Mr. Michie,

I was rather astonished by your contention that "The world of Physics (as it stands right now) has two separate realities:..." The world of reality I inhabit only has one unique one, once. Question: How many realities did the world of physics have prior to right now? If it only had one, what caused the increase?

I do hope you are not trying to tell me that I cannot be a real person and know what reality is because I do not know how the abstract informational Universe that you know of operates? As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, The real Universe only deals in absolutes. All information is abstract and all and every abstract part of information is excruciatingly difficult to understand. Information is always selective, subjective and sequential. Reality is not and cannot ever be selective subjective and sequential.

One (1) real Universe can only be eternally occurring in one real here and now while perpetually traveling at one real "speed" of light through one real infinite dimension once. One is the absolute of everything. (1) is the absolute of number. Real is the absolute of being. Universe is the absolute of energy. Eternal is the absolute of duration. Occurring is the absolute of action. Here and now are absolutes of location and time. Perpetual is the absolute of ever. Traveling is the absolute of conveyance method. Light is the absolute of speed. Infinite dimension is the absolute of distance and once is the absolute of history.

Please refrain from ever again arrogantly telling me that I cannot know what is real.

John,

Only the scientific method can decide how reality operates and how we can use that knowledge to our advantage. The theory I authored produces the most important equations of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics out of thin air, just by using axiomatic premise that nothing happens without use of information.

Can you say the same? Can you produce those equation in a way that does not require heuristics in the form of postulates?

What you said is essentially whatever the current authority in physics says it is. For example, that "light is the absolute of speed", or "traveling is the absolute of conveyance method".

Also, please don't take any of this personally. As I said, you are mixing spiritual and religious with scientific. You can believe anything you want.

The scientific method is the only way for us as a species to progress. At times, and this is one of those times, we need to step up and consider the possibility that Santa Claus isn't real. We need to grow up and admit that the postulates of Einstein and Heisenberg are just good hunches and that the truth has eluded us until now. It's time to move on. I am offering a path beyond colorful hypothesis and principles. Physics shouldn't be a slogan contest.

On the other hand, you have to understand that my essay is just that: an essay. There is so much more to my ideas. I invite you to learn more by reading my book at:

Faster than Light: Here and Now

I am sure my theory will stand the test of a true inquiring mind, and despite a bit of a rough debate here, I believe you want to know the truth. The truth will set us free, they say, and in this case, it's the freedom to shelve the telescopes and go see the stars in person. Isn't that worth a bit of contemplation?

Dear Sir,

You have correctly pointed out that the material world isn't anything but the information we can collect about it. But when you say only the information is foundational, you are really applying the Occam's razor and throwing the baby with the bath water. Information can be only about some observable. If there is no observable, there cannot be information. The observable is the "storage" of information and observation is the "processing unit" that decomposes information into various types of stimuli - sound waves for auditory perception, electromagnetic waves for ocular perception, gravitational waves for tactile perception, etc. And information is nothing but a composite of these individual perceptions. If it can't be perceived, it is not information. Electrons and protons display specific behavior, the reporting of witch is the information. Information does not induce specific behavior in them, but only reports it.

There are two types of physical effect: the first due to time evolution due to 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 (computer according to you). In the second case, if the local equilibrium has been disturbed inducing the conscious agent to restore it, then information determines his reaction (processing according to you). You have not elaborated further even though there was no space constraint, but advised to purchase your book. Unless you create interest in the subject by a brief summary, no one will be interested to purchase your book. Thus, your essay remains incomplete.

All along you have used terms like "current information", "previous information", etc., without defining what is information. 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. The notion of Information cannot become the new big paradigm for Physics.

Regards,

basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    Welcome to the contest. The only aspect I will be commenting on is "This is the "time dilation" in Special Relativity, deduced without any postulates".

    It is unfortunate that phrases like 'time dilation', 'length contraction', 'velocity of light is a constant' are frequently being made without regard to the full context in which they must be stated. For example, the 'time dilation' in Special relativity is the mechanism which Einstein proposes to prevent the earlier arrival of light to an observer moving towards incoming light which would have otherwise occurred due to a higher RESULTANT velocity.

