‘It from bit’ equally ‘bit from it’ by Dipak Kumar Bhunia

Dipak Bhunia

Can you digitally detect a perfect vacuum in space?

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Peter

Congratulations for your "IQbit"; and also thanks for some inspiring comments on my essay. I really like your essay very much as well.

"The correlations predicted by QM appear classically impossible without spooky action at a distance or superluminal signalling" in entanglement processes is definitely inevitable. But I like to say here(in support of you) whether an intervention of a "mirror" in between two or more entangled particles would be more helpful to understand that event better?

If two entangled particles or systems or a wave-corpuscular-phenomena (say A & B)suppose to have an 'inseparable & imaginary mirror' in-between. Then image counter parts say A2 & B2 of both A & B are also inverse to other parts say A1 & B1. Therefore, any change which can occur in say in A1 must be instanteneously create a change in the B1 part too. In my essay, it can define that, in mirror image (and inverse)relationship in-between 'non-void space' and 'non-void Anti-space', as far as A1 & B1 in once entangled A & B would be separated in 'space' their mirror image counter parts A2 & B2 would be instantaneously come closer and closer together in 'Anti-space' and vice versa. That is, the entangled pair of particles can be considered that they are never been completely separated in terms of their 'Space' & 'Anti-space' or 'Time' & 'Anti-time' or 'Inertial mass' & 'Inertial motion'.

I definitely rate your essay at higher end of the scale and of course I would be glad to have your assistance for "better place".

Thanks & regards

Dipak

Dipak Bhunia

Hi Joe

Can you consider my essay for any rating?

Regards

Dipak Kumar Bhunia

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Antony

Thanks for agreeing on my mirror concepts.

I'm also wishing you best in the contest.

Can you consider me for any rating? I'll doing of you.

Dipak

Dipak Bhunia

So? If "concept of the "vacuum" - is have nothing - is a vague imagination and unrealistic. So will be can not any measure can be specified to it"... then why the most funny people like you are wasting your time to proof "ether" back". I will be happy if kindly stop here to reply!

Thanks!

pjackson

Dipak,

I agree you proposition of mirror symmetry, but as the real relation between the so called 'singlet state' pairs, so I don't need to invoke and real 'anti space' to find the same result. I've scored you essay very high as I am convinced the solution is correct and valuable, however described.

But there is then no inevitability about FTL because there is another parameter not allowed for by Bell. The pairs have opposite spin but the same spin axis orientation as orbital angular momentum. Detector settings will then be reciprocal, and uncertainty increase at each detector when settings are not identical or opposite around the 360 degree orbit. I hope you then also consider mine worth a top score. The experimental evidence of this is shown in the link to the expanded essay in the top blog post, with the additional figure towards the end.

Best of luck in the results.

Peter

john selye

Hi Deepak -

I think many of your conclusions concur with mine, though I produce a more structural, or physical version of the Cosmos.

It seems you conclude that It and Bit are correlated, which is the same conclusion I reach - but again in different terms.

I hope you'll be kind enough to read and rate my essay, and I wish you all the best in the competition,

John

Dipak Bhunia

Hello John,

Thanks for your reply on my essay. I read your essay as well. I rated your essay and I also request you too to rate my submission.

However, instead of simply 'bit' in your essay, I call rather 'vbit'. The three vbit's: inorganic, organic and neuro-cognitive are e comprised the nature 'it', where 'it' and 'bit' are inseparable. We are proceeded towards obviously same direction of thinking but approaches are different.

Regards

Dipak

Antony Ryan

Dear Dipak,

Yes let me know on my thread if you want me to rate soon, otherwise I'll probably do so when I've read all essays.

Best wishes,

Antony

George Kirakosyan

Dear Kumar,

Thanks for your attention to my work. I understand that it written not vein because many people have reading it with enough interest. I have rated your work by quick acquaintance as a good, but my comments I hope I will send you later (now is tensioned time, as we understand!) I can just suggest you to use more references and more certainly formulated conclusions/resume. Please in your free time to read the references in my work. I hope that these will some useful and interesting for you. Particularly about old dilemma of duality problem, you can find some more.

I wish you all of the best,

George

Dipak Bhunia

George

Thanks for your comments and rating on my essay.

I also need to keep in touch in future and sincerely want your

precise constructing comments.

Wishing you best in contest.

Regards

Dipak

Don Limuti

Hi Dipak,

Enjoyed you essay. I think it is just the two of us who say "two sides of the same coin" as describing the situation of -it from bit or bit from it-.

We differ a bit in how to interpret the deBroglie wavelength. I believe the deBroglie equation is a better wave equation than the Schrodinger for photons and particles below the Planck mass. Above the Planck mass I believe that masses no longer have the property of wavelength, and essentially become "analog" to use your phrase.

