Essay Abstract

Quantum theory treats rigorously of observables while the term "observer" is hardly itself a rigorous notion. We argue that the uncertainty principle must be understood in the Gödel sense that: any given observer constitutes own practical definition of "the unobservable" (if superposition) or namely length scale, phase space, fundamental frequency etc. Conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values as, that is, the "wave function collapse" or respectively, inverse-length, phase-point, harmonics. One has thus a picture of the observer that in being participant is also non-local as in Gödel's "consistency-is-undecidable" or Planck's "the-constant-is-the-uncertainty" or indeed Einstein's "speed-of-light-is-information-speed-limit". Definitive of these three cases, we assert, is Peano's (and Noether's?) notion of the constant (our "observer") as being for any gamut of events the meta-state ("conserved current"). Meaning now, it is the observer per se, and not his observables, which should constitute violation of Bell's inequality--say, as the infinitesimal/imaginary axis or as the dimensionless/infinite-dimensional etc. We posit: any given observer signifies the virtual exchange of standard model or space-time of GR or just the metric (norm)--defined by the singular trait that it is the de facto "superposition" i.e. natural unit and natural limit of physical information. Observables emerge quite directly thus as the perturbations if "decoherence" or "spontaneous symmetry breaking" of the observer. Now this status of/or the observer we call rather the entity as against hitherto the uncertainty; difference is that we have an ontic as the uncertainty per se. For a prediction we show here an exact value demonstrating man as the entity or "natural unit" for quantum gravity. The idea is that in being to ourselves the most authentic sample of the term observer we should also represent to ourselves the purest sample possible of the term wave function.

Author Bio

Chidi Idika trained in mass communication at the University of Nigeria and also has trained and worked in pioneer graphics, media and print studios in Lagos. He grew up a bit of a tinkerer, deeply inspired by physics and science in general. After attempting to event what he incidentally found out is conceived by modern science as a perpetual motion machine and an impossibility he has sought to devise for himself a notion of energy that in the least could soothe his curiosity. And here he is excited about a thing called wave function.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Chidi Idika,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract ,you mean Observer has no existence. . . .

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, Gupta.

    But this abstract does not pretend to define "existence". It takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

    If you actually read through you see the experimental basis for this assertion.

    And i have read yor essay, Gupta. Thanks.

    Dear Antony,

    I do not try to define a wavefunction any different from what is presently understood by this word in QM. I only by this paper try to give the wavefunction an ontology, namely as whatever it is we mean strictly by the term "observer".

    This paper takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

    But thanks, Anthony. I promise to see your essay.

    Dear Antony,

    Now let me explain in detail for the benefit of clarity. As a description from OUTSIDE this system possibly yes we could call this situation a singularity. But one could also describe this situation from WITHIN the system (and which I think is the more useful approach as a first principle). Then this situation will qualify physically as a LENGTH SCALE (think, "radiation gauge", "renormalization").

    We could even take a comparative view of this situation so it means the SUPERPOSITION or, perhaps most generally, the CONSERVATION LAW.

    In a wave model of the situation, the point is that we may think of any observer as simply the phase-space (say, "wave speed" of Huygens' principle or "constant" of Snell's law). And finally, in material terms this unobservability/observer should be the "matter wave" (wave function).

    And sure enough there is phase-space formulation of QM, by Weyl, Wigner, Groenewold, Moyal etc.

    But I would rather that we go all the way with this approach by assuming any OBSERVABLES (i.e. a "locality" or "position" notion) as simply the phase-points or harmonics vis-à-vis any OBSERVER as the phase-space (length scale, non-locality, invariance).

    And by this we will be talking then of any relevant "observer" as the wave nature proper (as against his observables/harmonics as the corpuscular nature) or indeed vice versa.

    Thus the concept of a pilot wave emerges naturally as defining the maximum wavelength i.e. the "fundamental frequency" or "period". It is sort of like the probability unity as equals the invariance (think, "energy") so a "probability amplitude" is simply a dependent variable/observable/harmonic (think, the "forms" of energy).

    Forgive my lengthy talk. But I hope this makes me clearer.

    I find our essays share some basics.

    Chidi, It is a very important idea to try to define what the observer is and I congratulate you on your brave attempt as someone who confesses to lack formal knowledge. Nevertheless you say many things that make sense. The ideas presented are very relevant to the contest. I hope you will enjoy reading other essays and will learn from the experience.

    best, Phil

      Hello Chidi,

      Just read your essay. Looks like a professional job coming from a non-physicist. I was getting lonely and you know why.

      I have an essay here, you may take a look. Not as professional as yours though.

      You can rate if you think it has some meaningful ideas. 9ja no carry last.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

        Dear Chidi,

        I liked your essay not only because of its content and its format but also because of the purpose and aim behind it. You have attempted to combine 'whole' of physics under one banner called 'wave-function', where observer himself is the wave-function and you have ascribed some 'potential' to him; and thereby you have tried to derive both quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) on the basis of quantum gravity (QG) and it is this attempt of yours, I appreciate. You have done this on the basis of your 4 axioms, and have derived your 4th axiom from the first 3, but this is not allowed in logic because then the first 3 axioms become fundamental but not the 4th one (for an axiom to be fundamental, it must not be derivable from other axioms). So the first 3 axioms are enough to derive the whole of physics from your point of view. In my previous 2 essay contests, I too did the same thing of deriving both QT and GR from QG.

        I would like you to read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. After that I will rate your innovative essay with a very good score. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        Best regards,

        Sreenath

          Dear Sreenath,

          Thank you for your down to earth comment. Actually I was reading your essay. Got distracted by events around me. I find your essay educating and will certainly go through.

          Regarding your opinion of my 4th axiom. look at it this way: there is nothing out of the first three axioms that says why or if we have to select one observer over all others. The 4th axiom does just that job; it says there can be one and only one DE FACTO observer.

          Implication is that every observer is to its own self this VALID observer.

          Thank you again, Sreenath. I sort of like probing questions. It helps us all think clearer.

          All the best.

          Chidi