Dear Gordon,

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.

    Hi Gordon,

    This is a copy of my post on Don Limuti's blog.

    Hello Don,

    You have stimulated my interest in the Uncertainty principle, which I wish you luck in its modification or overthrow. I am not really keen in joining that desirable task but I may chip in my thoughts. The following are excerpts on the subject from Wikipedia:

    "the uncertainty principle actually states a FUNDAMENTAL property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the OBSERVATIONAL success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer"

    "A nonzero function and its Fourier transform cannot both be SHARPLY LOCALIZED"

    "For any two conjugate variables like position and momentum--the more precisely one is known, the less precisely the other can be known"

    Heisenberg wrote: It can be expressed in its simplest form as follows: One can never know with perfect accuracy BOTH of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles--its position and its velocity. It is impossible to determine accurately BOTH the position and the direction and speed of a particle at the same instant. Heisenberg imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it. If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore, a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately.

    MY QUESTION: How accurately can ONE, not both ever be measured? In particular, how *sharply localized* can position be determined? Can position be accurately measured beyond the Planck dimension, 10^-35m which has no further part? If position cannot be localized beyond this, does the uncertainty relation not then imply that the imprecision or uncertainty is actually limited by this Planck limit and not necessarily because of any relationship between conjugate variables? Note the Planck value as well in the uncertainty equation seems to indicate this limit.

    Take note that I am not expert in these matters

    Pls. I am copying Gordon Watson whose turf is on Bell's inequalities proposition and whose judgement one can possibly trust. A proposition which I now see from Wikipedia arose from trying to resolve difficulties brought about by what to make of the Uncertainty relation and the initial EPR Paradox attempts to modify it.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    *I will be searching your essay more leisurely for answer to MY QUESTION above.

    Gordon - truly outstanding work. It is rare to find someone so young who is so adept at Latex, the mathematical formalisms, and current issues in physics. Well done.

    You might find your missing link here:

    http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

    Good luck in the contest.

    Kind regards, Paul

      Dear Paul,

      Appreciating your comments, I've just read the corrected version of your essay.

      Your proposals are very different to my own, but I will study them further.

      PS: It's good to know that others are thinking deeply about the current foundational issues in physics

      With best regards; Gordon

      Dear Amazigh,

      I read your essay with interest and I'm sympathetic with your emphasis on Duality: in its simplest form (plus/minus), we find it everywhere.

      My own interest in the nature of reality boils down to a passion for sorting and eliminating right from wrong in my own world-view.

      Wishing you every success with your work, and with my best regards; Gordon

      Dear Héctor,

      Thank you for bringing your essay to my attention. You have certainly picked an interesting topic to work on.

      Given that my own focus is on simpler issues at the moment, I hope you will make contact with many of the other essayists that are grappling with TIME and its consequences.

      PS: I found no real problems with your English.

      With best regards; Gordon

      Dear George,

      Thank you for the good rating. That will nicely help to offset some low scores that I've received without one word of helpful criticism.

      Your message is not very clear to me but my voting has been to encourage those that are putting maths to new and promising ideas.

      I hope we will keep in touch as our theories are developed, corrected or abandoned.

      PS: It's good to see you moving along nicely. Good luck in the final.

      With best regards; Gordon

      Watson FQXi 2013 FIGURES:

      The FIGURES for my Essay are located above at three entries dated Jul. 21, 2013.

      A quick way to locate them is by FIND -- Jul. 21 --

      Dear Gordon,

      I was praying for your survival as there was a last minute shark attack on your ratings. Hope you survive. But if you didnt please dont be discouraged until your proposal is faulted. I came across this on Peter Jackson's blog and has some resemblance with your views. When you check it out let me know your take. Also Mr Jackson says he has yet to receive a reply from Alain Aspect for his views.

      Best regards and all the best,

      Akinbo

      *By the way since I think you are more expert in Quantum theory, what will be the effect of a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion on things like the two-split experiment and the EPR paradox?

        Dear Akinbo,

        Many thanks for your encouraging words, and especially your prayers: which are surely improving with age, for you've undoubtedly played an important part in a significant miracle here!

        Personally, I was happy to have my ideas published for critical comment: hoping that I'd learn of errors, even improvements. The big bonus (I must say) is that I made many new "scientific" friends, you foremost among them.

