Dear Mauro,

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, formulas from other papers are used only in equations from (1) to (8). Such formulas essentially arise from my published papers (only eqs. (1) and (2) are by Hawking and Parikh and Wilczek, which are obviously and properly cited). The other formulas are completely new and proper of this Essay although, after a rigorous definition of the quantum problem, I use a standard method of calculation in quantum mechanics following the book by Sakurai (which is also obviously and properly cited).

I do not think that the relation of my Essay with the theme of the competition is slight. Although "It From Bit or Bit From It" is the title of the Contest, you can easily check that topics like "How does nature (the universe and the things therein) "store" and "process" information?" and "How does understanding information help us understand physics, and vice-versa?" are fully taken into account in my Essay. On the other hand, it is historically well known and also stressed in the interesting Essay by Douglas Singleton, Elias Vagenas, & Tao Zhu, which looks to be complementary to my one, that (verbatim from the Essay by Singleton, Vagenas and Zhu) "much of the interest in the connection between information, i.e. "bits", and physical objects, i.e. "its", stems from the discovery that black holes have characteristics of thermodynamic systems having entropies and temperatures." In fact, if Hawking's original claim was correct, black holes should destroy bits of information. Showing the unitary evolution of black hole evaporation instead implies that bits of information are preserved. On the other hand, the worst consequence of destruction of bits of information by a physical process is that quantum mechanics breaks down. I also think it is not a coincidence that the great scientist who coined the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s, i.e. John A. Wheeler, was the same scientist who popularized the term "black hole" in the 1960s.

Concerning the question It from bit or Bit from It? it is my opinion that the relation between "bits", i.e. information and "its", i.e. physical objects

is similar to the one between matter and space curvature. Once again, the better formulation of this latter relation is by John A. Wheeler: "Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move". In the same way, I think that "bits" and "its" are complementary, i.e. "information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow".

Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

Ch.

Dear Stuart Heinrich,

Thanks for your comments and for finding interesting my Essay.

As I explained above, in the reply to Dr. D'Ariano, I do not think that my Essay does not address the core questions of this competition. I rewrite here my reply to Dr. D'Ariano almost verbatim. Although "It From Bit or Bit From It" is the title of the Contest, you can easily check that topics like "How does nature (the universe and the things therein) "store" and "process" information?" and "How does understanding information help us understand physics, and vice-versa?" are fully taken into account in my Essay. On the other hand, it is historically well known and also stressed in the interesting Essay by Douglas Singleton, Elias Vagenas, & Tao Zhu, which looks to be complementary to my one, that (verbatim from the Essay by Singleton, Vagenas and Zhu) "much of the interest in the connection between information, i.e. "bits", and physical objects, i.e. "its", stems from the discovery that black holes have characteristics of thermodynamic systems having entropies and temperatures." In fact, if Hawking's original claim was correct, black holes should destroy bits of information. Showing the unitary evolution of black hole evaporation instead implies that bits of information are preserved. On the other hand, the worst consequence of destruction of bits of information by a physical process is that quantum mechanics breaks down. I have instead shown that quantum mechanics works in black hole evaporation and bits of information are in turn preserved in that process. I also think it is not a coincidence that the great scientist who coined the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s, i.e. John A. Wheeler, was the same scientist who popularized the term "black hole" in the 1960s. Also, attempts to solve the black hole information loss puzzle opened the road to various interesting physical ideas concerning information, like for example the Holographic Principle.

I will read and quote your Essay too.

Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

Ch.

My pleasure & thanks - I hope my essay doesn't disappoint.

Best wishes,

Antony

Christian,

I not only agree your thesis conceptually, but also consider that if all essays stuck rigidly to the narrowest interpretation of the subject question then we'd be bored to death reading the essays. There would also certainly be more limited value in terms of understanding emergent from the competition.

Both our essays are alike in this respect, evidencing important and new findings and understandings which have a direct effect on the answer to the question. To me yours beautifully provides the mathematical solution in terms of the present doctrine but consistent with my own apparently 'off doctrine' argument of a recycling model, where the information accretion and (re-ionization as) radiation is the hub of the cyclic process. For me then the importance of the task makes the maths essential, though I'd be intrigued by your view on my conceptual 'Dirac Line' distinguishing mathematics from reality.

In fact I again set a tall order for my own essay, identifying a higher order of variations within the qubit and showing how these can resolve the EPR paradox. Perhaps too high as many don't fully understand Bell's case. I look forward to your own views on it (see also Gordon Watson's close mathematical analogy of it).

I hope the value of yours emerges. Well done, including for hitting the front even with my score yet to come! The annual roller coaster ride starts again.

Peter

    Resp Prof Christian,

    Thank you for elaborating Black hole physics and math with your nice essay. I want to ask you some thing:

    Black holes are mathematical singularities. They were not found even after 100 years of their proposal. Thousands probably millions of scientist and astronomers searched in vain to find them. They wasted their energy, time and much more valuable brain power in vogue.

    Do you really think searching Astronomical or Micro black holes is necessary?

