Information and the foundations of quantum theory by Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh

Dear Tejinder

Thank you for an excellent, interesting, informative and eminently sensible essay, well organized and written in a clear easily read style.

I agree that only considering outcomes is wrong, although partly for different reasons. If a measurement is an *output* then surely it must also provide information on the input, which we may obtain only if we understand the complete process. Is the lack of that understanding itself not then the real problem?

Of course the detection and measurement process (observation) must have some effect on the output. I suggest then that just 'bombing Copenhagen off the map' may also destroy some innocent truths about an essential component in a coherent process? While the 3 alternatives you brilliantly describe each have something to offer, none can offer a solution. This is not so much criticism of you essay, which I have marked down for a well deserved top score, but of all current theory; quantum, relativistic, and the 'chasm' (Penrose) between them.

So I agree your finding 'bit from it' but suggest Wheelers suggestion is naive, perhaps intentionally, because our comprehension of the physical process is entirely inadequate. Why then do we not test mechanisms? I hope you may read my essay as I use the mechanistic approach and logically define detection, computation and measurement as distinct elements of observation. CSL is a key process, and ALL matter qualifies in the role of 'detector' but not all is a 'measurer'. I construct an ontology describing probability, decoding a Bayesian distribution of noise between binary 0 and 1. A powerful new model seems to emerge to overcome the "severe difficulties" and fill the chasm, which I very much hope you can study and comment on for me. Be warned - the odd radical finding emerges!

But thank you and very well done for your own excellent and important contribution to the process of improving understanding that is 'science'.

Best wishes and very best of luck in the results. I hope to see you back up in the top 10 as last year.

Peter

Distinguished Professors,

"Here the `it' is primary and the `bit' is derived from the `it'." This my essay agrees with but not with such weighty arguments as yours.

Research published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, which I read the abstract of, speaks of classical time and quantum time approximations and putting that prediction to test by lab experiments that attempt to construct superposed states of macroscopic objects. For someone with my limited background, that seems impossible at the macro level. I probably would have difficulty following this approach but I am quite curious.

Jim

Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

the second sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

Examples

starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

d-super.pdf)

Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

All this started with a simple question, who am I?

I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

I super positioned my self or I to be me.

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

I am phi in zero = I = infinity

I am 3Sphere in iSphere

I am pi in zero = I = infinity

I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

Love,

Sridattadev.

Professor Singh

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 you have touched some corners of it.

Good Luck,

Than Tin

Hello Prof. Singh.

You and your colleagues have produced a good essay on a tough subject, moreover, you have made it intelligible for the layman, and that's a bonus. I have found in my work that deterministic rules can give rise to effects which can be seen by those unfamiliar with the rules as being driven by probability. It's refreshing to see the presumption that puts the rules of probability at the root of quantum mechanics still being questioned. Just because we are yet to bring to bear on the problem a set of concrete deterministic rules doesn't mean there are none. The only query I have is with regard your use of the word "evolution", which implies something more than just a progression, however recursive complex or stochastic it may be. I am also wondering whether you have taken into consideration that a quantum entity has an environment with which it can not avoid interacting, and this whether it is classical or otherwise.

Regards.

Zoran.

Prof. Singh,

Thank you for responding to my questions. I hope you have time to read and comment on my essay (1814).

Regards and good luck.

Zoran.

Tejinder,

My essay speaks of molecules being used in the 2-slit experiment but I don't see that as the same as ascribing subatomic behavior to macro items. I would be curious to see your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

Dear prof. Tejinder Singh,

I have rated your essay on 2nd July with highest honors and it is time if you have not yet rated my essay will you, please, rate it now and inform me.

Thanks and all the best,

Sreenath

Dear Tejinder,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Dear Tejinder,

Enjoying your excellent Essay, I wonder if the following comment might help in your future work.

In my Essay, "collapse" is shown to be a convenient mathematical short-cut; see footnote 6, page 6.

Studying EPRB and Bell-tests, I show that the "dynamics" attributed to "collapse" may be directly associated with such underlying deterministic processes as "spin-torque-precession." The related theory is thus relativistically covariant.

With best regards; Gordon Watson

Hi Tejinder,

Sorry I neglected to follow up till now. I think observers associate probabilities with the measurement process because perfect information (the complete Gaussian normal distribution) is never available to an observer; an "It" continuum of wave functions from which bit things are derived has no "thingness" itself, with which to associate bounded entities. This is the principle which makes linear superposition and Bayesian analytical methods attractive -- e.g., a spinning die of six sides assigns equally likely probability to each of the sides when observed at rest.

A relative two-state universe, though (such as my essay describes), is always in a state of rest relative to every observer. This is why I don't find Everett's hypothesis so quirky -- a multitude of observers sharing one spacetime domain of continuous IT get to choose which BITs are bound variables and which remain free variables. While the bound variables come with probability 1.0 for manifest reality (quantum unitarity), IT continua don't as a result become nonlocal or in superposition -- other observers choose different bits -- so wave function collapse is illusion. As Wheeler put it: "The asking of one question precludes the asking of another." By these criteria, bifurcating answers produce new initial conditions creating new universes. These universes don't communicate (i.e., exchange physical influences) because -- like the fermions in Pauli's exclusion principle -- they cannot occupy the same state at the same time.

Although Wheeler -- who introduced Everett's hypothesis to the larger physics world -- eventually rejected it himself, I find it perfectly compatible with "Bit from It," the inverse of Wheeler's proposition. I recently found that the existence of two indefinite states implies three definite states, which gives the observer a place to stand in relation to the quantum bit.

All best,

Tom

Dear Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh:

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 Angelo Bassi, Saikat Ghosh, & Tejinder Singh:

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

This post got lost yesterday; here it is again:

Distinguished Professors,

thank you for your wonderful essay and for making it accessible to a nonspecialist like myself -- that you can describe the problem in accessible terms is the sure sign of clarity with which you approach the subject. I especially appreciated your essay, because it restored my faith in quantum physicists' grasp on reality. I often found it shocking to see how highly educated professionals appeared unable to distinguish the underlying _reality_ from information which, in quantum theory, often comes down to derivations based on actual lack of information. All too often, rather than admitting insufficiencies in our current understanding, they insist on describing the underlying reality in terms of Copenhagen interpretation and in doing so show that they _actually_believe_ that what they describe is IT (!) I can't relate to you the degree of cognitive dissonance I have suffered as a result -- until I read your essay :)

I found your analysis of the problem impeccable and gave it the top rate.

Leaving your blog with enriched understanding of physics and renewed hope for the future,

-Marina

PS

In my essay I dare to poke fun at Copenhagen interpretation and measurement process (the last couple of pages) and sincerely hope it could give you a laugh or two.. .. and yes, I hope one of you could find time to read and comment on my essay. Thank you!