Dear Jochen,

I followed your link concerning relational quantum mechanics. I appreciate the author's attempt to clarify the foundations of quantum mechanics, but I do not agree, especially out of my specific understanding of Special Relativity, which Rovelli considers obviously as uncontroversial.

I am convinced that Special Relativity (SR) is incomplete. This incompleteness concerns the speed of light. My view is: As the quantum mechanical concept of Wave-Particle duality has shown us that light is of dual nature, I came to the conviction that the speed of light c has to be of dual nature, too. In other words: The speed of light c is given twice, in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. In SR only the wave-like version of c has been taken into account.

As the result of this incompleteness the relativistic Lorentz symmetry is too restrictive. I've found a geometrical space-time-structure that fits to this "Dual Parametrization of c". According to this structure there are two space-time-branches, which I am calling the "Gödel-Zone" and the "Gödel-Trench". The Gödel-Zone (from v = 0 to v = c) is limited by the speed of light v = c, whereas the Gödel-Trench (from v = c to v = oo) is limited by the speed v = oo. In SR the second space-time-segment (here described as the Gödel-Trench) is completely missing.

If this second segment is really existing then we have to strive for a deeper understanding of SR - and not of quantum mechanics. That is at least my position. But I admit all these thoughts are more a vision than a coherent theory.

Helmut

c is not the speed of light, as in what is utilised in observation, when deployed by Einstein. It is just a constant, ie the theoretical speed of light in vacuo, used to calibrate distance and duration, nobody sees with it.

Paul

Paul

In a way you are touching a sort of the chicken or the egg dilemma: Which came first, space and time or the speed of light? Einstein used - as you mentioned - the speed of light to alter resp. re-calibrate our understanding of space and time, but you can go the other way as well: you can use a space-time-conception to alter our understanding of the constant of c. I have followed this path...

George Ellis has written an interesting paper. He asked: Is c the speed of light? arXiv:gr-qc/0305099v2 12 Jun 2003. Possibly it is interesting for your to read.

Helmut

    Mr. Hansen,

    I know you're in Germany but based on the spelling of your name I assume a Danish ancestry. I can't help but wonder if we don't happen to have a few common ancestors there in the Danish Motherland; it would seem a distinct possibility. I've often wanted to get over to Denmark and take a gander around . . . My family, on both my grandfather's side (Hansen) and grandmother's (Sowle), together with a few other Danish families (Grundens, Jensens, Jurgens, etc.), formed a small village in what is now southwestern Nebraska which they called Denmark! Harris Grunden, a childhood friend of mine, and his wife Joanie now own the property where Denmark (the town) used to sit. They raise cattle and Morgan horses on what they call The Denmark Ranch. Harris' father, Harvey, actually sold the first Morgan to ever set foot in Germany. Anyway . . .

    The very fascinating relation you reveal in your essay would suggest that information is a fundamental part of nature rather than a human creation, which is certainly in line with my view. I fail to comprehend the arguments of so many others that information is a human invention. Of course if information is inherent in nature then this implies that nature is conscious and aware which, for whatever reason, seems to bother many people.

    I've discovered your website and am engaged in reading a few of your English language papers; I'm particularly enamored with "Do Space and Time have an Archetypal Design?" It's interesting to consider that all mandalas represent the harmonization of opposites - Ha (sun) Tha (moon) Yoga (union) - and this archetypal bivalent structure seems to appear throughout the Universe in a scale-free manner - from dipoles to the brother-battle archetype of mythology (which is an actual phenomena). I know you consider the Universe to be analog, hence, multivalent but, if I'm not mistaken, it has been mathematically demonstrated that, on some level, all multivalent logics reduce to bivalence; I think this is a result derived from work in approximate reasoning.

    With regards,

    Wes Hansen

      @Wes

      Thank you very much for your comment and your personal notes. May be there is some connection from previous lifes. Though I didn't know anything about a Danish ancestry as far as my present family is concerned, there seems, however, to be a strong bond to the "Danish Motherland". My spiritual teacher OLY NYDAHL f.e. was born in Copenhagen.

      If you are ever looking for authentic information of Tibetan Buddhism, he is a very fine adress:

      http://www.lama-ole-nydahl.org/

      He is - like you - convinced beyond any doubt, that Nature (resp. its mind-like foundation) is conscious and aware. He travels around the world - twice a year - to teach that.

      I wish you all the best for your paper.

