IT from BIT considering fluctuations in a quantised space by Carolyn Devereux

Very good esay: space-time-matter are the same

Quantum geometrization, discrete, of one same entity unified

In te compactifications of tiny circles is the key to quantize the gravity and unified the space-time-mass/energy. In(2)= dark energy density

1-In(2)-Omega(b) = dark matter density

Omega(b)= dark baryon density =

= 240 ( group E8 )- exp(5+(In2)^2)

Curvature =1/r^2

Infinity of oscilators ( circles ) with 3 circles mutually tangents,

these 3 circles interact at tangent points ; and create other circle, the four

Sum(n = 1, infinity) 3/n^2 = Pi^2/2

Time Planck= tp

Tp•la•exp(exp(Pi^2/2))= H0 ( Huble Constant

la = SQR(alfa^-1/(4•Pi)). ; alfa^-1 = inverse fine structure constan= 137.035999073

Regards

Carolyn,

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

Carolyn,

As of 7-6-13, 7:45 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Hi Carolyn,

This is an elegant and beautiful essay. I hope you also find resonance and synergy in my essay (and thread) which is raw, lacks scientific rigor and looks absurd.

I am still grappling with point 3 of your essay on A BIT of time. I tend to treat time as a derivative or consequence of the change in state of event. In my thread, I discussed abit more on the treatment of space and time, of local and global state which I am still ploughing on.

Great work and good luck!

Cheers,

Hon Jia

Carolyn,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Dear Dr. Carolyne

I read with great interest your short lucid essay full of fresh new ideas. Everything you said is eminently reasonable and full of promise to break the current conceptual logjam in physics. A realist Machian universe buzzing with causal activity on its smallest scale is the very thing needed.

However I think one should go much further. Modern physics is - in a fundamental way - built on three of Einstein's ideas that really need to be revamped 1- the point-photon creates duality which is the basis of Quantum probability and the foam you acknowledge but thankfully try to find an alternative to (resonant space). 2- In SR the constant (c) and its flexi space and time are unreal' and unnecessary: Lorentzian relativity can be implemented in an absolute discrete universe. 3- Gravity built on such flexible space and time is so complicated it must be surely wrong just from the premise that Nature follows Occam's Razor. In fact a laughably simple gravity based on space density as suggested by Eddington seems to work - to explain for example the curvature of light in gravity.

All this I have incorporated in my 2005 Beautiful Universe BU Theory also found here. Related ideas are in my last year's 'Fix Physics' essay. If you find my concepts bizarre blame the late Carolyne Thompson who first inspired me to question Einstein's hallowed ideas. Your matter being a wave concept was explored and simulated by another of Carolyne and my friends, the late Gabriel Le Frenier. His website disappeared after his death but is fortunately preserved here Gabriel La Frenier. Last but not least another online friend Eric Reiter has now experimentally proven the point photon wrong.

I hope young researchers will not shun such ideas merely because they are incomplete, qualitative, the work of non-academics or those no longer with us and hence incapable of developing their concepts, as the case may be.

Too bad about the fqxi rating glitch - at least it kept your essay on top of the list for me to find it! I wish you all the best in your work.

Vladimir

Carolyn,

I have had the pleasure of reading your essay and I find your reasoning to be reflective of the findings obtained from a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. I have a question to run by you if I may.

You stated, "Energy in the Universe is always seen as movement; when there is no movement it is at absolute zero, i.e. nothing. So by imagining a moving piece of nothing we have created space and energy."

How does a piece of nothing exist as a piece?

Thanks,

Manuel

Dear Carolyn,

You seem to be the first to resurrect Wheeler's view of geons within the contest an you do it with elegance. You don't mention any connection of your views to loop quantum gravity (Smolin, Hartle), I agree that no easy mention of bit can be defined in LCG.

Reciprocally, one can find much geometrical and algebraic structure in the qubit observable space, as I attempt to explain in my essay, but I have no idea how space-time concepts could be introduced. GR and QM still stay apart from each other.

All the best,

Michel

Dear Dr Devereux,

Very nice essay to read and super approach! Think this sums it up nicely to me:

"The quantum of time becomes the BIT that enables information to flow across the space network".