        However, from my essay, you will know that I'm no expert when it comes to QM. Nevertheless there's an interesting error in Feynman's presentation of the two-slit experiment: his probabilistic analysis is flawed.

        As for EPR, that supposed "paradox" is (I trust) corrected at Page 4 (Section 7) of my essay. Distinguishing that problem from EPRB-Bell (Bell's theorem), see my proposal at Page 7 (Section 11).

        So, based on such considerations, I would say that "the effect of a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion on things" has no bearing on our understanding of the established experimental results.

        Now, with regard to experiments, your LINK does not work for me. But I'm surmising that it relates to the work of the late Caroline Thompson (for I saw "ch.thompson" in the coding). Unfortunately, but like many other opponents of Bell's theorem, Caroline believed that Bell's theorem was not breached experimentally.

        So, to be very clear about my position: I believe that Bell's theorem is triply refuted: by experiment's like Aspect's and by a sound local-realistic theory that reproduces BOTH the quantum-mechanical and the experimental results (as in my essay).

        Hoping that may help somewhat, with my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

        Gordon,

        Did you know; you're IN the final group!!??

        All those with 4.3 are INCLUDED! So that includes all down to Deepack Vaid, including you.

        Congratulations. Fantastic. And well deserved I might add. ...but in any event;

        Now my head has been a bit befuddled by numbers, symbols and mathematical approaches I need to cojoin with best and simplest way of describing the relationship that I can only derive geodynametrically. Ohh, I seem to have just invented a new science called geodynametrics. Astonishing how these new sciences appear isn't it!

        I think I've now resolved it right down to a line and a circle; Uncertainty theorem; Cross the centre of the circle with the line; One axis is certain, the other unknown. Now move it to touch tangentially; The other axis value is certain but the first is unknown. But also; Move the line slowly from one to the other and check the rate of change of values. It is non linear. in fact I predict it will describe a cosine curve.

        My DFM ontology then describes how a simple rotating dipole (IQbit) can produce those results at Bob and Alice's detectors in such a way that 'correlation' only asks 'yes'/no' questions so only gets those ('up,/down') answers, but with a cosine curve distribution, BUT, Each detector finding also has cosine curve distributions, which inversely correspond because the spin axis is the same but handed.

        I'll demonstrate the interaction later, but if your formula can describe that then we're in business.

        BUT; Two questions; Recursive layers. I think there are arithmetic and other descriptions around, but we do need relativistic gamma (which I've derive a geodynametric mechanism for separately) which is where reducing 'chaos' slots in.

        ALSO; The 'bottom limit' (relates to the above). Have you read the bottom essay? Could you do so if you have time and discuss?

        Project snake masterplan on track I think, possibly with more back-up.

        Peter

          • [deleted]

          • Post #116

          Hi Peter, and thanks for the congratulations; with even more due to you! Well done!

          1. As to the essay that you mention: I suggest that you write to the author directly. It's an interesting essay but far from my field of study.

          2. As to your geodynametrics -- gulp - soon to appear at geodynametrics.com (?) -- I suggest that it's essential that we quickly pack some maths around your novel ideas.

          But you first need to identify/define (and give symbols for) what you see as the relevant device and particle parameter(s). Then you might offer a series of sketches which show the dynamics of each paired device-particle interaction proceeding from start to a conclusion. Some guidance by way of analogies might help; together with the means by which the particles are correlated; etc.

          In that you refer to lines, circles, tangents, axes, cosines (and presumably cosine-squared), then the dynamics that you associate with these elements should be clear from the sketches: so the related maths should (then) not be too difficult.

          3. As for my formula: In my essay, you'll see that I do what I've suggested above for you. (The Figures for my essay are located at my blog-entry dated July. 21.) The analogies that I use derive from the dynamics of macroscopic wire-grid microwave polarisers and good old-fashioned spin-torque-precession.

          Then your equations (like mine) need to produce the quantum-mechanical results (if you accept that Bell-inequalites are experimentally refuted).

          PS: And, in my opinion, they should also include the intrinsic particle spin "s" to be clear that the same mechanism is at work with photons and spin-half particles.

          Hoping this helps, with best regards; Gordon

          Write a Reply...