      Helmut

      Dear Helmut

      "Two sides of the same coin" can also be understood as the opposite, like: two sexes of a species.

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

      @Hoang cao Hai:

      The idea behind my paper is the Aristolean assumption that every real or physical object resp. action is a sort of "synholon" being composed of FORM and SUBSTANCE, which means, in REALITY none of these two categories can exist independently.

      In elementary particle physics we are still looking for a fundamental particle that is really indivisible. If we define indivisibility in spatial terms, we do not know whether a known elementary particle like the quark can further be divided or not. It could be possible that there is some hidden substructure. If atomism is rigorously based on terms of spatial divisibility we will never know, if a discovered particle is really indivisible or not.

      The physicist C.F. v. Weiszäcker found that the concept of information allows us to avoid this problem and to establish a radical atomism being based on a sort of logical divisibility.

      At first v. Weizsäcker shows in his book "Structure of Physics" that information is nothing else than a quantity to measure FORM. The more complex an object is the more information is necessary to describe it.

      If information concept is the right way to describe Nature, then the bit (i.e. the binary alternative) is the most minimal form that a physical or 'substantial' object can, in principle, have. v. Weizsäcker called these logical atoms URE.

      I asked myself whether our universe is really built up in this way - exclusively by bits (i.e. URE). I came to the conclusion that this is not the case. In my FQXI-paper 2010 "Can the Universe be completely digitized?" I present an argument against this radical atomism (or: reductionism).

      The FQXI-paper of this year 2013 is merely a further argument that bit-like synholons do not exist. The fact that the intrinsic form of Planck's constant h (i.e. the minimum of action) is quantified by 1,43.. bit is taken as a proof, that bit-like (i.e. 1,000... bit) synholons resp. natural actions do not exist.

      In other words, there is no opposite between it and nit resp. bit. Planck's constant is a synholon in the above-mentioned sense: it describes precisely how form and substance/action are intrinsically composed at the quantum level of reality. In this way it is nothing else than a further confirmation of the fundamental character of h, which means our UNIVERSE is not a COMPUTER. It is a real thing of its own.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #20

        Helmut

        Sorry, did not spot this response.

        Einstein did not use the speed of observational light. He just used a number, the theoretical speed of light, to calibrate duration and distance. He could have used any constant number. For fairly obvious reasons he chose that, because he thought, and most interpreters since think, that this accounted for observation. But it did not, because there is no light in Einstein whereby people can be observers. In other words, the 'frame of reference' cannot be an observer perspective, because there are no observers, there is nothing for them to observe with, it is just the entity against which comparison is being made for calibration purposes (with respect to), the second postulate is irrelevant because it was not deployed as defined, etc, etc.

        I do not need to read Ellis or anybody else. Light is a physical phenomenon that moves, it always starts at the same speed, and is subject to physical influences whilst travelling. It is what enables sight. Whilst questions about how light works are important, I only need to know the latter.

        Paul

        Helmut,

        I must be mistaken; I have always assumed that the spelling, Hansen, indicated Danish ancestry while, Hanson, indicated German. Regardless, I would imagine both names are somehow closely related.

        I followed the link to Ole Nydahl's website which is very interesting indeed. Here in Houston, Texas, we have the Dawn Mountain Temple, a temple in the Tibetan tradition. I've been practicing various forms of Hatha Yoga, Mantra Yoga, and Pranayama for a number of years but have never had any formal training. In spite of the lack of training I have realized some rather formidable results. I did engage in some informal studies (Pali chanting and meditation primarily) at Buumon Temple in Port Arthur, Texas. The Most Reverend Viet, the founder and senior Abbot of Buumon is a first class gardener! He has some exquisite lotus and lily ponds and over 30 varieties of bamboo growing; he even has a Bodhi tree on site!

        My spiritual journy was really inspired by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I read a book by the philosopher, Renee Weber, A Dialogue Between Scientists and Sages, several years ago in which she included an interview with His Holiness and the Quantum Physicist, David Bohm. Dr. Bohm asked His Holiness if there was ever a situation in which a Buddhist was justified in taking another human's life. His Holiness answered that there was a situation in which a Buddhist would be, not only spiritually justified, but spiritually responsible for taking another human's life. This situation would be if the Buddhist had prior knowledge that another human planned to take the lives of multiple beings (more than one human). In such a situation the Buddhist would be Karmically required to shoulder the Karmic burden of the one death in order to spare the would be killer the tremendous Karmic burden of multiple deaths. Of course proper and improper motivation also plays a role. I found His Holiness' answer rather profound and decided I had better start reading some of his books! The rest is, shall we say, synchronicity . . .

