Dear Michel

Thank you for your kind message, and I am happy it has made some sense to a person of your high level of achievement - I can only express my ideas more or less qualitatively - it is my own personal Cloud of Unknowing! The reason I advocate qubits is that they are spherically symmetric, as are the nodes of my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) . Normally Qubits are regarded as manifestations of an abstract Hilbert space of infinite dimensions. It recently occurred to me that these 'dimensions' can be understood as directions extended beyond the qubit in the universal lattice - each extension normal to a 'slice' of the lattice - Hilbert space made physically manifest in 3D as in Fig. 31 of the (BU) paper regarding Heisenberg matrices.

I still need to understand your concept of contextuality to see if I have misunderstood your basic premises.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Hoang cao Hai

Thank you for your message. Sorry the illustrations in my essay made it into about 1.4 MB file. I prepared a 226 kb. version of the essay that I can email to you if you wish.

Yes reality is absolute!!

With best wishes

Vladimir

Dear George

Thank you for your kind comment and frank friendly opinions. Yes I agree with you my work is only qualitative. I am now working hard - within my capabilities - to write programs to simulate my 'Beautiful Universe' model.

Your ideas are fully supported by mathematical analysis, but it is hard to know how the essential electron you posit fits with the rest of physics - it needs more study. In my work I too posit one type of building block, and I show how from its interactions with neighboring blocks many phenomena can be explained. A solid mathematical description like yours would be great.

There is lots of room in physics for detailed solid analysis of specific hard-headed ideas like yours, and also for speculative necessarily incomplete model-making like mine.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Zoran

I look forward to your essay and wish you luck in the contest. Of course what you say makes sense if you think of quibit as some sort of particle...I added the qubit appelation to my posited universal building block as an afterthought because it has 'spherical degrees of freedom ' and its mathematical properties immediately equate the stuff of the universe with its quantum properties - please read my response to Michel above about a similar point. I wrote:

"The reason I advocate qubits is that they are spherically symmetric, as are the nodes of my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) . Normally Qubits are regarded as manifestations of an abstract Hilbert space of infinite dimensions. It recently occurred to me that these 'dimensions' can be understood as directions extended beyond the qubit in the universal lattice - each extension normal to a 'slice' of the lattice - Hilbert space made physically manifest in 3D as in Fig. 31 of the (BU) paper regarding Heisenberg matrices."

Best wishes

Vladimir

Dear Colin

Thank you for your very interesting response to my paper. Over the years my initial ideas of a vacuum structure made up of bipolar spinning building blocks have been confirmed in my mind - for example by a recent realization that the crystal like lattice has an infinite number of directions that can be traced to ever-further nodes from any one node - which I suppose can be interpreted as dimensions in a Hilbert space.

I have read and commented on your highly technical but beautifully written and illustrated fqxi essay paper. I found it gratifying that you associate a Higgs condensate with the type of lattice I envision. In my Beautiful Universe theory matter consists of nodes locked by (+ and -) magnet-like attraction spinning in place and activating resonant spins in the surrounding nodes, forming its infinite gravitational field. When the particle acquires inertia and moves it pushes the field in front of it - much like the way I have recently heard the action of the Higgs interpreted. It is a Mach-like interpretation, but istead of stars the affecting objects are the tiniest vacuum units.

I have only recently come to grips with how qubits actually operate - through auditing an edx online course CS191x QM and quantum computation you might find interesting. I could intuitively understand how the nodes rotate in a Bloch sphere and influence neighboring ones, but wish I had your sophisticated math to describe their workings more convincingly.

With best wishes

Cheers indeed

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, 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

Thank you Sri Sreenath I have read and will comment and rate your interesting essay.

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for going through my essay. When a scientific theory has the power to clearly explain all facts concerning a physical phenomenon and even predict some hitherto unknown facts and these are subsequently verified, is it not describing reality? But then what is reality according to you. If a theory is constructed adhoc and can explain only a limited number of facts connected to a phenomenon then you are right in rejecting it; but if it has the above mentioned power, you got to accept it as long as it contradicts no known fact. It is true that reality is having many facets and it is the task of science to find them. If GR and QM have succeeded in their task, why can't we trust them?

Regarding storing information, if according to the widely accepted theory of 'big bang' the mass of the whole universe was squeezed to a dimension 25 orders of 'magnitude' smaller than that of an atom (Planck's length), why can't the information of the whole universe too be squeezed at least to the dimension of an atom? More over, information is not like mass/matter and there is no reason why it can't be stored in smaller and smaller areas as technology progresses.

I have gone through your essay once, but I want to go through it one more time before I post my comments and which I will do in a day or two.

Best of luck,

Sreenath.

Dear Sreenath I see you have posted here a copy of your reply to me on your own page. Although this could get confusing I will do the same and duplicate my response here:

In my essay I described how all our knowledge and theories are separated from Reality by a cloud of unknowing. I stressed that precisely because of the overwhelming attitude of physicists these days of accepting elements of Einstein's Relativity (flexible spacetime, fixed speed of light ) and of QM (probability) and elevating these concepts to actual unquestionable and complete physical truths about Nature. They are nothing of the sort. Yes they work in their own ways, but in other ways they not contradict each other. QM needs a vacuum structure (the Higgs field?) but Special Relativity cancelled the aether. SR assumes a fixed speed of light, but (as Einstein himself admitted) GR requires a variable speed of light. QM is full of strange, weird, magical explanations that totally contradict experience. I suggest a more realistic explanation (see below). The photon is supposed to be a point particle, but Eric Reiter showed it is not. The list can go on.

