Essay Abstract

The basic concepts and numerical relations of theoretical particle physics, including quantum mechanics and Poincaré invariance, the electromagnetic and the gravitational interaction, the leptonic mass spectrum and the mass of the proton, can be derived, without reference to first principles, from intrinsic properties of the simplest elements of information, represented by binary information. What we comprehend as physical reality is, therefore, a reflection of mathematically determined logical structures of information.

Author Bio

I studied Physics and Mathematics at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Then I spent four years at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich and completed a PhD degree in Physics at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen. In the following twenty years I held positions in R&D in the optical industry. For another seventeen years I worked as a freelance software developer. My research interests are algebraic structures in particle physics and foundational issues of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Doctor Smilga,

I found your essay to be exceptionally informative. Your meticulous explanation of binary structure will I am sure be found to be truly significant and will have to be adopted for all future physical investigations into information theory and practice.

    Mr. Fisher,

    thank you very much for your kind remarks about my essay.

    Hi Walter,

    I am interested in conformal gravity so I have downloaded your "Emergence of Space-Time and Gravitation (2013) J. Mod. Phys., 4, in press. arXiv:1111.4311)". It needs time to examine but I am looking for that approach. With conformal gravity I have got acquainted mainly from Mannheim's publications.

    The direction seems to be correct. In general it is looking for a proper metric as Einstein's one and FLRW have failed in some scale ranges. However this approach touches only big distance-scale phenomenon. I have proposed to apply that approach also to all scales to find out a scale invariant universal metric. It could possibly describe particles and weak/strong/electromagnetic forces and gravity would be emergent. The job is not easy so I have proposed an experiment to be sure this is not a huge waste of time.

    Details in references to my essay.

    Best regards

    Hi Walter,

    I do not agree that "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature." I also disagree that, according to Bohr's dictum, "the question of 'how Nature is' cannot be answered by the methods of physics".

    I am of the school that still clings to the hopes of Newton and Einstein that we can derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by deduction

    Aside this, a good essay from the Bohr perspective of looking at reality. You are welcome to criticize and disagree also with my essay,if you can state good reasons for doing so.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

      Dear Hoang,

      I regret that you have problems reading my essay.

      This essay is about the informational foundations of particle physics, so unfortunately some familiarity with mathematical methods of quantum mechanics is required. I sketch how fundamental properties of theoretical particle physics can be derived from intrinsic structures of binary information.

      By comparing the obtained numerical values with empirical data I come to the conclusion that what we see in the experiments of particle physics reflects structures inherent to information rather to "nature".

      Regards,

      Walter

      Dear Akinbo,

      Thank you for your interest. It seems that we went to the same school: It is also my hope "that we can derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by deduction."

      However, talking about Nature at first requires a common understanding of the definition of "Nature". Bohr makes a clear distinction between "Nature" and "what we can say about Nature." I think this distinction is wise and necessary for the following reasons. In the experiments of particle physics we measure some numbers (masses, charges , transition amplitudes...). The task of theoretical particle physics is to "explain" how these numbers come about and how they are related to each other. "Numbers" belong to the category of "what we can say about Nature," not to "Nature". Interrelations between numbers deduced from representative sets of these numbers, called "theories", may be able to model some aspects of Nature, but, again, they are not "Nature."

      In my essay I argue that what we see in the experiments of particle physics is the reflection of structures inherent to binary information. So "what we can say about Nature" (by making experiments) does primarily not even refer to "Nature" (whatever this word means) but to logical structures inherent in binary information.

      Of course, we may give these logical structures, together with their numerical values that they show in certain experiments, the name "Nature". But then this is merely a definition.

      Regards,

      Walter

      Correction:

      ...inherent to information rather than to "nature".

      Hello, Walter,

      Congratulations on a very expert exposition of the It-from-Bit position. Now, I disagree with this position, for the reasons that you can see in my essay, but there is one reference you make, to the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP), that may be a terrain for a most interesting discussion. You correctly interpret the PEP in support of your position, BUT, what follows the PEP in reality are not abstract entities, but real electrons and some other leptons. In my view, thereis here the basis for the emergence of complex real processes including /non/-digital information. I look forward to your comments.

      Best regards,

      Joseph Brenner

        Hello Joseph,

        Thank you for reading my essay and for your interesting remark "... BUT, what follows the PEP in reality are not abstract entities, but real electrons ...", which gets right to the core of my essay.