        Best regards,

        Wes Hansen

        Hi Helmut and Hoang,

        Why do you still say... "we are still looking for a fundamental particle that is really indivisible... If atomism is rigorously based on terms of spatial divisibility we will never know, if a discovered particle is really indivisible or not".

        Such a particle obviously cannot be detected by any instruments since it will be smaller than any technique or device to measure it. It can only be detected by logic and reductio ad absurdum arguments, some of which I proposed in my essay. What do have against Leibniz's monads being that particle?

        Visited here before. Just visiting again.

        Cheerio,

        Akinbo

        7 days later

        Hi Akinbo,

        I've read your paper, in which monads are introduced as foundational elements of reality. You are defining monads explicitly in a binary way. But by doing this, monads can only exist in two possible states of equal propability: 50 : 50. A Universe that would be built up in this way is a dead Universe, something like a big crystal, because nothing can change. If the two possible states of the monads does possess exactly the same probability of existence resp. emergence then nothing can change their symmetry.

        In my FQXi-Paper 2012 (Can the Universe be completely digitized?) I have highlighted this argument. It is admittedly not a strong argument, but it is an argument.

        Regards

        Helmut

        P.S. I've rated your paper.

        Thanks Helmut for reading and rating my paper. I will be doing likewise.

        The probability is not 50:50 and the universe will be full of activity, with monads constantly emerging, some annihaling to nothing and some staying permanently on. Indeed, you can make a monads appear and disappear by taking a walk! I tried to demonstrate this with 'digital motion'.

        I will check your 2012 paper and comment later.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        Hi Helmut,

        You said: "In FQXi's 2011 essay contest I asked: Can the Universe Be Completely Digitized? I denied this possibility - and I still denies it. If the Universe were physically built up by bits (h = bit) nothing could happen in our Universe, because the two possible states would have the same probability: 50:50. In other words, a Universe built up by BITS (as a sort of logical atoms) would be a perfect crystal."

        I agree with you that both states would have the same probability but if you consider that the universe is a growing sphere of information, this is not geometrically possible. Take a look at my essay and you will see what I mean.

        I also agree with you that metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear physics. You might want to read the end of my 3D Universe Theory, I propose a possible "scientific" explanation of the soul.

        Cheers,

        Patrick

        Helmut,

        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

        4 days later

        Hi Helmut,

        Yes. In blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher temperatures, so we need increasingly more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels at higher energies, temperatures. If there can be no maximum to the energy or temperature, then size of the energy gap between two subsequence levels can become arbitrarily small. Though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum, so the Planck length and Planck time etc. have no special significance. The Planck constant h is like the number 1 in mathematics, encompassing all values between 0.5 and 1.5. If we can measure the Planck constant to the next decimal at a higher energy, a higher temperature, then we can write that number as 1.0, which encompasses all numbers between 0.95 and 1.05. So if we set h = 1 in our equations, then every time we improve the accuracy of the Planck constant, we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10.

        Cheers, Anton

        6 days later

        Paul responds above to Jochen:

        "The real question at present is whether Planck is concerned with (for want of better phrases) the reality as occurred, or the reality as represented by light."

        This question appears to be related to one of the basic issues of my essay on the collapse of causal theory in the philosophy of science, namely that believers in Biblical worldview which first inspired the development of the empirical sciences in the late middle ages became incapable of (or unwilling to) defend their own worldview based on the existence of God as the ultimate cause of the cosmos.

        Western science was built, necessarily I think, on such a worldview with an Intelligent Designer. Not a popular idea today, but making a comeback (no, I am not a "young earther"). As the first scientists said, "We are thinking God's thoughts after Him." The secular view prevailed, but then the collapse of God as the causal explanation left us with no substantial explanation at all. We have been inventing substitutes ever since, but seem to have run out. That has led to the current essay question: "Its from Bits, or Bits from Its" Which causes which? My response to the title question is neither can cause either. Neither information nor things are adequate causal concepts.

        All that seems to me relevant to the question of ultimate cause because boundary concepts, such as the speed of light, are favorite places to look for such a substitute.

