Essay Abstract

"Material objects are more fundamental" is being proposed in this paper; or in other words "IT from Bit" is true. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. There were double slit experiments by John Wheeler which show some mental dependencies on electron behaviour, but still he did not produce material from information. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material. Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. As evidence the Bigbang based Cosmologies show the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), as relics of Bigbang. In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. Pictures by COBE and WMAP satellites show variation in CMB intensities in 10-4 scales. In Bigbang based Cosmology, these pictures were discussed as though they are the starting information for the formation of future Galaxies. This information is the counter part of "IT from Bit or Bit from IT" in Cosmology. This paper shows a way that we can exclude Cosmology from this concept.

Author Bio

Born in 1954, Studied B.Tech(Elec) JNTU College of Engg, Anantapur in 1976, started carrier Bhilai Steel Plant in 1977 and presently as AGM(C&IT) there. After seeing the chaotic situation in N-body problem field, and singularities like Blackhole & Bigbang, a simple solution tried which can be tested by any person who has a PC, with NO change Newton's gravitation laws. CV is available at : http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/cv.html

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Joe,

Thank you for such nice comment and I feel it is an appreciation!

You are correct. . . . There was never an explosive commencement. . . . .

I also say, there is only one universe which has many masses. Each mass move according to the resultant of all mutual attraction forces on that mass in the universe. They form orbits. This way they form singularity free non-collapsing single Universe. In this process there are many Galaxies go away and many come near. You can say there are there are 32% blue shifted Galaxies. And about 20% of Galaxies do not have any shift. Can we neglect that many Galaxies just to support Bigbang Based Cosmologies?????

Remaining Galaxies are Red shifted. Hubble space telescope found as many as 80 thousand Blue shifted Galaxies. Many quasars can be proved blue shifted. How will you explain all these in a totally expanding universe. . . . .?

Please see for further info. . . . .

Blue shifted Galaxies Mathematical prediction

Ratio of Blue Shifted Dalaxies

Quasar 3c273 is Blue shifted

Best

=snp

5 days later

Gupta, to be honest I did find it difficult to follow your "Vakradiation" argumentation. I will try to study it again and give it the time it deserves. Nevertheless , I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Anton, you are correct. Thank you for remembering last few sentences, which I am reproducing below.

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . . .

    In addition I want to add,

    Imagination is good. But all the imaginations are not real. For example we use imaginary numbers (i) in math, as a square root of a negative number. Can an Engineer construct an imaginary axis perpendicular to real x or y or z or time axes? I can not imagine how such thing can be done in reality ? We all should do a real hard thinking about all these. . . .

    5 days later
    • [deleted]

    Well presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data.

    Blue and red shift have got do with the gravitational potential at every point in space. The presence of matter in intergalactic space will decide whether the light is blue or red shifted.

      Francis ,

      Your comments. . . . . . . Well presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data. . . . . . .

      Thank you for such nice supporting comments. Your comments are true. Bigbang generated CMB was never measured till today.

      And your comments. . . . . . . Blue and red shift have got do with the gravitational potential at every point in space. The presence of matter in intergalactic space will decide whether the light is blue or red shifted. . . . . .

      You may be correct. But I took Blue shift and red shift as by their standard definition., as Galaxies going away are red-shifted and coming near are blue shifted.

      For further details see my Book: 'SITA: Dynamic Universe Model: Blue Shifted Galaxies Prediction' Published

      About the book:

      Dynamic Universe model is based on hard observed facts and does NOT

      depend on speculation. In this fourth book the simulations predicted the

      existnce of the large number of Blue shifted Galaxies, in an expanding

      universe, in 2004 itself. It was confirmed by by Hubble Space Teliscope

      (HST) observations in the year 2009. This prediction process is clearly shown

      in the output pictures formed from this Model from old and new

      simulations. These pictures depict the three dimensional orbit formations.

      An orbit formation means some Galaxies are coming near (Blue shifted) and

      some are going away (Red shifted). This book goes on two main lines. First

      is the main line of thinking, to show mathematically that there will be lots

      and lots of blue shifted Galaxies mathematically. To support this concept

      the question what are the possible blue shifted Galaxies is answered

      further. We find that quasars are blue shifted galaxies. The second line of

      thinking goes with this finding, that the Quasars are blue shifted

      galaxies.Forrest Noble (Pan Theory) in his foreword said "over 7,000

      blueshifted galaxies have been discovered extending beyond the Local

      Group, first predicted by Mr.Gupta.

      978-3-8484-1382-9

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/2012/09/4th-book-sita-dynamic-universe-model.html

      You can see my web site,

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

      Scroll down and you will find 'Dynamic Universe model for beginners' after news

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      If It=material objects and Bit=their info content, then the converse of this statement is true.

        Dear Robert Bennett,

        To your statement. . . . . . . . . If It=material objects and Bit=their info content, then the converse of this statement is true. . . . . . .

        I want to ask,

        1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

        2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

        3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

        4. The CMB as we see in microwave region looks similar to distant Galaxy large scale structure as it depends on star and Galaxy radiation. That way we can explain WMAP CMB sources. The picture of Universe through WMAP eye is an image of observations in few microwave bands of the radiation emitted by stars and Galaxies.

        There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

        How will you say material objects are fundamental except by logical derivations? Does your words supported by scientific experiments that produced material from its description?

        Best

        =snp

        7 days later
        • [deleted]

        snp,

        "Does your words supported by scientific experiments that produced material from its description?"

        Not from its description... from its existence!

        The information in 2 gamma rays is sufficient to create matter... koino-anti-particle pairs.

