Essay Abstract

The role of information is explored in a cosmological context. It is argued that this role is indeed a fundamental one, though not more fundamental than that of material entities. Beginning with the cosmological model of Barrow and Shaw, in which there are vestiges of Wheeler's "it from bit" idea, we move on to consider information's relevance to both the holographic entropy bound in cosmology and the current accelerated expansion of our universe.

Author Bio

Graduated from Michigan State University and received a PhD in philosophy from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). Since 1999 has lived in Athens, Georgia, working for the University of Georgia, as well as doing research as an independent scholar.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

Respectfully Willard,

According to website: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Planck/Planck_reveals_an_almost_perfect_Universe: "The extraordinary quality of Planck's portrait of the infant Universe allows us to peel back its layers to the very foundations, revealing that our blueprint of the cosmos is far from complete. Such discoveries were made possible by the unique technologies developed for that purpose by European industry," says Jean-Jacques Dordain, ESA's Director General."

Everything in the occurring Universe is unique and can only happen once. All technology is unique. All information obtained from technology is not unique; therefore, all information is unrealistic.

The satellite could not have gained its unreliable information from the "whole" sky because the eternally occurring real Universe is located in one real infinite dimension.

    Joe Fisher wrote the above comment. It is ridiculous with the "anonymous" nonsense. It keeps removing me without notification. What am I supposed to do. Keep signing in every minute I am at this site?

    Thanks for your comment, Joe. I don't know why you'd get logged out with notice; maybe you could report the problem to someone at FQXi.

    Willard,

    Welcome back to FQXi! I was happy to see your conclusion that, even if the B&S model should prove correct, this would not show information to be more "fundamental" than the objects that constitute our universe, and appreciated your reasoning on that point.

    It is interesting to see the types of problems that arise when one considers information in terms of a universal wave function [in the B&S model]: infinite phase wave velocity, zero distance between arbitrary points of space-time, waves with zero energy, "information energy", entanglement between elements of space-time, and the need to explain the relation between Planck-scale area and large-scale volume.

    My model is the other side of the coin -- local quantum theory derived from universal gravity, based on the generalized quantum flow principle required by consistency. In this case quantum phenomena are essentially particle-based and macro phenomena are classical, avoiding the need for a universal wave function and viewing information as simply energy transfer until and unless a threshold is crossed 'registering' the 'information' via a change in formation of a structure. We seem to have covered both of the extreme possibilities!

    Interestingly, I just read the essay by Alexei Grinbaum with a new take on these problems. I highly recommend it.

    Good to see you back and good luck in the contest.

    Best,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hi Edwin,

      Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate both your cordiality and your ability to find something in my paper that you could agree with, given that we're pretty much poles apart, as you note, on some major issues.

      Thanks also for the tip regarding Alexei Grinbaum's article. So far, I've only glanced briefly at your paper and haven't had time to give it a careful reading; but I did find it very interesting and well-written- you did an excellent job!

      Thank you Willard. I have reported it for the past four years of essay competitions, every time it has happened. Nothing has ever come of my complaints.

      Hello Willard,

      I've just read and rated your very, very interesting essay. I particularly liked how you related Dark energy to information. Also that you concluded that Bit wouldn't be more fundamental than It.

      I think our essays don't contradict each other, moreover, my essay on the Fibonacci sequence also is based on horizons. In my case Event Horizons, in yours observation horizons on a cosmological scale.

      Well done and good luck!

        Dear Sir,

        We have discussed Wheeler's delayed choice experiment in our essay published on May 31, 2013 to show that the measurement process and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. Yet, when you say: "measurements made today can determine the past history of the universe", you are correct. Measurement is always taken a time t, and the result is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc. Thus, we cannot know the "present state" because by that time we perceive the result of measurement, the object has evolved further. From this, we can infer that the result of measurement represents the past evolutionary state. This is true both for the macro and the micro systems.

