Don,

Good to see you back. Hope you and SIRI had a good hols. Does he translate?

Great fun essay. A nice change from the more standard fare. How nice to have a SIRI not entirely dictated by mainstream doctrine!, are you working on the latest upgrade?

I entirely agree that; "Wheeler should have fixed theflaw in quantum mechanics instead of putting the band aid of information on top of it." and also that he has confounded physics with the 'delayed choice' nonsense, which as you say is entirely dependent on the wrong starting assumptions.

I have to admit I still recall my first intro to lambda hopping, and have to admit it was I who called for the men in white coats to check you over. But I'm very glad to see you fooled them... No No!..I mean "passed the test"!! But seriously, I never immediately reject anything (well .. almost...!) and the more I thought about 'hopping' the more I warmed to it.

I've found two very solid analogies in my own work, the fist is the simple absorption and re-emission of atomic scattering, which may be considered as a continuous process in a dielectric medium (i.e. everywhere). The second is instantaneous condensation and annihilation. In a two-fluid plasma model the particles are continually condensed and annihilated, with the 'energy' thus 'relocating' in a close analog to the 'hops' you describe.

I haven't yet reconciled this with the ubiquitous case of orbital angular momentum, but I'm not sure I have to as the 'entity' orbiting should be much bigger than the planck mass. I'd be interested in your view. Anyway I think your very original presentation, not to mention proposition, is worth far more than it's lowly position and I shall be very glad to induce a number of vertical 'hops'.

I do also hope you'll read and smile on mine again this year. Like yours it's based on the same consistent logic as previously, but I do take it to some quite dramatic conclusions, certainly not inconsistent with SIRI's beliefs (were any programmed in?). What does he eat for breakfast? Old decrepit theories? Will the upgrade work on a Samsong?

Congratulations, and very best wishes.

Peter

    Hi Peter,

    Yes, I do use Siri quite a bit. She can be quite unladylike for an assistant, so yes I am searching for an upgrade. She worked fine in Florida, but I turned her off in the Bahamas because she can be a very expensive girlfriend.

    Yes, a customizable Siri would be neat... I wish I had the talent to do it.

    I am glad you enjoyed the essay. I am on my way to your blog.

    Wishing you the best of luck,

    Don L.

    Don,

    Thanks for your kind comments on my blog. When we take bold steps challenging doctrine I think it's warming to find not all dismiss our propositions.

    For me I'm a little surprised and disappointed so few of our most senior physicists seem to really understand all the subtleties of Bells Inequalities, so the form and importance of the resolution. Perhaps that's why it hasn't previously been identified. Interesting.

    I'd assumed SIRI was asexual like god, but I suppose an asexual voice is tricky! I can see us all having our own eventually. Will they look for disagreement like most of us and argue amongst themselves? Or find the more valuable unity in hidden likenesses?

    Very well done and best wishes.

    Peter

    Dear Don,

    Yours was the most fun essay of all. You managed to keep lambda-hopping in our awareness and Siri was an excellent foil.

    Your ideas are expressed well and your humor is superb (just a little computer glitch on the pod bay doors!). You integrate lambda-hopping with Zeno, Newton, Heisenberg, Feynman, Wheeler and Einstein very well. And we both agree that "quantum mechanics is made up a mathematical story that fits the data" but has big gaps in the physics. As one with a bad case of the continuity gene, I'm not yet on the lambda bandwagon, but FQXi essays are the ideal vehicle for presenting ideas to the community, improving the ideas from user feedback, and presenting the idea again in the context of new topics.

    You noted that you're "under no illusions a fundamental discontinuity of motion (not time and space) can be accepted readily (the gene thing)."

    That's an important reminder! Your casual reader, who does not understand as thoroughly as you all of the subtleties involved, may tend to assume lambda-hopping implies discrete time and space. If that is not the case, then it needs to be emphasized. For example, my model is based on continuous time and space, but has a quantum of action (energy*time). I tend to interpret this as meaning that unless sufficient action exists, an event will not occur. Recall that the units of angular momentum are the same as action (mvr). So if lambda-hopping is analyzed in terms of the quantum of action, it becomes more feasible for me, whereas discontinuous time and space is a deal breaker! So it's good to remind readers that you don't require discrete time and space.