        As you have noticed, my position is strongly influenced by Bohr's statement: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."

        I understand Bohr's statement in the sense that physics concerns "information about real electrons" rather than "real electrons" themselves. This information is mathematically described by Dirac spinors. As I have shown in my essay, by referring O'Hara's paper, Dirac spinors - in your words "abstract entities" - follow the PEP.

        This means that the information about a "real electron" that is obtained from a physical experiment will show the PEP, not because the "real electron" follows PEP, but because PEP is a property of the informational structure that represents an electron. The same applies to the other properties of the electron, as shown in my essay. Therefore, what we commonly understand as the properties of "the electron" are in fact inherent properties of the informational structure that is used to describe our knowledge about an electron. In line with Bohr's statement, I have completely eliminated the notion of the "real electron" from the physical description of the electron.

        In fact, I have no idea what a "real electron" is. All what I am concerned with is the "information about an electron" (and other particles) that can be extracted from a physical experiment.

        Furthermore, I cannot see how we ever will be able to access the properties of "real electrons", because all structural data that describe an electron (mass, charge, spin, interaction) are already inherent in an informational structure that is derived by purely mathematical means from the basic (abstract) structures of binary information. An instance of this structure is generated whenever we "observe" an electron. In other words, "real electrons" are not supported by the experiment; their existence can neither be verified nor falsified. Therefore, worrying about "real electrons" means a waste of intellectual resources - at least within the context of theoretical physics. I think, Wheeler had something similar in mind when he coined the phrase "It from Bit."

        I should add some words in favor of "Bit from It". (Due to lack of space you will not find this in my essay.) Theoretical physics makes sense only in connection with data from experimental physics. To crosscheck the validity of physical theories a comparison with experimental data (= "Bit from It") is indispensable. (Apologists of string theories may not agree with me).

        Best regards,

        Walter

        Walter,

        You do lay out the argument quite clearly that information is fundamentally binary, but I'm not quite sure you make the argument that information is fundamental.

        Are you sure there is not also a dichotomy of energy and information? Medium and message?

        Information theory doesn't care what the medium is, but it still needs one, otherwise it's pure abstraction and that mathematically, doesn't exist. How is a zero dimensional point any more real than a zero dimensional apple? You may have distilled away any real electrons from the theory, but have you distilled them away from the paper its written on?

          John,

          There seems to be a great deal of confusion within this contest over "real things" and "information about real things," over "information" and "informational structures," and over "real world" and "physical theories."

          It is the privilege of theoretical physicists to work with the information that they get from the experimental physicists. On the one hand, this means simply a division of work, depending on individual skills. (There are physicists who are better in theoretical work and others who are better in experimental work.) On the other hand, this resembles the strict separation of legislative organs and jurisdiction. This separation (hopefully) ensures that the experimentalists provide reliable data that are unbiased by theoretical prejudice, and that the work of the theorists can be checked against reliable data.

          The task of a theoretical physicist is to analyze the experimental data and try to find out, whether there are some characteristic structures and interrelations that would allow predicting the outcome of future similar experiments. If he succeeds, he casts his finding into a mathematically form, which is called a "theory". The contents of the theory are not the data (=information), but the structures and interrelations found in the data (=informational structures).

          The theory "explains" the data, but certainly does not explain the "real world". Although the successful theorist will have the feeling of understanding the world a little bit better, he will not claim that he has found the world formula. Such claims are made only by journalists.

          The more data of different fields are covered by a theory the more "fundamental" the theory is regarded as. Since physical theories describe structures of information, it is quite natural to ask: Is there an ultimate informational structure valid for all physical theories, just as on a computer all data can ultimately be represented by Bits and Bytes?

          Therefore, within the context of physical theories, the question is not: Is information fundamental? In this context, there is no question that information is fundamental, because physical theories are about information and nothing else.

          In the context of Wheeler's It-from-Bit, the key question is not: Is matter more fundamental than information? (This is like asking: Are apples more fundamental than numbers?) The question is rather: Can all information about matter be built up from the same atoms of information. And if so, what are these atoms and how can they mathematically be described?

          I hope this answers your question about "dichotomy of energy and information."

          Concerning your remarks about "information and medium:" Do you really mean that mathematics does not exist, because it is abstract? The mathematical structures of information are indeed abstract and not bound to a medium. This is why they can be used as the basis of a theory that does not depend on the kind of paper on which it is written. (The mathematical rule for the multiplication of two numbers remains valid, when you burn the paper on which you have written 6 x 4 = 24.)

