Manuel

Thank you for reading my essay. The purpose of the piece of nothing was to imagine how something could come from nothing. It is a model. My aim was to get a discrete unit of space that contains energy. The result I ended up with was a unit of space that exists because it contains energy and is vibrating. If there is no energy then there is no space, there is nothing. I like this view of space and energy being dependent on each other for their own existence. It could also mean that the space-time continuum becomes a space-time-energy continuum.

Carolyn

Hon Jia

Thank you for your comments. I also think of time as a change of state. If there were no changes there would be no universe and no time. In my model the change of state is the movement of the space quantum and hence time emerges from the model.

Carolyn

Michel

When I first came across the geon I was interested in matter being made up of trapped light. Although the geon is a defunct idea, the concept of gravity creating a trap at an elementary particle level rather than at a cosmic level is an interesting one (and created public interest in miniature black holes developing when the large hadron collider was turned on).

I have thought about the link between loop quantum gravity and the vibrating quantum model and whether they could be the same thing. My model may be a different way of visualising the loop and the way in which it contains energy. The loop wavefunction would then be the size and shape and energy of the space quantum. Maybe some of the mathematics from LQG could be used.

Thank you for your interest in my essay

Carolyn

Anton

The question regarding something from nothing I interpret more as the fact that we have to start with something for the universe to exist. In my essay I use the something from nothing as a way of explaining the model. My assumption is that energy and space must exist. If the universe was nothing we would not be here discussing it.

Regarding information and interactions I agree that a single charged particle will have no electrical force on it, since a force would require a second electrical charge, however it can still have a charge on it. Information about the charge of the particle can only be known if an exchange or interaction with another charged particle occurs. Hence information is about changes in states.

Regarding your comment on space quantisation, I do not understand why this has to be from an imaginary observer outside the universe. If quantisation of space is how the universe is, then that is how it is from an observer inside the universe as well as from the outside of the universe.

Carolyn

Peter

Apologies if I used the same title, this is my first year in the contest and I did not read last year's essays.

A cloud of quanta is space quanta with energy then two "clouds" of different energy patterns meeting would require the space quanta to match at the boundary. Light can travel at c between and within the clouds since it travels at c within each quantum regardless of it's shape/energy. Then this does derive SR. And as you say there is no absolute background frame. Particles of matter would be curved space, in fact all forces, fields, matter and light would come from curved space.

Thank you for your interest in my essay and I will read and rate your essay.

Carolyn

Joe

Thank you for your comments. I will read your essay so that I can give a more considered response to your comments.

Carolyn

Xiong

Thank you for supportive comments. I will read your essay and comment in your essay section.

Carolyn

Antony

Thank you for your comments. The arrow of time is an important and unresolved problem. I will read your essay.

Carolyn

Angel

Thank you for your comments. I will need to read your essay before I can comment on your points further.

Carolyn

Vladimir

Thank you for your comments. I agree that the point particle/photon is an issue for current physics and although it is a useful concept it is also a limiting one and we are reaching it's limit.

A flexible space-time creating gravity is one of the basis of my essay. I don't see it as complicated , in fact I see it as a simple solution which follows Occam's Razor.

Carolyn

Dear Carolyn,

I am so happy you were not offended by my 4 questions. I managed to annoy some by that post.

I am rating your essay high not because of your answers but the quality of your essay.

Best regards,

Akinbo

*Most PhDs are saying 1011 so that should be the correct answer.

The implication is that most likely in our list of binary choices underlying our information theoretic physics, existence/non-existence would lie at the "very, very deep bottom" in that list. I would value a few comments from a PhD on my essay, even if you cant rate high not being written in the kind of language you may prefer.

Carolyn,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Basudeba

It seems to me that you do not agree with my axioms. You assume that mass is a fundamental rather than space. My assumption is that mass is emergent from something more fundamental, which in my essay I am proposing is space and energy. You also seem to question the principles of General Relativity. My essay is based on the assumption that GR is a valid theory.

Carolyn

Carolyn

How about this construction?

http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0059

Yuri

Dear Madam,

Can there be perception without a perceiver? This does not conflict with the notion that space is real. Reality must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. This means it must be perceived as the same to all (subject to physical laws and deficiencies), which implies it must be capable of being conveyed to others in a language. These are the necessary conditions for describing reality. Since space and time fulfill these conditions, they are real. Perception does not create or affect reality, but only reports its state at a given moment. Hence your view is correct. Your definition of dimension as a degree of freedom does not clash with our views, as we are free to change any dimension of an object as we want. But the effect will always be deterministic. If we reduce the length (x-axes), either the breadth (y-axes) or height (z-axes) or density (radius) will increase and vice versa. But what is the degree of freedom with time?

Consider an example: A B → C D. Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn't act on C and D as they don't exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, then B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be: B A → C D and not B A ← C D. Hence it does not affect causality. There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect. Hence there cannot be any degree of freedom with time. Time cannot be a dimension.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Carolyn,

No apology for was needed for "Much Ado..." I don't think even mine was original! It showed similar thinking.

Thanks for promising to read and rate mine. If you do please do comment on it too, I'll value your views (and score!). I also noticed I'd neglected to apply yours, so if you felt a pleasant shove from below that was me (apologies!)

Well done and very best wishes. I hope you stick around.

Peter

Dear Carolyn -

I think your concept of a quantum BIT of fluctuating space-time probably provides a unit that will be of use to mathematicians.

The essay in general was a fine exposition of the essential nature of space-time and the emergence of particles. You begin with both space and energy, but I wonder if this doesn't 'wire in' certain assumptions about both (and later, about space invariance, space lag, inertia causing mass, etc)?

I think the most basic starting point is pure energy - and we should ask: 'What is a field of pure energy like before it even becomes associated with motion or space?' I say Energy must perform the necessary permutations, or self-organization, that aligns positive and negative charges in such a way as to produce the proton and electron, before space and motion can exist.

Your thoughts on harmonic oscillations and resonances as underlying matter and the Cosmos are very interesting to me - I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that remain distinct but interact in a correlated manner with the 'un-aligned' charges of the primordial energy field.

If 'gravity is an entropic force that is created from the synchronisation of the space-time quanta' as you propose, the underlying resonances would be caused by this primordial field - as would 'the stable overall wavefunction.'

In your conclusion you state that 'Wheeler's "IT from BIT" refers to information defining the Universe; that by using information we are in some way creating the Universe. This assumes that we have a unique place in the Universe and that without us the Universe does not exist - an idealist viewpoint.'

I think this view is actually quite realistic if we factor evolution into the Cosmos - as we must. Ultimately, even 'matter' is simply very ancient information, supported by the appropriate biological configurations. And because evolution involves constant change, the field of our reality is also continually shifting.

Rather than an idealist/realist divide, I think there is a 'greater cosmos' - independent of our 'Species Cosmos' - and that it is because the two cosmae are essentially in some type of superposition, or close proximity in the primordial field of energy, that they are interacting with that field in a similar manner. Thus they too are correlated - and this explains why, in spite of our 'subjective' condition, our outcomes yield - within a certain field of parameters - 'objective' results: Our species Cosmos is the mirror of the 'greater Cosmos'.

I was thoroughly engrossed by your essay, and if I have spoken at such length about my own paper, it is simply because I believe this to be the most useful thing to do on this platform; we should be comparative in our critiques.

I have rated your essay, of course, and hope you will express your views about mine soon. I also wish you the very best in the competition -

John.

Carolyn,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827