Dear Basudeba,

Thanks for the comment. There are several points in your essay that are very interesting and perhaps I will discuss over at your side.

On your comment that "information and observer cannot be exchanged" where I stated otherwise, I believe we are referring to two different contexts. In the widely accepted context such as making a measurement, processing or exchanging information, energy transfer or conversation and entropy changes, I agree that indeed information and observer cannot be exchanged. The context in which I stated such an absurd (and probably unheard of) idea where information and observer are interchangeable refer to a state where they are different from our usual composite state (eg. involving different type of interaction and physical constituent) and known physical entities. The use of the word and meaning of information and observer is probably the closest they will be to their usual counterparts, otherwise there are pretty different.

It my essay, it begins with many ideas that are similar to some of the other essays and these ideas take a rather different (and irrational) trajectory from them eventually.

Cheers,

Hon Jia

Dear Hon Jia,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I think we're going next, and in the same direction in the search for truth. Yes, unfortunately, not everyone loves the dialectic of the formation and the generation of new structures. You did well conclude: «When information return to their primordial form (as IOs), they may become new IOs and need not be the same as before. This little bit of changes in the IOs is perhaps the precursor to the birth of a new universe. »I give high marks for your lateral thinking and unconventional ideas. Good luck and respect, Vladimir

    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.

    Thanks Antony. Your essay is a refreshing great read. The use of dimension as pathway for information travel at event horizon is inspiring. A missing part of my essay which I wish to discuss more is about how information, matter and energy translate (travel) and develop (change) over spacetime.

    The ability to extend the use of a well-studied area like Fibonacci Sequence to a new horizon is impressive. Mathematics phenomenons have a sublime beauty in manifesting and explaining observable nature that capture the imagination of many great people. Challenging their hidden mysteries and limits could be rewarding and illuminating. From Pythagoras up until before Bernhard Riemann and Einstein, Pythagorean theorem was taken to imply that space was flat as opposed to curved.

    Cheers,

    Hon Jia

    Dear Vladimir,

    The feeling is mutual. If I may suggest, it will be great to read your essay as a precursor to mine. There are so many ideas and examples that strike a chord, from R. Grosseteste's "...a sensual knowledge is not a knowledge, but a path to it. Because human knowledge is more likely to occur on the relationship of sensual knowledge with understanding" to "Ideal reality objectively exists and it is manifested in fundamental constants and laws, its sustainability" and finally "Ontological structuring of dialectic ...leads to the conclusion that in addition to parametric information units , , one shall introduce a new information unit representing the idea of generating new structures and meanings.."

    I liked the ending paragraph and empathized with the quotes of A. Einstein and J. Wheeler in it.

    Best,

    Hon Jia

    Dear Hon Jia,

    Wow - thanks for your lovely comments - I am very humbled & grateful!

    I would be delighted to discuss more about how information and matter translate over spacetime.

    I was very interested in your Planck speed approach and think it makes good logical sense.

    All the very best,

    Antony

    Thanks for the interest and open mindedness. I am still unlearning and relearning many things, and trying to get slower at plunging to conclusion or domain expertise (if any) quickly and efficiently, which many aptly busy people and scientists seem to have surpassed for good.

    Although the word 'speed' is used, treat it as a state of motion or state of change of location (displacement and perturbation were also used in the essay). If we see reality (Universe) as at only one state at any one 'time' (similar to what other essays described as the quality of being unique, absolute etc.), the location of a real/observable entity is never the same from the one 'before' or 'after'. See such a change as giving rise to the physical properties experienced by other real entities. Put this and apply into the relevant context such as elementary or composite, gravitational or electromagnetic, scalar or non-scalar, particle matter or energy etc.

    When there is an ensemble or amalgamation of particles, their collective state of motion should produce interesting effects, and I am exploring Bose-Einstein condensate, super-fluidity and super-conductivity. Take for example super-conductivity. Could these collective ("synchronise") state of motions (in a localised zone in this case, briefly mentioned as "fixation.." instead of localisation in the essay) at special conditions (usually low temperature etc.) produced pathways/dimensions for the zero resistance effect observed? If state of motion of particles can create pathways (or conversely opening "holes/tunnels" in the normally known pathways), it is probable that particles' state of motion interact at a basic and intrinsic level with the platform for translation or travel of particles.

    On another end imagine a large collective random ("non-synchronise") state of motions from a large amalgamation of particles like the Earth and the immediate physical property that come to mind which is commonly called gravity. Also imagine placing the particles making up the Earth one by one, side by side in a line (it would stretch very long indeed). What 'gravity' would we get?

    As mentioned in the essay, quantum entanglement is a plausible place to look at and I may discuss how it relates to the above concept if it is still interesting.

