Bit from It: quantization from realist physical principles by Agung Budiyono

Agung,

I found your very well argued essay to be truly fascinating. I was especially impressed by your assertion in your abstract that: "Bit from It", by showing that the abstract-formal and "strange" rules of canonical quantization can be derived from 'a statistical model' singled out uniquely up to some free parameters by a set of physically transparent axioms within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics.

As I have gone to great pains to point out in my essay BITTERS, I strongly feel that everything in the real Universe is unique.

Dear Agung,

I saw independent researcher as your bio, but as I read through your essay, written beautifully in the language of today's physics, an inner voice told me this was a physicist and no ordinary researcher. Seeing your published papers in the references confirms this.

My problem is that mathematics is a language, and like all languages can be used to tell lies or to say the truth. Presence of paradoxes is usually one sign of untruth. Mathematics can be used to contract lengths which we cannot physically measure and dilate time which cannot be recorded but which are assumed by keeping velocity invariant. In this vein, I have issues with the statement, "The finite maximum velocity of interaction given by the velocity of light". Yes, velocity of light is 'c' but there is classical evidence of interactions at c+v and c-v due to receptor motion. I can furnish references if requested. Such c+v and c-v interactions must therefore also be possible on the quantum scale.

My essay, is not written in much mathematical language. Criticism welcome. Do you believe a line having length and breadth of zero can exist in this physically real world? If you do, how?

Will not rate low because I admit your essay is very well presented, but cannot score you 10. You can score me 0, but let us argue why!

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dr. Budiyono:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and carefully argued essay. Too many physicists these days assume that nonlocality is an unavoidable central aspect of quantum mechanics. Your work seems to follow in the tradition of "stochastic electrodynamics" of Boyer, Santos, and others, but you have taken this stochastic approach considerably further. You did not discuss quantum entanglement, which is also generally believed to be intrinsic to QM. Are you suggesting that this, too, can be avoided using your approach?

You might be interested in reading my own essay "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"), which maintains local realism in quantum mechanics from a quite different perspective. I derive the Schrodinger equation from a relativistic wave packet (no point particle) without indeterminacy. This wave packet follows a classical trajectory on the microscopic scale, as derived from the quantum wave equations, without requiring decoherence. This wave consists of real rotating vector fields that carry quantized spin, and also function as local clocks defining local time. General relativity falls out naturally due to the reduced rotation frequency in a gravitational potential. I further argue that multi-particle states cannot properly be described by the Quantum Hilbert Space Model, which conventionally generates entanglement and nonlocality.

Alan Kadin

Dear Agung Budiyono,

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.

Dear Agung Budiyono,

Your paper is interesting. This is in line with the stochstic QM work, or Nelsonian quantum mechanics --- or even a bit like Bohm. I am toying with using this sort of thing in a problem. These approaches to QM or QFT have some weaknesses, but they are useful in solving certain problems that do not yield to other quantization techniques.

Cheers LC

I am interested in trying to employ the Seiberg-Witten invariant as a topological quantum field theory. The knot polynomial or Alexander polynomial is classical and I am curious about the prospect of deforming it into a quantum or semi-classical form by methods similar to yours.

LC

Agung,

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 Agung,

You have trying gave to QM some cause-logical foundation: it is right approach and I am with you on this point. You have taken however the classical statistical principle for representation of QM phenomena that I see incorrect. You will ask why? Matter is the statistical behavior (SB) we can attributed to a group of objects only and not to a single one. Single objects in this case is controlled by cause-effect principle the summary of these brought to SB. Thats whay I am doubtful on your math proofs (excuse me) Then what to do? I think you can find the answer from references mentioned in my work Essay, if you have enough time. Meanwhile I see your work as a professional and I intended to appreciate it within time. Please visit my forum.

Regards,

George

Hello Agung,

Nicely written, relevant and ingesting essay. I like any where we conclude Bit from It, so think you have achieved this well. Please take a look at my essay if you get time.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Dear Agung,

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.

Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I've Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented your essay in what follows.

Of the nearly two hundred essays submitted to the competition, there seems to be a preponderance of sentiment for the 'Bit-from-It" standpoint, though many excellent essays argue against this stance or advocate for a wider perspective on the whole issue. Joseph Brenner provided an excellent analysis of the various positions that might be taken with the topic, which he subsumes under the categories of 'It-from-Bit', 'Bit-from-It', and 'It-and-Bit'.

Brenner himself supports the 'Bit-from-It' position of Julian Barbour as stated in his 2011 essay that gave impetus to the present competition. Others such as James Beichler, Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Agung Budiyono, and Olaf Dreyer have presented well-stated arguments that generally align with a 'Bit-from-It' position.

Various renderings of the contrary position, 'It-from-Bit', have received well-reasoned support from Stephen Anastasi, Paul Borrill, Luigi Foschini, Akinbo Ojo, and Jochen Szangolies. An allied category that was not included in Brenner's analysis is 'It-from-Qubit', and valuable explorations of this general position were undertaken by Giacomo D'Ariano, Philip Gibbs, Michel Planat and Armin Shirazi.