        First the proposition, then the discarding of the Cosmological Constant by Einstein and its reincarnation to explain dark energy are mired in various controversies. Firstly, there cannot be dark energy (we call a background structure), because energy cannot be dark (non-interacting) - energy is always inferred from its interactions involving mass and has never been seen directly. Bare mass is dark because we see only when the radiation reaches our eyes and without energy, mass cannot interact by itself. The galaxy rotation problem is wrong mathematics. The galactic clusters only appear to recede from each other because the Universe as a whole is spinning on its central axis just like planets go round the Sun. Temporarily they appear to recede from each other to come close again. Similarly, after many years, the galactic clusters will appear to come closer. This is the reason why the expansion of the Universe is not evident in lesser scales.

        The mathematics of General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is highly misleading. It should be based on a constant differential that is not zero and seek the motion of some given mass or volume. This mass or volume may be as small as we like, but it cannot be zero (hence no infinities). This causes several fundamental and far-reaching changes to the mathematics of GR, but the first of these changes is of course the elimination of singularity from all solutions. Therefore the central "fact" of the black hole must be given up. Whatever may be at the center of a black hole, it cannot be a "singularity".

        Chandrasekhar used Einstein's field equations to calculate densities and accelerations inside a collapsing superstar. His mathematics suggested the singularity at the center, as well as other characteristics that are still accepted as defining the black hole. Einstein himself contradicted Chandrasekhar's conclusions. Apart from using mass points in GR, Einstein made several other basic errors that even Chandrasekhar did not correct and is still being continued. One such error is the use of the term γ, which, as we have explained in many threads, really does not change anything except perception of the object by different observers unrelated to the time evolution of the object proper. Hence it cannot be treated as actually affecting the time-evolution of the object. Yet, in GR, it affects both "x" and "t" transformations. In some experimental situations γ is nearly correct due to Doppler shift. But in a majority of situations, γ fails, sometimes very badly. Also γ is the main term in the mass increase equation. To calculate volumes or densities in a field, one must calculate both radius (length) and mass; and the term comes into play in both.

        Yet, Einstein had wrongly assigned several length and time variables in SR, giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR. This explains the various anomalies and variations and the so-called violations within Relativity. Since Einstein's field equations are not correct, Schwarzschild's solution of 1917 is not correct. Israel's non-rotating solution is not correct. Kerr's rotating solution is not correct. And the solutions of Penrose, Wheeler, Hawking, Carter, and Robinson are not correct.

        Let us take just one example. The black hole equations are directly derived from GR - a theory that stipulates that nothing can equal or exceed the speed of light. Yet the centripetal acceleration of the black hole must equal or exceed the speed of light in order to overcome it. In that case, all matter falling into a black hole would instantaneously achieve infinite mass. It is not clear how bits of infinite mass can be collected into a finite volume, increase in density and then disappear into a singularity. In other words, the assumptions and the mathematics that led to the theory of the black hole do not work inside the created field. The exotic concepts like wormholes, tachyons, virtual particle pairs, quantum leaps and non-linear i-trajectories at 11-dimensional boson-massed fields in parallel universes, etc, cannot avoid this central contradiction. It is not the laws of physics that breaks down inside a black hole. It is the mathematics and the postulates of Relativity that break down. The idea of Cosmological constant also similarly breaks down.

        The cosmological principle has come into question recently as astronomers find subtle but growing evidence of a special direction in space. The CMB, the so-called afterglow of the big bang, is not perfectly smooth - hot and cold spots speckle the sky. In recent years, however, scientists have discovered that these spots are not quite as randomly distributed as they first appeared - they align in a pattern that point out a special direction in space. Cosmologists have theatrically dubbed it the "axis of evil". More hints of a cosmic arrow come from studies of supernovae, stellar cataclysms that briefly outshine entire galaxies. Cosmologists have been using supernovae to map the accelerating expansion of the universe. Detailed statistical studies reveal that supernovae are moving even faster in a line pointing just slightly off the axis of evil. Similarly, astronomers have measured galaxy clusters streaming through space at a million miles an hour toward an area in the southern sky. Thus, the mass density calculation of the universe is wrong.