          Concerning "distilled away any real electrons:" No, there is no need to distil away real electrons. They are simply not part of the theory. The theory is about "information about electrons", not about "real electrons". The experimental physicist may study real electrons, not the theorist.

          Walter

          Walter,

          Thank you very much for being so clear spoken and forthright. I am certainly one of those observers on the outside of the process and I do appreciate that what we can elicit from nature is just information, but I have come to think it has created some mental boxes that are creating impediments to understanding. In my current entry, one of the points I make is that information is inherently static, while energy is inherently dynamic, but this leads to what I feel is a more basic misunderstanding, that goes to a previous contestquestioning the foundations. Knowledge arises from sequential ordering, be it cause and effect, or simply narrative. It is the serial processor of our left brain that is the basis of logic and this arises from the sequencing of time. Physics enshrines this sequencing by using measures of duration as a fundamental parameter. What I think gets overlooked is that the underlaying reality is not that the point of the present moves along this vector from past to future, but that action causes change, that turns future into past. To wit, the earth isn't traveling/existing along some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that the rotation of the earth causes tomorrow to become yesterday. It is in many ways similar to the misunderstanding that led to epicycles. In that we observe the sun moving across the sky from east to west and there certainly doesn't seem anything more physically obvious, yet we eventually came to understand it was an effect of the earth moving west to east and all those celestial mechanisms proposed to explain the actions of the heavens proved unnecessary. Now we have spacetime to explain, among other things, why clocks run at different rates. Yet as a measure of particular action, there is no mystery why clocks run at different rates. As a vector, duration doesn't actually transcend the present, but is the state of the present between the occurrence of events. If time were really a vector from past to future, one would think the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true, as it ages quicker, it moves into the past more rapidly. As for the QM paradox of multiworlds, it is not the movement from a determined past into a probabilistic future, but the collapse of probability leading to actuality. You might say time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. Vector and scalar of activity.

          The problem for theory is since this means time is an effect of action, similar to temperature, this means spacetime is simply a correlation of measures of duration and distance, using the speed of light as the medium, not a causal "fabric." Thus no basis for wormholes, blocktime, or expanding universes. We could as well use ideal gas laws to construct a volumetemperature and say space expands when we heat it up and vice versa.

          Safe to say, no one professionally employed in physics is willing to seriously consider this point. When we get into discussions of cosmology and an expanding universe, I also point out it makes a contradictory assumption, in that saying space expands, it still maintains a constant speed of light. Einstein said space is what you measure with a ruler and the cosmic ruler is lightyears, so if space expands, presumably the ruler would as well, but that's not part of the theory.

          Now this is a bit of a detour around what is our point of discussion, whether there exists a platonic realm of information that functionally exists independent of any medium, but I just want to make a point about how our assumptions about information are not exactly physically fundamental.

          I would have to argue that if nothing physically exists, neither do any mathematical principles. No medium, no message.

          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.

            5 days later

            Dear Satyavarapu,

            I am certainly not able to produce material (matter) from thinking. My essay concerns information about matter, and I think you will agree with me that information is different from matter.

            Walter

            Walter,

            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

            Walter,

            I like your essay. I very much like the ideas of volume factors as it relates to groups. My only concern is how one responds to critics who would argue such things are numerical coincidence?

            I dug into some of the reference material, and liked this statement:

            "Gravitation is not provided by coupling " to an external field." Rather it is the outcome of correlations within the quantum mechanical state-space of matter resulting from the condition of irreducibility. These correlations lead to the equations of classical conformal gravity. In short, gravitation is a quantum mechanical property of matter.

            Physical space-time turns out to be just another quantum mechanical property of matter. Its geometry in the large is determined by the equations of conformal gravity."

            But does gravity wave? The argument is that anything that waves has a particle description. Since there is indirect evidence of gravitational waves as measured by energy loss from binary neutron stars, the evidence points to the existence of gravitons. Can those be explained in the context of volume ratios?

            Apologies in advance if I am overthinking this, your essay is one of the best in the contest.

              Harlan,

              Thank you for your interest in my work and for your comments.

