Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Empirically nature of information is continuum, while the phenomenon of gravitation differs from particle scenario to string-matter continuum scenario, in that gravitation is a tensor product that emerges with eigen-rotations of string-matter segments. In this scenario, information is the transfer of mass of string-segments with eigen-rotational energy, whereas in particle scenario it is the transfer of energy only. This describes that, information is physical and gravity is an integral part of it; while eigen-rotation of string-segment is causal for dynamic time evolution with other space-time coordinators and thus a causal set, in that 'past' of that locality is local rather than universal.

In this context your concepts on information, 'in-formation' from form-al structure on states, is true; though three eigen-rotational states are expressional with this paradigm.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Dear Edwin,

From your last sentence in your above remark it appears (or certain?) to me that you are not 'seeing' gravity now but feeling (experiencing) it as you are trying to become one with the reality of gravity through the vision your wisdom has provided you with the help of your mathematical skills. This reminds me of subject (mind) becoming one with the object (reality), in the Indian philosophical system of 'Advaita' Vedanta, to attain liberation from the bounds of our senses. This is how I cognize your present state. Am I mistaken? You only can tell.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Dear Edwin Eugene,

Thanks for your reply.

In my essay INFORMATION AS THE SUBSTANCE OF GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS I give an introduction to my idea's about gravity (and electromagnetism). These idea's are elaborated in detail in ref 6 and in ref 7. Some comments on the points mentioned by you.

1. In a space where there are no other particles, a particle with mass m at rest in a point P is at the centre of its own perfectly spherical cloud of informatons whose g-indices all point to P. This symmetry relative to P of the g-field generated by m is called the "characteritic symmetry of the own field of m" (§3.2). When there is a second particle (with mass M) in the neighbourhood, the flux of g-information generated by that particle will disturb the characteristic symmetry of the own field of m. In P - the position of m - , the extent of that disturbance is characterized by the gravitational field {E-g} generated by M. If it is free to move, the particle m could restore in its direct vicinity the characteric symmetry of its own field by accelerating with an amount {a}={E-g}. Indeed, accelerating this way has the effect that the gravitational field generated by M is cancelled in P. If it accelerates that way, m becomes "blind" for the g-information send by M to P. That implies that the gravitational field {E-g} exerts an action on m: the gravitational force. In the same paragraph it is shown that this action must be proportional to the mass m and to the field {E-g}.

2. "How is the information about the velocity of the emitter of an informaton coded?" An object at rest emits informatons whose g-index {s-g} has the same direction as their velocity {c}. This is no longer the case when the emitter is moving (§4.1). How greater the speed of the emitter, how greater the deviation of {s-g} relative to {c}. This deviation is characteristic for the speed of the emitter. The additional attribute of an informaton referring to information about the status of motion of its emitter is called its "beta-index". The beta-index of an informaton is represented by a vectorial quantity {s-beta} that is perpendicular to the plane formed by {s-g} and {c}; and the magnitude of {s-beta} is proportional to the component of the velocity of the emitter that is perpenicular to the velocity of the informaton. Macroscopically the density of the cloud of beta-information in a point is characterized by the "gravitational induction" {B-g}.

3. The gravito-magnetic force on a moving mass m is explained in the same way as the gravitational force on a mass at rest: as an effect of the disturbance of the characteristic symmetry. It is shown that a mass m, moving with a velocity {v} is the source of an own g-induction field that "rotates" around its path. The extent to which this "characteristic symmetry" is broken when m moves in the induction field {B-g} generated by other masses is characterized by the vectorial product ({v} x {B-g})and it is shown that m becomes blind for that disturbance by accelerating with an amount {a}={v}x{B-g} (§4.2).

I hope that this remarks may clarify some points mentioned by you.

Good luck,

Antoine.

Dear Edwin Eugene,

Thanks for your interest in my ideas.

1. The idea that the mechanism behind gravitational interactions is a tendency to restore the symmetry of the "own" field (cloud of g-information) of a particle in an "extern" g-fied is inspired by the observation of the gravitational interaction between two (or more) masses.

Indeed; two masses - m and M - anchored in the points P and Q of space - are the source of a gravitational field that is the superposition of the g-fields generated by each of them. That effective gravitational field is not symmetric, nor relative to P nor relative to Q. If we make the masses free, m will be accelerated by the field of M and M by the field of m. If we let them move to each other via equilibrium states (on every moment we compensate the gravitational attraction) they will finally form one particle with mass (m M) generating a gravitational field that is perfectly symmetric relative to the position of its source. From that we can conclude that the reciprocal attraction aims to realize a situation where there is only a perfectly symmetric graviational field.

The same result could be obtained by repulsion: when both particles are infinitely far apart there is also no disturbance of the symmetry of their "own" fields. In the case of gravitation nature chooses apparently for attraction but in the case of electricity repulsion is also an option.

2. A mass m, moving with constant velocity {v} relative to an inertial reference frame O, emits informatons that move away from the position of m at the time of emission (P-o in fig 3 of the essay): the velocity vector {c} of these informatons - that on the moment t pass in the point P - is oriented in the direction of the position vector {PoP}.

But one must understand that their g-index {s-g} always points to the actual position of their emitter (point P-1 in fig 3). Indeed; according to the postulate of the emission of informatons, in the inertial reference frame O' anchored to the moving mass {s-g} points to the emitter of the informatons. This implies that - relative to the reference frame O - {s-g} points to P-1.

So, there is a deviation (the "characteristic deviation") between the orientations of {c} and {s-g} that depends on the velocity of m: it is chracteristic for the speed of the emitter. All g-information about the velocity of the emitter is contained in the vectorial product of {s-g} with the unit vector {c}/c: the characteristic deviation as well as the plane in which the mass and the informatons are moving. We call that vectorial product the "beta-index".

