Dear Professor Corda,

Thank you for your kind review and I'm very honored you liked my essay. And thanks for picking out the idea, or aphorism as you nicely called it, of the battery model. This could lead to entropic force concepts, perhaps even related to some of Verlinde's ideas on gravity, and it's an avenue I'd like to pursue. Also, entanglement provides a wonderful insight into the nature of the universe, and it's amazing all the possible scenarios that can be constructed - this is definitely another area into which I'd love to delve much more.

As I mentioned on your essay page, I thought your essay to be a real cornerstone in physics, as you showed in very clear terms how information is preserved throughout black hole evaporation. You stated your goals precisely and you accomplished them, and you definitely advanced the topic of this essay project. Thanks again, and looking forward to seeing your continued work.

Steve Sax

Dear Dr. Ojo,

Thanks for the questions, and I the just read your very pleasant and intriguing essay (which I will comment more about on your essay page soon), which I think helps me to understand your questions better. I like discussions about monads and infinities, and think these to be very fundamental. Although the infinitesimal and the infinite may seem as opposites, that in fact really links them. And so in view of your essay which focuses on monads, I see further meaning in your questions above, which involve infinities. So, now I'll try to answer them:

1) Regarding +Q/T to an object from absolute zero - The more precise formulation is (delta S) = (delta Q)/T. Your question suggested its own answer - the physics is such that it simply is impossible to ever get to absolute zero. In fact, this is a result of the Third Law of Thermodynamics: Being at absolute zero means entropy is at its minimum value, and the entropy change approaches zero as temperature approaches zero. This has been worked out mathematically which I can show you in a separate correspondence. The result is that it's impossible for any process to reduce the entropy of a system to its zero point value in a finite number of operations. Another way of stating this is that if at all possible, it would take an infinite number of steps to reduce a system to absolute zero, and so our infinities come back again to balance the issue! Furthermore, a system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state; the kinetic energy of this ground state can't be removed.

That being said, it may be interesting to consider the big bang as being initially the lowest entropy state of the universe, and that any change introduced to it (how this was done though is open to many suggestions, including faith or other-worldly postulate) would be that very difference in Q to thus cause the 'thermodynamic bomb' as you phrased it, thus setting the universe in motion with SLT.

2) By 'Among the binary choices mentioned by Wheeler in his quote' - do you mean the possibilities of bit, i.e. the 0s and 1s? So 1 would be existence and 0 would be non-existence, for example? I think Wheeler was considering yes and no answers, or on/off states. But even 'no' and 'off' offer an answer about how something exists - that is to say 'no' and 'off' offer just as much structure as do 'yes' and 'on'

I'll try to address this more on your page.

Thanks again Dr. Ojo for your thought provoking questions, and I hope my answers were helpful.

Steve Sax

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your encouraging comments on my blog.

Regarding your answer 1), yes, the more precise formulation is (delta S) = (delta Q)/T, which I take to mean when you add energy, +Q, not -Q, the entropy S increases till it attains a new higher equilibrium value over a period of time (not instantaneously).

Assume for arguments sake, that in a "special" circumstance T can be zero, irrespective of what quantum physicists tell us about zero-point energy, by the third law S will also be zero.

If now, a change,+Q, no matter how infinitesimal is introduced (as you point out, how this can be done is open to many suggestions), the equilibrium entropy initially at zero should increase similarly over a period of time to the mathematically given equilibrium value which fortunately or unfortunately appears to be at infinity.

If "nothing" can be a state or system, certainly this will be a "special" circumstance where T = 0 can be attained. If this scenario is a possibility how will such an increasing entropy be manifest in a system of initial infinitesimal size?

Best regards,

Akinbo

*I will revisit here during the week to see your thoughts on this.

Professor Sax,

I found your essay to be quite an entertaining read. I was particularly impressed with the idea of "direct counterfactual communication," although I have to reluctantly admit that my admiration for it was somewhat colored by George Orwell's observations on governmental contradictory communication in his novel, 1984.