After all Einstein worked with 4D space-time so it makes perfect sense to intertwine information and reality in this elegant way too.

I've split space away from time, not disagreeing with Albert at all, but showing that there may be an arrow of time displayed when "crossing" black holes. So I hope you take a look at my essay too!

For now congratulations and nice to see a Birmingham Alumni on here - nearly went myself ;)

Best wishes,

Antony

Hi Carolyn,

Wheelers question ''How does something arise from nothing? '' seems to express amazement that something exists indeed. However, if the most fundamental, most obvious law of all of physics is the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then there doesn't exist anything at all. Indeed, if in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference everything inside of it has to add to nil, to cancel, including space and time, then the universe is that unique, paradoxical 'thing' which doesn't exist, has no physical reality as 'seen' from without, but only exist as seen from within, to an observer the particles of his body being part of the sum which is to remain nil.

If the universe would contain only a single charged particle (among uncharged particles) so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it cannot be charged itself. If charge, if any property lives within interactions between particles, if particle express and preserve their properties by interacting, by exchanging information, then 'its', particles, particle properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them.

If the information as embodied in particle properties and the associated rules of behavior aka laws of physics in a self-creating universe must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, then information only can survive, become actual information when molded into physical, material particle and tested in actual particle interactions: only that information survives which enables its carriers, readers/writers to survive. If the universe would contain only a single charged particle (among many uncharged particles) so it wouldn't be able to express its charge, then it cannot be charged itself. If charge, if any property lives within interactions between particles, if particle express and preserve their properties by interacting, by exchanging information, then 'its', particles, particle properties are as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them. If particles only exist to each other if and for as long as they interact, exchange information, then you cannot have one without the other, nor can one be more fundamental than the other, causally precede the other.

If a particle cannot exist, have properties if there's nothing outside of it to interact with, then the same must hold for the universe. The fallacy of big bang cosmology is that we can only speak about the properties and state of the universe if there's something outside of it the universe can interact with, something it owes its properties to, that is: if it has been created by some outside intervention. For this reason big bang cosmology is an even worse 'theory' than creationism which at least honestly, boldly states that, yes, there is Someone outside of it Who created the universe. (And no, observations which seem to indicate that we do live in a big bang universe are less unequivocal than presently is assumed.)

Your second axiom, that space is quantized, made up of discrete units, is formulated from an imaginary observation post outside the universe, which is scientifically illegitimate: the meter and second are not defined outside the universe. Though energy is quantified, that does not mean that the Planck constant is a minimum energy quantity, and hence the Planck length the smallest possible length in the universe. If in blackbody radiation there are more energy levels per unit energy interval at higher energies, temperatures, so we need more and more decimals to distinguish successive energy levels at higher and higher energies, then the energy gap between subsequence levels can become arbitrarily small. Though energy is quantified, there is no minimum limit to the size of the quantum, so the Planck length and Planck time etc. have no special significance. The Planck constant h is like the number 1 in mathematics, encompassing all values between 0.5 and 1.5, so if we can measure the Planck constant in more decimals, at higher energies, then we can write that number as 1.0, which encompasses all numbers between 0.95 and 1.05. So if in our equations we set h = 1, then every time we improve the accuracy of the Planck constant, we increase the magnifying power of our microscope with a factor 10. In other words, the extent to which spacetime is defined, detailed somewhere, depends on the local energy density, so space is not built from discrete units which have the same size everywhere. To make matters worse, the observed energy density or definiteness of an area of spacetime also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the distance its 'looks' from and its motion.

Regards, Anton

Carolyn,

A nice classical essay on a quantum subject. I liked your businesslike no frills approach, axiomised layout, and indeed the thesis itself.

I did have a feeling of deja vu when I got to "Much ado about nothing", which proposed something very close to your premise in my last years essay also entitled "Much ado about nothing" (7th in the community scoring).

I went on to find something a bit more fundamental which I hope you may consider and comment on;

If a small cloud of quanta was on motion past a large cloud of quanta, and light propagated at c through each with respect to each rest frame, would that not derive SR direct from a quantum mechanism?

