Essay Abstract

The New Information Channel MMX Null Voided in Vacuum The ambitious information system that models physical laws, as conceived by John Wheeler, may be limited more by ignorance of real world laws than the mapping and processing of their digital representations in cyberspace. It may be a while before the present state of knowledge in software simulation may be advanced to the stage as Wheeler implied by 'it from bit'. There is optimism to be found, however, in the recent experimental revisiting of the Michelson-Morley experiment, with a result which revives an old rejected medium as a new potential channel of information, portending new possibilities of superluminal transport of information carried by electromagnetic or gravity fields and resolution of several quantum anomalies involving action at a distance. Like a phoenix, 19th century aether arises from the ashes of the 20th century.

Author Bio

Ph.D. thesis at Stevens Tech: Relativistic Rigid Body Motion College professor and consultant to Bell Labs on software architecture and systems analysis Co- author of Galileo Was Wrong, Sungenis & Bennett, CAI Publishing Inc.

Download Essay PDF File

Professor Bennett,

I found your essay to be exceptionally informative and very well written. There is only one comment I can find the courage to make about it. As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, only unique is real once. Theoretical Physics ignores unique and once; therefore, the practice of Theoretical Physics must always remain unrealistic.

Joe,

Thanks - I was shooting for interesting - and challenging.

re uniqueness: The scientific method requires empirical repeatability, yet events are technically not perfectly repeatable (space is, time is not).

All theories are based on approximations of reality, so we can only ever say that our knowledge is BCT.... Best Current Thinking.

    Robert,

    Excellent essay. So nice to read logical argument, and nicely presented. And, even better, I think and hope I may also help further your thesis in more than one way.

    First; I agree and also discuss the matters of metaphysics and Godel. I've also analysed the errors of M&M, and the contrary MGP experiment in detail in a Hadronic Journal paper I'll link if you wish. I also agree the importance of and define and analyse detection, measurement and the workings of "the wonders of the biological neuro-optical system."

    So far 100% agreement then, but two interesting small 'issues';

    I identify the processor (brain) not the 'eye' (detector) as the final 'decoder' giving a measurement, which exposes an important difference ref datum for 'speed'.

    The realization that the Earth's Ionosphere/Plasmasphere and Bow Shock is the boundary of Earth's 'inertial system', (where light speed is changed to the local c) not the surface, resolved all the M&M issues and related paradoxes in one hit. I discuss that in last years essay. The whole system including the shock, does 30km/sec round the sun, at rest with Earth. The process and mechanism is clear when we actually look!.

    This allows the 'ether' itself to be taken from the stocks where it's pilloried, to be protected by a far more palatable known quantum process taking on the job of the actual speed transformation, (Raman) atomic scattering at c (diffraction). Of course the fermion pairs doing this are condensed from the ether for the job, but that's then no big deal to the troglodytes.

    This should provide a far more solid basis that just citing the EPR paradox. I say that for very good reason which you'll see on reading my essay. Of course the background medium frame (QV?) plays it's part, but the paradox is shown as resolved with NO superluminal communication.

    I think your essay is worth a top mark anyway, for courage alone! But more importantly I hope between our work a far more powerful and complete case may emerge. I greatly look forward to your comments on mine.

    Best of luck

    Peter

    Dear Sir,

    Why write Wheeler's name as JAW, It To Bit and Bit To It as ITB:BTI and MM experiment as MMX etc., which is normally not used even in the scientific community? This cult of incomprehensibility might have been an adorable style to express one's greatness before others, but it is harming science by distancing it from common people. Simpler presentation is not despicable, but is a virtue.

    If universe is a giant computer, who has created the hardware, who has developed the software and who operates it? These questions are important because it is the Foundational Questions forum and these are foundational questions. Wheeler's bit is "immaterial" - incorporeal and metaphysical, without substance or form - because he meant it as a "concept" about some material object - it. You have also admitted it when you say later that information "always resides in objects which implement information as intelligence, expressed symbolically".

