Hello Antony,

What do you mean by "the Shannon analogy"? If you draw an analogy between two things, you show that they are alike in some way. Did you refer to your essay or did you mean an analogy drawn by Shannon himself.

I consider Shannon's statement a view that sharply contrasts to some belief-based tenets. While he makes his view plausible to everybody by the "we" perspective, it is still compelling if we do not at all invoke observer and observation but just causal relations and the now.

Let me point out that the now implies an arrow of time while some physicists accept the arrow of time without admitting the now. My explanation is illustrated in Fig. 1 of my previous essay.

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

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 Eckhard,

I'll try again. I hope the fact, stated above, that I agree almost completely with this essay does not imply that you will not find other ideas in my essay which I invite you again to read and comment on. I hope that the flooding and ill health are in your past. What a horrible combination to deal with.

I know that you like critical comments to argue with and thereby improve your arguments, but the fact is I do not find anything to argue with in your current essay. You've done a masterful job.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello Eckard,

    Yes I'd mentioned Shannon's view was analogous to my essay in the first paragraph then was lending reference to it in the third paragraph.

    I agree that Shannon's view sharply contrasts belief based tenets.

    Best wishes & kind regards,

    Antony

    • [deleted]

    • Post #26

    Dear Edwin,

    Let me excuse that I did not yet respond. Before I was urged to leave my home because of the risk of flooding, my younger son helped me to rescue anything important including a copy of your essay by moving it upward to the second floor. While our dikes were fortunately successfully defended, we are still waiting for someone who repairs the bus system that controlled the electric installation in my home before it was destroyed by a lightning stroke hitting our neighbor's chimney. My connection to the internet is also shaky. So I am in rather a mess.

    Admittedly, I didn't yet grasp how gravity relates to the nature of information. I didn't even understand how to read the three Chinese pictures you put at the beginning while it seems to be clear that you are sharing Schlafly's opinion.

    I agree, an error by 120 order's of magnitude points to a false premise, and your GEM theory does certainly deserve scrutiny by an expert. Not sufficiently qualified readers like me can only guess that G stands for gravity and EM perhaps for electro-magnetic. With G and C you introduced on p. 3 rather uncommon, at least to me, quantities. Are they immediately useful for what were my students of EE? You specified on p. 5 "the G - or gravito-electric field" and "the C - or gravito-magnetic field". The following unnumbered picture relates only to the C-field.

    You mentioned on your p. 3 that your equation is the only fundamental in physics to yield asymmetric time. Do you see a possibility to also consider the now?

    Best regards,

    Eckard

    Eckard

    There is no observational light in Einstein. There is always some form of light (with the train it is lightening) but it is being used as a reference against which to calibrate duration and distance, not for observation. Indeed, in Cox & Forshaw there is a light beam clock, but nobody sees with that. In other words, his second postulate as defined is void, because he did not deploy it as defined. So all this effort to reconcile speed of light and constancy of rate of change is pointless, because the issue does not exist. Apart from the fact that nobody seems to have taken the bother to read what the man defined SR as, but I have been through all this before, and the usual quotes explaining what the man actually said are in a thread on Jim Akerlund's blog.

    My post was in respect of this exchange with B, not necessarily your essay.

    Paul

    Paul,

    I am ready to some extend to guess what you meant. Did B stand for Basudeba?

    I asked what you meant with lightening because you are telling us

    "to be able to receive something, it needs to exist. That is, please do not try to see with lightening!"

    and

    "there was no observational light in Einstein. Nobody observed anything, because there was nothing to observe with. SR is an irrelevant hypothetical statement."

    Perhaps you meant with observational light something that lightens an object it in the sense of it illuminates that object? Well, I did also object to misuse of words like "observe" or "watch" if simply "look at" is meant. For instance an English teacher of my granddaughter was presumably wrong when she declared "watching photos" correct and "looking at photos" wrong. However, my English is shaky. I am just a German who had no chance to speak English before I got 50 years old.

    Anyway, I did not yet understand your objection against SR. Let me reiterate, I question the first postulate.

    Eckard

    Dear Eckhard,

    I hope your electricity, Internet access, and all the other necessities of modern life are quickly restored. These minor disasters remind us of things we'd rather forget. But your health is most important. I wish you good health.

    I made the decision to write an extremely high level overview of my theory in 9 pages, guaranteeing that those unfamiliar with it will find it confusing, or at least incomplete. The list of references are intended to "fill in the holes". But of course most will not have time or interest to explore these. For this reason your self-contained and well-written essay is superior. I am, in effect, drawing a high level map of my theory and staking a few claims.

    You ask how gravity relates to information. My theory of gravity produces particles, the particles create structures, and local energy transfers cross thresholds restructuring or "in-form"-ing the structure, and creating and storing information. There exists a long chain of details stretching from the gravity field to the information stored in the local structure. I merely sketch the chain.