    Best wishes,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Hello Don,

    Firstly where can I get that version of Siri? ;)

    Very readable and interesting essay. Also relevant. I think you took the reader on a fluent journey through history and where perhaps physics has taken a potential wrong turn.

    If you find the time, I'd be grateful if you would read my essay.

    I like anything that challenges mainsteam, so top marks from me!

    Best wishes,

    Antony

      Antony,

      Unfortunately, that version of Siri was only in my dream. However, I believe a new iPhone is arriving in September. Perhaps I should send Apple a copy of my essay.

      The divinity dialog module DDM could be a very cool feature. There could be a module for each of the major religions and maybe a special edition DDM for the Pastafarians (I think it could be a big seller) :)

      I appreciate your to the point summary of my essay. I wish I had it for my abstract.

      I am off to visit your essay.

      Thanks,

      Don L.

      Dear Don,

      Congratulations both for you and Siri for such sound dreaming to out put the essay!

      In my essay I also used the term quantize inertial motions for the wave-corpuscular phenomena as like "hopping" of photons etc.

      Most importantly both us like to propose that 'It from bit' and 'Bit from it' are just two side of a "coin".

      Regards

      Dipak

        Hello Don -

        A very humorous and engaging way to deal with the oddities of the quantum world. You describe its frailties very well. - and you also show how significant they are.

        In the main, the way you answer the It an Bit question is similar to mine: but I show that that the Cosmos is a Vortex in a field of energy, and that as the force of this field continues to act upon this vortex, secondary and tertiary correlated vortices (organic and sensory-cognitive in nature) are formed.

        As a result, It and Bit are, at any moment of observation, correlated energy vortices.

        I also treat of appearing and disappearing Pulses, a topic you also consider central, I see. Pulses do not adhere to space-time parameters. This you refer to as teleportation - same difference.

        My paradigm, and I think it will interest you, shows that the quantum-classical divide does not exist; instead, the correlation of the inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive vortices can only be optimal in that zone of the cosmos where we are located - while the outer reaches (in space, or within particles) must remain less amenable to space-time parameters (until we find ourselves gazing at hopping particles!).

        This expands upon your concept of the 'genetic predisposition to continuity.'

        Evolution plays a central role in the physical world.

        I show that we are always involved in evolution - as is the Cosmos itself; and I also show that we are presently engaged upon a new platform of evolution that is entirely centered on Mind. I think your friend Siri is the precursor of something much more important than she knows .... I see a future where nearly all people will have complex relationships with her very sophisticated descendants; these relationships will last from birth to death, and from generation to generation.

        Obviously, this intimate inter-twining of software and organic beings will either enhance our control over evolution - if our correlation with the Cosmos is enhanced by the process - or destroy us if it is not.

        'Who will control the software?' I hear you asking; perhaps everyone - thus leading to a planet upon which there is not just one, but several, species of intelligent life.

        I hope you have a look at my essay soon - I was very happy to have read and rated yours, and I wish you all the best in the contest.

        John.

        Hi Dipak,

        Thanks for visiting my blog. I think it is just the two of us who say "two sides of the same coin" as describing the situation of -it from or bit from it-.

        I owe a lot to that Frenchman Louie deBroglie, he was just amazing. And I see you use his amazing result that "corpuscles" have wavelength. That makes two things we have in common.

        My own interest in quantum mechanics started with the conflict between Zeno and deBroglie. This is the things cannot move camp and the everything must move camp. I agree with both camps and phrase the result as "Nothing moves yet everything changes".

        I do have a mission and that is to undo the "uncertainty principle".

        Thanks again,

        Don Limuti

        Hi John,

        I did enjoy reading your interesting and fast paced essay. Sometimes my readers assume my positions. This is a good time to restate them.