Relativity can be expressed through Lorentz transformations where clocks slow down (not time as a dimension) and measuring sticks (not space as a dimension) contracts . GM can be expressed without SR as a density gradient in space. In QM Born's probability interpretation is just that - a mathematical convenience that is not derived from actual physical observation. One can go on saying "but every QM measurement is probabilistic". True but there is another interpretation of QM where probability emerges from an exquisite crystal-like order of the Universe. I have such a theory: Beautiful Universe suggesting such an approach.

Now I understand what you meant about the Big Bang 'atom' and the information of the Universe. I thought you were talking about one single atom in AD 2013! Forgive the misunderstanding.

With best wishes,

Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    Thanks for your inciteful essay. According to you, the object (reality or Nature) is absolute in nature and exists in itself, and it cannot be known by the subject (mind) completely as there exists 'a cloud of unknowing' between the subject and the object. I want to know, how far a subject can know about an object by squeezing this 'cloud of unknowing?' so that we can have a much better knowledge of reality. I, sincerely, hope that you know answer and I want to know it.

    In the end of your essay, you are idetifying Nature with Information. Are these two views compatible? If, yes, I want to know how?

    Besides yourself being a physicist and a philosopher, you are also a 'gifted artist'. Your art work is very impressive and helps in conveying your thoughts to any one with ease.

    I will give you maximum score that you can expect from me.

    Best of luck in the contest.

    Sreenath.

    Dear Sreenath

    In a way my past essays were more inciting - urging people to think in drastic new ways. This present essay may have more insights about the need to recognize the limitations of theoretical knowledge. Clear incisive thinking about the basics of the field is now needed more than ever.

    The way to squeeze the Cloud of Unknowing is to squeeze one's brain, examining not only presently accepted theories but alternative theories, as well comparing those theories with experimental results..that is how the scientific method worked to expand knowledge of reality. Unfortunately most established physicists are content to parrot what has been done before, and do not make the big effort needed to 'start all over' as Einstein himself suggested may be necesary.

    By saying It=Qubit I was only describing a model of Nature, not Nature itself, which as the essay explains, remains unknowable except by partial and cumulative experimentation, theorizing, building ideas and destroying them as the case may be. Knowledge, i.e information is a human entity that is a way to model Nature, but is not identical with Nature itself. It also depends on how one defines these words.

    I am no philosopher, but thanks for appreciating my art. Are you an academic in physics?

    With thanks and best wishes

    Vladimir

    Dear Vladimir,

    First, congratulations on your current high placement in the contest.

    I downloaded the new Fig 3, and agree with the inclusion of the five senses. As you know I end my essay with discussion of the 'awareness' of reality, not just abstract 'theories' of reality, but literally 'sensing' reality. The fact that illusions can sometimes fool us does NOT mean that our senses are ALWAYS fooled.

    Also, I noticed in your comment to Georgina that you are reading Gravity's Rainbow. I agree that the novel is not for everyone, but I have read it three times! And if you like the kind of mind Pynchon exhibits, I would also recommend David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest".

    Finally, as I suggested in my first comment above, I'm glad you liked my elephant.

    Best Regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear

      Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

      So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced 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. . . . 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. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . 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. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

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

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

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

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

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

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....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..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....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.

      Thank you Edwin - ah the vanities of placement in the contest ... but its fun participating, meeting people like you and Georgina with interesting ideas and sensibilities - like our both liking Pynchon (and philosophical pachyderms). This is the first book of his I read and I will check out Wallace many thanks.

      I tend to agree with you that our senses are very clever - human vision for example can reach important conclusions about things in space, even though it is inherently 'unrealistic' - seeing faraway things smaller than those nearby.

      Best wishes

      Vladimir

      Dear SNP

      Thank you for your kind message - in this essay I was tackling a 'philosophical' question of how we know things - it is a new field for me. My usual interests are expressed better in my last year's essay "Fix Physics".

      I will surely study your essay and comment about it.

      Wit best wishes

      Vladimir

        Thank you Vladimir,

        It is a very good topic, you are discussing - - - philosophical question of how we know things- - -

        I will come back to you through mail, and discuss with you in detail.

        Best wishes for the contest

        =snp

        Thank you for your suggestion on Eddington idea (I did not know it), and the BU model.

        Usually I wait the end of the community voting to comment the essays (the person are ingenuous, and I don't want influence nobody: but I real all, and voted all), but sometime happen a tsunamy of ideas that I must throw down (so happen for D'Ariano essay: you see the convergence of cybernetics, relativity, quantum gravity and phylosophy).

        I like the idea that there is a exchange between science and art, I think that can be like the philosophy: we use it in the everyday life, because the good ideas spread in the civilty (slowly or quickly), some other time are lost forever.

        I like ever your scientific painting: have the differential equation and the picture the same expressive power?

          Dear Dominico thank you for your encouraging words. I will read your essay and comment about it there.

          "Thank you for your suggestion on Eddington idea (I did not know it)"

          You are welcome - your comment is related to our interesting discussion on d'Ariano's essay page:

          D'ORRECIO: I am thinking that a curvature space, in this lattice, can be simple: an artificial delay in each point of lattice can reproduce a curvature space; so can be obtained the Einstein field equation in a lattice with delay?

          TAMARI: The 'an artificial delay in each point of lattice' Exactly!! That means a slower speed of light (a natural result of curvature, as Einstein himself admitted, contradicting his SR.) Eddington(1920) suggested treating the gravitational field as an optical medium with a gradient index of refraction. With that, and forgetting about SR because Lorentz transformations occur naturally in an absolute lattice, GR reduces to a ridiculously simple theory. I adopted this idea and incorporated it into my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory .