Dear Jacek,

It is good that you learn something by reading me. There is more to come soon. Check Arxiv preprints. I will give a short comment on your own essay.

Best wishes.

Michel

Cher Michel Planat,

Thank you for an interesting suggestion. Are you saying that this formalism will help us understand the difference between quantum and classical bounds of the Bell inequality, and if yes, then how?

Best regards,

Alexei Grinbaum

    Dear Alexei,

    I thought that the section about the Cirelson's bound aas clear about that matter but may be I did not fully grasped your question. In general, I think that the introduction od dessins d'enfants may help to clarify the nature of Bell's inequalities and contextuality.

    I will look at your essay next week, I am quite busy thesee days away from Besançon.

    Best wishes,

    Michel

    Dear Michel,

    I returned from vacation, and left a reply to your comment on my essay's page.

    You presented beautiful and surprising connections between dessins d'enfants and quantum observables, building on your 2004 conjecture suggesting a connection between the existence of mutually unbiased bases and the existence of projective planes. I understand from your reply to Jochen Szangolies's comment, that you "still do not fully understand the precise connection between Grothendieck's dessins and the finite geometries underlying the compatibility observables". With this in mind, do you have a geometric/topological interpretation of the Riemann surfaces arising from Grothendieck's dessins d'enfants? Are there possible configurations of quantum observables corresponding to higher dimensional varieties?

    I look forward to see your forthcomming papers on this subject.

    You may be interested in Florin Moldoveanu's approach to quantum mechanics, using the Grothendieck group.

    Best regards,

    Cristi Stoica

    Dear Cristinel,

    As I am away from home and quite busy this week I will answer your questions next week and will try to understand Moldoveanu's approach. Thank you for this important pointer.

    My best regards,

    Michel

    Dear Dr. Michel,

    I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, 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

    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, Michel,

    Thank you for this interesting essay. As you will see from mine, you are one of the people I critique as overweighting geometry at the expense of energy. The logic of Grothendieck, in my humble opinion, is not the dynamic logic of the universe. I hope we may communicate on this point.

    Best regards,

    Joseph

      Dear Joseph,

      First thank you for looking at my essay. I will discuss yours next week and will try to give you extensive comments. My geometrical view is not faith, it follows from the properties of (multiple) qubit observables. In the essay, I found that these (projective) geometries can, in many cases, be described from the action of Grothendieck's dessins d'enfants. The latter probably have deep physical meaning I am currently trying to establish. Of course, one can have other views about the nature of the universe and try to justify them. In Lewis Caroll tale, as well as in Poincaré's "Science and Hypothesis", it is a matter of conventions.

      Best regards,

      Michel

      Dear Dr. Michel,

      Your essay is highly original and intriguing but at the same time it appears as if it is written for the experts in the field but not keeping general audience in the perspective. It is interesting to know how far the different geometric methods, you have followed in this article, are capable of solving other problems prevailing in QM. I congratulate you for producing such an innovative essay.

      Sreenath

        Dear Dr. Michel,

        I appreciate your kind comments. It is good to learn that we share some common basic views regarding the existence of knowledge.

        Best regards,

        Sreenath

        Dear Michal,

        Thank you once again for the questions you asked me on my essay. If you visit the FQXi page ,( at the beginning of the page)

        http://fqxi.org/community/essay

        .............................................

        I. GOALS & INTENT

        The goals of the Foundational Questions Institute's Essay Contest (the "Contest") are to:

        ^ Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking about foundational questions in physics and cosmology;

        .............................................

        They used a word 'innovative', that may mean they want more fundamental thinking and may not be a report on current research prepared for discovery channel viewers...

        Best

        =snp

        Michal

        nice essay and interesting ideas, even though I need more knowledge about your math, to understand the technical derivations. I like the one about CHSH.

        Best wishes

        Mauro

        Dear Michel Planat,

        Having read your very interesting paper twice, I concluded that you would probably have little interest in mine. But after reading your comment on Stewart Heinrich's essay expressing your interest in the concept of self-awareness and the miraculous efficiency of mathematics for mimicking physical problems, both of which I address in my essay, I decided to invite you to read it and comment. I think it has little connection to your essay yet you may find a new perspective on these two topics.

        Thank you for participating in this contest and good luck in the contest.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Michel,

          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 Dr. Michel Planat

          Thanks and congratulations for your poetic qubits.

          I am mere a learner of physics here who have huge interests to know the fundamentals in nature. I think that to resolve the issues like "quantum non-locality and contextuality' in your essay, why not we ask the nature in different ways? I invite you to read my submitted essay for a quite new approach of asking the nature.

          With my regards

          Dipak

            Dear Kumar,

            Thank you for reading my essay and inviting me to read yours.

            Yes, I like to have some poetry and visualization when it is possible.

            You tell us that each access to reality is digitized and I agree.

            But it occurs in a different way in classical physics and quantum mechanics.

            Myself I did measurements of the frequency of ultrasable clocks in the past; there I recovered the structure of rational numbers, you can easily google with the keyword "number theory and 1/f noise" and find my contributions. This is well in the spirit of what you are writing. Quantum physics is more seriously difficult in this respect in the sense that it undress in bits (the eigenvalues of qubit observables) and it is much more difficult to organize them. In addition the observer participates in the undressing as Wheeler explained.

            Best wishes,

            Michel

            Dear Michel,

            Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. I have had a chance to review the two papers you referenced there. The Riemann paper discusses the details of a specific partition function, which I find interesting as I base the applicability of the Born probability to my wave function model on the partition function. The other paper, on time perception is also interesting. I had not seen the Poincare discussion of the Continuum, and found that fascinating, as well as your connection. I am somewhat confused as to whether you are proposing the phase locking as the 'mechanism' of time perception or of the 'scaling' of time perception? I can understand how this could relate to scaling, but not perception as I understand it.

            Thanks again for reading my essay. I hope it stimulates some ideas for you.

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Michel,

            thank you for stopping by to comment on my essay. I was very much intrigued by your work and remember it from last year. It appears your presentation is more technical this year. I wish your interesting work reserves recognition is deserves among the specialists.

            Best of luck :)