    The scenes from the Chinese tapestries simply illustrate that humans have always been presented with contradictory information since antiquity. The contradictory information referred to here is "it from bit" versus "bit from it". An 'artistic' illustration, nothing more.

    I agree with most of Schlafly's essay, but I think the best essay in the contest currently is Mark Feeley's.

    My master equation for self-evolution of the universe yields solutions G = 1/r, C = 1/t. And it leads to a Newton-like equation suggesting G = gravity. If my G is multiplied by c-squared, it assumes the dimensions of acceleration, as required for Newtons gravity. The C solution already has the dimension (1/t) of Maxwell's and Einstein's gravito-magnetic field (the gravitational analog of the magnetic field).

    So, from the simplest and most universal equation I can imagine, I obtain solutions that are easily interpreted as the two aspects of gravity, just as E and B are two aspects of the electromagnetic field. The G field is radial and relates to local mass, whereas the C field is induced by mass density in motion, i.e., momentum density. Therefore the picture relates to moving mass such as relativistic particles, as the problems I am interested in are dominated by C so I ignore G for simplicity.

    As for your astute question about the possibility that my asymmetric time can be considered 'now', that is how I interpret it, however the inverse time refers to local 'frequency' associated with the de Broglie-like wave function induced by particle momentum.

    Eckhard, thanks, in the middle of your current discomfort, for reading my essay and putting such thought into it. I hope all amenities are soon restored to normal.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Eckard

    "Perhaps you meant with observational light..."

    Er, no, observational light is what enables you to see anything, as I said, and in Einstein there is none, as I said (the original joke being that seeing with lightening is not a good idea). Therefore, as I said, in respect of this exchange, the points being made are meaningless, because there was no issue over observational light, because there was none. Apart from the fact that SR is not what is it is being presumed to be.

    I cannot understand how you have any issue with the first postulate. This is a statement of the obvious. That is, in all circumstances existence follows the same rules. The phrase "frames of reference" has nothing to do with observation. It is the equivalent of 'with respect to'. Any statement being based on a comparison in order to identify a difference. So the obvious point is that, irrespective of whatever reference is used for calibration, whatever existed did so, and it moved, or whatever, in a unique way. The process of calibration does not create the reality, it just creates a calibration of it. This is why Einstein then says "only apparently irreconcilable" when introducing the second postulate, because unless one differentiates reality from the light based representation thereof, the two postulates do not operate together, or at least only in the 'nothing happens' circumstance of SR. But Einstein did not have any observational light, so the second postulate is irrelkevant, because he did not deploy it as defined.

    Paul

    Dear Edwin,

    I consider Feeley's Bush Doctor quote and your three Chinese pictures unnecessary hurdles of understanding. Your text explains the meaning of one picture but I felt unable to understand the whole arrangement.

    While I understand your theory and its importance meanwhile already a bit better, the connection between gravity and information was perhaps too far-fetched as to provide an immediately plausible example for the application of your theory.

    My question concerning the "now" is not astutely meant. I do not entirely share Feeley's argument that an observable is just the result of a measurement. I see it an abstraction that describes what could already have been measured. People like you Mark Feeley and me who did not lose their common sense will agree on that future data evade measurement in advance. In biology there is a distinction between in vivo and in vitrio. The "now" is something similar to in vivo, something outside the scope of Einstein's and Wheeler's physics.

    My objection against Einstein's first postulate might indeed be astute. I will try and explain it in reply to Paul.

    Thank you again for your warm words.

    All the best,

    Eckard

    Paul,

    You are in company with the whole community of physicists when considering the first postulate "a statement of the obvious". I have only Einstein's original paper in Annalen der Physik IV. Folge 17, 1905, p. 891 in German at hand.

    My translation:

    "The laws that describe how the states of the physical systems change do not depend (on the decision) on which of two coordinate systems we relate these changes of state if the two coordinate system are in steady motion relative to each other."

    I added "on the decision". Of course, symmetry demands that coordinate system A and coordinate system B are interchangeable. However, are we really entitled to chose A and B independently?

    As I mentioned in my endnotes, we may look at reality each time only from one arbitrarily chosen coordinate system. Neglect of this led to the twin paradox. Strictly speaking the first postulate is only wrong when we tacitly assume that it implies use of the same quantities in both systems.

    Einstein abandoned ontological simultaneity as to apply an asymmetrical method of synchronization and as to formally arrive at Lorentz contraction by means of averaging the Doppler effect back and forth.

    Eckard

    Eckhard,

    You say, "I do not entirely share Feeley's argument that an observable is just the result of a measurement."

    I would modify that to say, "A quantum mechanical observable is just the result of a measurement." There may be more there physically, but QM is formulated on the measurement.

    And I have filled in all of the details of the 'gravity-to-particles-to structure-to-information' chain in other works, listed in my references. I do realize that the essay is too brief to be convincing.

    For a good analysis of the 'now', I recommend Daryl Janzen's current essay.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Eckard

    That is interesting. Because if that is literally what he wrote as his first postulate then the misconception is there to be seen. The caveat of "steady motion relative to each other" is superfluous. A physical circumstance is in a state and changes to that state occur independently of another. So any law which defines what is happening just needs to do so.

    The quote I have (1923 English version) is: " the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate,"

    "As I mentioned in my endnotes, we may look at reality each time only from one arbitrarily chosen coordinate system"

    Indeed, by definition anything is only anything by virtue of comparison and the identification of difference, and then in order to ensure comparability of other such identifications, constancy of reference has to be maintained. But the real point here is not how reality is 'looked' at but how it occurs.

    Einstein did not abandon simultaneity. This was one of his fundamental mistakes which meant he thought he had an 'extra' layer of time. The Lorentz contraction (ie dimension alteration) becomes a consequence of the 1905 way of viewing what is happening. Having been the catalyst which caused them to think there was some form of relativity of occurrence in reality.

    Paul

    Paul,

    I prefer answering in a new thread.

    Here is the translation of Einstein's first postulated principle given by Wikisource:

    The laws according to which the states of physical systems alter are independent of the choice, to which of two co-ordinate systems (having a uniform translatory motion relative to each other) these state changes are related.

    Don't get me wrong. I do not object against the possibility to chose either the one or the other co-ordinate system as reference. I only question the tacit assumption of two rigid bodies (= co-ordinate systems) in uniform translatory motion relative to each other. My argument is simple: If the second rigid body was very long it could transfer information with a velocity in excess of c.

    I see this also valid with the postulate you quoted as formulated in 1923.

    Eckard

      Dear Edwin,

      I feel hurt by Daryl Janzen because he certainly read essays of mine and didn't even it worth to mention my key arguments (in particular Fig. 1 in my previous essay) concerning what he put in the center of his new essay. He quoted the same utterances as did I already in the last contest. I accept his presentist position and share some of his criticism. However, he seems to avoid consequent reasoning.

      I will abstain from a judgment of his essay until I did read it more carefully and I gave him the opportunity to justify himself.

      Best regards,

      Eckard

      Dear Eckhard,

      I am sure Daryl did not intentionally overlook you. The topic was his dissertation for his PhD last year so I'm sure he has a million references in his mind. Also, just as you have had to deal with health and flooding issues, Daryl has small children and a very recent surgery in his family. So I would give him the benefit of the doubt and simply discuss the issues where you agree and disagree, if any.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      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.

      Dear Edwin,

      Thank you again for pointing me to Daryl. This way I got aware of Michael Helland who quoted Newton's distinction between two meanings of time.

      I agree with Michael with one exception: "I tend to identify the reality with what can be discovered mainly by means of observation, measurement, and reasoning while I see so called absolute reality, e.g. Newton's God, an abstraction. See Fig. 1 of my previous essay."

      To Newton there was of course only one God as today there is only one Special Theory of Relativity. Accordingly Helland argues for different layers of reality which reminds me of Georg Cantor's different levels of infinity. Are you ready to share my opposite view considering just one reality basic to all guesses, hypotheses, theories, and laws that were abstracted from information about it?

      By the way, I only mentioned personal difficulties just as to excuse the deterring misspelling in the title of my essay. Usually I tolerate misspellings in particular of my name.

      My best regards,

      Eckard

      Dear Eckhard,

      You ask: "Are you ready to share my opposite view considering just one reality basic to all guesses, hypotheses, theories, and laws that were abstracted from information about it?"

      If I understand your statement correctly, I agree with you completely. That is what my current essay is about. That is what the 'not-two' refers to in my essay. I assume that one reality exists that evolves through self-interaction, as there is absolutely nothing else to interact with. I then try to show how this reality 'subdivides' (field produces particles) and these 'parts' then allow structure to form and these structures become 'in-form'ed. But underlying all abstractions that follow from such 'in-form'-ation is the one reality.

      I understand this as the reason that you have worked to rid mathematics of 'unreal' elements by restricting it to cosine transforms and R regions with positive real values. Like you, I do not believe singularities exist, but I do recognize the utility of some abstract tools, such as complex numbers, properly interpreted. I think we are driven by the same realization.

      My best regards,

      Ediwn Eugene Klingman

      Eckard

      So do I. And that is an obvious challenge based on the translation of the first postulate you are quoting. Because as I said earlier, the standard 1923 work does not phrase it this way, it writes of "in all frames of reference". Which is physically correct, ie any law which corresponds with reality must be applicable in all circumstances, would be the most generalised way of putting it.

      The caveat of uniform motion is an irrelevance (which is not the same as rigid bodies, but indicates how he is thinking. So even in this 'version' the first postulate is not wrong, just over conditioned. It is the second postulate which matters.

      "My argument is simple: If the second rigid body was very long it could transfer information with a velocity in excess of c"

      This is incorrect. Light only ever starts at c and can only decrease. The size of a body is irrelevant. Light is created at one spatial position, other light is created at another spatial position.

      The whole issue here is how does reality occur, not how photons interact with it.

      Paul