Gravity and the Nature of Information by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin; one (maybe both) of us is communicating badly. From reading another of your essays I got the drift of your admirable focus on consciousness -- BEFORE I replied. SO that was in no way my concern; especially as I've studied many writings on the subject by the founders, Pauli in particular coming to mind

The essence of my concern -- please study it carefully -- was expressed thus:

"So, seeing no need for "taste" or "smell" in foundational matters, I certainly see no need for a "psycho-sixth-sense" -- as it were -- even as a foundation for our consciousness at this early stage: ALL these can emerge later!"

That is:

(i) It is my view that consciousness is emergent and not therefore foundational.

(ii) Given the potential physics associated with your ONE REAL FIELD, it seemed to me that consciousness would emerge nicely -- nicely linked to the Responsiveness of that field as you developed your quantitative calculations, etc.

(iii) I was surprised that AWARENESS should be so frequently stressed so early -- "at this early stage" of development -- in the closing phase of this essay. (Over 30 times, I'd guess?)

(iv) At NO stage did I have psychobabble in mind -- so I doubt it is to be found anywhere in my response!

(v) Thus, Edwin, with great respect, this next says too much; yet not enough!

"To conclude, I fully understand, Gordon, why, finding a potential strong supporter for your attack on Bell's logic, you are mildly dismayed to find that he stoops to what you consider 'psychobabble'."

For my attack on Bell is only a means to getting at the fact that the quantum is classical!

AND I have NO dismay whatsoever at your position on anything; quite the contrary!

I appreciate you extended comments above re consciousness, and find no concerns therein: EXCEPT where you misplace me in sets to which I DO NOT BELONG!

SO, please: Dismissing any notion of psychobabble, please reconsider my response in this extended context.

Looking forward to your (hopefully amended) response, with best regards; Gordon

Dear Edwin

Please help guide : What is name the Lee Smolin's new book ? and what write about matters? - many thank you.

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

Hi Edwin,

Things like ''ad hoc 'creation' and 'annihilation' operators'', ''virtual particles'', ''Bell nonlocality'' and ''awareness'' look quite different when we discard causality -in which case we can no longer conceive of the 'speed' of light as the velocity light moves at but have to interpret c as a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely.

If real particles are virtual particles which by alternately borrowing and lending each other the energy to exist, force each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance (Uncertainty Principle (UP): the smaller their distance, the higher the frequency they exchange energy at, pop up and disappear to pop up again, the higher their rest energy is), then they create and un-create each other over and over again. As the energy sign of a particle alternates, it is a wave phenomenon. If the energy, the rest frequency of a particle is the superposition of all frequencies it exchanges energy at with all particles within its interaction horizon, a frequency which depends on their mass, distance and motion, then the particle in its properties carries all relevant information about its entire universe, information which is refreshed in every cycle of its oscillation, so we might perhaps say that it at all times, in real time is 'aware' of what happens within its entire universe, however primitive that awareness is.

We can distinguish between two kinds of interactions: the conspicuous kind in which the energy and motion of particles changes, and the energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve their, each other's properties, interactions which, preserving the status quo, aren't observable so aren't thought to exist, in fact can be identified as the long sought for ''hidden variables'', which of course only works if their communication is instantaneous. As a Big Bang Universe (BBU) lives in a time realm not of its own making so it is the same cosmic time everywhere, here it does take a photon time to travel. In contrast, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making but contains and produces all time within, so here clocks must be observed to run slower as they are more distant even when at rest relative to the observer. As a result in a SCU it is not the same time everywhere, so here a photon bridges any spacetime distance in no time at all (see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1328). That we cannot experimentally determine whether c must be conceived of as a (finite) velocity or as a property of spacetime, combined with the fact that an instantaneous transmission over any spacetime distance would make the riddles of quantum mechanics like entanglement, the EPR paradox and the double-slit experiment self-evident, should at least give pause for thought.

