can imagine to follow a photon on its path like we can, from the Skylab, follow a plane as it flies from New York to Boston, so this universe grows older as the photon travels: in this universe the speed of light does refer to the motion, to the velocity of light. In contrast to a BBU, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) obeys the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, so here everything inside of it, including space and time somehow has to cancel. The consequence of this is that this universe has no physical reality as a whole, a 'seen' from without, so to say, but only exist as seen from within. This is not unlike the fact that the sum of all debts and credits on Earth by definition is zero doesn't mean that there exists no money: it only exists, has reality to the inside debtors and creditors. Since money is only defined on Earth, that is, since the meter, second, joule and gram aren't defined outside the universe, we cannot ask how old or large it is, how much energy it contains nor what its entropy is, just like to an alien who cannot trade with us, the value and quantity of money on Earth is undefined.

As a SCU therefore does not live in a time continuum not of its own making but contains and produces all time within, which only is possible if clocks must be observed to run slower as they are more distant, even when at rest with respect to the observer (though it remains to be seen whether they can, indeed, be at rest). As a result, and unlike a BBU, in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere: as here a space distance is a time distance, a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all, meaning that we don't see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past, in THE past, but as it is at present, to us. In a SCU concepts like cosmic time and THE past have no meaning whatsoever.

The consequence of non-causality is that we can no longer ask which particles are the cause of a photon transmission, the particles involved in its emission or those involved in its absorption as this would require that we can determine in an absolute sense what precedes what, which is impossible in a BBU for practical reasons (you'd need to step outside the universe), and in a SCU for principled reasons. If A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission which changes the state of both atoms (and hence affects all particles within their interaction horizons), then A sees B change at the time it emits the photon, as soon as A changes itself so sees a slightly changed world, whereas B sees A change at the time it absorbs the photon, as B changes itself and hence the world it observes. That is, unless we believe that B, after absorbing the photon sends back a thank-you-note confirming the receipt of the photon, informing A that it can, as of this moment, the receipt of the note, start to see B in its new state. In a SCU both A and B are equally right about the time of the emission, so here the transmission must be instantaneous, which according to relativity theory, from the pointy of the photon, it is indeed.

Let's suppose an observer A near and some distance above a laser, its beam directed away from him towards a distant point B, in a somewhat dusty space, turns on the laser. In a SCU he observes events to happen at a slightly slower pace at larger distances, so he can, in principle (or when using a high-speed film camera) see the progress of the beam in time by the light reflected back towards him by the dust particles. Though it therefore looks as if light moves, from the laser to B, this is an optical illusion: the fact that he sees clocks run slower as they are more distant doesn't mean that they actually do run slower, that light is something which moves at a finite velocity, from cause to effect. In contrast, in a BBU clocks at rest run at the same pace everywhere, and would, when set at zero at the bang, show cosmic time if we ignore the relativistic effects of gravitational fields, so here these observations must be interpreted as proof that light moves at a finite velocity.

That we cannot experimentally determine whether c must be conceived of as a (finite) velocity or as a property of spacetime, combined with the fact that an instantaneous transmission over any spacetime distance would make the riddles of quantum mechanics like entanglement, the EPR paradox and the double-slit experiment self-evident, should at least give pause for thought.

I think that an emergent causality is a contradiction in terms, so your statement that causality emerges in an acausal universe seems to me a capitulation to causality. I'm afraid that big bang cosmology makes no sense at all, that the observational 'evidence' for the big bang rests upon a systematic conceptual misinterpretation of observations.

Regards, Anton (and I will pester you no more)

Phil,

Thanks for your answer, you summed it up real nice.

Although I myself do not believe in quantum mechanics - that is, I'm compelled to believe that it has merit but I do not believe it is the final answer - I can understand that this information thing is thought of as a viable route to a complete theory.

I think your essay is spot on for this contest. In my rating I deducted a point, however, for mentioning that egocentric windbag 't Hooft in the text.

Best regards,

Marcoen