The 'boundary mechanism' would require light to 'arrive' at c in one frame, then slow or speed up (Doppler shifting) to propagate at the 'new' c. In fact atomic scattering is always at the ion particle's c, so the mechanism exists.

And even perhaps where; "Einstein showed that gravity was geometry" and, "Wheeler asserted that matter could also be geometry", then the mechanism of diffraction by small quanta or particles of matter could not only replicate but even perhaps 'be' curved space-time. No violation of SR is involved as there is no 'absolute' background frame.

As something of a test, my this years essay explores some implications relating to a 3D version of wave propagation, appearing to resolve the EPR paradox. Your views would be valued.

But congratulations on your own proposal and essay this year. I hope it does very well.

Best regards

Peter

Dear Carolyn Devereux:

I am an old physician that does not know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Why I am writing you?, because I think I can help in some ways in "space-time" with the experimental meaning of "time" I send you a summary so you can decide in reading 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, 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

Dr. Devereux,

I have rated your superb essay a ten. I only have one quibble I wish to make about it. I too am an old realist who does not understand anything about the science of physics. You elegantly wrote: "This assumes that we have a unique place in the Universe and that without us the Universe does not exist - an idealist viewpoint. The alternative view is that substances can exist without human intervention - the realist." And you daringly 'fessed up to being a realist.

In my essay BITTERS, I have carefully explained to all who read it, that one unique real Universe can only be occurring, once.

I think Wheeler ought to have asked these questions:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique, once simple? Yes.

Is Quantum theory simple? No.

I do wish you well in the contest.

Joe

Dear Carolyn,

I read your abstract and since the theme was similar to mine, I went further and browsed your essay. It deserves a deeper comment after more than a casual read. In the meantime, since a PhD is not a joke, and

as the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Carolyn,

you are my champion! I read your beautiful essay 2 days ago and had to take a break from fqxi forum, so stunned I was. I had found the match I was looking for. As I already explained on Maria Carrillo-Ruiz's blog, as a non-professional I am here to hone my vision of the world and my understanding of its inner workings. My method consists of visualization of the 'underlying reality' based on logic and working in complete isolation -- and then looking for a match for my vision among the writings of professionals like yourself. This is how I choose among the countless schemes of reality offered by physics today. I was stunned to have found the exact match in your essay.

I tried to convey what I envisioned in my last year FQXi contest essay on the nature of space, but... As a non-professional, I could not do it full justice. Also, due to space limitations I did not go into the details of how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate, but concentrated instead on the top-down view of the universe emerging from the dynamic, vibrating, structure of space governed by just a few simple principles.

Having read your essay, I was transported back to those couple of weeks in May of 2011 when I 'saw' it all -- and the ecstasy that came with it. I had glimpsed the essence of the universe! (Do you get those too?) Without a doubt, for me those days were the highlight of the past decade.

I am well aware that everyone can get lucky and chance upon a valuable realization, but it takes many years, sometimes decades, of formal study to convey this realization in a coherent and cohesive manner. And you did just that. Thank you!

-Marina

Hi Carolyn,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

I enjoy reading it and gave it high rate

considering fluctuations in a quantised space

very good point!

I can't agree more

my essay may interest you Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Dear Carolyn. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Dear Madam,

Madam MARINA V VASILYEVA recommended your essay to us.

We have proved in many threads here and elsewhere without contradiction that the equivalence principle is a wrong description of reality and leads to Russell's paradox of set theory. Till date no experiment has conclusively proved the equivalence of inertial mass with gravitational mass and all claims in this regard can be explained otherwise. In fact, the inertial mass concept came from the erroneous claims of length contraction and time dilation. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein to measure the length of a moving rod were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. In the first method, there is no change. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.

The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In his 30th June, 1905 paper, he treated the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!