        The equation: ΩM ΩΛ Ωk = 1 appears tantalizingly similar to the Mr. Fermi's description of the three part Hamiltonian for the atom: H = HA HR HI. Here, H is 1. ΩM, which represents matter density is similar to HA, the bare mass. ΩΛ, which represents the cosmological constant, is similar to HR, the radiating bare charge. Ωk, which represents curvature of the universe, is similar to HI, the interaction. This indicates (as Mr. Mason A. Porter and Mr. Predrag Cvitanovic had shown in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society in 2005), that the macro and the micro worlds share the same sets of mathematics. Thus, the Universe is spinning on its axis as a whole, the receding galaxies phenomenon is temporary and the concept of dark matter is fiction.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Hello Basudeba,

          Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I can't really do justice to them here, since they are so far-reaching and varied. However, I'll try to make a few miscellaneous points that may provide some degree of clarification and illumination.

          To begin with, dark energy is "dark" not because it doesn't interact at all, but because it interacts only gravitationally (or anti-gravitationally, to be more precise); in other words, it's purely (anti-)gravitational energy. I take the existence of dark energy to be strongly supported by observations of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect.

          Concerning the issue of black holes and General Relativity (GR), it may well be that some additions/modifications to GR are needed in order to deal with the problems posed by (e.g.) singularities. One promising approach is to "tame" singularities using noncommutative (i.e., "fuzzy," or "smeared") geometry. An interesting effort along these lines is the arXiv paper by Modesto, Moffat and Nicolini, "Black holes in an ultraviolet complete quantum gravity," in which GR is augmented by a coupling to noncommutative smeared matter. The authors conclude that this augmented GR is dual to their own UV complete quantum gravity with ordinary matter. So, I don't think it's necessary to do away with GR altogether; nor is it desirable, since then one is faced with the task of finding a new theory that reproduces all of GR's successes (e.g., with respect to gravitational lensing).

          Your idea that the universe is rotating is an interesting one; indeed, as is well-known, Kurt Godel's solution of Einstein's equations can be interpreted as describing a rotating universe. The cosmological model of Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova, which is based on an extension of GR using the method of "chronometric invariants," also involves rotation of the universe; in fact, the idea that the universe rotates at the speed of light leads to their idea of "zero-space," which I invoke in my paper in connection with nonlocality (though zero-space can, I believe, be motivated in other ways besides the assumption of cosmological rotation at light-speed). By rejecting GR in its entirety, however, you cut yourself off from these interesting GR-based perspectives. It might be better to adopt a somewhat more conciliatory attitude toward GR, since by doing so you could perhaps connect your ideas with similar ideas of others in a fruitful manner.

          Regards,

          Willard Mittelman

          Willard,

          Fine essay. I incorporated discussion of DeBroglie-Bohm in my paper as well. So if Information ~= Dark Energy, but Information can have "no physical effect", is the "acceleration" (i.e. physical movement) an 'illusory' effect enacted by Information on our perceptions? Sorry if that question doesn't make total sense, just trying to wrap my head around the conclusion. Thank You!

          Regards,

          John

            • [deleted]

            Dear Sir,

            What exactly is anti-gravity? Is there any theory for it like that for gravity or it is something different? Is it like anti-proton that gets annihilated when it comes into contact with proton? If so, why gravity and antigravity annihilate each other? If it is not like anti-proton, how is it different from gravity? Is it a repulsive force? Then it must be something totally different. When we are questioning the present theory of gravity, should we not consider all possibilities to explain the observed phenomenon and revise our theory, if necessary and possible? We have given an alternative explanation. Is it totally impossible? The integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect is based on circular reasoning. Yet, it does not contradict our view, but rather supports it. In fact the last paragraph of your above post also supports our view. But the Universe cannot be spinning at the speed of light, as it would bring in further singularities in your mathematics. Hence the concept of zero space is not correct.

            Incidentally, the problem of singularities can be tamed easily if we look closely at division by zero, which has been erroneously treated as infinity as explained now. Since zero does not exist at "here-now" where the numbers representing the objects are perceived, it does not affect addition or subtraction. During multiplication by zero, one non-linear component of the quantity is increased to zero, i.e., moves away from "here-now" to a superposition of states. Thus, the result becomes zero for the total component, as we cannot have a Schrödinger's "undead" cat before measurement in real life. In division by zero, the "non-existent" part is sought to be reduced from the quantity (which is an operation akin to "collapse reversal" in quantum mechanics), leaving the quantity unchanged. Thus, physically, division by zero leaves the number unchanged.