    Such earlier arrival was not seen in the Michelson-Morley experiment in spite of motion towards the light. Neither was delay seen due to motion away from incoming light (explained with length contraction).

    Note that in other experiments like Sagnac's and with the GPS, 'time dilation' fails to prevent earlier arrival of signals and thus higher resultant velocity is observed (i.e. c+v).

    Regards,

    Akinbo

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      My name is Joe. Hawking did not know the name of the scientist the alleged silly old lady spoke with about the turtles. He thought it might have been Bertrand Russell. How likely would it be for a real old lady to attend, let alone rise and make a statement, at a real lecture on mathematics? Hawking lied about the little old lady. Hawking lied to his wife all the time. But I did not take your snide remark about how synonymous my grasp of reality was to that of the turtle lady personally.

      Like all arrogant, ignorant white males, you assume that things, including informational systems can be completely fabricated from bits. This would be harmless if it was not for the fact that you think that nature operates in the same way, or, at least must do so fundamentally.

      While abstract physics concepts are always perfect, an abstract 0 always remains perfect as does an abstract 1 ever retain its perfect whole value, no physical proof of either condition can be produced. Reality is unique. The Universe is unique. While one can say that one is thinking, or one is adding, or one is experimenting, one can never say sensibly that one is uniqueing.

      Dear Sir,

      Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations. Einstein's causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz's motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing spacetime, based on Einstein's theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don't realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein's work is based on "aether-less model" is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.

      Time dilation, as stated by Einstein and as generally believed, is wrong. The experiments are fudged. Thus, it is no wonder that other experiments like Sagnac's and with the GPS, 'time dilation' fails to prevent earlier arrival of signals and thus higher resultant velocity is observed (i.e. c+v). We have discussed the implications of time dilation in our essay.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      I don't know if the "turtles" story was fabricated or not. But the phrase is catchy. It has nothing to do with old ladies but rather with the concept of recursion. In that sense, the "turtle" metaphor is quite profound. It means that we can split the hair mighty thin but no matter how many times we split it, there is always something underneath that's inexplicable.

      That alone is a huge problem in present-day physics.

      For example, what are quarks made of? If we find out we can split them into mini-quarks, what would mini-quarks be? And so on, forever. The moral is, the properties of anything we discover are just information to us, and ultimately they are just information. We could speculate that quarks are made of cheese if we want to, and this speculation would be equally true as any other.

      I think that all arrogant and ignorant people (regardless of skin color) have the right to think deep thoughts, even if not given a kind consideration by everyone.

      But, again, about the bits: my theory has nothing to do with modern information devices. I keep saying that. It's worth repeating. The reason why you see similarities is because Nature is informational, and that propagates all the way to our daily lives. If you need something to affirm this, just think how arrogant would it be to think that Nature follows our lead. No, we follow Nature's lead.

      I didn't get the comment about "uniqueing". I try to remain concise and use clear axiomatic notions when it comes to informational reality. Once it goes into personal views of reality, as I have already said, it's the realm of spirituality, religion and philosophy. While those are worthwhile pursuits, I don't focus on them in my work. I focus only on the scientific approach to reality.

      You raise questions that perfectly exemplify the present world-view, or a paradigm if you will.

      In this paradigm, there are two parallel worlds: one of "real stuff" and one of its "properties". For example, an electron is "real" and its charge and spin are its "properties". This is considered so, even if we can't say absolutely nothing about what an electron really is. We can only say what its properties are ("properties" meaning information about it). We were never able to explain what "matter" is, other to find out a number of informational facts about it. We will never be able to truly explain what "matter" is, if we keep insisting that "matter" and information that describes it, are two separate things.

      Think about this: how does electron "know" how to behave? It is because it follows "laws"? Forgive me for quoting galore. Our representation of Nature follows the parlance of social laws: we have players and we have laws. It's just like societal laws. We find it comforting.

      But at the same time, we accept that nothing other than random outcome can happen if there is no information. A blindfolded person will chose a random direction. A gambler in Vegas knows this better than anyone. Yet when it comes to basic elements of Nature, we presume they just "know" how to behave and how to "account" for the environment they are in.