    Cheers,

    Hon Jia

    Hon,

    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

    Hon Jia,

    This is a very insightful and educated essay, but I have some issues with current cosmology that you seem to take for granted and thus incorporate into your thinking. Rather than try to analyze the entire field, just consider the idea of black holes; They are a gravitational model, of which the prime examples presumably reside at the heart of galaxies. Now obviously the effect of gravity is pervasive all across the radius of a galaxy and so the actual black hole, where the field is too strong for light to escape, is simply where the curve goes completely off the edge. So galaxies are gravity wells, yet what is the mathematical description of all the light radiating away from them, to match the gravitational curvature of mass falling in? You are very astute at thinking contextually, yet this is an idea that is completely out of context. Not only do galaxies both pull mass in and radiate light out, but those black holes shoot enormous jets of cosmic rays extremely far out into intergalactic space. To me, there is a complete cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass and I think we will eventually find this is as perfectly balanced as it appears to be because it is such a natural cycle. Which means there is no need for any of those patches, such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, required to hold together the theory of a universe beginning at a point, based on out of context observations, in the face of much contradictory evidence.

    I think we will eventually find light to be Einstein's cosmological constant; That which balances the contraction of mass. And that it travels as an expanding wave, not a dimensionless point.

    I can continue this, but it would take several pages to cover many of the details and so I'll leave it at that for the moment. I find most people with degrees in physics do not like debating such basic points, so I will let you think this through to see if you consider it worth discussing.

      John,

      Indeed in the attempt to cover too much with too little in the essay, it tends to get out of focus. Black hole is interesting to look at and its a pity we know too little of it for now. Going to basic points is important. Many education systems tend to gross over it for greater efficiency etc.

      Let's treat the whole observable universe as in only one overall state and frame all the while. When the state or frame changes, the state of motion or state of location or relative position (displacement) of all particles changes. There are local state of motion or displacement and global state of displacement which is relativistic (don't treat this as Einstein's relativity, keep it open still). Local state of motions give rise to and interact with energy and light-speed phenomenon , which in turn manifest as contraction of length or mass and dilation of time in the frame of the global state of displacement...

      Hon Jia,

      The concept of relativity has been co-opted by what is an ingenious device to incorporate temporal sequence into a foundational model, rather than having it emerge as a natural effect. We naturally tend to believe what those who come before teach us, yet prior generations were working with smaller knowledge bases, so what seems like a useful patch to a minor problem can become a large obstacle to further progress, if it doesn't conform to the actual reality. Sometimes progress is evolutionary and sometimes it is revolutionary. Given the current situation, we are in need of a revolution.

      John,

      Given the current situation, our best bet is probably in the next generation if transformation of the education system comes in time.

      17 days later

      Dear Hon Jia,

      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 Hon Jia,

      I invite you to comment my essay on my forum and rate it. I gave your essay and your ideas excellent rating 26.06.

      Best regards,

      Vladimir

      Dear Hon Jia,

      Pardon my starting another thread as this matter is unrelated to your essay. Also I don't know whether you are a relationist/substantivalist.

      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.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      Dear Hon Jia

      While I have a different perspective, I read your essay with interest. Nice to see you having a go with such a challenging topic.

      Best wishes

      Stephen Anastasi.

      7 days later

      Dear Hon Jia,

      It certainly is interesting - I'd like to hear more! I'd be happy to exchange emails after the contest.

      best wishes,

      Antony

      Dear Hon Jia,

      Thanks for the comments above - I've only just made it back to your thread, so I've replied above. I've also rated your essay very highly because I think you deserve a higher position for your original approach!

      Best wishes in the contest and in your research,

      Antony

      Dear Hon Jia,

      Anthony Ryan suggested I read your essay and I'm very glad I did in time to rate it. I think it's a beautifully crafted analysis with great value and without trying to 'push' some speculative notion. I agree with Anthony it is worth a much higher score and am very glad to apply same.

      I find I agree all your ten statements, particularly Statement 5; Elementary information can only be observed by the elementary co-dependent observer directly. I find this has hidden meaning, the foundations of which are described in my previous two essays here (both 7th place finishers but not following doctrine or favoured by the judges). You will also find a physical ontological derivation of the 'eternal loop' you describe, which is part of the ontology, described here; Helical CMB anisotropy and the Recycling Model.

      I hope you also have time to read and score mine. It is ambitionus, but Please ignore the too dense abstract. the blog posts so far give a more flattering picture including; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc. It suggests new and more coherent answers to some of the main questions you ask.

      Very well done and thank you for yours. It was an absolute delight to read.

      Peter

      Dear Hon Jia,

      I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

      I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

      You can find the latest version of my essay here:

      http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

      (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

      May the best essays win!

      Kind regards,

      Paul Borrill

      paul at borrill dot com

      Write a Reply...