As I have explained in my essay BITTERS, only unique, once is real. The only question Wheeler ought to have asked was:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is direct counterfactual communication simple? No

Good luck in the contest,

Joe

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your kind words, I am very honoured by them. I completely agree with your ideas on the importance of entropic force and entanglement for a better knowledge and understanding of the nature of the universe. I strongly encourage you to further proceed in those studies.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Steven P Sax:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, so is almost impossible for me to give an opinion in your essay I read it and it seems to me seriously done and I rated for it. In this contest are many theories, mine is not.

Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" 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", I think that 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 slows 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.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates 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 using "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. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

7 days later

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Dear Steven,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Steven - nice job. I just rated your essay highly.

I would like to home in on a particular issue that you raised in your essay regarding "Dark" photons, which is proposed in the essay on subtime as exactly what is going in in the process of entanglement. Photons do land, but they are then "returned" to the source, creating a perpetual "hot potato". I would love to hear your thoughts on my description of the two slit experiment as contrasted to your paragraph below:

"But would information still normally require some sort of physical carrier? Elitzur et al in 1993 developed an idea for interaction‐free measurements. This involves using light to detect the presence of an object without actually bouncing any photons off it. The wave-particle duality of light would allow that an object obstructing one of two paths inside an interferometer can destroy the interference pattern in that device, even though no photons actually come into contact with it, and this was confirmed experimentally. This was used in 2012 to create a quantum‐mechanically encoded key for the encryption and decryption of secret messages."

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

Kind regards, Paul

    Hi Paul,

    Thank you so much for your very nice comments and comparison with your essay. As I wrote on your page, I really liked your concept of subtime and how you related that to entanglement. Your explanation and development is very lucid and intelligent, and I enjoyed your essay very much. I still want to think about your question some more, and it's very intriguing. Although Elitzur's phenomena is a specialized example giving insight into entanglement and information, your approach may suggest that Elitzur's arrangement might key into something more fundamental from the onset, providing a model for how the universal nature of entanglement can be demonstrated. Perhaps it could be used as a way to actually map out subtime interactions - e.g. proverbially shining light onto a dark photon. It's great how our essays both navigate from different angles and end up converging on several ideas.

    Looking forward to seeing how these ideas progress, and thanks again.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Sax

    Dear Steven,

    You describe a series of intriguing quantum experiments to claim that

    "information is causal to physical reality, if not at least symbiotic with it".

    Well done. Although I am familiar with the many topics you introduce (entanglement, decoherence, quantum Zeno and so on), I learned from you much.

    In particular, I have to read ASAP "Salih et al direct counterfactual communication" which seems close to the subject of my essay.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

    Congratulations and a high rate from me now.

    Best regards,

    Michel

    Steven,

    Great essay. Sorry I came to it so late (I failed the readathon!).

    I struggled with your; " measurement need not involve a particular observer; rather it is any interaction that determines the property of a system to a description that it is acceptable to be used in another interaction."

    Yet; "...Anything that computes makes measurements."

    I can't fully resolve this logically (it is QM after all!) If two brains or instruments detect a signal, must they both find precisely the same, even if in different places (as they must be) or states of motion?

    Your analysis of the Bell Inequalities was excellent, so good that I would beg a moment of your time to consider an entirely new approach with a 'non-local' (in Bells terms) variable seeming to support von Neumann's assertion for consistent QM not relying on causality at Alice and Bob.

    The model predicted an orbital asymmetry should be found in time resolved or single particle experiments. Searching Aspects papers I eventually found just this in his French thesis. Did you know he discarded ~99.9% of his results as the anomaly couldn't be explained at the time?. Statistical methods are 'blind' to it.

    Please ignore my dense abstract which puts many off, the paper is very readable, with comments including; "groundbreaking", "significant", "astonishing", "fantastic", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "superb", etc. I hope that makes you at least curious, and perhaps none may be better qualified to comment.

    Very well done for yours. Top Marks. Perhaps it's lower rated as your sentence/para structure was a bit too much like my abstract! But no problem for me.

    Very best wishes, and greatly look forward to your comments and advice (after the contest would be fine). The Intelligent Bit.

    Peter