    The binary unit, or bit, is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 - on or off - yes or no. The 'on's are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the 'off's with 0. By themselves 1 or 0 does not mean anything. Related to a context, 1 signals some concept representing information about materials objects exists in that context and 0 means it does not exist. Thus, except signaling the availability or non- availability of something predefined, binary has no other use. You also admit it when you talk about meta code.

    There are two types of physical effect that is termed reality: the first due to time evolution caused by perpetual motion (cause and effect) and the second due to application of force by a conscious agent. Information is relevant for the first type of effect except providing data for use by a conscious agent. The laws of physics, such as whether the seasons will change or not, are not determined by information. We may use that information for other purposes. In the second case, if the local equilibrium has been disturbed inducing the conscious agent to restore it, then information determines his reaction. Thus what Wheeler imagined is related to the reactions of conscious agents, whose brain functions like a super-computer. To extend this concept to natural phenomena - hence reality, except reporting it as data, is unreasonable.

    According to the Church-Turing principle, every piece of physical reality can be perfectly simulated by a quantum computer. But there is difference between Reality and its simulation. Formulating a Theory of the observed (or potentially observable) events means building up a network of input-output connections between them. In a causal theory, these connections are causal links. In computer-programming language, the events are the subroutines and the causal links are the registers where information is written and read. In physical terms, the links are the systems and the events are the transformations. The computer does not function naturally, but we design and write the algorithm for the computer to function. Hence it will be a creature of our ideas and limitations - GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Thus, the ephemeris generator has to be regularly updated like the clocks are periodically updated.

    It is not correct to say that "representation of life-forms, xx cannot be modeled in physics, for no one can explain with physical laws the difference between the immaterial operations of the mind and the biochemical-neurological operations of the brain." In perception, data are the response of our sense organs to individual external stimuli. Text is the excitation of the neural network in specific regions of the brain. Spreadsheets are the memories of earlier perception. Pictures are the inertia of motion generated in memory (thought) after a fresh impulse, linking related past experiences. Voice is the disturbance created due to the disharmony between the present thought and the stored image (this or that, yes or no). Video is the net thought that emerges out of such interaction. Software is the memory. Hardware includes the neural network. Bytes and bits are the changing interactions of the sense organs (string) with their respective fields generated by the objects evolving in time.

    You can read our essay for more details.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Professor Bennett,

    Your essay was certainly interesting and extremely challenging. I am glad that you are honest enough to admit that: "All theories are based on approximations of reality, so we can only ever say that our knowledge is BCT.... Best Current Thinking." Unfortunately, reality is unique and we can never say to ourselves that we are uniqueing.

    Robert,

    I very much enjoyed reading (and re-reading) your essay. Your approach is novel and interesting: "from reality to cyberspace and back" with 3-D printing as an example of back!

    You note that "information is never disembodied, it always resides in objects...". This is a correct interpretation. I also like your "completeness would require that the computer on which the simulation runs itself be included in its own program, as part of the universe." And it has been noted many times that it, in effect, takes a universe to store the initial data on the universe!

    Your observations on accounting for properties of lifeforms are also well stated.

    You make a key point: "the collection of bits is not information... unless the code has meaning to encoder and decoder."

    Who can argue with your points on causality and consistency?

    I do not recall any of the "it from bit" proponents dealing with the issue of reference frames as you so wonderfully do, with your focus on 'Newton's bucket' and the related issues.

    Your history of and focus on the aether is very interesting. I have tended lately to view the local gravity field as the aether, which, I believe, would yield the MM null results. The Sagnac effect has been used in fiber-optic gyroscopes to detect the gravitomagnetic field. In any case, I agree that it's time to rethink the aether. Note that laureate Frank Wilczek also speaks of aether in his book "The Lightness of Being".

    You only once mention 'galactic rotation' which we have touched on in comments on my essay page. I fully agree with you that this is extremely significant!

    As for the superluminal aspects of the aether, you make a very interesting case. I am undecided on these issues, but your arguments deserve consideration.

    In short your essay is one of the most novel and most stimulating essays in the contest. Unfortunately like my essay and a few others it requires reading more than once to extract the meaning from the information. Good luck in this contest.