              You express your concern that some critics may consider the numerical values that I presented as pure coincidences without any physical meaning. Such objections are in fact very popular because they do not require any intellectual effort by the critics. Of course we know about numerous attempts to "explain" e.g. the fine structure constant by combinations of some "magic numbers". However, when a theoretical number is derived from a solid physical basis, then an agreement with the corresponding empirical number does tell a lot about the validity of the theory.

              I have presented some numerical results, because it has always been good practice to check a physical theory by comparing its predictions with experimentally data. Because my treatment of binary information allows the calculation of mass relations, I have presented the mass relations for some typical configurations. These values agree with the relation of electron and proton mass and the lepton spectrum, respectively. This proves that, in this respect, the theory is compatible with the experiment. This is what I intended to demonstrate in my essay. (In addition, I showed the compatibility with quantum mechanics, Poincaré invariance, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions.)

              Furthermore, within the "physics of binary information", "mass" is not a property of "Nature" but a property of the informational structure that describes e.g. an electron. Therefore, by measuring the mass of an electron we observe a mathematically well determined property of the informational structure. So the agreement between theoretical and empirical mass is not an accidental match but a triviality, because both numerical values refer to one and the same property of information.

              On your questions about gravity waves and gravitons: To have gravity waves you do not need gravitons, because gravity waves result from the classical equations of gravitation. Nevertheless, in my approach there are gravitons. They are caused by the same mechanism that is also responsible for photons in quantum electrodynamics. Both, photons and gravitons refer to the quanta that are "exchanged" when an entangled state of an irreducible two-particle representation is formed, or to put it another way, they are properties of irreducible two-particle states.

              Walter

              Dear Walter,

              I like what you have done here, particularly around the remarkably close mass to the proton. This along with the leptons reminds me of the Koide formula and my work on the Koide formula giving a result for the proton, neutron and electron of 1/2 to 0.49999994. Another close relationship with regard to mass. This is based around geometry of simplexes and the Fibonacci sequence - something which resulted in my essay. So I hope you have time to read it.

              I've found 3-4 others who approach reality in this general way, which is quite encouraging.

              Nice work - well done!

              Antony

              5 days later

              Hi Walter,

              Excellent essay, a very clear and focused presentation with an interesting result.

              I wonder if you are familiar with the work of Tony Smith. He uses the language of Geometric Algebra to derive properties for particles from internal symmetry states.

              Also, you might be interested in a recent paper by Nassim Haramein, wherein he derives what he calls the "holographic mass" of the proton through purely geometric means.

              While I take a much higher level approach in my Software Cosmos essay, I come to the same conclusion (It fom Bit) and along the way encounter similar geometric structures.

              Hugh

                7 days later

                Hi Hugh,

                Thank you for reading my essay and for your positive comment.

                Yes, I am familiar with Tony Smith's work. His work follows Wyler's findings of the formula for alpha and the ratio of electron and proton mass. This kind of mathematics can provide valuable hints in revealing the physics behind the geometry.

                I am not familiar with Haramein's work. He seems to derive the proton mass not from geometry but from the gravitational constant and the "electromagnetic proton radius". A similar relation has already been known for a long time for the ratio between the "radius of the universe", the "classical electron radius", and the Schwarzschild radius of the electron.

                I have not yet read your essay, but I will certainly do so.

                Regards,

                Walter

                Walter

                Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

                (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

                said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

                I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

                The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

                Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

                Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

                I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

                Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

                Good luck and good cheers!

                Than Tin

                Hello Walter,

                Just re-read your essay. Based on your perspective of things

                1) Would you consider existence/non-existence binary elements as you call it?

                2) I sense from your essay that you may hold a relational view of space.

                Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

                NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

                You can check and rate my essay if you have not done so.

                Best regards,

                Akinbo

                  Hello Akinbo,

                  what I call binary elements are mathematical structures used to describe information about nature. They exist as mathematical objects in the same sense as the sum of two numbers "exists".

                  Yes, I definitely hold a relational view of space. Space is a property of the desciptive language that I use to describe information about nature.

                  Do you mean the centripetal (gravitational) force between two bodies? On the particle level, this is in my understanding neither a property of spacetime, nor of distant sub-atomic particles, but a property of the (quantum mechanical) two-particle state.

                  Best regards,

                  Walter

                  Walter

                  Have you read my other contest essay?

                  http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

                  Yuri

                    Yuri,

                    Yes, I have read your essay, but I cannot commend it, because, to be honest, I do not understand the point you are making.

