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

Torsten,

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

Dear Torsten,

You have tried a novel geometric approach to solve the problem existing between space, time and matter by identifying space-time first with Bit, then with It (that is matter); hence you could write space-time = Bit = It = matter. But how far this could be true when you say that space-time is a 'smooth' four dimensional manifold and out of which you can construct a 'discrete' manifold in order to identify it with the Bit? In other words, how do you 'quantize' smooth space-time in to a Bit?

Secondly, how do you link the collapse of the wave function to the gravitational interaction? Is it sheer imagination?

Wish you best of luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

DearTorsten Asselmeyer-Maluga:

I am an old physician that does not know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Why I am writing you?, because I think I can hel in some ways in "space-time" with the experimental meaning of "time" I send you a summary so you can decide in reading 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, 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

Hi Torsten,

Thanks for a very informative essay.

I agree with you on the important role that S3 can play in cosmology, and have developed a model using compactified Minkowski space S3xU1 for dynamics. In my Software Cosmos essay the overall picture is the simulation paradigm, and I show how using S3 can address several observational puzzles in cosmology.

Perhaps my model has some usefulness to your research; in any case I would love to hear what you think of it.

Hugh

Hi Torsten,

The main reason for joining this contest was not to win, but to see if I can get any professional physicist with interest in foundational issues, to evaluate my idea. I appreciate any criticism no matter how harsh, although I do prefer constructive ones. I have rated you fairly high ( I follow up on your work regularly), but as I said I don't care for rating mine, but that is your prerogative. I will also ask you some basic questions about your theory a bit later.

Many thanks

Adel

Nice Paper. Worth reading again.

I liked the introduction to Von Weizsacker. I wish I could read this reference in English.

Similar conclusion to Lawrence Crowell's paper --> undecidable.

Interesting ideas. I'm not sure if I agree with them, but worth thinking about:

- because of diffeomorphism invariance, spacetime itself is the Bit.

- gravitation enforces the state reduction after a measurement.

I agree, time is the big issue. Wheeler identified this long ago, and the standard quantum formalism in Hilbert space contains hidden assumptions regarding a background for time.

Is this a task for the future? I think other papers in this contest (and previous ones going back to 2008) are likely to have already made major headway on this task.

Overall, the paper covers too much ground. Everything from information theory to Higgs. I suspect the author would have done better to focus and be clear on one or two concepts, instead of so many.

I still enjoyed it very much, and will read other works from this author.

Dr. Torsten

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.

With regards,

Than Tin

Dear Torsten,

I was informed about your interesting idea of `the geometrization of matter' by one of the participants. I have, in fact, also used this concept in my essay which may interest you. It has been shown there that the matter fields (as well as the gravitational fields) are represented by the metric field of the so-called `vacuum' Einstein field equations and the energy-stress tensor is a redundant part of Einstein's theory.

You claim that spacetime is the Bit. What about matter in the new perspective?

Best Regards.

___Ram

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