Time dependent Schrödinger equation for black hole evaporation: no information loss by Christian Corda

Dear Ch.,

I wish you pleasant holidays. Don't hurry. I referred to your utterance "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."

I wrote "Following Edwin T. Jaynes, Frederick W. Kantor, Carl F. v. Weizsaecker, Edward Fredkin [3], and others, Wheeler offered his "it of bit" when the practical superiority of digital methods for noise-independent data transmission was obvious, and a digital world seemed to be quite natural." See also my Ref. [1] J A Wheeler (1990) Information, physics, quantum: The search for links, in W Zurek (ed.) Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.

I cannot derive from this rather late application of ideas by Shannon that Wheeler was "the great scientist". Admittedly, there was a reason for me to strive for a fair comparison between Shannon's rather common sense view and Wheeler's - as I tried to show - rather closely related to Einstein belief:

The current physics follows Einstein, Hilbert, and Wheeler in assuming a block universe without a now that separates the past from the future. Wheeler and Feynman did even offer a theory that allows going backward *in* time.

Your name is Christian. Did you expect a fair score from a strongly believing Israel or Mohamed in a competition concerning belief related matters? If an essay like mine merely disagrees with what you were told then you should perhaps abstain from rating it accordingly. On the other hand, your factual criticism will be highly welcome.

Cheers,

Eckard

Dear Ch,

My English is shaky. That's why I am confused by your wrote "conied" three times. Perhaps you meant coined in the sense of Wheeler invented these phrases.

Most likely, Wheeler's It from bit was indeed inspired by those who I quoted. In particular did Fredkin believe "that atoms, electrons, and quarks consist ultimately of bits--binary units of information, like those that are the currency of computation in a personal computer or a pocket calculator. And he believe[d] that the behavior of those bits, and thus of the entire universe, is governed by a single programming rule.

If your name Christian was chosen after the surgeon Christiaan Barnard then you are pretty young as compared with me. This means you are at the beginning of your scientific carrier, and you must not utter any doubt whether Einstein's theory of relativity is possibly flawed. Meanwhile I prefer the opinion of Michelson who was also a Jew.

Just today I read that Einstein's questionable Poincarè synchronization was not only correctly used by telegraphers to take into account delays in Transatlantic cables, which was largely known to me in principle, and this synchronization method was still reasonably used under the wrong assumption of a light-carrying aether by Poincarè but Einstein might have adopted it from a Swiss patent application for synchronizing clocks when he reviewed it at the patent office in Bern. I gave the reference in reply to Paul at topic 1793.

While I did not derive from your name that you are a Christian believer, a strongly believing Mohamed will perhaps suspect that. I did not by chance refer to the word belief in the title of my essay: Shannon's (and to some extent my own) view on Wheeler's (and Einstein's) belief. Einstein confessed that for him as believing physicist the distinction between past (present) and future is merely an albeit obstinate illusion. I do not believe that.

Cheers,

Eckard

Dear professor Christian Corda:

Thank you for your answer, you remind me Hawking book 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", 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 slow 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.

In your post you said: "Yes, in general we use the motion of bodies to measure it" answering my suggestion "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"?". I insist, that the "measuring motion" should always and only must use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" " which integrates a 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 "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.

At this point I trust you are interested to read my essay "The deep nature of reality" don't bother to rate it, I don't care of the contest. I care that this find that allowed me a physician, to make a few things, in the hands of theoretical physicists could make marvelous things. I am an old man I wouldn't be able to do much more.

In the essay there is a 16 or 17 lines demonstration, that in my opinion proves that with the clock we are measuring not the mysterious "time", but motion, is very hard to be read, but I thought was necessary, please if you can put your attention and patient in it. I think is important.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Dr. Corda,

I have pleasure in rating your essay with maximum honors and I have rightly done so.

Wishing you best of luck in the essay contest.

Cheers,

Sreenath

Hi Dear professor,

It is nice to see you on the leading position.