            Alternatively, if you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5 (the divisor), so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away two or three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero is mathematically void, hence it leaves the number unchanged.

            Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

            Gravity has two functions: structure formation that makes particles interact and its complement displacement that makes particles separates. Gravity as a "force" stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitational potential also.

            On the other hand, gravity as "energy" in its structure formation function; makes particles interact in four different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. These four are expressed as strong, weak nuclear, electromagnetic interaction and radioactive disintegration respectively.

            We reject SR & GR in totality based on proof and not conjectures or hypotheses. We also give alternative explanations. In case you are interested you can write to: mbasudeba@gmail.com.

            Regards,

            basudeba

            Hi John,

            Thanks for the question, which does make sense. The thing is, though, I don't actually mean to equate dark energy with information, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that I was equating them. The point I was trying to make is that, even though dark energy itself (and its associated pressure) is not reducible to information, its total magnitude at a given time is determined by both (i)the global distribution-pattern of the Planckian spacetime volume-fluctuations occurring at a given time, and (ii) the total amount of these fluctuations. (By "global" here, I mean "ranging over the entire spacetime volume of the universe.") These two determining factors, I suggest, represent "informational inputs" from which dark energy is obtained as an "output." Hence, information is of great importance in connection with dark energy, but it is not equivalent to the latter.

            There is, arguably, an energy of information itself, an energy that is not available for doing work; and I speculated that this sort of energy can be attributed to (superluminal) de Broglie phase waves, thereby allowing us to regard these waves as physically real, while at the same time justifying the claim that these waves don't give rise to any actual relativity-violating effects. This postulated information energy, however, is completely distinct from dark energy.

            Hope this helps. I look forward to reading your essay soon.

            Best Wishes,

            Willard

            To say that dark energy is "anti-gravitational" is just to say that its associated pressure is negative and hence has a repulsive effect. This pressure is a force; and though it exists at all only because dark energy exists, it is not identical with this energy.

            Regards,

            Willard Mittelman

            Dear Sir,

            Your reasoning is circular. Whether the pressure is exerted by dark energy or dark energy exists because of this pressure? You seem to agree with the first. In that case, is dark energy an addition to the fundamental forces of Nature? This is because all fundamental forces of Nature create pressure in specified directions: strong force towards center, weal force laterally, e.m. force from greater concentration to lesser concentration, gravity towards common center of mass, etc.

            We had discussed some of these issues in our essay published on May 31. You are welcome to see it.

            Regards,

            basudeba

            It may be that all fundamental forces create pressure; but it does not follow that everything that creates pressure is a fundamental force.

            You noted earlier that the ISW effect is circular, and that it supports your theory. So, since my reasoning is circular, I presume that it must also support your theory. Therefore, your theory is correct, and we are in agreement; end of story.

            Regards,

            Willard Mittelman

            10 days later

            Before pronouncing relativity dead, it might be worthwhile to read the following article, which just recently appeared on the arXiv:

            http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6071

            The author is Mohammed Sharifi, and the title is "Invariance of spooky action at a distance in quantum entanglement under Lorentz transformation."

            Sharifi's emphasis on the infinite phase velocity of the wave function of an entangled system (in the system's rest frame), as well as his view that such a system should be treated as a single entity, fits perfectly with the ideas laid out in my essay here. In addition, he argues that quantum mechanics and relativity actually "cooperate" here, rather than being in conflict; and he notes that the phase velocity plays the same role in quantum mechanics that the speed of light plays in relativity. Furthermore, his discussion of information (on p. 15) gives his paper special relevance to the topic of this essay contest.

            I highly recommend a reading of his paper, especially for those who want a fuller understanding of the issues raised in my own essay.

            Hello Willard,

            Thanks for your comment & also your essay. I've read it again as I found it so interesting, I like the large scale nonlocality that you describe.

            All the very best,

            Antony

            Willard,

            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