      Why is that? Why do we think Nature itself needs no information to operate? Isn't this akin to assuming supernatural qualities of Nature?

      This is where the notion of information being a "description" of something "real" falls apart. What I am saying isn't even counter-intuitive. It's just on some level frightening to suggest that information exists on its own. It doesn't need "stuff" to make it be. We can't know what "stuff" is. So it's only natural to get rid of it. Even though it may feel as if the world itself lost substance. It didn't of course.

      Information we observe is called "discernible". Information used by basic constituents of Nature if called "fundamental".

      Fundamental information is consumed by elementary entities in order to create you. Yes, you. And me to. It is the information that electrons and protons use to move, to form atoms, to form the current. A small derivative subset of that fundamental information is what we observe, i.e. discernible information.

      These concepts are profoundly important. They contain, in the most elegant form, a generalization of the concept of information as it is espoused in traditional physics. In that (traditional) sense, all you said about observables and the physical world is correct. But you need to change the paradigm. You need to ask yourself: what do you think the observables are? The answer is: they are the source of information. Much of this information is consumed before you and your instruments are even borne into existence, so that you (and me) can have this chat.

      Think about it. It does make sense. Even if in the framework of traditional physics we were thought not to think that way. But that's all it is.

      Here is the reply to the second part of your post. It refers to the cause and effect combined to application of force. I think the crucial question you pose here is how is information used across space, so that force can exist? Correct me if I misunderstood your post.

      The answer, in short, is that information originates in a single point in space, but it exists everywhere, instantly. The density of information declines with the square of distance. There are very good reasons for this. They are explained in the book. If every book, or even a paper, could be compressed into an essay, and then as random comments about it, everyone would be writing essays. I hope you understand this. I am sorry if you find my mention of the book as an attempt to monetize on it. If you are an Amazon Prime member, you can borrow it for free.

      Everything I say here must sound incomplete and kind of off-handed. I understand that. Again, read the book and things may clear up for you. If you don't want to, that's your business.

      And finally, a comment on "previous" and "current" information.

      I am not trying to describe any algorithm whatsoever. Not at all. But I do know what framework Nature must use for information processing. I do know why certain aspects of information use must be the way they are. My work is in the much broader context that looking at some clever algorithms as a hammer, and everything in physics as a nail. That would be naive. I hope you are not suggesting that.

      One of the questions is: what are the minimum requirements for reality to exist, so that it has any virtue of memory whatsoever? If you can remember your post, the reality you live in has a virtue of memory. A memory of any kind cannot exist unless at least two information snapshots can be used at the same time. This is a very important question that's covered in the book in the great detail.

      There are many other questions that are not posed in the essay or these comments. They, and the accompanying answers, paint a much clearer picture. Yes, the book.

      I do understand that traditional physics has a lot of charm to it. For example, Einstein was able to present his postulates of Special Relativity in very little space. That's lovely.

      But no one knows why these postulates work. They are purely based on observations. They are a band-aid on a gaping wound that is open in our body of knowledge. I know that by far most physicists understand this. Presenting a viable alternative is much harder to accomplish. I offer that, and it will stand the test of time. I offer formation-by-information and I present a deduction of facts we had to accept as such. Why is the speed of light constant? Why light exists in the first place? What is mass? What is gravity? Why is there uncertainty? Why time apparently slows down in some cases?

      If you think I can answer all this in an essay and a few comments, then I bow to your optimism, even if the math I used is mostly high school grade. If reading the book is that hard, then perhaps you should wait for the movie.

      Good points, Sir. I have talked in the book much about these "tricks" Einstein used. I called them out for what they are: cheating. However, don't get me wrong. Einstein was my childhood hero. I consider him a genius. What he had done for his era was astounding. But I got over it. And so will everyone else, eventually.

      Now, I will mention one important result of my theory: the speed of light is constant "c" relative to a dominant source of information. In the case of all of us, living here on Earth, it is the Earth to which the speed of light is relative to, for all the experiments performed near it.

