Hi Tom,

As promised in my Essay page, I have read your particular Essay.

I find it intriguing for various reasons.

I like the simile between quantum physics and divination system of I Ching.

I think that your sentence "Gravity does not fit into quantum mechanics because one cannot derive a continuum of information from a bit of information, in any non-arbitrary way." is also the core of the black hole information loss paradox that I discussed in my Essay.

Do you think that your suggestion that "the ordered continuum is "It" and that partially ordered measures of information events (the "books" we create from the symbols) are the "bits"" is compatible with my statement "Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow"?

In any case, your Essay is pretty and I strongly appreciated it. Therefore, I will give you an high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

    Hi Antony,

    Indeed I found your essay of interest. Commented in your forum. Looking forward to dialogue!

    Best,

    Tom

    • [deleted]

    Hi Christian,

    I sure do agree that your statement ("Information tells physics how to work. Physics tells information how to flow") is compatible with the flow of partially ordered information over a continuous manifold of totally ordered information. I think it's even stronger than that -- it consummates Wheeler's simple explanation of general relativity ("Matter tells space how to curve; space tells matter how to move") by replacing the assumption of matter with the assumption of information, implying what we've long hoped for in a unified theory of physics, that space and time alone explain the origin and behavior of matter.

    Personally, I long doubted that Hawking's remarkable work in black hole thermodynamics could bridge that gap -- because of Hawking's insistence on information loss. This conclusion sabotaged hope that general relativity and quantum mechanics can be smoothly united -- because it implies that there is no time continuum: information loss is equivalent to quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse, so there's no profit in pursuing the relativity connection further.

    When Hawking reversed his opinion (2001, I think, though I wasn't aware of it until a couple of years later) my enthusiasm for unification via a field theory was reignited -- coincident with some intense study of Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture. It wasn't the proof so much that impressed me (hardly anyone thought the conjecture was false); it was the strategy (Thurston's geometrization conjecture). If the manifold of a 3-sphere (an event horizon in physical terms) can be continuously deformed and reformed, this differs from black hole thermodynamics -- how? If there is no singularity that cannot be extinguished in finite time, there is no naked singularity that is physical, and self organized fields account for all the physical effects we ascribe to matter. Furthermore, time symmetry is restored and black hole radiation (Hawking radiation) is a natural physical consequence of the geometry.

    With your (Corda's) information-preserving construction at the black hole event horizon, we can now speak of a time-conserving information flow, that smoothly corresponds to the geometric flow central to Perelman's proof. Thus, the evolution from pure state to pure state at the event horizon preserves the symmetry of general relativity, without the assumption of an asymmetric field that led Einstein astray for many years. In my own conception, general relativity's model of a "finite and unbounded" universe -- conventionally considered as finite in time, i.e., bounded at the singularity of creation, and unbounded in space -- remains unchanged when transposed to a model finite in space and unbounded in time.

    In the future I expect we will replace black hole thermodynamics with black hole informatics. I predict we will find that the self-similarity of information exchange at *any* event horizon from quantum to classical scales produces a continuous field of interacting waves to which particles owe their existence. Hey -- maybe it really is turtles all the way down. :-)

    All best,

    Tom

    Ah, the log-in thing again. 'Twas I, obviously.

    Thank you, Vladimir! I hope to get in another read of your essay when I can make the time. I enjoyed it and rated it highly, though it deserves more attention than I can give at the moment.

    All best,

    Tom

    Tom,

    Catching up with rating and just found you in uncharted territory. Hope this helps. Also hope you've done mine (or better still haven't and it's high!) I think we should organise audio essays in future. My eyes are aching!

    It's been a great contest for me as I've found much resonance and some great support and new links to similar work and consistent theory. But how can we ever update ('change') established doctrine?

    Very best of luck in the run in.

    Peter

      Thanks for the boost, Peter! Yes, I gave you my high rating last week.

      Best to you, too.