    When the BH ITSELF is just a mathematical entity, will further work on this thinking the BH is physical entity is that justified...?

    For your guidance please....

    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 Peter,

      Nice to see you here in the Contest again.

      Thanks for agreeing with my point of view and for appreciating my Essay.

      I am going on holidays for about a week. When I will return to home, I will surely read your Essay. In fact, I am very curious concerning your conceptual 'Dirac Line' distinguishing mathematics from reality and your way to solve the EPR paradox. I will read Gordon Watson's Essay too.

      I wish you good look in the Contest.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

      Thanks for your kind comments and for reading my Essay.

      Your questions are surely interesting, but they need time to be replied in detail. Now, I am going on holidays for about a week. When I will return to home, I will surely answer your stimulating questions in details and I will also read your Essay.

      Kind regards and good luck for the Contest,

      Ch.

      Dear Readers,

      I would like to thank all the people who have read and have rated my Essay. Today, I am going on holidays for some days. I will bring my i-phone with me in order to follow the Contest's evolution, but it will be very difficult for me to read pdf files with such an i-phone. In any case, when I will bring back at home on next week, I will restart to read and rate all the various Essays for which I have been requested to give my own views on.

      I wish good luck in the Contest to all of view and I hope that you will continue to enjoy with this intriguing FQXi Competition.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Christian,

      Your conclusion, 'The assumption by 't Hooft that Schröedinger equations can be used universally for all dynamics in the universe is in turn confirmed, further endorsing the conclusion that BH evaporation must be information preserving." I find fascinating.

      You speak of states as commonly understood in physics, but I was unable to find 'how' you determined such states came to be? I believe the findings from the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded will be of interest to you and may also substantiate your conclusions. I hope you find time to review my findings at:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1809

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

        Dear Joe,

        Thank you very much and good luck for the Contest.

        Best wishes,

        Ch.

        Dear Manuel,

        Thanks for your kind comments.

        At the present time I am on holidays. When I will return at home on next week I will surely read, comment and rate your Essay.

        Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

        Ch.

        Dear Hoang,

        Thanks for your comments.

        I will surely read your Essay when I will return at home from my holidays on next week.

        Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

        Ch.

        Christian,

        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 Jim,

          Thanks for your kind comments.

          I will surely read your Essay when I will return at home on next week

          Best wishes and good luck in the Contest,

          Ch.

          Dear Christian Corda,

          Did Wheeler really already coin "the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s"?

          If so I have to correct my essay and perhaps also my tendency to see the pendulum of my judgment that has so far swung in favor of Shannon's view.

          If you are a coward, just join those who scored me one without taking issue in public.

          Regards,

          Eckard

          Hello, Christian Corda,

          Thank you for a very informative and physics based essay. I'm very interested in black holes and their use in developing the Holographic Principle. I may wish to email you in the future after I fully digest all this. Thank you for sharing your teaching,

          Matthew

            Hi Matthew,

            Thanks for your kind words on my Essay.

            I am interested on the Holographic Principle too. Be free to email me when you like. Maybe we can collaborate in the future.

            Thanks again.

            Cheers,

            Ch.

            Dear Dr. Corda,

            Thanks for your well written essay and in which you have tried to solve one of the outstanding problems in black hole (BH) information paradox that the information is not lost in BH evaporation but that it is preserved. I hope your effort sustains and will be rewarded in due course.

            Wishing you all the best and I am going to rate your essay with a very good score.

            Sreenath

            Dear professor Cristian Corda:

            I am a physician specialized as a psychiatrist. I'm clarifying this point, just to also make understandable that I don't know almost nothing of physics and also of mathematics. But when I read the title of your essay: "Time dependent Schrödinger equation for black hole evaporation: no information loss" I ask myself how physicists can work for years and years, on and around something, than no physicist since the discipline began as such, knew or know what "time" is, your essay refer to a subject, that supposedly depend on "time". I know that physics don't know its definition neither its more important experimental meaning. So how a physicist can understand Schrödinger equation if they don't know what is "time" from which the equation suppose to depend.

            I know that physicists when referring to "time" they in fact are referring mainly to the measuring of "duration", they can't take "time" as a physic entity and relate its properties with any other physical entity properties like gravity for example, just because nobody know what "time" properties are.

            I know that you also can depend of something that you don't know and that you don't understand, but become workable for you all, because the reliable and exact measuring of "duration". Medicine also used plants to cure people without knowing why these were effective, and even that, they kept using it.

            But physics is not like medicine, is among the exact sciences. As I said when in physics people refer to "time", they mainly believe they are referring to measuring "duration", the problem is, that they don't know what is "duration" either, because this one is define as a period of "time" and if you don't know the meaning of "time" you don't know the meaning of "duration" either.

            So you don't think that could be useful to know from what is depending Schrödinger equation. As a physicist you think that could be possible that depend from a quality or property of every physical existing thing like "motion", which when is "constant" or "uniform" as in celestial bodies and clocks, can be use to measure now days, with great precision, the periods of change and transformation allowed by "motion"? That now on we can call "duration"?.

            With my best whishes

            Héctor Daniel Gianni