Still we have a lot in common.

Don Limuti

Dipak Bhunia

Hi Don,

I enjoyed your essay equally.

Obviously,above Planck mass, the wavelength of particles/systems are not visible or may not even perceivable to us, but you must agree that if one can manage to see the same masses from other side of the "coin", a kind of scale specific quantize "radius" could be visible or appeared there.

I again convinced from your essay that, to understand better about any "analog" part (if any) for nature, your quote from Ramakrishna related to the example of a salt grain (consider a "digital observer" in my essay)who tries to measure the depth of a sea (say that "analog" part of nature)would be good proposition what I wrote. A salt grain can not measure the depth of sea by simply dipping into that sea. That's the limitation for a salt grain. Equally there is a limitation for the digital (or quantize) observer to observe "analog" part of nature in its deeper level if there any.

Can I expect any rating on my essay?

Regards & thanks

Dipak

Sreenath N

Dear Dipak,

I am glad to read your lucid essay because you are a student of philosophy, whereas I am a philosopher. It is good to note that you have given equal importance to both It and Bit, and also that both are inseparable. You have given primary importance to 'digital' nature of reality rather than to 'analog' nature of reality and also you have given reasons for it. Digital nature of reality follows from the quantum mechanics but analog nature of reality follows from the classical physics. For computer programming digital nature is preferred and so you seem to have opted for it.

In the equation (1), m. λ = h/c, here λ corresponds to Compton wave length rather than to de Broglie's wave length, because you have used 'c' instead of 'v' for velocity. If you use 'v' then λ means Broglie's wave length. Please check up.

You have treated both micro and macro scales on the same footing based on your concept of MMSS. Thanks for writing a smooth going essay with full of bright and intelligent points, and wish you best of luck in the essay contest. Make your essay available to others in the fqxi essay community by posting in their threads and also for rating; have a look at my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread. More after you post your comments.

Regards,

Sreenath

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Sreenath,

Its my extreme pleasure to read your comments and advice.

However in some broader aspect (i.e. for MMSS) in a very generalize sense, I have tried to use the term "de Broglie wavelength" which is nothing but the 'matter wave' in wave corpuscular duality propositions by de Broglie. On contrary the "crompton wavelength" usually used in respect of photons or other micro scales of particles. In Wikipedia also, such terms are almost defined in such a manner.

But, whatever that may be, my sincere thanks and gratitude to you to point it out from one philosopher's point of view. In future I will definitely cautious while I will encounter with these terms.

Also many thanks for your advice how to reach better to the FQXi Community and I will try to do that.

I'm also reading your submission and try to make my comments on it of my earliest.

With my best regards and wishing you best luck in this contest too.

Dipak

Akinbo Ojo

Dear Dipak,

Your essay is truly the work of a philosopher and deep thinker. We share the same digital philosophy so I am rating your essay 8. You may also check my essay which contains a dose of philosophy and a description for 'digital motion'.

My best regards,

Akinbo

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for comment.

I am going through your interesting arguments on millennium fork and monads of space as well.

Interestingly, I am also going to rate you at such higher end along with my few comments after finishing your essay.

Regards

Dipak

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Dr. Akinbo,

Once again! Thanks for the contributing in the topic like monads.

Would there be any elasticity in monads? Why no an extended monad can not be consider as a infinitesimal sphere (3-D obviously) with diameter equal to Plank's length? Even if we can propose any length < Plank's length (Please refer Eq.17 and magnitude of its relevant constant in paragraph no. 6)whether that would be the monad? Are you think a monad is quantized?

However your essay is really impressive! I also consider to rate it equally after receiving your reply.

Regards

Dipak

Helmut Hansen

Dear Dipak,

when I read your paper I felt indeed some similarity to my own ideas, in particular with respect to your view of the "velocity of light". I am convinced that the "velocity of light" is actually given twice - in a wave-like version and in a particle-like version. It follows as such QM as supposed by you.

In my 2012-FQXI-paper "Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature?" I've presented a popular paper about this idea.This idea leads us - as conceived by me - directly into the realm of (Eastern) spirituality.

Kind regards

Helmut

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Helmut

Really sorry for delay in replying and thanks for your comment.

I think spirituality is very good. It gives peace in mind (how I don't know) but not science. You may agree that that duality is not only in the arena of light but the whole universe is dual, simultaneously left & right. I completely agree with you.

Can we rate each other essays as per our corresponding assessments?

Regards

Dipak

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855

Sreenath N

Dear Dipak,

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay and also for rating it.

Regards,

Sreenath

Dipak Bhunia

Dear Sreenathji,

Thanking you as well.

Dipak

« Previous Page Next Page »