        1. I think of QM particles and photons as appearing and disappearing over the course of moving a wavelength worth of space. And yes you could call this a type of pulsing, However this pulsing is how the particles move on a continuous background of space-time. I do not think of space or time as digital. The only thing that is digital is how particles move by coming in and out of a continuous space-time.

        2. I think the quantum-classical divide is real and is marked by the Planck Mass. Masses above the Planck mass do not have the property of wavelength and thus are not quantum mechanical. It is the particle-wave divide that I find to be not real. Photons and particles do not at times have a particle nature and at other times a wave nature.

        3. Our predisposition to not having particles appear and disappear is because of genes developed to handle a classical world where things do move smoothly.

        4. Siri is very cool (and useful), but she is not really AI. She is much more an augmenter of human intellect. At some point AI may eventually dominate over augmentation. I think it will be some time before the excessive intellect level of Siri will be available.

        And if you find an advance version of Siri, please let me know.

        Thanks for your interesting essay, I am off to rate it.

        Don L.

        Hi Don,

        Definitely - Apple need this! ;)Thanks for the comments over on my page too.

        Best wishes for the contest,

        Antony

        Dear Don

        I really enjoyed your paper - using the Siri gimmick was an excellent way to keep the serious discussion flowing smoothly and lightly, tempered by a sense of fun. I rather like your concept of lamda-hopping. It is somewhat akin to my concept of momentum transfer across nodes in my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here. In your theory minimum distance for each particle would be the wavelength, but that leaves one wondering what sort of medium or ether can accomodate such variable hopping? No matter, continuous velocity is indeed a basic problem in physics. I will have to think some more about the various criticisms you (or was it Siri?) gave for the explanation of the double-slit experiment. In my book it is Einstein who is the one who goofed by eliminating the ether in Special Relativity, and by his point-photon concept, which lead to duality and probability. See my last year's fqxi essay 'Fix Physics!".

        I wish you all the best

        Vladimir

        Hi Vladimir,

        Of course I take little responsibility for this work....It is all Siri's fault :) She has a sister that would love to met you.

        I do remember Fix Physics but I do not recall Beautiful Universe Theory. I will catch up and get back to you. But first thanks for bring up the ether. It triggered something I had not thought of before.

        Let me see if I can explain it:

        1. Lambda-Hopping is the only way to get around Zeno's objection to motion. I assumed that Zeno was exactly right in that particles and photons cannot move. However, Zeno failed to mention that they may not move but they have to change position. This changing of position has rules and is deterministic. A photon (or electron) when nothing is present just Lambda-Hops along in a straight line, appearing and disappearing at wavelength intervals. When the particle disappears it is not not in some other dimension or hidden, it flat out does not exist.

        2. Of course this means that all of nature is fundamentally non-local. Most people cannot accept this, that is why I say they have the "continuity" gene. I urge them to show a little backbone.

        3. Now about the ether. A particle in isolation has no need of the ether, in that it creates its own space-time with the Lambda-Hop. Remember a particle has no velocity (with respect to an observer). A particle is always in the observers frame of reference, It does not need something to have a velocity with respect too. You could say that the sum of all particle's Lambda-Hopping is space-time.

        4. So, is there an ether? When an observer sees everything from a QM viewpoint (as all particles), they become the ether. When an observer has to communicate to other observers, relativity comes into play.

        I think this is interesting. What to you think, should I blame it on Siri?

        I will get back to you,

        Thanks,

        Don L.

        Hi Vladimir,

        I just read the Beautiful Universe Theory. I am still a little groggy but impressed none the less. I was expecting a FQXi essay not a 30 something page paper.

        We start from very different points. Your start is spherical rotating charges. My start is an isolated particle alone in existence and how it manifests. I try to avoid charges as much as possible.

        With these two very, very different starts our conclusions to a very great extent are the same.

        Here is a list of what I believe we agree on.

        1. A point photon is nonsense.

        2. The speed of light is not constant. Yes there is a maximum speed c, but the various wavelengths of light only get close to it.