3. It is GEM that makes predictions about gravity, my theory has the ambition to explain GEM. In ref 6 there is a detailed mathematical deduction of the gravitational field and of the gravitational induction in relativistic situations, and of the four laws of GEM (analogues to Maxwell's laws) from the dynamics of the informatons. I think that this, together with the deduction of the gravitational force (see point 1), the study of gravitational phenomena associated with accelerated masses and the explanation of electromagnetism (in ref 7) justifies the introduction of information as substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, and of informatons as the constituent elements of that substance.

Best,

Antoine Acke

Dear Edwin - a very thought provoking essay. I think I may need to read your other work in order to appreciate it fully. I enjoyed the snippets of wisdom from Lee Smolin's book, which is on my iPad the day it came out. I enjoyed it very much, but perhaps not as much as his previous books, the Trouble with Physics (which makes many similar points to your essay), and Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, which I regard as a classic, and should be read by every scientifically literate individual.

I liked the way you brought in the Leibniz quote. Very nice.

Good luck in the contest.

Dear Edwin,

Great essay, as far I can see. Here is to you (my rating) for pushing boundaries. You state:

"My self-awareness is integral, not fractured or fragmented. So I see light --not a photon, not a 'bit'--but images"

I think it is the central objective of science to differential always between FACT and EXPLANATIONS of fact. If we mix these up we miss the unique value of science to society.

And thanks for that power comment over at my blog. You may want to take another look and see my exchange with Marcoen. I think it clarifies. And please DO rate me as you deem.

Regards,

Chidi

Dear Edwin Klingman,

If I understand correctly, you are exploring the issue of reality in the context of 'theories' of reality of physical nature, highlighting the large content of 'belief' and inserted parameters in the constructed reality in theories. Certainly it is important to point that out.

However, you have decided to risk proposing a theory yourself, subject to the same critique. You work with a single complex field, because that is simpler, but with a larger ingredient of belief and hope, perhaps. The problem does not end after writing down an equation - the consequences and their connections to what one can observe and test, quantitatively, is also important. So, isn't it too premature to call the description on page 3 a theory of physical nature?

Thanks and regards,

Unnikrshnan

Hello Edwin from Margriet O'Regan from DownUnder - I just finished a very long commentary on your fine essay & thanking you for your encouragement & I pushed the wrong button & lost it - I think !! I'm so cross with myself, I enjoyed your essay very much - I might try again later today (actually its 3.30 am here !!!)

Regards

Margriet

Edwin,

In my usual distracted fashion, it has taken me several tries to read through your essay. It pulls a lot together and the wires in my brain get crossed.

The result is that I have to look at things very simplistically and other ways of thinking keep popping up.

Rather than the gravity field as the source of consciousness, why not light?

Consciousness is not structured, but simply the element of awareness. It is only as it condenses down into denser forms of mass that structure and complexity emerge, so it would be that knowledge is the increasingly complex concentration of awareness and gravity is this process of concentration.

Then gravity is simply the vacuum effect of light coalescing into mass, rather than a property of mass. Much as mass releasing light creates pressure. Both pressure and vacuum can be modeled geometrically, without needing their own particles and waves. So light and radiation is the gravity wave; What escapes as mass keeps getting ever more concentrated.

Of course, black holes are the center of much larger gravity fields and seem more likely to be the vortices/eye of the storm, at the center, rather then some object or other worldly dimension. Then whatever actually falls in, is spun back out the poles as cosmic rays, being shot across the universe.

So if gravity is a contraction of light, this would mean free photons/light quanta, are not dimensionless points, but more diffuse fields and it is this expanding effect which creates redshift proportional to distance, as well as why gravity and expansion are inversely proportional, since they would be opposite sides of a cosmic convection cycle. If convection pretty much defines the atmospheric and geologic activity on this planet, as well as all others and their stars, why wouldn't it be the basis for galactic activity as well?

Then we wouldn't need inflation, or dark energy and dark matter either, since it is all "glued" together and those outer rings of the galaxies are being pulled along. Those outer stars are first generation anyway and lack heavy elements.

Regards,

JM

I like the approach you took with your essay. The historical stuff, the illustrations, and the examples you gave make for a much more interesting read. I think your prose is also clear cut and makes otherwise hard to grasp philosophical things--like the essay prompt--easier to understand, which is good for making your essay more accessible. There is a bit of esoteric maths, not too much, but more than I would prefer in a essay entry for this contest. Alas, I think the conclusion in my essay corroborates your intuitions about forces (e.g., gravity) being more real than bits.

Please see my essay: All Your Base Are Belong To Math.

- Kyle Miller

P.s. I attached an updated version of my entry for last year's contest, I thought you might enjoy it.Attachment #1: The_Quantum_Supremacy2.pdf

Dear Edwin,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Yep !!!!! I finally figured out how to write it up off line & then copy it in, thanx !!!! So now even though it's all so last minute-ly I'm rattling off my enthusiastic comments to other essayists every 15min or so - as, of course I kinda wrote up a 'blanket statement' . .... with personalized comments added at the last second - & not faked ones I can assure you as this intellectual adventure has been one of if not the best I've ever had - reading AND COMMUNICATING with other 'searchers' !!!!! wow ....

So here is my 'one-size-fits-all' as it does emphasize at least one aspect of my findings which I didn't stress in my essay . . ..

My own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind, variety or amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.

Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.

For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.

My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits. It's ALL ANALOGUE.

One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.

Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.

(Note : Not a digit in sight !!)

How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.

I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.

This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute!!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!

Margriet O'Regan