Essay Abstract
If quantum information is reducible to more fundamental deterministic information, then the reduction should explain new physics. The space roar might be a clue to new physics.
Author Bio
David Brown has an M.A. in mathematics from Princeton University and was for a number of years a computer programmer.
David,
Your essay was rather short in length, yet still technically constructed at a higher level than my ability to understand it.
Could you answer a daft question from a daft realist? Eclipses are caused when the moon blots out the sun. There are an awful lot of stars and galaxies up above. Surely it is not inconceivable that the odd one or two of them might move in front of each other every now and then. Would that not be a possible source of the dark matter phenomenon?
David,
Very much enjoyed your essay (shorter get better the more I read!)
I agree the current derivation is probably quite wrong. It was only a guess at the time, and a poor one I thought, but as it was the only one about back then, it's now acquired the protection from falsification afforded only by temporal ingraining of beliefs!
For instance it's long been shown that quasar activity can very adequately explain all the re-ionization of the matter in the universe as found. Yet nothing can budge the old beliefs in the early and anomalous 're-ionization' epoch. I suspect we need to remind ourselves more often that "all theory is provisional".
Your idea is very interesting, original and clearly argued. That's not to say I necessarily agree it's correct of course as I have identified other consistent candidates. One prediction is that it will be found to be a directional effect, and on the axis of the cosmic flow. It it proves not to be, I'm with you!
Will it rescue string theory from it's third dip? If string theory can re-invent itself with a more realistic analog perhaps it may help. I wonder what your view as a mathematician is of the "Dirac line" I've suggested in my own essay, perhaps freeing both maths and reality from paradox. I hope you may read and comment.
I see you too have a 'trolled' low score, when I start scoring it will help. It's nonsense suggesting such essays are only worth 2-3 of 10! I did like your postulate 2 by the way. The measurement affects the fact.
Best of luck
Peter
David,
Bit short but poses some interesting questions. Could you provide a bit of a hypothesis concerning your conclusion:
"Something unknown happened in the early universe to cause the space roar, and string theory might be the key to understanding this mystery. Information below the Planck scale might somehow solve the mystery of string theory."
Thanks,
JM
@Joe Fisher:
http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_burchat_leads_a_search_for_dark_energy.html Patriciaa Burchat: Shedding light on dark matter
Discussion of dark matter begins around 37:00 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaOyy3WfWk Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation: The Big Mysteries of Cosmology presented by Michael S. Turner, Kavli Institute, Feb. 2011
Discussion of dark matter begins around 22:00 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZfRtUDAy04 SEGRE LECTURE: What Makes Up The Dark Matter Of Our Universe presented by Blas Cabrera, Stanford U., June 2012
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html Milgrom's perspective on the Bullet Cluster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZF9bPVOsb4 Dark Matter - The Debate, 2010
@Peter Jackson: In your article "Inertial Frame Error Discovery ... " with R K Nixey, you state: "We conclude that the limits of EM coupling potential and the field qualities of GR are adequate to provide the Discrete Field Model boundary shock conditions as observed both in space and around accelerated particles." http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0022v9.pdf
Have you attempted to explain the GZK paradox with your Discrete Field Model?
@John C. Maguire:
So far, I have two basic testable predictions: the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect and the Space Roar Profile Prediction. My guess is that superstring determinism based upon the monster group and the 6 pariah groups is the correct way to implement string theory. I need a deterministic model that correctly predicts the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics. The best clue might be John P. Lestone's heuristic string theory.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703151 Physics based calculation of the fine structure constant
Hello, David!
It's wonderful that you are in your essay actualized the idea of space and its structure. Science has already accumulated enough facts to make the space to think differently than they thought in any previous generation, including physics. Modern physical picture of the world is too semantically poor, if not flawed. And it should start again with the concept of "space", and only then comes the understanding of the nature of information and its place in the physical world. A new breakthrough in string theory is only possible through the ontology and the dialectics of concepts of "space" and "matter" mainstream ideas of "generating structures." I wish you success! Vladimir
Hi David,
it was short but very interesting. I haven't contemplated about the space roar but it fits very well into a finite and discrete model of the universe. And this may be the thing to look for. I've touched some of these ideas in my essay. You may find it interesting
Regards,
Kjetil
@Vladimir I. Rogozhin: "Modern physical picture of the world is too semantically poor, if not flawed." My guess is that to unite quantum field theory and general relativity theory there is need for some form of string theory. If nature is finite then I think that SU(8) governs the Big Bang, SU(5) governs the Big Stop to the Big Bang (recurring every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years), and SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) governs all time except the first and last Planck time intervals. If nature is infinite then I think that superpartners (in some form) occur in nature. Is the Koide formula merely a coincidence? What might be the physical semantics of:
((mass electron) + (mass muon) + (mass tau))/((mass electron)^.5 + (mass muon)^.5 + (mass tau)^.5)^2 = .66667 approximately ?