                    Walter

                    Dear Walter,

                    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 Walter,

                      I found your essay most informative and concise in your approach to the topic. In your conclusion you mentioned that, "... physical reality is, therefore, nothing other than a reflection of some predetermined informational structures" which the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has indeed validated. Although you have a different approach to the essay topic than I do, I found your conclusion inspiring and most worthy of merit.

                      Best wishes,

                      Manuel

                        Dear Walter,

                        You have viewed in your essay, electro-magnetism, gravitation, masses of elementary particles, etc. from the physics of 'binary information' as basic. So it is no wonder when you say "physical reality is a reflection of mathematically determined logical structures of information". That is 'information' is at the core of physics. You have good knowledge of mathematics of binary information and it becomes evident as one goes through various relations you have derived in your paper. The derivation of the masses of elementary particles is very interesting. Naturally you have given primary importance to Bit over It and it becomes evident when you say "theoretical physics has to be understood as a discipline that deals with the structure of information". So physical reality is nothing but "a reflection of some predetermined informational structures that we take advantage of, in order to collect and categorize information about the physical world". But here you have not defined what these 'some predetermined informational structures' are. It is very essential to know what these are. So make this point clear. I welcome for writing such an original and innovative article.

                        Best wishes,

                        Sreenath

                        Dear Manuel,

                        Thank you for reading my manuscript and for your friendly comment. I am glad that you agree with my understanding of physical reality. I promise to read your essay soon.

                        Best wishes,

                        Walter

                        Dear Sreenath,

                        The "predetermined informational structures" that I am talking about are, first of all, Bits (Equation 1), then their quantum mechanical description by two-component spinors (Equation 5), then space-time with its Poincaré symmetry as expressed by the constant Equation 15, then Dirac spinors in energy-momenmtum space as described by Dirac's equation (23), and also more complex structures as given by Equation 26 and by the lepton spectrum (Equation 33). I also refer to electromagnetic and gravitational interaction: In two other papers I have shown that the structures of these interactions can be understood as direct consequences of the quantum mechanical description in connection with Poincaré invariance.

                        I hope, I have satisfactorily answered your question.

                        Best wishes,

                        Walter

                        Hi Walter,

                        We corresponded on your essay June 21. If you would be reading my essay, read the JUDGEMENT in the blog in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. In that judgement points and monads turnout to be the possible bits. Thanks.

                        Akinbo

                        *Being a professional physicist you may be able to find grounds for appealing that judgement! :)

                        Dear Walter Smilga:

                        I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

                        But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

                        I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

                        I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

                        Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

                        I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

                        With my best whishes

                        Héctor

                        Dear Walter,

                        My detailed post to you was one of those lost in the server switch. Brendan says it may return, but I think he may have ignored the need to define a set-specific frame of reference!

                        I think your essay and points are very important (I intend to add many above shortly!) and is consistent with mine, but that the importance has been missed. In particular I agree we must always; "define a set-specific frame of reference." and recognise (which QM denies) a; "rich internal structure",

                        I noticed you asked Joseph Brenner; "Can we find an universal logical principle that "explains" all kinds of information about the physical world?" I think I show in my essay that we can. I've also just now, elsewhere, physically derived the LT direct from an underlying EM ('QM') mechanism."

                        However I wish to discuss your bottom line conclusion, perhaps after you've read my essay when I'm sure we'll find agreement on significant points.

                        Best wishes

                        Peter

                        PS; Ref Bohr. If we can find out and understand more can we not then also 'say' more!?

                        Dear Walter Smilga:

                        I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

                        But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

                        I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

                        I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

                        Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

                        I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

                        With my best whishes

                        Héctor

                          Dear Héctor,

                          Thank you very much for your comment and the summery of your essay.

                          I fully agree with you that physicists can create marvelous things from the concept of "motion". They have done so since the days of Isaac Newton.

                          Newton's mechanics can in fact be considered as a theory of motion. It is neither a theory of space nor of time. But to formulate the laws of motion some mathematical terms like velocity or momentum are required, and to attach numerical values to velocities and momenta physicists have introduced coordinate systems, consisting of three "space" coordinates and a single "time" coordinate. Then the velocity of a body can mathematically be expressed as the derivative of its position with respect to the time coordinate. So, in theoretical physics, "space" and "time" are nothing other than auxiliary parameters and there cannot be mysteries about well-defined parameters. This applies, in principle, also to quantum mechanics, special and general relativity.