Length contraction is only apparent from the stationary frame and cannot be real for the moving frame. What the man on the platform sees cannot affect the train. The passenger on the train will not notice any length contraction. However, time dilation is real in a different sense. All experiments conducted to prove time dilation are defective. Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that it was fudged (proved in our thread). The GPS result can be explained by the difference in refractive index of the Earth's atmosphere and outer space through which the light signal travels. Time dilation has meaning only in relative terms of cyclic evolutionary sequences. The evolutionary cycles are different for different categories or different species of the same category. Their evolution over universal time (Einstein's clock at A) can lead to comparative time dilation. The perihelion of Mercury was explained by Gerber much before Einstein. Thus, it is no wonder that GR fails beyond the Saturn's orbit (Pioneer Anomaly).

Newton held that both the Earth and the tree with the apple were at rest. The apple falls to Earth due to gravity. Einstein said that the space between the apple and the Earth curved, so that the apple came to Earth. If mass caused the space to curve, then why the entire tree did not curve? After all, in gravitation, the mass of a body is treated as point mass. The answer to this question is, GR is wrong. Minkowski was experimenting with the curvature of metal plates when heated. Einstein used this idea in GR. But gravity is not localized like heat - it is universal.

Have you ever wondered the difference between force and energy? Free on-line dictionary defines force as "The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power" in the general category, but changes to "A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application" in the physics category. The same dictionary defines energy as "The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power" and "The capacity of a physical system to do work" in general and physics category respectively. The word "capacity to cause" physical change means, energy in its stored or potential state is force. In its kinetic state (vigorous activity), it is interaction and after it ceases to act, it is action. Though the three are only evolutionary states of the same thing, they are physically different.

Gravity is a "force" that stabilizes orbits between interacting bodies, when both bodies circle around a point called barycenter. If you take the distance from this point to the centers of each body, draw a square of that length and distribute the mass of the two bodies in the reverse field, you will find some interesting results. We leave it to you for working it out so that you can draw your own conclusions. For this reason, gravity is closer to magnetism. Bodies with strong magnetic fields exhibit high gravitational potential also. On the other hand, strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions and radioactive disintegration are caused by "energy". Unlike magnetism or gravity, these are associated with high temperature. Unlike gravity, these four are governed by different combinations of proximity-distance variables (proximity-proximity, proximity-distance, distance-proximity and distance-distance) between the two bodies involved in interaction. Since both belong to different classes, they have not been unified by any of the present day theories. This shows that there is some inherent defect in modern theories that need rectification. (We hold gravity as a composite of 7 different forces. In its role for structure formation, these are called acceleration due to gravity and in its role for displacement, these are called gravity.)

All 'novel' concepts of Wheeler are good fiction, but not physics. Knowledge of an object does determine its existence (we cannot have knowledge about something that does not exist), but may not determine its position at here-now (the concept of zero). Nothing arise ex-nihilo. But quarks give rise to protons and neutrons, atoms to molecules and molecules to the macro world. What gave rise to quarks - we have briefly discussed in our essay.

Both space and time are emergent properties born out of the perception of sequence. While space is the interval between the ordered sequences of objects that also is the background structure, time is the interval between the ordered sequences of events, i.e., changes in structures by energy. Both are information or data depending upon the context. Dynamics is not of space, but related to objects in space. We treat energy as that which moves mass. In that respect energy is one type, which becomes 5 types due to its interaction with mass. These are the strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions, radioactive disintegration and gravity. We have described the mechanism in various threads without contradiction. Regarding "how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate", we had described it in our essay: "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31.

Axiom 1: Space is the interval between objects - hence it can be conserved only as a background structure. Mass and energy are conserved.

Axiom 2 & 4: There cannot be a cube of nothing. Space inside a box is like water inside a sunken box. Hence it cannot be quantized. You also admit that space quanta are contiguous and continuous.

Axiom 3: A quantum of space does not vibrates harmonically, but the field or the background structure vibrate due to flow of energy.

Axiom 5: Time is analog, but we use segments of it as digital.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Carolyn

Just in case

I would like to show my short question about spacetime to Stephen Weinberg

Fri 8/1/2008 1:21 PM

Quoting Yuri Danoyan :

"Dear Dr Weinberg

If space is discrete and time is continue,does 4-dimensional space-time

lost its sense?

Sincerely

Yuri Danoyan"

from

weinberg@physics.utexas.edu

to Yuri Danoyan

"Yes"

Do you agree with SW?