cGh-lim(its) of processing bits by Gennady Gorelik

Dear Gennady Gorelik,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the essay, can you please show more light on the quantum gravity. Such a nice concept you have introduced here. Is that Necessary? I request you go into Dynamic universe model also, as it can explain the VLBI deviations. And...

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.

Dear Gennady,

I think you're dead right that information is a real and intertwined with Quantum Gravity. Also the rate at which the physical laws allow processing is also a valid and logical line of thinking.

Great work -really like this! Hopefully you'll get chance to look at my essay and consider it not at odds with yours?

Best wishes,

Antony

Mr Gorelik,

Real light has to be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. Firing a fabricated laser beam through a narrow manufactured vacuum tube so that it strikes a light sensor and timing its progress will provide a unique result each time it is tried.

Nature does not deal in experimental differing results. Nature can only do one unique thing once. Real starlight does not have to go through a narrow vacuum tube. Real starlight has to exist in a real absolute vacuum located in one real infinite dimension, once. Unlike a manufactured light that can be repeatedly turned on and off, starlight has to be eternal in order for it to be unique, once.

As I have pointed out in my essay BITTERS, everything in the real Universe is unique. Unique cannot be a constant, therefore all of the abstract constants mentioned in your essay are erroneous. That is why Quantum Mechanics guesswork is of no use whatsoever for dealing with the real unique Universe.

Gennady,

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

Dear Gennady

Your article is in medias res.

Only 2 pages a lot of useful information, nice.

Maybe you would answer more questions if you start writing before the 24th. June (or you can see the answers in my article).

regards Branko

Dear Gennady,

You touched on an aspect of the contest theme that I had neither thought about nor seen any other essay issue address so far. Thank you for that.

Your paper is very short, so to me it seems there could have been room to explain how the rate of information processing is intertwined with the possibility for Quantum Gravity if

a) a quantum theory of gravity is found

b) it is found (e.g. by a proof) that a quantum theory of gravity cannot exist

it was also interesting to read a little about the historical context of the development of this issue.

All the best,

Armin

Gennady,

Doubters may suggest that in comparison with energy conservation law, Hawking's law of information conservation (The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized( 2005 )) can be violated ? Moreover, there is no such thing as physical measurement of bits of thermal information in physics .

Michael

Dear Gennady,

I truly enjoyed your insight and unique approach as stated in your essay. Although you have a different perspective than I do, I find your fundamental conclusion, "The cGh-limit of processing information is a reason to believe that the question of ultimate physical status of information is to be answered together with the question of Quantum Gravity." is in agreement with my findings.

I hope you don't mind that I rated your essay highly ;-)

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Gennady,

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

Dear Gennady,

I had not followed the essay contest for a couple of weeks and was truly shocked to find out now that yours ranked bottom in the community ratings. I think that just goes to show that the community votes are often not correlated with the quality of the work. I think a lot of it has to do with the entirely unnecessary injection of politics by allowing authors to vote on each other's essays, thereby allowing the inherent conflict of interest to distort outcomes and damage the integrity of the contest (Note: I am writing this after the voting period has ended).

The fact that with the possible exception of one other essay I did not see any other work raise the issue of the rate of information processing alone would make yours noteworthy. In addition, after reading about your very brief mention of Bronstein's fate I became curious to learn more about him. It looks like politics (like many times before and since) once again sacrificed a great mind for its own whims. In particular, I had never seen any serious theoretical arguments for why we should keep the Planck quantities as fundamental. Although I tend to disagree with modern mainstream approaches to understanding nature more deeply (such as LQG and ST), I have the impression that Bronstein may have actually had some such arguments. If so, this part of his legacy may have been forgotten.

In any event, I just wanted to let you know that at least in my view the community ranking has no correlation with the quality of your work.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Gannady,

Still reading essays and now finding yours I reinforce Armin's view of it's quality and importance. In fact I find the limit you identify may be very important to my own work and proposals (2nd place essay; The Intelligent Bit, where I need to establish a quantitative description and decoding algorithm for the 'noise' of Shannon's capacity theorem. Your understanding should be of inestimable help so I hope you'll read my essay and discuss your thoughts. You may also like to read a relevant paper on the relevance of the OB limit. Gamma and the LT mechanism.

Yours was certainly only so low due to lack of 'engagement' in the process, reading and commenting on other essays. However good the seeds you sew, if you don't also tend the land they're wasted!

I think your work is far too valuable to go to waste.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Gennady Gorelik:

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