THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING & THE ITSY QUBITSY UNIVERSE by Vladimir F. Tamari

Hi Vladimir,

Wow, I loved your essay. Just beautiful prose and art.

The information flows like no other essay in the contest.

Don Limuti

Hi Vladimir,

I just read the Beautiful Universe Theory. I am still a little groggy but impressed none the less. I was expecting a FQXi essay not a 30 something page paper.

We start from very different points. Your start is spherical rotating charges. My start is an isolated particle alone in existence and how it manifests. I try to avoid charges as much as possible.

With these two very, very different starts our conclusions to a very great extent are the same.

Here is a list of what I believe we agree on.

1. A point photon is nonsense.

2. The speed of light is not constant. Yes there is a maximum speed c, but the various wavelengths of light only get close to it.

3. The uncertainty principle is nonsense.

4. The low level quantum stuff actually creates apace-time. Therefore space and time are dependent upon quantum phenomena.

Please let me know if my understanding is correct.

Even if just part of this correct, it is amazing given such different starting points!

My sincere admiration.

I may have to read the novel "Quietly Flows The Don" !

Dear Vladimir,

In the abstract of your very interesting essay you give the following definition of information: "Information is an artefact of human thought imposed on Nature to describe some of its aspects".

I think that it is too restrictive to see "information" only as an element of our thinking about nature; I think that information manifests itself also as a constituent element of it.

I have developed that idea in my essay, where I show that the introduction of "information carried by informatons" as the substance of gravitational (and electromagnetic) fields, makes it possibele to explain the gravitational (and the electromagnetic) interactions, and to mathematically deduce the laws of gravito-electromagnetism (and Maxwell's laws).

Best regards,

Antoine

Hello Vladimir

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Thanks and Best Luck,

Than Tin

Dear Vladimir,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Dear Vladimir,

Yes, I posted my message identically to other's pages, because that was the message I wanted all of the contestants to get, viz. how do we -- individually or collectively as human beings - explain the brute fact about the sameness and the difference between us and also the sameness and the difference in the world around us.

I thought I was giving a message of sameness between us and our widely different individual contributions in this essay contest by saying " ... each of us surely must have touched some corners of it."

I wasn't trying to be nice to get ratings or glad-handing to be noticed, although it is part of the game. I was just stating the content of my belief and the basis of my essay. Unfortunately, it sounds like an advertisement for self amidst all the other stuffs that matter, such as:

Wheeler's question "How come the quantum?" The question is too cryptic for me, very Zen-like. So I ask a different kind of question.

What I wanted to know is simply how come "wave-particle duality" (sameness-difference to me!) is a window into quantum theory, not that it is being shown to be the case in an experiment known to all physics major as the the two-slit experiment.

Dualities - like sameness and difference that I am talking about -- are like pebbles on the beach easily found by everyone with eyes to see. All of our great theories and discourses are predicated on one kind of duality or another, and that also is a fact known to many.

In short, the identical message I sent to every page is about TWONESS, and how come it is not ONE or it is not THREE.

TWO is not just an ordinary number, considering it took 385 years to solve Fermat's Last Theorem. There is a message in that number!

Than

P.S. I saw your post only late to night; otherwise I would reply to you immediately.

Dear Vladimir F. Tamari:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time". No one that I know ever said what I say over it and I am convince that I prove that with our clocks we measure "motion" and no "time.

:

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Wonderful piece, Vladimir,

No surprise that models based on gears that you mention fascinate me since my model, ("An Artist's Modest Proposal") involves magnet gear trains and spatially repeated magnet matrices.

Regarding the question of "real" models, I came across a sentence in a skinny book for laymen by Feynman in which he disabuses his audience of imagining that atoms are in any way mechanically determined devices. He says, "There are no gears down there." I Googled and also found the following by Feynman: "...I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

It is uncanny this long-held view that seems to be applied only to quantum physics - the restriction against physical models born of speculative reasoning. Imagine how limited the science of astronomy would be today if it had imposed on itself a similar restriction for the past 85 years.

Vladimir, you have written and painted a beautiful essay. Truth is beauty, and all that...

With admiration,

Ken

Dear Vladimir Tamari,

You wrote to Vladimir Rogozhin: "You might have faith in Einstein's ontological views - he wanted clarity and logic..but unfortunately he based his physics on imaginative assumptions that have lead to many dead-ends. For example his proposal for a point photon absorbed and emitted as a particle has lead to the concept of quantum probability a mathematical convenience with no physical meaning at all. His concept of a fixed speed of light (c) led to the strange unphysical ideas of flexible space and time and to the cancellation of the ether from nature, an unnecessary and costly detour."

If I recall correctly, you wrote somewhere that Einstein might have arrived at the correct result from wrong premises.

Did you find a flaw in my endnotes?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your very interesting kind and encouraging message.

I have long admired your magnetic top 'gear trains' with which you made physical, conceptual and computer-simulated models of the electrons whirling around an atom. The concept is so utterly beautiful, and I have acknowledged its inspiration on my work in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory BU also found here. I encourage readers to read about your Artist's Model Proposal of the Atom also on your fascinating www.kennethsnelson.net website. It is only by the way that I mention your being one of the greatest sculptors of the 20th. c. !

You once told me that physicists of the Feynman school of thought discouraged your forays into physics and told you 'nature does not work that way'. That is so very wrong. Feynman was too practical and too busy designing the atom bomb and his Quantum Electrodynamics theory to try too hard to 'understand' Quantum Mechanics the way we and many others want to understand it: as a physically realistic phenomena that can be understood by physical models.

Unfortunately and ironically, I firmly believe that it was Einstein himself (despite his protestations about God playing dice and spooky interactions at a distance) who was mainly responsible for this state of affairs. The duality he introduced in his point photon concept eventually lead to probability being accepted as the physical basis of QM. In his Special Relativity Einstein made c constant and brilliantly deleted the ether, an unnecessary move that has lead to a dead end blocking quantum gravity progress.

Back to our gears. In your atom their edges behave as if they are linked together by actual teeth - there is no slippage which works well there. In my BU 'slippage' is also allowed and is in fact necessary to explain phenomena like light bending in a gravitational field. A BU gear affects the next gear less and less the more the next gear is spinning. Were it not so light speed would become infinate because a local motion is instantly linked to the furthest 'gear' in the Universe. What a pity Maxwell's ether gear model was put aside as a sort of conceptual outdated toy: it contained a very important physical truth in it.

Again thank you. I feel that your views will soon be triumphantly vindicated.

Vladimir