      Tom

      Hi Tom,

      I'm making my way through various essays. First I like very much the broad and deep non-physics (at least directly) references in the essay -- Saint-Exupéry, Darwin, I Ching. Also the line "Ever hear of starting the Schrödinger experiment with a dead cat?" is really great.

      There is some resonance between your use of self-similarity and that which we use in our essay so I certainly find this interesting. However even more interesting is the "fermionic phase of superfluidity" due to D.S. Jin (I'm going to download this paper to have a look). From the title to the PRL it seems that there is some superfluid phase to strongly interacting fermions which is something new to me. Also this seems to be connected with your figure 4.

      Also your paper you mention "So even though scale plays an apparent role (via the Planck constant) in locally definite measures - we ask, is scale a barrier to the indefinite global coherence of the wave function?" This is very interesting as there has been some recent work by Blencowe (arXiv:1211.4751 [quant-ph]) where he gives some calculations to indicate the interactions of bulk matter with the graviton CMB (the graviton version of the usual photon CMB) is responsible for the classical character of the world i.e. bulk matter does not show quantum coherence due to Planck scale physics. This appears to be similar to what you hint at.

      Anyway an entertaining and strong essay.

      Best,

      Doug

        Hi Thomas,

        Thanks for reply. I think your roulette wheel analogy should be used in textbooks - brilliant! Thanks also for your comments over on my page. I'll be able to reply properly early in the week.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Hi Doug,

        I am most honored by your approval. You know that I also think highly of your and your collaborators' research, and the strategy that motivates it.

        The "no dead cats" hypothesis is meant to underscore the fact that without an infinite regression to the cosmological initial condition, quantum mechanics is simply not coherent. It becomes a purely operational proposition, not a true scientific theory at all. The interesting consequence of this fact, to me, is that "no dead cats" implies "no dead matter." Consciousness itself regresses to the smallest particle of entangled wavefunctions. I see the entanglement as classical orientation entanglement, rather than the quantum entanglement that entails superposition and nonlocality. I am willing to accept the "no dead cats" hypothesis, which I find dovetails with Murray Gell-Mann's conjecture of a continuum of consciousness.

        If you haven't seen it, I think you might find interesting the 2004 Scientific American article on Deborah Jin which includes links to another interesting article by Christopher Monroe and David Wineland.

        I'll check out the Blencowe preprint. It does sound very worthwhile! I think there is still a whole lot of wisdom to mine from classical physics.

        All best,

        Tom

        Hi Tom,

        I'm glad to see you discovered Michael Goodband's essay, and I see you were able to boost his ranking. When I got there last week, his high quality essay was in an unfairly low slot, and I also gave it a boost. I think perhaps MG had a bit of a heavy or slow start, this year, but overall a very fine effort.

        Since I already gave you a good rating, I can only hope that others will see the quality in you work - and grade you accordingly. I note that you are doing well, but I hope you are closer to the top at the bell. Good luck!

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

          Thanks, Jonathan. This horse race is one thing (and not a great way in my opinion to judge scientific works) -- my delight is discovering high level and growing support for the relativistic foundation of physics.

          All best,

          Tom

          Doug, thanks for that link to Miles Blencowe's paper! (I was additionally heartened to see that it is not a preprint, but a publication of PRL this year).

          Absolutely, we are on the same page here: " ... whatever the final form the eventual correct quantum theory of gravity takes, it must converge in its predictions with the effective field theory description at low energies."

          Blencowe is exceedingly straightforward in his explanation of the rapid decoherence that restores normal perturbative analysis of gravitation above the Planck scale. I am reminded of Lavoisier's discovery of combustion as the process of rapid oxidation. We may eventually find that with quantum gravity -- as with combustion -- nothing more is needed except this functional description of interacting fields.

          I think Blencowe's Gaussian matter ball could be found equivalent to my primordial ball of spacetime.

          An excellent and groundbreaking paper. Thanks again, Doug.