      Away from Earth, for example, close to the Sun, the speed of light is "c" relative to the Sun. As a photon approaches Earth, it becomes "c" relative to Earth. This is easy to substantiate.

      If so, then explaining Michelson Morley is trivial. A photon always moves at speed "c" relative to the dominant information source, which in case of Michelson, Morley, and all other diligent experimenters since, is Earth.

      One more interesting tidbit. It turns out that the speed of light (300,000km/s) is the slowest of all possible maximum speeds.

      The maximum local speed can be many different values, and the value of 300,000 km/s is the lowest of them. It can be shown in no uncertain terms that a much larger mass can accelerate past 300,000 km/s, when away from large bodies.

      Again: the speed of a photon is the slowest of all possible maximum speeds. The math to show this is in the book.

      Basudeba,

      here is the answer to your discussion about waves.

      I understand your analysis. Einstein eliminated the "medium" in order to justify his postulates.

      However, if an informational approach can produce what's known as "time dilation" equations, and if this approach doesn't presuppose the postulate of light speed, and if it doesn't preclude the existence of medium, then what do we have?

      We have a theory where:

      1. "relativistic" effects can be explained without even a notion of light, let alone contrived postulates about it

      2. a medium is allowed

      3. a wave in it is allowed

      Think of it this way: if I can explain why there are "relativistic" effects by using "computers", and if "computers" can comprise a medium, then light can propagate in this medium and all the classical and "relativistic" qualities of it that we know are true, simply emerge.

      My theory shows, in clear mathematical terms, that it is so. There is no ether, there is no need for dubious postulates. There is an axiomatic informational reality.

      I suggest that neither ether nor relativistic approach are correct. After a 100 years, I hope it's clear both are dead ends. Only the informational physics and the Fundamental Information Theory (FIT) provide an answer that doesn't need magic and a heavy dose of authority applied to it, to produce a good answer. I don't argue that Relativity works (at least so far). But so did Ptolemy's geocentric system, and it did so splendidly for over 1400 years.

      I just hope we aren't stuck with Einstein's beliefs for so long. In fact, I don't think we will. Because if we do, we will never achieve practical FTL travel, and we will be likely wiped out long before that.

      I have already hinted that my theory allows for a practical FTL in some cases, while reducing to Einstein's equations in others, all the while staying strictly in agreement with experiments. This is important for any serious scientific theory in order to make any new bold claims, such as the possibility of true FTL travel.

      Dear Sir,

      Your view about two parallel worlds may be acceptable, but can you separate both? Are they not like two sides of the same coin? Matter must have properties to be perceived and properties cannot exist in isolation. This also explains what matter is: that which is physically perceived as invariant among changes in its state. Regarding meaning of perception, please read our essay.

      Is there any proof that "electron "know" how to behave?" Can it not be attributed to simple causality? Neither the blind folded person nor basic elements of Nature follow random pattern. While the blind cannot see, his other sensory faculties develop sharply to give him necessary inputs to sharpen his instincts, which are nothing but interactions of quantum fields around him. The same also guides basic elements of Nature.

      Information is always about "something". It is a concept expressed through language depicting some object or changes in it depicting its state. Thus, it can only be as fundamental as the object it represents. Thus, the question of density of information does not arise.

      A memory of any kind cannot exist unless at least two information snapshots can be used, but they cannot be at the same time. They have to be in sequence. The memory registers the first time and becomes referral thereafter.

      We do not follow traditional physics and in our essay you might have noted that we have refuted length contraction and re-interpreted time dilation. We have also questioned the inference of the double slit experiment and given a different interpretation to dark energy. All your other queries we have replied in various posts. Light slows down in certain cases because of the refractive indices of the different mediums through which it passes - like the Earth's atmosphere and the beyond. We have also explained that gravity is a force that stabilizes the orbits of two bodies against a common barycenter.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Indeed, properties must exist in isolation. It is the only way that those properties would not be forever tied to something we can never know. "Matter" (or many other notions in physics) exist only as their properties. It is only our imagination that makes up the substance behind them.

      No, causality cannot be the reason why electron moves the way it does. Evoking causality implies reason, and reason implies information.