Wheeler's participatory universe obviously doesn't require human participation to make the universe exist as his existence then would causally precede the universe. Since in a SCU particles create each other so particles, their properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, their energy exchange, it is a participatory universe indeed. However, while in a SCU particles would vanish when we could cut of their energy exchange, in a Big Bang Universe (BBU) particles are assumed to keep existing even when they would be isolated from interactions since here their properties are privately owned quantities, only the cause of interactions so are unchangeable, they cannot be accused of having any form of awareness. The problem of a BBU is that it violates the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, must add to nothing, unlike a SCU which does obey this very most fundamental law of physics. Big bang cosmology conceives of the universe as an ordinary object we can imagine to observe from the outside, which has particular properties as a whole and evolves in time, i.e., lives in a time realm not of its own making. Since a SCU obeys the law which says that everything inside of it, including space and time must add to nil, it is that unique, paradoxical 'thing' which has no physical reality as a whole, as 'seen' from without but only exists as seen from within, here it doesn't make any sense to ask how old or large it is, how much energy it contains or what its entropy is, questions which anyway require that the meter, second, gram and joule are defined even outside the universe. As in a BBU particles only are the cause of forces, here one has to assume the existence of virtual photons and gravitons to transmit forces between real particles, so must move, like pin-balls in a pinball machine, at a finite velocity. Though the emission and absorption of virtual particles by real ones is supposed to be random so the energy of real particles fluctuate randomly, they nevertheless obey the UP according to which a deviation in the energy of a particle may last shorter as the deviation is greater, begging the question how its neighbors can know when to supply the particle in a timely fashion with energy so it can obey the UP. This is obvious in a SCU since here the particle in every cycle exchanges all of its energy: in fact, the UP is just another formulation of the Planck relation E = h v, with h the Planck constant and v the frequency the particle oscillates at.

Continued in the next post.

As to ''the origin of the universe'', as argued, unlike a BBU, the real universe we live in has no beginning as a whole, no cause, no origin as it does not exist as 'seen' from without: in a SCU every particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction horizon, so is the alpha and omega of its own universe. A SCU obeys the perfect cosmological principle: here particles start to exist to each other, create one another as they start to exchange energy, start to evolve to higher energies, as they start to contract, which they will due to gravity which, as I argued in my 2013 essay, favors events which increase their mass above a decrease, powering time as they do. If according to the UP a particle with an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime, then we can say that it always has existed: the smaller its energy, the less definite its energy, its properties are, the more it has a virtual character, the less its presence differs from its nonexistence.

As to ''gravity may not fit into quantum mechanics'', in my study (which is a bit of a mess, see website) I have defined the mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite, agreeing both with the uncertainty principle which is at the heart of quantum mechanics, and, as the (in)definiteness in its position must be specified relative to an observing particle, also is a relativistic definition. The greater the mass of a particle is, the stronger the forces it exerts and feels from all directions, the more exactly equal they are, the smaller the area is where they are more precisely equal, the smaller the area it can be found in, the less indefinite its position is. Conversely, the smaller its mass is, the less definite its position is, the less it matters physically whether it exists or not, where it is when. If the (rest) energy of a real (massive) particle, its rate of change varies within every cycle, from an infinitesimal value to some non-zero magnitude, then according to this mass definition, the indefiniteness in its position similarly varies within every cycle and hence its momentum.

Your lamentation that ''we don't have access to reality'' presupposes that there exists such a thing: as I argued in my 2012 essay, there is no objectively observable reality at the origin of our observation, with emphasis of ''objectively'' since in our self-creating universe, the building blocks of reality, its particles are made out of each other. The fallacy of classical mechanics, of big bang cosmology and general relativity is that they assume that there exists an absolute reality, something we could objectively observe from outside the universe if we could step outside of it, if we could look over God's shoulders at His creation, so these theories are infected, contaminated with religious suppositions we aren't even aware of.

Regards, Anton

Edwin, very nice essay. I think we are in solid agreement on the approach to physics - one grounded in the idea that there is something real, an "It", from which we derive information, "Bit".

You do a good job of exploring why we believe a theory is good. The graphic of the n-parameter elephant, combined with the Jaynes quote in your conclusion "the proper question is not "How well do data D support hypothesis?" [but] "Are there alternatives which data D would support relative to H, and how much support is possible?" puts its all together. Just because one hypothesis yields a nice elephant does not mean it is correct, and we always need to explore other hypotheses which might draw better elephants.

In my essay, I put forward an argument for an interpretation of quantum theory which associates wavefunctions with experiments, not things. By rejecting assertions that QM is a theory of things, thus is not a physical theory, we are free to pursue theories that are physical. We can now explore what sort of physical things and physical theories might then explain the predictions made by the predictions of QM - other hypotheses which might fit the data. After reading your essay, and re-reading your essay of last time, I understand that you seek a locally realistic theory underlying QM, as I do.

Your proposal is that we begin with a single field ("But rather than postulate hundreds of fields as Susskind does for his Multiverse, we can assume that only one real field existed initially.") and I agree this is an excellent beginning. I am a little unsure whether you a proposing that we now have multiple fields, and I am a little unsure where particles fit in your scheme. Here we may diverge somewhat, as I would suggest exploring the hypothesis that the one real field is what existed initially and is still all there is, thus no particles (in the sense of Democritus or Newton) and no other fields (except perhaps as components of one field). Certainly, as you argue in your last essay on the nature of the wavefunction, we must also distinguish between the real field and our probabilistic estimates of what we might expect should we perform experiments on the real field.

