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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dipak,

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

Regards,

Sreenath

Dear Dipak

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.

Best Luck,

Than Tin