Dear Professor Hogan,

As outreach must be a 2-way street to have any value I do hope you'll engage a little here.

Thank you for your essay. It was a fascinating and valuable to read about the important particle physics aspect. Do you not consider there is a grey and dimly lit area between particle physics and Quantum Theorizing?

I agreed with almost all your propositions and viewpoint, but suggest a slightly new model is possible using the 'fine grained picture' in 4D to decode the 'noise' limiting Shannon's channel capacity.

QM assumes particles have no internal structure. You know this is wrong. I propose and describe a model consistent with PP but also resolving the theoretical question behind 'virtual' electrons using recursive layers of Godel 'fuzzy' n-value logic. This is a physical model testable at Fermilab. (I suggest how baryonic dark matter should emerge from the same consistent model in a previous high scoring essay, and how you can find it).

I hope you'll read my essay "the Intelligent Bit", and advise and comment. I do find and show how the EPR paradox naturally resolves at an order below Bells classical assumption and in line with von Neumann's proposition for consistent QM.

Well done and thank you for participating and inputting from your important perspective. I'm embarrassed by your low score, but most here are not experimentalists. Love the title too. Beat's mine!

Best wishes

Peter

4 days later

Professor Hogan,

I want you to know that I enjoyed your essay greatly, and rated it highly, but I have been greatly interested in your experiment from the moment I first read about it in Scientific American. The design of your apparatus should pick up a wide range of quantum behaviors at the extreme microscale of spacetime, not only discrete atoms of space. Also if there is dimensional reduction as we approach the UV limit, a possibility which greatly interests me, this should show up as transverse mode jitters between the two detectors - as well.

So we are eagerly awaiting to know more about your current progress or stage of completion. Of course; we'd all like to hear that you have already got meaningful data, but I know these things take time. If you have any time to respond, I echo Peter's invitation above, and note that a few replies to our comments would be helpful.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Criag. Fascinating Essay. Excellent background and description of the Fermilab Holometer. You've given me lots to think about. Thank you.

I tuned in particularly to your discussion of "intervals between events" in QM and GR. Which of course begs a definition of an interval, and of an event. I will follow up on your references after the contest to seek answers to these questions.

My investigation considers intervals in time/space to be the photon path traversal between an emitter and an absorber atom. This defines a finite time which (if the photon were to be reversed) would also reverse time too. If you get chance to look at my essay, I would be honored.

In the meantime, good luck. I will likely come back to you with more questions after following up on your other references in the paper.

Kind regards, Paul

Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus, I rushed to get a single seat facing four others on a slightly elevated platorm. From my vantage point, I can't help noticing the shoes of the four passengers across from my seat are not the same, by either the make , the design, or the style, and that is true even when the four passengers happen to be members of the same family.

I could change the objects of my fascination from shoes to something else, to buttons on the dresses for example, but I do not think the result would have been any different. Diversity or Uniqueness would still rule the day! (There is a delightful essay on the subject of uniqueness by Joe Fisher in this contest.)

I am pretty sure people are fascinated by the diversity and the uniqueness in the world, when the other side of it is the inevitable boredom of sameness every time.

However, we have a need to know where all this beautiful and enchanting diversity comes from. Borrowing Wheelerian phraseology of "How come the quantum?", I ask "How come the diversity?" A standard physics answer is "Entropy always increases." (I am not a physicist, and I don't know if that is the final answer.)

Whenever I'm out of my depth, I go back to my theory of everything (TOE), which is a mental brew of common sense, intuition, gut, analogy, judgement, etc. etc. , buttressed when I can with a little thought-experiment.

The thought-experiment is simple. Imagine cutting a circle into two precisely, identical, and equal parts. Practically, there is no way we can get the desired result, because one part will be bigger or smaller in some way.

Physics - especially quantum physics - says it don't matter, do the superposition!

But superposition is fictive, an invention like the Macarena dance, and it has given us a cat, alive and dead at the same time.

I have heard that angels can dance on the tip of the needle, and now I'm finding out some of us can too!

Cheers and Good Luck to All,

Than Tin

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

Hi Craig,

I found your essay was well written, insightful, and a pleasure to read. I hope your much deserved essay makes it to the finals!

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Craig,

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.

Hi Craig,

Thank you for an intriguing approach to discerning evidence that Nature might be discrete.

> Imagine then that the real world is the ultimate 4-dimensional video display.

In my essay Software Cosmos I describe a discrete and computable picture for the cosmos that uses a different technique to reduce information density in large spatial volumes. I also outline (and have already conducted) an experiment to see if the world we observe has discrete characteristics.

I won't spoil the story by revealing the answer here, but I hope you get a chance to look at the essay, as it seems to fit in nicely with your views.

Hugh

Dear Craig,

Penzias and Wilson experiment had a great impact on our view of the universe.

May be you will be lucky with your holographic noise.

I have much respect for this topic (after Einstein 1905) and Penzias and Wilson (1978). Myself I did a lot to understand the so-called (universal) 1/f noise.

Congratulations for a great and serious work.

Michel

I just rated your essay a ten, high gave it a nice push.

I hope you like mine:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Esteemed Prof. Hogan,

too bad you are not here to discuss your essay. I found it very interesting, in fact almost a perfect article for Scientific American. I have a long-standing interest in the matters of space. What it is, how light, gravity, information travels through it, does it really vibrate and can we detect these vibrations.. It is wonderful that Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics which you direct is working on such fascinating questions.

Here are some sentences that jolted my brain in full attention -- despite being quite late at night and having read many essays on this last day of competition:

"The precision and universality of light propagation, even across cosmic distances, suggests that causal structure arises from a fundamental symmetry, even if locality is only approximate." -- can this be understood as 'structure of space'?

"Our radically different hypothesis is that space and time are created from information propagating with Planck bandwidth." wow indeed, how fascinating!

"Information is not localized in space, but resides in non localized correlations." Information as non-localized correlations... this I have to meditate on.

I only had trouble with this sentence:

"Taken together, these theoretical ideas hint that quantum mechanics limits the amount of information in space-time." Did you mean to say that some.. implications of quantum theory limit the amount of info... ? Somehow it does not sound right. From the semantics point of view, of course. Sorry for nitpicking :)

Thank you for your very interesting essay -- hope to see it, prettied out and with beautiful illustrations, in SA, regardless of the final results of this competition,

-Marina

    Congratulations Craig!

    I am glad to see you made the finals and I wish you luck in the contest. Since your essay is about your holometer experiment, I suppose I should wish you luck for that too.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Esteemed professor,

    Jonathan Dickau kindly reminded me about this post -- and I am back in your blog with more questions. Maybe one day I'll get the answers. For now, I leave them here for safekeeping, like writings on a wall.

    I see now that there were more reasons for my brain to be jolted than what I realized at the time of writing my previous post. We have strong innate reactions to incongruences, it seems, and what I see now is this:

    First you say that "space and time are created from information propagating with Planck bandwidth' -- (through what does information propagate?) --

    .. and then you say, "Information is not localized in space, but resides in non localized correlations" -- non-localized correlations... correlations betweeen what? Where? -- They cannot reside in space, because space is what information creates. Where does information reside?

    On a fresher head the day after, it seems to me that something does not quite compute here. Sorry for nitpicking again. I simply find the subject of space and your research fascinating. I want to know more and understand what you mean.

    Thank you,

    -Marina

    Dear Craig J. Hogan:

    I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. 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

    Write a Reply...