3 worlds: Bit, It, Reality by Jacek Safuta

"my spacetime is a fabric of particles. "

-What dimensions is spacetime?...distance cubed times time?....how does this describe particles?

" Not if the 5 senses give a faithful representation of their proper objects." So tell me how do you get the representation e.g. of an electron?

The 5 senses CAN'T perceive an electron ..it's not a proper object for the senses. That's the point...any representation of an electron using sensory images is an illusion.

" I do not support Einstein idealism .... but only his idea ....of spacetime geometry. "

If you say reality is but an illusion, then this is either idealism or agnosticism. For example, how do you measure spacetime geometry in reality?...with a rulerclock? What's that?

"I am waiting for your essay Robert."

So am I. It takes more than a week to be published

Dear Jacek

I enjoyed your essay and also read your "A Simple Spin Experiment" paper.

The schema you reproduced from Penrose beautifully summarizes the concepts of this contest. I sense that you have an excellent intuition about how to reform physics using a metric with a local energy. That is the same as Eddington's concept of using local density and an index of refraction to represent the deformations of spacetime in GR where light slows down in a gravitational field. I have incorporated this in my node lattice making up my Beautiful Universe Theory .

Your suggestion for a spin experiment is interesting - is it different from the phenomena that the Electric vector is reversed on reflection from a mirror? Also what exactly is a photon? Please peruse Eric Reiter's website showing that Einstein's photon is the wrong way to look on light quanta waves.

Best wishes Vladimir

Thank you for your comments Jacek, and for taking the time to read my rather long paper, and those of Eric Reiter and La Frenier. As you say we agree about some things but not about others. I really dislike space and time deformation in Special Relativity introduced to omit the ether and thus make physics background independent. But why? Relativity will work just as well in an absolute background world where Lorentz transformations take care of changing clock time and length of measuring rods (not time and space distortions)

Yes the node mechanism I propose is a bit complicated, but if that is how Nature works it might explain everything we know (I hope!) - it makes GR very simple. I hope you will agree that gravity as a refraction effect works just as well as specetime distortion. But in BU simple motion of matter becomes rather convoluted! It is just a model of course and still in need of development and proof.

Your image of the 2D animals getting closer together heading towards the North pole is interesting but it will only work if they have some kind of momentum propelling them to the North, otherwise they can wander around at random!

The example would work better if they were falling in long shafts from the surface to the center of the Earth.

With best wishes, Vladimir

Jack,

I'm sure we do disagree about some things but they're difficult to tie down. As I don't support the notion of 'force' I certainly agree gravitational 'force' is a poor description. An illusion perhaps a little different. It is what we'd see if we drove at 0.5c past a string of fairground lights being lit up in turn at c. We would get the 'illusion' of 1.5c, but our 'driving past' of course has no effect on the bulbs, and all the light they emit is at c and propagates to us at c (Postulate 2) until interacting and propagating through our lenses. Would you agree that THAT is a proper 'illusion'? Do tell me. (It certainly fools most!)

EXPERIMENT. I don't think there's a need to do it as enough similar things have been done, including Wheelers 'Quantum eraser' supposed 'post selection' case which used beam-splitter mirrors. Wheeler made an error, assuming the conserved 'photon particles' we now know very well are only apparent on interactions

and at short range on re-emissions. It's often ignored by theorists that the equations and wavefunction are written for a medium, and optical science only works for moving waves and static photons' Schrodinger explicitly precluded the conserved quanta 'photon', and Einstein was with Erwin NOT Bohr! When a light pulse hits a mirror it not only reflects but is re-quantized and expands as the spread function of the non-liner Schrodinger (NLS) equation.

This has two effects. It essentially protects the basis of 'Local Reality' as Wheeler's assumptions were wrong, but it also allows compatible 'causal QM' findings as demonstrated in my essay. I'm not sure you fully assimilated the quite dense but, I think, seminal findings in mine. A 'single photon' experiment as I propose would confirm both at once. But not that easy! A fermion may suffice.

Do tell me if you can see the optical illusion in the 'light bulb string' above.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Sir,

Your question shows the depth of your knowledge. Your invitation shows your confidence and quest for truth. Hats off to you Sir! We will try to satisfy you.

Newton said both the apple and the Earth are stationary. Gravity pulls the apple to Earth. This itself is debatable, as nothing can be physically "pulled". It is always a push from the opposite direction. The weakening of the stem could not support the mass of the apple, so that it got free and moved in the direction of least resistance. Einstein also told that both the apple and the Earth are stationary, but he reasoned that the space between the Earth and the apple curved, so that the distance between the Earth and the apple became zero. We wonder, by what mechanism only the space between the Earth and the apple curved leaving all other objects around unaffected!

Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). Now if a material medium is considered (which space certainly is), then it will have a profound effect on the space-time geometry as opposed to that in vacuum. It will make the gravitational constant differential for different localities (as seen in the acceleration due to gravity case).

Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

Gravity is a "force" that stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitation potential also. On the other hand, strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions and radioactive disintegration are caused by "energy". Unlike magnetism or gravity, these are associated with high temperature. Unlike gravity, these four are governed by different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. Since both belong to different classes, they have not been unified by any of the present day theories. This shows that there is some inherent defect in modern theories that need rectification. (We hold gravity as a composite of 7 different forces. In its role for structure formation, these are called acceleration due to gravity and in its role for displacement, these are called gravity.)

