Essay Abstract

A no-frills model of quantum theory can be constructed - a local realistic theory that has the same unitary evolution as a quantum field theory. On the other hand, evolution in this model is described by a partial differential equation in (3+1)-dimensional spacetime. Therefore, at any time point, information in this model can be stored in space in the form of electromagnetic field. In this sense, this is a legacy model of information storage and processing in nature, as it is very similar, in principle, to classical electrodynamics. The main premises and steps of construction of this model are as follows. Schr\"{o}dinger noted that the complex charged matter field in the Klein-Gordon equation or in scalar electrodynamics can be made real by a gauge transform. An extension of these results to the Dirac equation and spinor electrodynamics is proposed here: the Dirac equation is generally equivalent to one fourth-order partial differential equation for one complex component, which can also be made real by a gauge transform. Furthermore, the matter field can be algebraically eliminated both from scalar electrodynamics and from spinor electrodynamics in a certain gauge (for spinor electrodynamics, this is done after introduction of a complex electromagnetic four-potential, which leaves the electromagnetic fields unchanged). The resulting equations describe independent dynamics of the electromagnetic field. It is also shown that for these systems of equations, a generalized Carleman linearization (Carleman embedding) procedure generates systems of linear equations in the Hilbert space, which look like second-quantized theories and are equivalent to the original nonlinear systems on the set of solutions of the latter. Thus, the relevant local realistic models can be embedded into quantum field theories. