It from Qubit by Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano

Mauro,

I've reposted this reply to you from Bill McHarris's blog.

No 'changing meanings'. Theorems are indeed theorems, but they're all included in the greater 'theorem' that all science is provisional and no 'absolute' proof of anything exists. Bell uses assumptions just as all theorems do. Even the most solid foundational 'Laws' of Physics can be violated. Look what happens to Snell's Law at kinetic reverse refraction - the nonlinear 'Fraunhofer refraction' appears instead!

The measurements are detector angles and 'positions' along the x axis of a cosine curve distribution between 0 an 180 degrees. Consider my torii as entangled particles translating along the polar axis with opposite spins. They meet detectors as 'planes' A and B tilted at varying angles (or tilting donuts if you prefer!). 'Detection' is of the interaction point at A and B, which is say in the top half ('up') or bottom half ('down').

We now have another 'dimension' that Bell did not assume existed. We can easily show that when A and B are parallel the results are opposite, and when anti parallel the results are identical. But half way between, when A or B are vertical the donuts hit face on so the result up/down is at maximum uncertainty! But over many samples it is of course ~50%.

Now the killer; When intersecting at 90 degrees, tilting the detector say 5 degrees will have virtually no effect on the 'position', but when face to face, a 5 degree tilt angle has a major positional effect! So 30 and 60 degrees give results of 75% and 25%. This is Malus' Law in action, and reproduces the predictions of SR at EACH detector (just as von Neumann proposed) as well as when correlated between the two.

All this is as published in my essay and expanded in the Blog. Aspect did find this "orbital asymmetry", but with no theory to fit it to he discarded that particular ~99.9% of his data! (only discussed in his follow up French paper).

This is very consistent with Prof McHarris's findings and I believe Gordon Watson's essay, with similarities with Ed Klingman's. I'll re-post this on your blog so you don't loose it. Do ask any questions or give views on mine.

Very best wishes

Peter

Dear Mauro,

Wow!

Fantastico!

Here is your declaration that the states of Qbit is Existence: "Therefore, we are left with states of qubits, namely pure quantum software: objects, matter, hardware, completely became vaporized." If you read my essay Child if Qbit in time, we are completely in agreement with the above statement. I go even further if I may say that I declared: All things are one Qbit. In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse with the upper bound numbers ≤ 1.523 x 10^-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse is the lower bound numbers ≥ 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe KQID is the only theory out there that has made the above calculations and predictions.

I rated the superb work according. Much more complex and sophisticated than the one I could portray. We do have the same worldview. I am also a realist, positivist, operationalist and dreamer as you might label. Let us work together if possible. Please rate and comment my essay Child of Qbit in time.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Mauro,

Thank you for following through.

Wishing you all the best.

chidi

Dear Giacomo. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Dear Mauro,

Two weeks ago [July3, 2013 @ 23:31 GMT above], I raised several serious matters that go to the heart of your essay. Some examples follow:

1. "In that my theory is wholly local and realistic AND non-contextual, you can see that it is a challenge to many interpretations, not just yours."

2. I expressed the desire to "have you and your team address the high-school maths and logic on which my theory is based. Given that my results are fully supported experimentally, such action would of course challenge your opinion 'that Quantum Theory is too rigid to be changeable just a little.' " NB: One small change is the elimination of COLLAPSE; another justifies LOCAL-REALISM in line with Einstein's ideas on LOCALITY.

3. "But it is from such challenges that science progresses -- and the change that I make to Quantum Theory is very small indeed. Yet it is enough to eliminate the postulate that you suggest distinguishes the Quantum from the Classical; for that change relates to entanglement (after Schroedinger) and the measurement process (after von Neumann)."

In that no error has yet been identified in my Essay (despite my repeated requests for critical comments), I would welcome the addition of your comments to my blog.

Indeed: I'd have thought that your many fans, even the Judges, might be interested to see your formal dismissal of a matter which you apparently deem trivial (given your initial response to my correspondence above).

PS: If you will not be responding to such challenges as above, please so advise and I'll not trouble you again.

Sincerely; Gordon Watson.

Dear Mauro,

I previously rated your essay as "first class", I think that we have similar views. You said in your answer to Leo above:

"I personally cannot justify creation from nothing, I don't believe in the miracles of singularities. And, I don't like singularities in physics"

I have got the same opinion (I don't like singularities) but I have found a simple solution to this problem. Please have a look at my essay and let me know what you think. If you have time you can read the complete theory here.

It is all written in very simple terms (I am not a physicist) but maybe you will find one or two interesting ideas.

Patrick

Dear Giacomo,

Though 'It from Qubit' is true in particle scenario it is inconsistent with information continuum, as the observations in this scenario is probabilistic rather than realistic. Informationalism indicates the continuum nature of information and thus a string-matter continuum scenario is recommended to resolve this information paradox.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Caro professore D'Ariano,

mille grazie per aver condiviso la sua bella mente con noi. (I'm afraid my written Italian stops here -- but I can talk :)

I would like to bring your attention to the beautiful and short, almost like a theorem, essay by Maria Carrillo-Ruiz, who also shows how cellular automata can be linked to the concept of emergence. In the context of ontological monism she says, "Reality is ultimately composed of one basic stuff. Yet the concepts of physics are not sufficient to explain all the forms that this stuff takes and all the ways it comes to be structured, individuated, and causally efficacious." I thought you may like to read it and please share with us your impressions.

The other essay to which I wanted to bring your attention is by Dr. Carolyn Devereux, who, also in the context of ontological monism, introduces a novel idea of how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate, thus offering an alternative to CA mechanism of emergence. I am especially partial to this view, because it resonates with my vision of how the universe emerged (which I tried to convey, within my layman limitations, in the last year contest).

The central idea of both essays fits very well with my understanding, that, in layman terms, everything in the universe, including space itself, is made of the same 'space stuff'. Or, alternatively, that reality emerges in the dynamic structure of space-time -- in this view, energy = dynamics and information = structure or organization that emerges out of primitive processes governed by just a few simple principles. Thus, in my understanding, if ToE is ever to be found, such a theory would naturally have to be background independent -- in fact, the organization of what we define as background would emerge from it -- and everything else would emerge from this background. Or, in layman terms again, every 'thing', including space-time itself, is ultimately 'made of' the underlying quantum processes. I hope that this also in line with your view --at least this is how I understand it-- please correct me if I'm wrong.

Please read these two essays and tell us what you think :)

Maria Carrillo-Ruiz: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1892

Dr Carolyn Devereux: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1893

(Of course, if you could find the time to read my own essay and post a sincere comment, I'd cherish it forever. ..otherwise, I understand :)

Mille grazie!

-Marina

Dear Giacomo,

As a realist, I suppose I fell within the main targets of your essay, and you certainly got off to a great start by granting (eloquently!) how strange your view must look to a realist like me. So I really tried to follow your logic with an open mind, wondering where I might be impelled to give up on reality.

But since my preferred ontology is that of classical fields, not particles, I never really felt that you engaged with my position... I suppose if you had a few more pages you might have addressed classical fields as well. Is there any brief argument you might have to share on the matter?

My particular target was also missed when you got to holism, as you described holistic descriptions of entities at different places *at the same time*, rather than an even-more-holistic description of histories throughout spacetime. In the last contest I tried to argue that this restriction to evolving-time-slices (no matter how spatially-holistic) is still a remnant of the reductionist "Newtonian Schema" (as Smolin has dubbed it), so I didn't find it particularly surprising that you think those two stories are still compatible.

You didn't quite say it, but it seemed like you felt that your account of reductionism was inherently linked to the realist viewpoint. Is this true? If so, I suppose that's another reason why your arguments didn't really speak to me, as my preferred view of all-at-once realism doesn't reduce to a story that makes much sense when viewed in such a dynamic, slice-by-slice framework. (My view is much more aligned with the path integral.)

Of course, your essay was well crafted and beautifully written, and it seems (from above) that you found plenty of targets elsewhere. Excellent work!

Best Regards,

Ken

Dear Giacomo,

The main reason for joining this contest was not to win, but to see if I can get any professional physicist with interest in foundational issues, to evaluate my idea. I appreciate any criticism no matter how harsh, although I do prefer constructive ones. I have rated you fairly high ( I follow up on your work regularly in FQXI), but as I said I don't care for rating mine, but that is your prerogative. I will also ask you some basic questions about your theory a bit later.

Many thanks

Adel

Giacomo,

You obviously have a talent for conveying and contrasting creative ideas. Your explanation within Plato's cave left me a bit confused. It would seem that deciding to be a pragmatist and accepting hidden variables is a difficult thing to do. It seems to me that some explanatory tools, even though they are recognized as just tools, are summarily rejected. What do you mean that Ernst Mach was proven wrong about the existence of atoms? I had not run across this yet so any references towards his thoughts on that would be appreciated.

I am trying to develop a metric theory of Gunnar Nordstroem's gravitational theory based on a modification of calculus, meaning that matter and energy are integrals (information), which we process as derivatives (bits). You can find it here. Any thoughts your creative mind might have would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Jeff Baugher

Dear Giacomo,

Wow! This, in my humble opinion, is the best essay I've read so far. It is so well written and comprehensible, yet you made numerous deep observations. I'm tempted to re-quote to you much of your essay, but I'll limit myself to just a few sections (after all, you wrote it!).

"It is not easy to abandon the idea of a universe made of matter and embrace the vision of a reality made of pure information. The term "information" sounds vague, spiritualistic, against the attitude of concreteness that a scientist should conform to." So true! Even scientists who are very open-minded understandably find it difficult to overcome concepts that have been deeply ingrained. It's not a criticism - simply an observation (an operationalist perspective!)

"Quantum Mechanics has taught us that we must change our way of thinking about "realism", and that this cannot be synonymous of "materialism"." I couldn't agree more. And I don't think that it would take that much of a shift to gain a different perspective.

"What matters is our ability of making correct predictions, not of describing what is out there as it is - a nonsense, since nobody can check it for us. We only need to describe logically and efficiently what we see, and for such purpose we conveniently create appropriate "ontologies", which nonetheless are just tools for depicting mechanisms in our mind."

Yes! Our view of what's 'out there' will always be limited, and what's 'out there' is constantly changing. So we need to, as best as we can, utilize our minds as the tools they're supposed to be (and get our minds to mind 'us' rather than the other way around!) and shape our thinking around what we can logically and efficiently see and describe such observations in a manner our minds can comprehend and make sense of.

Thank you so much for your contribution. It's the best I've read so far!

Sincerely,

Ralph