      As for quantum fluctuations, FIT explains quantum effects without presupposing Heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty. This principle can be derived from scratch. In traditional physics, Uncertainty is taken for granted. It is just one more sign of the decaying house of physics that 20th century has brought down upon us.

      Think about it this way: if there is information available, but the storage isn't enough to hold it, what must happen? The answer is: some information must be lost. This is the reason for Uncertainty, and the exact form of Heisenberg's principle isn't hard to derive. Of course, I am shortening the argument here, but you get the gist of it.

      Regarding the concept of memory, the past and the present information must exist in some form at the same time. Otherwise the information cannot be used. Because of this, prior information must be stored for the processing in the following instant. There aren't many ways to use information, and in this case, this is the ultimate and the simplest rundown of what the framework must be.

      4 days later

      Dear Sir,

      Your statement: "properties must exist in isolation" can be viewed from two different perspectives. First let us define property. Since everything has come from the same primordial stuff, there must a commonality in all, which is not directly evident. That means, during recombination, the same stuffs combined in different proportions due to inertia and conservation laws (we have shown the detailed mechanism elsewhere), which shows a particular combination as different from other combinations. We label such different combinations and call it property. In that way, we can label different properties, which are concepts that can have independent existence of its own without linking it always to material objects. But when we look at any object, we always link that concept to the observed behavior of the object. In that case, properties cannot exist without objects.

      When a property exhibits itself, it implies a specific combination of mass and energy that is locally stable, but really unstable. It is because if it is absolutely stable, then it will not interact - not even radiate - to be perceived. If it is locally unstable, then we cannot label it. This combination of stability-instability leads to its interaction with other bodies.

      In your earlier post you said: "how does electron "know" how to behave? It is because it follows "laws"?" Only causal particles follow laws. Electrons always follow laws: confine positive charges of protons, which is the reason. Thus, its "knowledge" regarding how to behave depends in a mechanical way on the information on positioning of positive charge, which is nothing but causality. Only conscious agents have free will to violate causality, though the effects of such actions are deterministic.

      Uncertainty is inherent in the functioning of Nature, because while we have freedom of action, the results are always deterministic based on the totality of forces acting at "here-now" and is not limited to our action alone. However, this concept has been thoroughly misinterpreted and its mathematical format is wrong.

      Regarding memory, we have discussed its mechanism in detail in our essay posted on May 31. You are welcome to see it.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear R.J.Michi,

      Excellent essay, good comments and wonderful conclusion: It is clear that anew kind of physics is needed.

      Just one question: what is the first axiom that if you take a well-honed Occam's razor?

      Good luck, Vladimir

        R.J,

        Nice read. Definitely reminded me of the premise of my essay at its core when you wrote:

        "Not even electrons or protons can display any specific behavior without the use of information"

        But I must ask, and I have toiled w/ this question a bit as well, does information 'compose' stuff or just 'guides' stuff? Can one truly precede the other?

        Take care.

        JM

          Dear R.J

          All of current theories are not sure, it is not the truth. Must be the Truth is Absolute?

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

            The first axiom is that nothing specific (i.e. non-random) can happen without the use of information.

            This is, by itself, axiomatic unless we consider present-day physics where specific things are said to happen because of a physical law. It is in fact, a non explanation. The very foundation of law-based physics is a giant postulate, and an impossible one to accept by reason.

            It's a peculiar human condition where declaring a 'law' seems to turn critics into believers, just because this law works out mathematically. This isn't enough. You can reverse engineer many things and the math works out, but you still have no idea how it works. This simple conundrum somehow escaped the physics community for centuries.

            I am driving home the idea that nothing, not even Nature, can escape the reach of this axiom.

            RJ

            JM,

            information composes stuff.

            We are presented with inherent inability to know what stuff is. We can only know some facts about it. If you think about it, if you have a conceptually unknowable entity mingled with information, all you really have is information.

            Even the very existence of any specific information can be tied to the lack of information about whether such information should exist or not.

            I talk a lot more about this in my book. In a nutshell, an axiomatic case can be presented that solidly props information as the only foundational and truly the final aspect of any reality.

            It is a big shift in physics, but one that is inevitable.