    Best,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Ahoy, Captain Peter,

    No need for the Hadronic Journal link - I found it.

    Yes, the ultimate It-to-Bit issue is the brain-to-mind interface... which I was tempted to use as the main essay topic. But unlike the impact of the recent MMX testing on aethereal existence, I know of no direct testing of said interface.

    If the 'Bow Shock' is actually the boundary between aether layers having different properties (like speed or density), then - in the case of a relative speed difference - it may logically be due to a local aether at rest as well as due to the Earth plowing through some undefined 'space'. The problem with a model of 30 km/sec motion in solar orbit causing the 'Bow Shock' is that this demands the Sun be an absolute reference frame.... The Bradley model for stellar aberration has the same logical flaw, yet it is accepted by relativists.

    After all, Peter, why can't the Earth's plummeting towards the Virgo complex at a dozen times its orbiting speed be causing a 'Bow Shock'?

    Transforming into the frame of the local observer.... the proper frame.... does not always lead to a light speed of c. As the tests of Sagnac and R. Wang demonstrated, the local speed was c + v.

    All the best - to all,

    Robert

      Robert,

      "...why can't the Earth's plummeting towards the Virgo complex at a dozen times its orbiting speed be causing a 'Bow Shock'?"

      It does. But not at Earth, I need to explain a quite new 'hierarchical' frame concept to you. It seems tricky to grasp. in the WMAP and Plank findings there are many DIFFERENT speeds wrt Virgo, but NO 'speed' is relevant except in the LOCAL background, which has a local background, which has a local background, etc etc..

      Consider this; Taking a Far distant rest frame, ALL systems have different frames, but only 'SPEEDS' in the most LOCAL background! when you walk and shine a light on Concorde, the DATUM for walking speed AND c is the planes rest frame. the datum for that is the air, etc etc.

      From the WMAP analysis against the distant (Centaurus flow) frame; "The implied velocity for the solar system barycenter is v = 368 ± 2 kms−1. ...The derived value for the Local Group is vLG = 627 ± 22 kms−1." and so on. (2004 Nobel for Smoot, despite wrongly guessing at 'differential local expansions!)

      Light propagates at c everywhere LOCALLY. (how can your local light possibly propagate somewhere else!?). Between each of these 'domains' is the 'scattering surface' also referred in all the CMB analysis but not identified yet. The scattering surfaces are the 'two-fluid plasma' particle shocks. (just ask for links). They work like you auto gearbox torque converter but linear with conjugate pairs condensed from the ether due to the compression.

      Just think moving 'volumes' of ether like air and wind, but at rest around massive bodies. The model is complete and resolves every anomaly and paradox in sight, no kidding!, but a bit long for here!

      PS, I saw you suggest plasma is visible on a blog. The fermion pair plasma is are of course certainly NOT! n=1 = zero EM cross section. He is also invisible, but detection gets better all the time. This today in A&A;

      Milky Way now found stuffed to the brim with gas

      I hope that's not too shocking. It certainly is true, but old beliefs do tend to rule whatever!

      Best wishes,

      Peter

      Robert, despite our stark disagreement on basic principles I think your essay is very interesting and clear. I like the analogy between "it from bit" a 3D printer. I wish I had thought of that.

      best of luck

      Dear Robert

      Your verdict is broad and deep, hope that you will comment on my essay ,

      high point for you.

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

      10 days later

      P:....in the WMAP and Plank findings there are many DIFFERENT speeds wrt Virgo, ..

      R: What other speeds are in the CMB sky surveys, besides the dipole??

      P:Taking a Far distant rest frame, ALL systems have different frames, but only 'SPEEDS' in the most LOCAL background! ...

      R: Unless an observer can be put in that far distant rest frame, no measurements from it can be said to exist ... remote 'testing' is just speculation, according to the scientific method.

      P:.... "The implied velocity for the solar system barycenter is v = 368 ± 2 kms?1. ...The derived value for the Local Group is vLG = 627 ± 22 kms?1." ....

      R: Implied velocities ....from implied observers? No real observers were at the SSBC or the Local Group center .... so no real observations either.