In our reply to Robert Bennett above, we have discussed the defects in the result of Hafele and Keating's experiment about time dilation. In our essay, we have given a different meaning of time dilation, which we believe as true. However, length contraction, which is a different concept altogether, is only apparent. Walk towards a hill and it will appear to grow. This is due to the angle of radiation emanated from that direction reaching our cornea (can be taken as a point) that causes such illusion.

Your definition of electron is like telling basudeba is a person. But what is a person? There are many questions on the validity of a wave packet.

And your final question now! We believe in a background structure and the interplay of energy on it according to two principles: conservation (of matter and energy) and inertia (of rest and inertia of restoration or elasticity). We believe that dark energy is an oxymoron. It is the universe as a whole spinning around a cosmic center like the planets in the solar system. Now the galactic clusters are moving away from each other like sometimes planets appear to move away from each other again to come closer. In distant future, the galactic clusters will appear to close in. Only this can explain why the universe is not expanding even in galactic scales, but only in higher clusters. By "it" if you mean the universe, then the answer is vice versa. If by "it" if you mean information, then it is the background structure that gives rise to bits.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Your thought experiment replicates the arguments of a nineteenth century fiction called "FLAT LANDS", which inhibited 2-D creatures and the account of one of them after a visit to Earth. This has misguided everyone till date. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Thus, the face of a cube is 2-D, does it have independent existence? The "mathematics" involving n-dimensions is also a myth. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

Measurement is a conscious process of comparison between two similar quantities, one of which is called the scaling constant (unit). The cognition part induces the action leading to comparison, the reaction of which is again cognized as information. There is a threshold limit for such cognition. Hence Nature is mathematical in some perceptible ways. This has been proved by the German physiologist Mr. Ernst Heinrich Weber, who measured human response to various physical stimuli. Carrying out experiments with lifting increasing weights, he devised the formula: ds = k (dW / W), where ds is the threshold increase in response (the smallest increase still discernible), dW the corresponding increase in weight, W the weight already present and k the proportionality constant. This has been developed as the Weber-Fechner law. This shows that the conscious response follows a somewhat logarithmic law. This has been successfully applied to a wide range of physiological responses.

Mathematics is also related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

You say a person is just a wave packet, but consider the physics and the mathematics behind the concept. It is full of aberrations. We give you just one example. The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger's differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0. By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A third order equation implies volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume and neither x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z) nor x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation. The probability calculations, squaring of a complex variable, mathematical operations involving infinity, brute force approach, etc are un-mathematical manipulation in the name of mathematics. There are many such aberrations.

It is interesting to note that wherever both of us applied our mind independently, we have arrived at near similar conclusions. But whenever you relied on the views of other scientists, we have difference of opinion. The reason is: modern science is built on an incremental manner. Theories are built upon "established theories" without continuously evaluating them in the light of the results of latest experiments and observations. This blind acceptance of "established theories" is nothing but superstition. It is perpetuated by the books and papers eulogizing these as "in a brilliant deduction", "with a stroke of genius", "a highly successful theory", etc, to label these theories. which are unwanted misleading information to prevent free thinking and guiding the students in the right direction.

This has been compounded by the race for going ahead, which prevents students to look back. In the peer group, it generates the cult of incomprehensibility. For this reason, precise definitions are becoming rare in science. They use "operational definitions", which can be manipulated to suit their convenience. Look at the declarations by LHC regarding detection of the Higg's boson. Now there is a rush to change the name of the particle to share honors. Given the clarity level, we wonder how many people applauding the writers in this context really understand their views totally! The hurry also generates reductionism, so that totality of the theories is lost sight of. Many fundamental laws are applicable in multi-disciplinary areas. For example, Doppler effect is used in light, sound, cosmology, and SR (length contraction). Yet, no one used it to SR to point out that the length contraction is only apparent to the observer due to Doppler effect.

There is a necessity to scrap all theories and re-write them from the scratch based on the data available today. Even after more than a century, should we still persist with the concept of extra-dimensions? This will not undermine the effects of earlier scientists, as due to their efforts only we have come this far. But only to show honor to them, we cannot perpetuates myths - which most of the interpretations of quantum theory and latest cosmology are.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Jacek Safuta

Your measure very interesting, but did not give only one of the final conclusion .

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

Hello Jacek,

I found your essay a very pleasant read. I liked your use of diagrams and tables. I'd like to hear more about the experiment too.

Please take a look at my essay too.

Best Wishes

Antony

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Dear Jacek. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

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.

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

Jacek,

I look forward to your review...

Manuel

Hello Jacek,

In addition to this summary of the analytical essay, made in the strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, I have read your work vixra:

Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Evolution Concept. vixra.org/abs/1102.0026 (2011)

Safuta J., Spacetime Deformations Theory. vixra.org/abs/1006.0005 (2010)

Safuta J., A simple spin experiment. viXra.org/abs/1304.0027 (2013)

You did well to reduced svao ideas to the table. Get crisp and clear, in the spirit of Cartesius. The general conclusion: deep philosophical approach to the ground of being, "to grasp" the nature of the information. Most importantly, you are trying to connect the spirit of Hegel and the spirit of Popper. Excellent, the secret of the world - in the triad! I invite you to visit my forum and evaluate essays. We're finding with you in the same mind.

Only one question. Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics":

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence».

http:/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

Best regards,

Vladimir

Hello Jacek,

Here is a direct link A. Zenkin SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS

http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

I'm waiting for you on my forum.

Best regards,

Vladimir