Spacetime weave - Bit as the connection between Its or the informational content of spacetime by Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga

Hi Torsten,

( a copy from my thread)

Thank you for evaluating my essay, we have had some exchange in physicsforums about your theory before. You asked very good questions.

The answer to the higher modes is easy, yes it can be done (and I have actually done it). It is an automatic consequence of schrodinger equation result. As a matter of fact I get the 1/r law precisely because of the inclusion of higher modes automatically.

To answer your question what forced choice I have to reiterate some background. After considering some choices that could be the entities where some relation could give a rise to reality I end up with the simplest of systems ,which is a line segment. So I ask what entities exist on this line, answer is point and smaller line segments. So the how to choose the points or the line segments so that I may find what possible relations might exist and see if these relations lead to any useful outcome.

Since there is NO particular reason to choose any specific one so I choose randomly. Without this randomness which is the heart of the system any possible universe that you create by particular choice will lead to either a static or semi-static universe (as in fractals and regular automata). A similar principle is very nicely explained in Sundance Bilson essay which he calls "the principle of minimal arbitrariness ". Also a similar idea is mentioned in the essay of Armin Shirazi which you must have seen.

Also, may I remind you that the Born rule in standard physics has caused so much controversy as to its origin, well my system shows clearing why that must be so. And generally you can see the whole results of the system from it inception to advanced results like the electron mass all showing up in one coherent system with no tweaking or fancy stunts, by doing just what I am allowed to do on the line.

Of course I am familiar with almost 95 %(or more) of all the ways people have tried to generate QM from "first principles". But I believe mine is the most fundamental one because as you can see I claim some powerful results. Now, if people want to declare that is too good to be true, that is their choice. However, as an unfamiliar concept I think it will take some time to sink in and I also need to do a better job making the presentation.

Finally, you might be surprised that our theories share the most important concept of physics and that is the SAMENESS of matter and space. in my system matter is made of many lines (which is nothing but a distance between two points) where their end points are space. it is as simple as that.

The problems in your system and all others has been the problem of time. Even if as Barbour has done(and some other foliation systems and such) to remove time, still that leads to complication. In my system time naturally does not appear, again, that shows the system is fundamental from its inception.

I have rated your essay highly, you do not have to do that for me. Your response and reading this long boring response is good enough for me!

P.S. gravity is also included, I will show some details later.

Many thanks.

Adel

Torsten,

That post was mine. also let me ask you this as a mathematician. In my system theoretically I must throw infinite numbers of lines, and if you take a very small region it will contain dense almost infinite numbers of points. Does that constitute a a true continuum or it is still discrete no mutter how many points there are?

Thanks

Adel

Dear Torsten,

Seems I am reading some of the best essays last! Very nice entry.

Your arguments are quite sound from basic physical principles and GR viewpoint.

My own arguments are more from a philosophical perspective and not as quantitatively argued but I think there are still similarities in our picture. Like you I agree time will bring out the discreteness in continuous space picture, if that is what you mean by foliation. I also discuss a linkage between Time and Existence at a discrete level, although from a philosophical view not from that of a physicist.

I very much agree with your plan to derive matter from the space, i.e. the geometrization of matter. This should be one of the next goals of physics. I myself have started thinking along this line.

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members on my essay, I posted on my blog the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.

A deserving above the average score!

Best regards,

Akinbo

Torsten,

Thanks for your reply. Of course the line segment has uncountable points, that's elementary. But My question was (more clearly) that if I pick infinite random points on a that line uniformly, would I cover all the points on the line? My guess is that it will not since you have irrationals and maybe some other problems. Is that correct? I hate to make this a forum, I won't feel bad if you don't answer.

Thanks

Adel

Dear Torsten,

I thought to have rated (highly) your paper at the time I red it. But my mark seems to have been lost, may be when the system was interrupted.

Did you have a chance to read my own essay? Any way I will give you the rate I had in mind and possibly more because I learned during this contest.

Best wishes,

Michel

Dear Torsten,

Thanks for your careful reading.

1) It is not straight to see the contradiction in the dessin of Fig. 3b, I failed to see it in general (for other contexts). Also there is not a single dessin leading to Mermin's square but many, why is it so? More work is necessary. This non-bijection is general for most geometries I have tried to reconstruct from the n-simplices to projective configurations such as Desargues, Cremona-Richmund (i.e. the doily W(2) of two-qubit commutatitivity) and others.

2) You are right that transitive action may not be a necessary condition. The geometry is constructed by having recourse to the stabilizer of each point in the permutation group relevant to the dessin.

3) Last remark, the geometry is of the projective type not the dessin. Here you have to refer to the theory that is well explained, for example in Lando and Zvonkin (my ref. [6]).

Torsten, please check that you vote was recorded.

Michel

Dear Torsten,

I am trying to better understand your deep essay but it turns out to be quite difficult accounting for my poor knowledge of differential geometry.

I have a naive question. The (first) Hopf fibration S^3 can be seen as the sphere bundle over the Riemann sphere S^2 with fiber S^1. Could you explain what is the sphere bundle S^2 x [0,1] that you associate to the gravitational interaction? May it be considered as some sort of lift from dessins d'enfants on S^2 to S^2 x S^0, and the latter object lives in circles on S^3, right?

I have in mind Matlock's essay as well.

All the best,

Michel

Dear Torsten,

I haven't yet rated your essay and I want to know whether you have rated mine. If so/not, feel free to inform me at, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

Best,

Sreenath

Dear torsten,

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.

Dear Torsten,

Thanks for drawing my attention to your essay. You're right that I'm interested in a geometrical explanation of accelerated expansion, and I'm glad that you picked this up from my comment on Sean Gryb's essay, and that it drew your attention to my essay. I see that we have some common interests, and will therefore read your essay with interest. In the meantime, I thought I'd direct you to the discussion thread I opened up on Ken Wharton's page (near yours at the top), because that pretty much outlines how I think a geometric description of the observed expansion rate should be handled.

Anyway, thanks for reading my essay. I'll comment again when I've read and rated yours. I hope you do rate mine as well before tomorrow night (since you've said you found it interesting ;)).

All the best,

Daryl

Dear Torsten,

I found your essay intriguing in many ways, yet highly technical (unfortunately, I think beyond the scope of this contest in that respect). I was also puzzled why, when you've already assumed a model that is spatially homogeneous and isotropic, you would be interested in recovering inflation? It doesn't seem to fit.

But those two things aside, you have some very interesting results, and I see a lot of overlap with what I'm thinking about, although we're approaching the problem in some ways differently. I wonder if, when the dust settles here, you'd be interested in reading through the discussion thread I began on Ken Wharton's essay page and emailing me your thoughts on what I've put there. I think I see a possibility from your essay that would really be of mutual benefit, and I imagine you'd pick that out as well from my posts.

As I said, interesting and intriguing essay. I rated it accordingly. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Best of luck, here and always,

Daryl