You took some pains to distinguish between the field and geometry in your essay, but I think that if you adopt the idea that there is only one real field, then the distinction between the field and geometry is not problematic: the geometry and the field are equivalent. As you quote from MTW, "any physical theory originally written in a special coordinates system can be recast in geometric, coordinate free language." We encounter many more problems if we try to describe geometry as multiple fields and particles.

I think your final discussion regarding awareness and the consciousness field is daring, in that it may venture a little beyond the conventional realm of physics, but you argue very logically and come to a sound conclusion. You make a sensible assertion that, for example, there is a sense in which we can say gravity is "aware" and proceed very carefully from there. If you assume there is only one real field the argument is even simpler: if there is only one field, then you (or anyone else) are a manifestation of that field, and combined with the apparent evidence that you are aware, you are quite logically led to a conclusion that the field is in some way aware. As I said, this is logical but also daring.

Nice job on the essay. Thanks for recommending that others read mine. I think that it fits very nicely with yours, and discussing how ideas can be fit together - arranging the jigsaw puzzle of ideas - is the most valuable part of this contest.

Regards, Mark

Dear Edwin,

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

Hi Edwin,

A Big Bang Universe (BBU) is not a self-creating entity. This is extremely hard to explain and comprehend, yet crucial if we are to comprehend quantum mechanics (which to me seems a prerequisite to develop quantum gravity), to understand our universe. Though like you ''I do not see reality as something we could step outside of'', we actually do so in Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) as the entire 'theory' is drafted from an imaginary observation post outside of it. The psychological barrier we have to overcome seems to be that even the hard core atheists among us, tend to think about ourselves as having an absolute existence, transcending the universe, as if there's Someone outside of it with respect to which we exist, Who is witness to our existence, a habit from times when we believed to be at the center of God's attention, the idea which caused Galilei so much trouble when he questioned it.

If there would be only a single charged particle in the entire universe, then it wouldn't be able to express its charge in interactions. Since it in that case it cannot be charged itself, charge, or any property, for that matter, must be something which is shared by particles, something which only exists, is expressed and preserved within their interactions: the 'its' indeed are as much the cause as the effect of the (exchange of) bits so you cannot have one without the other.

Similarly, in the seemingly innocent assumption that we can regard the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a whole, which change IN time, we actually assume there's something outside of it it interacts with, owes its properties to, and, implicitly, that it has been created by something outside of it. This is why I say that a BBU lives in a time (and space) realm not of its own making, that it is not a self-creating (or self-contained) entity. BBC, in looking at the universe like we may imagine God to look at His creation, in fact paints a religious picture of the universe. Evidently, this attitude can be justified only if and when the inside objects only are the cause of interactions, not when we have to concede that particles they are built out of, ultimately must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions. Indeed, the fact that the meter, second, gram and joule are not defined outside the universe already takes any significance out of any statement about the universe BBC cares to make. If it does not make any sense to speak about its properties as 'seen' from without, then we also cannot speak about its properties, as a whole, as seen from within. This is what I mean when I say that, unlike a BBU, a Self-Creating Universe (SCU) does not live in a time realm not of its own making. While a BBU is thought to be quite homogenous and isotropic, about the same everywhere (but not at all times: a BBC obeys the Cosmological Principle (CP)), as if it 'contains' a single, unique reality, in a SCU where we can only make statements from within, any observer, no matter when he lives and where he looks from, sees objects in all possible phases of their evolution, and, unlike in a BBU, not as they were in ''the'' past. Though a SCU obeys the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP), it shouldn't be confused with Hoyle's Steady State Universe as this suffers the same conceptual flaw as a BBU, as it is thought about from an imaginary observation post outside of it. Indeed, if to avoid having an outside Creator, we must discard causality, and hence the concept of cosmic time, then we can no longer determine what in an absolute sense precedes what and say that the emission of a photon by A causally precedes its absorption by B. In a SCU an observer doesn't see a distant galaxy as it was in a distant past but as it is at present to him.