I see here nothing strange because your work one of best among professionals! I wish you luck on completing this intellectual battle in the same position as you are at the moment!

Best wishes,

George

Dear Christian,

I already tried to give you there a logically rigorous example that seems to confirm the opinion of von Essen who called Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" one of the worst one he ever came across. I am not sure whether or not Vladimir Tamari was correct when he wrote Einstein derived the correct conclusion from wrong premises and Robert Schlafly called Einstein overestimated.

I noticed that you founded an Institute "Einstein - Galilei" somewhere in Italy. If Galileo Galilei (and I learned that it is common practice to write Galileo) was correct on that the relations smaller, equal to, and larger are invalid for infinite quantities - and I think so - then the so called rigorous mathematics by Dedekind, G. Cantor, Hilbert, and all fellows is unfounded. Previous essays of mine tried to show that the mathematical basis from which the support of Einstein's ideas arose is then at variance with most basic physics. Well, you are unable to admit the mere possibility that your idol Einstein was not correct even if he in the end confessed being seriously worried by the now. The more I look forward for your promised comments.

All cowards who might feel hurt have the simple option to score my essay one without risking to be refuted in a public discussion. I nonetheless hope for serious factual arguments too. As an Editor in Chief of various international journals in the fields of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Mathematics, you should be in position to understand and refute my arguments.

Cheers,

Eckard

Professor Corda,

A fascinating essay (treatise, really) that will take me some time to read and study in depth. You made a difficult topic understandable to a physics/math savvy audience who is not necessarily specializing in your interest area, and also integrated some humor, which I always appreciate (I chuckled at your "increasing abstractions" quote).

"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." The preservation of information here is undoubtedly crucial to a complete physical interpretation of the it-bit debate (a connection I immediately see is that it's quite difficult to describe a universe entirely with info if some of that information is lost to the universe itself). Do you feel that your research here supports "it from bit" ?

Cheers,

Jennifer Nielsen in a Little House on the Prairies of Kansas (KU)

Thanks for the very kind comments over on my page. As I've replied there, I thoroughly enjoyed your essay and will score it highly :)

Dear Christian,

Time Lord Dr. Louis von Essen should be renowned since he developed in 1955 the first caesium clock. He criticized in particular that Einstein did not bother to quote Michelson, Lorentz, and Poincaré and that he speculated without having performed own experiments. Maybe, von Essen underestimated the importance of clean reasoning. Our library does not have v. Essen's booklet "The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis", Oxford Univ. Press and other dissident literature. This was rather helpful because I had to deal with the matter myself on the basis of books e.g. by Bohm and by Feynman. In the end I arrived at an insight beyond what v. Essen wrote, see my current endnotes.

By the way, because Einstein's theory of relativity got famous, some people claimed having found out that already Woldemar Voigt and Ferdinand Lindemann invented it.

You wrote: "It is not correct that Einstein in the end confessed being seriously worried by the now. He ALWAYS was uncertain on his results during his life."

I referred to written utterances of the late Einstein, and I compare them with his anything than thoughtful attitude in his discussion with Ritz, belonging photos of the young Einstein's rather self-confident or even cheeky face, culminating in a photo of Einstein as a professor when he sticked out his tongue at us. Don't get me wrong. I don't see a weak point in Einstein's personality but in theoretical positions he adopted.

The idea of an a priori (God-) given time goes back to Newton, Descartes, the old testament of bible, and perhaps even elder beliefs.

I can only guess that Einstein's misleading synchronization was stolen from Poincaré who used it in a manner that I consider still logically correct under the wrong assumption of a light-carrying aether.

What about the cowards, it often happens that there are many mutually excluding theories and at best one out of them can be correct. That's why I consider any kind of hasty prejudice unfair. As a rule, I feel not in position to compellingly reveal mistakes already from the abstract. Of course, there are knowing-alls too. If I made mistakes then presumably not those you have made in the past. I look forward ...

Cheers,

Eckard