        "Reality as represented by light" is a phenomenal perception of reality. But that means that, as George Berkeley noted of Newtons' world of massey atoms, there is no possibility of observing those atoms other than via the sensory world. We never see the "actual" world of Newtons atoms any more than we actually see the "light" behind our visual perceptions. So there is no way to check whether our perceptions are accurate, or even whether those atoms (or light) actually exist to cause our perceptions. The "as it occurred" aspect of Paul's quote thus becomes metaphysically opaque.

        Paul replies to Helmut...:

        "c is not the speed of light, as in what is utilised in observation, when deployed by Einstein. It is just a constant, ie the theoretical speed of light in vacuo, used to calibrate distance and duration, nobody sees with it."

        Is there an unseen thing called "light" by which we see? That has been the common sense assumption. Paul's reply to Helmut seems to support the notion that the speed of light is a boundary concept which helps define the nature of visually perceived reality. But I think that does not help solve the need for a causal concept by which to understand the existence of (or our perception of) a world which is contingent (not logically necessary), and thus in need of an explanation for its existence. At best, it only shifts the burden back to atoms or light or whatever.

        I would be interested in whether anyone thinks my 9-page case on these issues (backed up by doctoral degree) has substance.

        Earle Fox

        Dear Helmut,

        Good to see your essay here. I have some questions:

        1) I am familiar with Zeilinger's Urprinzip but I have always wondered why it has not gained more popularity as the It from Bit view became more prevalent. Do you know why?

        2) I am getting an incorrect result when I rewrite your derivation:

        [math]A*=\frac{S*h}{k}=\frac{S}{H}\frac{h}{k}=k\ln{2}\frac{h}{k}=h \ln2[/math]

        whereas according to equation (10), the natural log should be in the denominator. My suspicion is that the problem lies between equations (3) and (4) because there you seem to imply by virtue of the numerical and dimensional value

        [math]\mu=S*[/math]

        Is that what you really meant?

        Also, assuming that it all works out I must admit that I did not quite follow the significance that you attribute to the mathematical derivation because the natural log of 2 factor is one of the two factors by which H and S differ from each other. If you could show that the inclusion of the natural log in the definition of H is not a matter of convention, then it would seem to me that your case would be stronger.

        Finally, when I was still in the thinking stages about the contest, I thought about titling my entry "It and bit- two sides of the same coin?" and I saw that you had thought of a similar phrase at the end of your essay.

        All the best,

        Armin

          Helmut,

          Reading comments section, I want to suggest you the following view on Special Relativity.

          Minkowski space has a critical speed parameter, called c. Massless things happen to fly at this critical speed. In fact we are lucky that light, something used be humanity for ages, happened to travel at this critical for our space speed. This allowed us to discovere pretty quickly that spacetime is more of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, which must have this special critical speed, which is called speed of light do to historic inertia.

          Cheers,

          Mikalai

          Dear Helmut,

          It and Nit are like two sides of the same coin, sounds very reasonable to me. I like your approach and found your essay very interesting. Planck units are certainly fundamental in nature I agree with that.

          Nice work.

          Please take a look at my essay if you get chance.

          Best wishes,

          Antony

          Dear Armin,

          thank you very much for your comment and your questions.

          To your questions:

          (1) Zeilinger's Urprinzip does not really explain anything. It describes the internal limitation of quantum mechanics only in a different language. To put it pointedly: It is a sort of shadow philosophy of the Kopenhagen Interpretation. That's possibly the reason, why it gained no more attention.

          (2) You got indeed a correct result: If you calculate the expression of h x ln2 (i.e. h x 0.693...), you get the value of A* = 4, 592.. x ... erg/sec.

          You are right, to unveil equation (5) as a fundamental resp. meaningful one, we have to show that the natural log in the definition of H is not a matter of convention. A German theorist states that equation (5) in connection with Euler's number e is able to explain the mass spectrum of the quarks.

          http://www.necnet.de/planckwelt/Skaleninvarianz.html

          I am not sure, whether this conviction turns out to be right or not, but in equation (5) there is some truth in it - no doubt. As you know Einstein was deeply convinced, too, that pure numbers like e are the genuine universal constants, because they appear in some sense with necessity in the logical evolution of mathematics as unique individual formations, which have nothing to do with conventional units. Euler's number e f.e. generates the sequence e = 1 1 1/2! 1/3! ...

          However, I will read your paper and comment it later.

          Kind Regards

          Helmut