        Dear Robert Bennett,

        Your earlier statement. . . . . If It=material objects and Bit=their info content, then the converse of this statement is true. . . . .

        Your present statement. . . . . Not from its description-- from its existence!

        The information in 2 gamma rays is sufficient to create matter... koino-anti-particle pairs.. . . . .

        These statements are contradicting each other, I mean to say Gamma rays also come into category of Materials only. Just the information content of Gamma rays is not sufficient to produce material, what do you say?

        Best

        25 days later

        Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

        It from bit - where are bit come from?

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

          Dear Hoang cao Hai,

          Thank you very much for asking.

          And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

          Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on.

          The Egg or Hen question cannot be answered once again, as there are many interchangeable forms of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. All these forms are dynamically change from one to another depending on situation.

          I saw your abstract at:

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

          You are correct. Nothing is eternal in the universe. Everything is temporary and changes its form dynamically.That includes matter , astronomical bodies, energy etc.

          7 days later

          Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

          I noticed your abstract says - "Material objects are more fundamental" is being proposed in this paper; or in other words "IT from Bit". Shouldn't that be "Bit from It"?

          Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

          I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

          Please take a look at my essay if you get a chance. Although I conclude differently in the essay, after reading your essay, I think perhaps I should also decide that reality is more fundamental than information. At the very least, I would not say that information can be more fundamental than reality itself.

          Best wishes for the competition,

          Antony

            Dear Antony Ryan,

            Thank you very much for supporting my arguments --a mere description of material properties does not produce material--. I mean to say, whatever the manner one describes the material with words, mental thoughts, using information technology or computers, his descriptions will not produce material bits or atoms. This explanation can give information describing the material bits only and nothing more.

            Here I used words - -IT- - for: - -Information technology- - and - -Bit- - for : --a piece of material or a bit of material- - . . . .

            Thank you very much once again for your pleasant comments- - I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable- - . . . . .

            . . . .

            . . . .

            I want to bring it to your notice one more thing. How well one does the description of the material mathematically or otherwise, there will be some undefined region like a blackhole which will create problem. All our educated energies and efforts will be lost or wasted in search of such singularities.

            I sincerely feel that energies of our educated intelligentsia should be directed towards experimental results. Non-realistic and speculative things are to be avoided. . . . . . . . .

            Best

            =snp

            My pleasure Satyavarapu,

            I agree in experimental results, that is why results at the likes of the LHC are worthy of the massive investment. Perhaps micro black holes will be confirmed or ruled out...

            But the crucial thing about Black holes in the context of this contest is that they swallow information...

            Hopefully you won't assess my essay as too speculative, since it is based around nature's code.

            Anyway, as I said - excellent way to approach the contest. Well done!

            Antony

            My dear Antony,

            Thank you once again for your excellent words- - - Anyway, as I said - excellent way to approach the contest. Well done! - - -. . .

            So you accept there are no bigger blackholes in the sky as observed in astronomy? You mean to say only possibilities left are micro blackholes . . . . ?

            Regarding LHC, one put more energy, one will get more particles. One can call them God particles, Micro blackholes etc., depending on the properties observed during their very short lives. Probably core of the SUN have all these particles! ? !

            I am more interested in open and live discussions rather than ratings; please do not worry and I do not do such things. . . . Let FQXi bother about such things!

            Best

            =snp

            Dear Gupta,

            I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

            Regards and good luck in the contest.

            Sreenath BN.

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

            Dear Satyav,

            Excellent essay, pertinent well argued and quantified, though the 'thinking' is more my speciality.

            'Up north' in England there's a common saying; "You don't get owt for nowt." meaning you can't get anything from nothing. There's also another one which seems to apply well to many mainstream theorists; "there's nowt so queer as folk". Which I think needs no translation. What are they thinking? It's like some mass hysteria of 'phase locked' group reliance on numbers and beliefs rather than mental powers.

            You cut through that very well, also addressing it in their terms, numerically. I also agree, as you may see from my last two essays, that I agree totally with your statement;

            "radiation at first gets partially scattered and partially gets absorbed, later the remaining part only passes through. All these are non-linear processes, and are very difficult to approximate. Incidental energy is always higher, and only a portion of it gets pass through."

            What I'm glad of is that you didn't rely too much on your full 'Dynamic Universe Model' as I believe you may be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". (another northern expression). To believe that 'matter' is the only form of energy is wrong and may be a failure of the imagination, indeed against the 'owt from nowt' principle, so what is termed 'dark energy' shouldn't be dismissed as mainstream dismisses things. It is also perhaps arrogant to assume we can detect all matter. We cannot of course directly detect plasma or condensed fermion pairs, so that may rightly be called 'dark' matter.

            Lastly. I have falsified Cartesian co-ordinates as inadequate for describing the temporal evolution (dynamics) of real non-zero bodies. In fact that is where mainstream science leaves the rails. Points and lines are not real and thus cannot 'move'. I think you'd find your otherwise soundly based model far more powerful if examining and shedding those assumptions.

            But you did not go into or rely on those so I can't downgrade your essay or it's value. Now if only you could write it in fully "mainstream language" with fewer obvious departures it may then also be taken seriously by those who don't already agree with it!

            Thank you also for your kind comments on my own essay.

            Well done, and best of luck

            Peter

              We form a picture about that reality in our mind. So when we die, this picture will be completely erased. It does not mean, after ones death, the universe ceases to exist. The universe exists but the person observing it may not exist. That is the reality.

              Great argument. I totally agree, but I am troubled that advocates of the anthropic principle seems to give the macro and the micro world the same behavioral characteristics in their arguments.

              Jim