      P:Light propagates at c everywhere LOCALLY.

      R: Local light speed in the Sagnac and Wang tests was c +- v(aether speed).

      P:...I saw you suggest plasma is visible on a blog.

      R: Are you trying to start a rumor, Peter? ....

      5 days later

      Robert,

      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

      11 days later

      Hello Robert,

      Congratulations on a very original, readable, relevant and interesting essay. It is nice to re-explore aether and the idea that it is fundamental and stores information is explored well here.

      I think you've totally encapsulated the spirit of the contest. I agree that aether is certainly a good answer to entanglement's spooky action at a distance.

      I take a rather boring conformist view, but I don't think that it contradicts your theory, so please take a look at my essay if you have time - I'd be interested to hear if it remains compatible with your ideas.

      Best wishes for the contest - I think you deserve a prize!

      Antony

      • [deleted]

      Hi Robert,

      I agree with you on the idea of the cosmos as a software simulation.

      In my Software Cosmos essay I descibe a client-server software architecture for such a system. Part of the model is an "implicate order" that is responsible for dynamics. You might be able to find a connection to the aether you describe.

      You wrote:

      "The correlation of two modern anisotropies - the light speed results of non-vacuum MMX with the CMB dipole (Cahill) - bespeak of a common aethereal cause."

      I was not aware of this result; will have to add it to my list of 150 unsolved observational problems with lambda CDM. :)

      Hugh

        Robert,

        "Any rejection of causality denies repeatability and predictability; there would be no 'laws' of science."

        I applaud your statement and innovative MMX chains approach and would like to rate your essay highly but I would like to run some questions by you first via email. What is your email address? My email address is msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        Regards,

        Manuel

        10 days later

        Hello Robert,

        Indeed, now that the MMX chains are unleashed, let the

        research begin! And I add, now that space is a "something" and not a "nothing"!

        You may find encouragement in my essay as well as the judgement in the blog in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. In that judgement points and monads become Wheeler's possible spatial bits.

        Well done,

        Best regards,

        Akinbo.

        *I will be checking on those references. Much appreciated. To be well rated.

        Posting to sign the thread. Hope you get a chance to take a look at the essay!

        Robert,

        Sorry for delays. Re the above, answers A;

        P:....in the WMAP and Plank findings there are many DIFFERENT speeds wrt Virgo, ..

        R: What other speeds are in the CMB sky surveys, besides the dipole??

        A: Infinitely many. We must always specify an observer rest frame for speed; This is beautiful;. Dynamic Universe map Video;

        P:Taking a Far distant rest frame, ALL systems have different frames, but only 'SPEEDS' in the most LOCAL background! ...

        R: Unless an observer can be put in that far distant rest frame, no measurements from it can be said to exist ... remote 'testing' is just speculation, according to the scientific method.

        A; agreed. So there are then TWO classes of 'speed'; 'Propagation speed' (which an observer must be at rest in the propagating frame to measure, and 'APPARENT' speed. = The 'speed' of the car coming the other way wrt you. A light pulse in that car will be doing c+v wrt you. Apparently most human brains are STILL incapable of discerning the difference! Can you?

        P:.... "The implied velocity for the solar system barycenter is v = 368 ± 2 kms?1. ...The derived value for the Local Group is vLG = 627 ± 22 kms?1." ....

        R: Implied velocities ....from implied observers? No real observers were at the SSBC or the Local Group center .... so no real observations either.

        A; They are 'apparant' speeds. To you they are; c+v. To an observer at rest THERE, they are c.

        P:Light propagates at c everywhere LOCALLY.

        R: Local light speed in the Sagnac and Wang tests was c +- v(aether speed).

        A; NOT FOR AN OBSERVER AT REST IN THE PROPAGATING MEDIUM!! Fizeau too. Think harder about it. All speed is observer dependenat. You can't SEE light without interacting. So you never SEE a passing pulse, just the evidence of it's interactions!!

        P:...I saw you suggest plasma is visible on a blog.

        R: Are you trying to start a rumor, Peter? ....

        YES.

        I'm scoring this week. Let's see how you do.!

        P