The category of 'It-and-Bit' displays a great diversity of approaches which can be seen in the works of Mikalai Birukou, Kevin Knuth, Willard Mittelman, Georgina Parry, and Cristinel Stoica,.

It seems useful to discriminate among the various approaches to 'It-and-Bit' a subcategory that perhaps could be identified as 'meaning circuits', in a sense loosely associated with the phrase by J.A. Wheeler. Essays that reveal aspects of 'meaning circuits' are those of Howard Barnum, Hugh Matlock, Georgina Parry, Armin Shirazi, and in especially that of Alexei Grinbaum.

Proceeding from a phenomenological stance as developed by Husserl, Grinbaum asserts that the choice to be made of either 'It from Bit' or 'Bit from It' can be supplemented by considering 'It from Bit' and 'Bit from It'. To do this, he presents an 'epistemic loop' by which physics and information are cyclically connected, essentially the same 'loop' as that which Wheeler represented with his 'meaning circuit'. Depending on where one 'cuts' the loop, antecedent and precedent conditions are obtained which support an 'It from Bit' interpretation, or a 'Bit from It' interpretation, or, though not mentioned by Grinbaum, even an 'It from Qubit' interpretation. I'll also point out that depending on where the cut is made, it can be seen as a 'Cartesian cut' between res extensa and res cogitans or as a 'Heisenberg cut' between the quantum system and the observer. The implications of this perspective are enormous for the present It/Bit debate! To quote Grinbaum: "The key to understanding the opposition between IT and BIT is in choosing a vantage point from which OR looks as good as AND. Then this opposition becomes unnecessary: the loop view simply dissolves it." Grinbaum then goes on to point out that this epistemologically circular structure "...is not a logical disaster, rather it is a well-documented property of all foundational studies."

However, Grinbaum maintains that it is mandatory to cut the loop; he claims that it is "...a logical necessity: it is logically impossible to describe the loop as a whole within one theory." I will argue that in fact it is vital to preserve the loop as a whole and to revise our expectations of what we wish to accomplish by making the cut. In fact, the ongoing It/Bit debate has been sustained for decades by our inability to recognize the consequences that result from making such a cut. As a result, we have been unable to take up the task of studying the properties inherent in the circularity of the loop. Helpful in this regard would be an examination of the role of relations between various elements and aspects of the loop. To a certain extent the importance of the role of relations has already been well stated in the essays of Kevin Knuth, Carlo Rovelli, Cristinel Stoica, and Jochen Szangolies although without application to aspects that clearly arise from 'circularity'. Gary Miller's discussion of the role of patterns, drawn from various historical precedents in mathematics, philosophy, and psychology, provides the clearest hints of all competition submissions on how the holistic analysis of this essential circular structure might be able to proceed.

In my paper, I outlined Susan Carey's assertion that a 'conceptual leap' is often required in the construction of a new scientific theory. Perhaps moving from a 'linearized' perspective of the structure of a scientific theory to one that is 'circularized' is just one further example of this kind of conceptual change.

Agung - Nice essay. Well written, well argued. I like the principle of local causality, although I can understand some may not. I happen to believe that locality does not have to be sacrificed in order to accept quantum theory.

Kind regards, Paul

Dear Augung,

It is good to know that you have given primary importance to It than Bit very much against the current trend. So it is Bit from It rather than vice versa. You have not simply said this but you have derived it from your fundamental postulates of a statistical model within the realist tradition of classical statistical mechanics. Thus giving mathematical touch to your arguments much in the spirit of current trend in physics to describe physical reality in terms of mathematics. For this you have made use two fundamental assumptions. 1) There is an inherent indeterminism in microscopic scale which is negligible in macroscopic regime. 2) Lagrangian schema based on potentials is more fundamental than `Newtonian schema' based on forces. On the basis of these you have succeeded in deriving S-equation, uncertainty relation and pilot-wave theory; a remarkable feet indeed. You have yet to explain violation of Bell inequality from your theorem which, I hope, you will do in due course. Thanks for writing such an original article with authenticity and deep knowledge of mathematics. Hence I rate it with maximum score.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

Agung,

Though failing to read quite all essays I was pleased to get to yours. Very interesting, and surprisingly one of the very few pointing out that in QM; "there is still no consensus on the meaning of the theory."

It's interesting the more recent conference result found even more disparity than Max Tegmark's original with no interpretation, even Copenhagen, having more than 50% support.

I read your proposition with great interest as the proposed EPR case resolution uses more conventional assumptions than my own, which dispenses with the long used assumption that particles have no structure, which is now appearing inconsistent with optical and particle physics. I think Niels Bohr would have agreed 90 years ago that by now we might be able to 'say' rather more!

Your principles are interesting and slightly different to mine so I was interested in your efficient testing of them. You rely on statistical means, and don't make any 'breakthrough', but I hope you'll be similarly interested in a model which does, using different assumptions. I think 'opinion' differences should have no bearing on scoring quality of essays so am pleased to score yours well. Very well written, presented and argued.

As my own findings are quite radical and different I'd greatly appreciate your critical eye and scientific comment. (I think too many in science just judge by prior 'belief' and opinion, which is unscientific). Your work looks properly objective.

Well done and thank you kindly.

Peter