          All best,

          Tom

          HI Tom,

          Glad you liked the Blencowe paper. Yes not only did it make PRL but it was a "focus" article which means PRL wrote up a popular leave exposition of PRL which can be found at http://physics.aps.org/articles/print/v6/78 under the title "Focus: Gravity Makes the Universe Classical". In this exposition they mention Schrodiner's cat and that Blencowe's mechanism may provide a means to explain why one does not see macro mixed state e.g. a half dead/half alive cat) -- gravity decoheres marco matter.

          Ray Chiao was the one who pointed this paper out to me and we are trying to understand if Blencowe's arguments would/should lead to the decoherence of superconductor or superfluids which are in some sense "marco quantum states". In other words a macro sized superconductor appears to maintain its quantum coherence which might be bad news for Blencowe's argument since superconductor and superfluids of marcoscopic size are able to maintain their superconducting or superfluids state or long periods of time (for superconductors as long as the liquid He or liquid N is kept topped up). However as well Blencowe considers a non-self interacting scalar field as his "model matter" and superconductors have sefl interactions via phonons. These interactions would probably dominate the gravitational interaction Blencowe considers. But we are still debating this. Also Blencowe's idea seems to a specific realization of how gravity make the world classical.

          Best,

          Doug

          Bull's-eye, Doug! I expect that science press attention will start picking up steam on this news by the time the academic year rolls in. If Ray Chiao is on board with these results, the buzz will be all the stronger.

          I've been drafting a paper to better explain the "middle value" relation that my essay addresses, and which ties into Blencowe's Gaussian ball. I'm seeing the ball as the potential of massless energy (graviton spin 2 particles) with Gaussian normal distribution:

          Using induction and the continuum hypothesis, I find that because the fixed congruence condition of twin primes, P_1 = P_2 (mod 2) generalizes to all odd primes*, the smallest magnitude -- i.e., any twin prime pair -- contains the largest differential (infinity), which is the cardinality of the continuum. For example, the set {17,19} with median 18 partitioned {17,18} {18,19} has no zero point as would be the case with {18,18} because the median on R_ has no clone.

          The "no cloning" theorem of quantum mechanics** which rejects the middle value is relevant here, whether we speak of prime integers or discrete particles -- because when we expand the magnitude to any arbitrary P_1, P_2, the mean is a definite finite point. For example, take the set {3, 119} whose mean is 58. In the previous example mean = median, so there is no definite point that partitions the integers, while the case of the relative state 3 = 119 (mod 2) gives us the definite state {3, 58, 119}. Long story short -- and leaving out the complex analysis needed to prove the case -- the implication is that the existence of 2 relative states implies 3 definite states.

          All Best,

          Tom

          * Ray, T. proceedings ICCS 2006

          ** Wooters, Zurek

          4 days later

          Hi Thomas,

          I found your statement, "Since input orientation equals position and output result equals momentum, there can be no ambiguity--local realism holds for these simultaneously measured values. The entire universe is not other than locally real." to be reflective of the findings obtained in the 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay intuitive, logical, and most worthy of merit.

          I wish you well in the competition. You essay deserves to be in the finals.

          Regards,

          Manuel

          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

          Thomas - interesting essay and nice connection of ideas. I particularly enjoyed your paragraphs on Feynman's call to Wheeler, and the one following regarding reversibility. As you will see from my essay, I have a different perspective on this (although inspired by Feynman and Wheeler's Absorber paper).

          My favorite paragraph in your essay is on page 8: "Is information identical to time?" (which you get from Ray's paper from the 2007 conference on Complex Systems). My point precisely.

          However, the most interesting part of your essay was for me the technical endnote, which could almost by itself be considered the key point of all of this.

          "countable" doesn't necessarily imply well ordered ... Yup!

          Well done, I gave you a good mark for this paper, and hope that you will review my definition of "countability" in an "eternal recurrence".

          Kind regards, Paul

          Dear Tom,

          Thanks for the comments over on my thread, I've only just noticed them. I've replied to your super questions!

          Best wishes for the contest - you have a truly inventive and inquisitive mind!

          Antony