In the 'virtual particle' description in my previous post I proposed that the energy a particle has according to a nearby observer contains contributions from all particles within its interaction horizon. While in a BBU it is the same cosmic time everywhere (ignoring the effect of gravitational fields on clock paces) so a photon has to travel at finite velocity so its contribution to the energy of the observed particle originate in a distant past, in a SCU they contribute in real time to its energy, no matter their spacetime distance to the particle. If you agree that particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange energy (so they in some sense can be said to exist 'out of each other') and have no physical reality to an observer who doesn't physically interact with them, who finds himself outside their interaction horizon, their universe, then in this sense to him everything inside of it cancels, is unobservable so he cannot make any statement about that universe. So my objection to BBC isn't just that as we cannot step outside of it to actually observe what happens inside of it, we cannot say anything about it; it is because in a universe which obeys the law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, everything inside of it must cancel so there's nothing 'left' for an imaginary outside observer to observe, unlike a BBU where the observer would find things to look at.

To be continued in the next post

Though at macroscopic scale a property of an object indeed is what the dictionary says it is, something it privately owns, only the cause of its interactions, independent from interactions, here the observer doesn't affect the observed in a perceptible manner. If, as classical mechanics, big bang cosmology and general relativity assumes that the properties of objects are eternally unchangeable, they obviously can, in principle, be observed without being affected by the observation, so in this, outdated, view, there indeed exists an objectively observable reality at the origin of our observations: as Einstein said: ''We all, more or less in the same way, say that a rose is red, smells like perfume, and feels like velvet. In other words, there is an objective reality which is conceived by the senses, and behind this objective reality are natural laws which are the privilege of the scientist to discover.'' However, things are entirely different at quantum level: if particles are both cause and effect of their interactions so the particles of the rose and those of the observer contribute to each other's energy, each other's properties, then he cannot observe the rose as it is since without his own existence it wouldn't be the exact same rose. Though as a rose is a macroscopic object, the effect of the observer on the rose is negligible, at quantum level an observing particle does affect the observed particle to the extent they are 'made out of each other', exchange energy. Einstein continues: ''Nature doesn't know chance, it operates on mathematical principles. As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world.'' Though despite this statement, he said that he didn't believe in God, in insisting on causality, on determinism (which made him reject quantum mechanics), he actually did, the result of which is that general relativity in its adaptation to big bang cosmology became corrupted.

I am well aware that what I propose constitutes a completely different paradigm so cannot be understood very well in the terms of the present one: ''To adopt a new theory or paradigm means to accept a completely novel conceptual scheme that has so little in common with that of the older; now rejected, theory that the two theories are "incommensurable," for no objective yardstick exists that makes it possible to compare them. Furthermore, as the meaning of every scientific term in a given theory depends upon the theoretical context in which it occurs, even the individual scientific terms of the new theory are incommensurable with the terms of the old one, despite the fact that the same terminology is often retained.'' (''Concepts of Mass in Physics and Philosophy'' M. Jammer, p 57)

Regards, Anton

Edwin, make no mistake, I meant "logical and daring" as a high compliment. Logical is fairly easy, and daring is even easier, but it is often very hard to combine them. Keep it up. Mark

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.

Hello Ed,

I greatly enjoyed reading your paper. It was well-reasoned and you make a great case for your main point. I find a lot to agree with, but as you know I find the Platonic view appealing. Why can't we all just get along?

It is my opinion that your main point is well supported by the logic and evidence you cite, and that your Plato bashing is a side trip - wholly unnecessary to your point or its establishment. So I'll treat that separately later, once my own essay has posted.

All in all, yours is an excellent paper. I got mine in early on the final day, so I imagine it will appear by Tuesday or Wednesday, but that my paper is one of many in a queue.

All the Best,

Jonathan

On Platonism,

It's interesting Ed; I think our stance on the archetypal aspect of Math has a lot to say about the way we got to our present view. What kept me in the Physics game for many years was my investigation of the Mandelbrot Set and how the progression of form at the periphery relates to Cosmology.

So I've spent a lot of time wondering about why a purely mathematical object might influence or shape the evolution of the Cosmos - because I already had the absolute conviction that such a connection exists. I was scheduled to give a talk on this at FFP12, but never made it to Udine - and it has sat on my shelf.

But I am not ready to totally give up on the MUH or other types of mathematical Platonism, as that is what brought me to the table, or is the horse I rode in on. Who knows? I might need a way to get home. And I'll say more when my essay posts. In the meanwhile; I think I see a way our ideas can coexist.

Regards,

Jonathan

Hello again,

I wanted to comment that I especially liked your comments on linearizing equations. My take is that it is not so much a trick of abstract geometry, nor a matter of conflating a mathematical reality with the physical, as it is a tendency to ignore the fact a simplifying assumption was made.

It is common, for example, to replace Cos (theta) with 1 for a small angular displacement. But this breaks down, once there is more than a tiny excursion. As you point out; the behavior of the system is not linearized at all, but the key point is that the assumption that allows linearization of a non-linear equation has a limited range of applicability.

Regards,

Jonathan