@Hoàngcao Hai: "... we often choose a concept to accept and did not use a measure to determine." String theory now lacks a solution to its measurement problem, but space roar seems to be empirically valid.
http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/pubs/arc2_apj_cmb_2011.pdf "ARACADE2 measuremnt of the absolute sky brightness at 3-90 GHz", by Fixsen, Kogut, Levin, et al., 2011
@Kjetil Hustveit: "If we discover that a finite solution is impossible, then we have to backtrack to the temporal infinite solution." My guess is that unless the finite nature hypothesis explains dark matter, dark energy, and the space roar in a convincing way, then the finite nature hypothesis is either wrong or useless as a physical hypothesis. In any case, I think that anyone who wants to create a valid theory of quantum gravity must consider the space roar.
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.
David,
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
Hello David,
I like your article it is a good synthesis of a current position, although discreetness is not the only possible feature of information and computation. I did an article to explain this. I you have time read it, and let me know "Nature from the bit and beyond". Do you thing string theory could speak about continuous information or just discrete information? Let me know your opinion.
Best regards,
Sergio
Sorry I saw some errors in my message, it is too late here :)I write it again.
Hello David,
I like your article it is a good synthesis of a current position, although discreetness is not the only possible feature of information and computation. I wrote an article to explain this. If you have time, read it, and let me know your opinion "Nature from the bit and beyond". Also I have a question for you if you read it. Do you think that string theory could speak about continuous information or it can only use the concept of discrete information? Let me know your opinion.
Best regards,
Sergio
Hi David,
This subject is very interesting (I have rated you good). In my system I can simulate using both real numbers and integer, both give similar results at large distances. but for small they differ , particularly it seems to say that space has a cut off at .2 proton size. And strangely that is what was heard with Hogan's experiment, they expected a planck length effect. But I am not sure yet, this real vs integer is driving me crazy with all the simulation that I have to do.
I have also selected you because you are a programmer.
Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website
http://www.qsa.netne.net
please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.
you can find my essay at this link
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877
see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one
alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass
M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654
Thank you.
Adel
Dear David,
Thank you for bringing the "space roar" to my attention, somehow I did not know about it. This is very interesting and I will read more about it.
I regret that in your short paper did not say some more about what possibilities exist to explain this phenomenon in terms of more established physics and where you stand on this.
Although I am a skeptical that string theory will turn out to be a valid fundamental theory of nature, property #2 in your paper caught my eye. I hope you won't mind if I link to a paper I wrote some time ago, called Are the concepts of mass in Quantum Theory and in General Relativity the same? which explores this as a way of understanding that there is a boundary between the domains of QT and GR.
All the best,
Armin
David,
No, but I just had a look and a possible explanation emerges from the DFM via non-linear optics.
At a certain (very high) intensity particles can be polarized depending nonlinearly on the incident electric field. This gives a change to refractive index, and is known in optics from the effect producing the 'frequency comb' we now use for better astronomical spectroscopy, referred as 'supercontinuum' generation.
It's a very complex mechanism, but the effect would seem to be that at anything over a certain energy absorption in the QV would be higher, so reducing the maximum. This of course may then also have implications for redshift.
I've done a paper deriving the LT's gamma limit from two-fluid plasmas and the optical breakdown ionization density limit (wavelength gamma). It sounds like another may be needed. Lee Smolin apparently thought it would be 'momentous'.
If you agree that could you collaborate on the maths? I'm a little tied up with an EPR paradox paper at present (as my essay). Have you read and rated mine yet? I confirm I also think yours should be rather higher.
Let me know if you find any resonance with the above, or have any better ideas. I only researched the comments for an initial 10 minutes as I'm a bit buried under essays!
Very best wishes.
Peter
very best wishes.
Hello David,
I like your essay very much, clear and concise is always a sign that the author understands and believes what they are putting across. Some ramble. You don't! These ideas are original and interesting, certainly relevant to the contest.
I'm going to rate you very highly now, as you deserve to do well!
Please take a look at my essay, as I hope you'll like it. If black holes aren't your thing, then please also consider that the ideas I present should apply at the quantum scale to particles, so my be relevant to your Planck approach. I'm working on a theory away from the contest which uses simplex geometry to partly unify the forces of nature and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony.
Best wishes & nice to "meet" you,
Antony