Hi Ryan,

I have known also from other entrants that the most likely my description is not clear enough and this is obviously my fault so I treat it as an occasion to improve. I will try to clarify.

In both experiments the point is that the photon is not a point particle (like in Standard Model) that is reflected from another point particle (one of many creating the mirror) but instead it travels around a "particle" (anyone being a part of the mirror) and comes back along a geodesic. The way it goes is a geodesic (acc. to my concept) because the mirror's particle deforms the spacetime much enough (or simply it is that deformation itself). If our photon goes along the geodesic (straight line!) it does not change its spin.

Acc. to Standard Model the photon does not go around along a geodesic but it is simply reflected and as a cause of that reflection the spin is changed.

So it is a realization of the thought experiment.

I have proposed to use a photon and not e.g. an electron because the experiment is much easier to carry out by means of a polarization. The mirror is obviously not the same as a single particle deforming a spacetime (like in the thought experiment) but it is practical and relatively easy to use. The potential problem could be a photoelectric effect, Compton scattering or pair production.

It is good to hear from you because there is so many essays that barely impossible to read carefully all of them. I will take a look at your essay.

I am ready to clarify more if needed.

Best regards

Dear Jacek,

I like your essay, short but useful. I would say that Popper's third world, Penrose and you call it reality, has something to do with the contextual world of quantum mechanics. I should think more about that, contexts refer to what is compatible with the questions we ask and it is certainly related to the third world of culture. But quantum mechanical contexts may be quite far from philosophical categories, in QM compatibility means commutativity of the observables.

Best wishes,

Michel

    Yes, contextual nature of quantum measurement is one of that properties that distinguish quantum theory from classical theories. And my essay is closer to philosophical approach than my other publications.

    Thanks for your comment and best regards

    Hi Jacek,

    Thanks for going through my essay. I will comment on your essay after I go through it.

    Best wishes,

    Sreenath.

      Dear Jacek,

      I went through your short but lucid essay with enthusiasm. As you have said in your post, it is true that we agree in our final analysis on the triangular nature of reality. You have also talked of 'New quantum geometrodynamics with a new universal metric' and such a metric you may find in my 2012 fqxi essay contest in my paper on QG.

      I will soon rate your essay.

      Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

      Sreenath.

      Thank you Sreenath,

      I did not time last year to take a part in the contest so I will check out your 2012 essay with pleasure.

      You are right that time is coming to rate the essays. A lot of work.

      Best regards

      Jacek,

      "We can never in any sense, 'directly access' reality." Are you saying that we each have our own reality? If so, what is yours?

      Jim

        Dear Jim,

        I am absolutely not saying that we each have our own reality. It is anthropic kind of approach. I think that there is only one reality but we perceive that reality by our perception. The perception is a composition of our physical limitations (senses, brain, technical possibilities), our culture and language we use and at last our misconceptions e.g. we know that the gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry but we are able to feel a force and we are not able to feel geometry.

        The sentence "We can never in any sense, 'directly access' reality." is not taken from my essay but my question is what does it mean 'directly access'? It is also the issue of our perception.

        Thank you Jim for reading and commenting. I will take a look at your essay even though there is not a lot of time to the end of the contest and the majority of us is normally working. It is not easy to read all essays and especially these submitted at the last moment.

        Best regards and good luck!

        Hello Jacek,

        I found your essay interesting and bold, and this for two reasons. I find it interesting because of the manner of presentation, i.e. tabulated. But you haven't mentioned where the meaning of "bit" originated, that is, in computer science, and so I suspect its original meaning is swept under the rug by most because it doesn't suit anymore.

        Secondly, and if I got this right, you suggest that all fields of force should be thought of in the same terms a gravity, and I quote:

        "**from Albert Einstein we know that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime geometry (only our perception causes that gravitation seems to be a force). Why not apply the same concept to the rest of known "force fields" i.e. electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear?"

        In Wheeler's universe it seems we are all required to jump in one direction or another. Here I find myself jumping in the opposite direction to you, and Einstein, that is, in Hierarchical Space-Time gravity has a particle-wave duality not unlike those of the other forces, moreover, centripetal gravity doesn't even start at the centre, and if I am right all the calculation in the world which depend on there being a "centre of gravity" will miss the point by this (' ') much.

        Zoran.

          Hi Zoran,

          That is possible you are right. There is only one way to check it out - the concept/theory shall generate clear predictions and an experiment shall verify it. That is the reason I have proposed such an experiment (possible to carry out) verifying predictions of my concept.

          In the current contest we have got more than 100 essays and it is impossible to read and comment all of them and I think we are tired. I do not know your idea but I will take a look and maybe leave a comment if I am competent in the field.

          Best regards

          Jacek,

          I believe you will appreciate my prediction concerning the relationship between the diameter of a black hole's even horizon and its gravitational attraction, but we may have to wait a few years to see how that turns out.

          Yes, there are a lot of entries, and more to come I believe.

          Zoran.

          Thanks for the clarification Jacek - I liked your essay - all the best Antony.

          4 days later

          Jacek,

          If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

          Jim

          Hello Jaceck

          I am very intriguing about you experiment and it is a very good idea but I can not agree with the definitions of the concepts and conclusions. Information and computation are physical concepts no mathemathical. Most people take historical roots of the concepts as an element to label the concepts but it is not correct. Information and computation depend on the universe in which we are living. If we were living in a different universe, information and computation would be different. However, transfinite numbers are independet of the universe where we are living because they are mathematical. I wrote an article talking about this "Nature from the bit and beyond" if u want to read it.

          Best regards,

          Sergio

            Hi Sergio,

            I think that information and computation are both physical and mathematical concepts. My (and also Einstein's and Wheeler's) idea is geometrodynamical (mathematical and physical at the same time). I assume that I will find an explanation and some arguments in your essay. I will read it soon and leave you some comments if I am competent...

            I feel that you are graduated in informatics. So maybe you will find it interesting to find why QM and GR are computable and deterministic, but the universe evolution (as naturally evolving self-organized critical system) is non-computable and non-deterministic? http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0026

            Best regards and good luck!

            11 days later

            Dear Vladimir,

            I have read, commented and rated your really interesting essay.

            Regards

            Hi Jacek -

            It is interesting to consider how we might define It, But, and Reality in terms of an evolving observer, one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

            If evolution affects us at every moment (and it is impossible to argue that it doesn't) then It from Bit is true: We live in a Species Cosmos that is being evolved from ourselves. However, it can and should be countered that we do seem to possess a certain objectivity - that Bits appear to be founded upon a reality greater than the continually evolving Species Cosmos - a reality where our logical and scientific parameters are less applicable, and often not applicable at all.

            You might be interested to see how I treat this evolutionary argument as a realist interpretation of the field of reality, thus expanding the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler.

            I believe my perspective provides a structure you might find useful.

            I have rated your essay, and wish you all the best,

            John.

              9 days later

              Hi Jacek,

              I simply loved your "Three worlds connection analysis"! Although you have a different approach to information than I do, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

              Good luck in the competition!

              Manuel