                          Mysteries about time have been created mostly by poets, philosophers, and, unfortunately, also by string theorists or, more generally, by those physicists who believe that space and time must be "quantized" at Planck scales. (For me the greatest mystery about string theory is why still so many of our best physicists believe that this "theory" has anything in common with physics.)

                          In your essay you made a reference to Barbour: In his award winning essay "The Nature of Time" he gave a convincing and very clear explanation of how celestial motion and time are related.

                          Best wishes,

                          Walter

                          Dear Walter Smilga:

                          When you read the essay, is a pity but you miss the most important part of it, especially for theoretical physicists: a)When using a clock is better to know what you are measuring with it, instead of not knowing it. b) that I describe an experimental demonstration with centuries old proved facts, that with the clock we are measuring "motion" and no the so called "time". c) The difference in physics between using "time" and using "motion" instead, is that "motion" has a physical existence as a quality or property of every physical thing and as such can relate to every physical existing thing, affecting and being affected by it. With the so called "time" you only can measure durations of events, but you can't relate it to any element because you don't know anything about it, its characteristics. What we are measuring with the clock? Is the right question to ask, to find out and prove that the so called "time" is "motion" etc.

                          With my best whishes

                          Héctor

                            Walter,

                            That is a very interesting exposition of what emerges from binary relationships. Could it be though, that description and structure alone overlooks an essential medium?

                            My view is that the concepts of energy and information constitute a fundamental dichotomy. In that information defines energy and energy manifests information. This would still come close to your view that information is all that we can "know," since it is the defining structure. Yet we still have to account for the necessary reality that energy is conserved, so in order to create new information, old information is erased/written over. This process of creating and erasing information is what we experience as the "arrow of time." It is not a vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past. The earth doesn't travel a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

                            If time were a vector from past to future, you would think the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. Since it ages/burns quicker, it fades into the past more rapidly.

                            Regards,

                            John Merryman

                              • [deleted]

                              • Post #41

                              Dear Héctor,

                              I think I have not missed "the most important part" you essay. On the contrary, I understand very well what you mean and I do agree with you that "motion" is more "fundamental" than "time". Therefore, I have tried to explain the difference between "motion" and "time" from a physicist's point of view.

                              I have argued that classical mechanics is in fact a theory of "motion" and that, to mathematically describe "motion", astronomers and physicists use a coordinate system, called space-time. To measure a motion in space-time, you must be able to measure two positions and the time that has elapsed between the two position measurements. You may use a ruler and a clock. The ruler does not measure positions, but it measures distances. With three measurements of the distance from three different base points you can determine a position. With the clock you can measure the elapsed time between two position measurements. However, the clock does not measure "motion", it measures a time interval. Only if you combine two position measurements and a time measurement you can claim that you have measured "motion".

                              This is how physicists describe and measure "motion" and the validity of this description has been experimentally proven for several centuries. Astronomical measurements of celestial motions, by the way, are the most accurate measurements at all. As a physicist I do not see any need to change this method of describing motion. If you still feel uneasy with this method, feel free to propose another method, but then you have to prove that your method is at least equivalent to the established one.

                              Concerning your remarks a) to c): a) I can assure you that, when an experimental physicist is using a clock, he does know what he is doing. b) No, clocks are measuring time intervals, not motion (cf. above). c) The laws of classical mechanics have been laws of motion for centuries: They are not "laws of time". So you are "preaching to the converted".

                              I hope this helps to clarify the difference between "time" and "motion" from a physicist's point of view.

                              Best wishes,

                              Walter

                              John,

                              thank you for reading my essay and for your positive comments.

                              I think I understand what you mean by "overlooking an essential medium". Let me formulate it this way: My essay is about informational structures. These structures describe what we can know, in other words, they describe the possible outcomes of experiments. Heisenberg made a distinction between "potentials" and "actualities" (cited in Nick Herbert: Quantum Reality). What the informational structures describe are at first the "potentials". By a measurement, one state of the potential states is selected: thereby this state becomes "physical reality". In this sense informational structures, in fact, describe both: the possible states and the state that is selected in an experiment. The latter describes "reality" or, in your words, "energy".

                              Conservation of energy is a consequence of Poincaré symmetry. Therefore, Poincaré invariant structures ensure conservation of energy by definition. (The possible states that they describe are only such states that are compatible with conservation of energy.) Also the properties of time are exhaustively dealed with by Poincaré invariance.

                              Best regards,

                              Walter