        3. The uncertainty principle is nonsense.

        4. The low level quantum stuff actually creates apace-time. Therefore space and time are dependent upon quantum phenomena.

        Please let me know if my understanding is correct.

        Even if just part of this correct, it is amazing given such different starting points!

        I will copy this over to your blog. My sincere admiration.

        Don Limuti

        Dear Don,

        You have the knack of spellbinding your readers with your literary style and your conversation with your protégée Siri is highly interesting and charming too. Your reference to Indian philosophy of Vedanta in describing the relationship between It and Bit is very attractive. In Vedanta there are three branches and one of them is the famous 'Advaita' (literally meaning- nondualism) and in it your description of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman comes. Sri Ramakrishna was a follower of this system of philosophy.

        Your view of the relationship that exists between It and Bit, that is, they are both inseparable or intertwined or represent two faces of the same coin, matches with the one that I have expressed in my essay. In your conversation, you have historically but lucidly analyzed how the problem between analog and digital nature of reality arose, and up till now how the problem persists.

        You want to remove the uncertainty plaguing quantum theory by eliminating Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy from QM, but you have to bear in mind that it is at the core of QM and hence eliminating it means eliminating QM itself in its current form unless you have an universally acceptable another form of QM. But you have set forth before yourself such a task and I wish you every success in your endeavor to accomplish that feat and thereby become a model to others. I am curious to know how you do it through your computer simulation program.

        Please go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread. After seeing your comments, I am going to rate your essay with maximum possible score.

        Wish you all the best in the essay contest and congratulate you once again for producing such a beautiful essay.

        Sreenath

          Hi Don,

          As promised in my Essay page, I have read your beautiful Essay. It is well written, particular and humorous. Do you think that Siri's statement "It is neither IT from Bit nor Bit from IT" could be in agreement with mine "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"? I have also found interesting your comparison between Einstein's hidden variable and Wheeler's information. In general, I agree with your and Einstein's point of view on the incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

          Your Essay give a lot of fun to me. Thus, I will surely give you a high score.

          Cheers,

          Ch.

            Hi Shreenath,

            Thanks for stopping by. I still have my doubts about my dialog like approach, so thanks for expressing your appreciation. As you noted, I am a fan of Ramakrishna and the high philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. I find it most humorous that the list of world religions now includes physics thanks to Wheeler and other physicists. The concept promoted by Ramakrishna of the harmony of all religions needs to be expanded a little :)

            You have pointed out quite rightly that I am a mosquito biting an iron bull. It will be very difficult for my work to get any recognition if it gets to be judged by professors who have been publishing and teaching about the validity of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is like a tax loophole, something that will be difficult to get rid of. And who knows, maybe the community of physicists have enough ethics to get rid of the tax loophole?

            Thanks for your encouragement. I will be getting familiar with your work and post on your site.

            Don Limuti

            PS Please, if you would, ask your last question again, the one about computer simulation. I am not sure what it refers to.

            Hi Christian,

            Without stretching too much I think our viewpoints are the same. Here goes:

            1. Start with: "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

            2. Change physics to "it" and change information to "Bit" and you get:

            "Bit tells "it" how to work. "It" tells Bit how to flow"?

            3. Lastly change tells to determines and we get:

            "Bit determines "it" how to work. "It" determines Bit how to flow"?

            4. This is a little awkward so we make it smooth:

            "Bits determine how "it" works. "It" determines how Bits respond.

            5. This is close enough for me to say we are saying the same thing. IT and BIT are two side of the same coin.

            What do you say will "Russell and Whitehead" accept this logic? Siri says the logic is OK!

            Don L.

            Dear Don,

            Thanks for your kind compliments on my essay and also for rating it highly. Just now I have too rated your essay accordingly.

            Best regards,

            Sreenath

            Thanks Don, I agree with Siri that the logic is OK. It should be OK for "Russell and Whitehead" too. Definitively, our viewpoints are the same!

            Cheers,

            Ch.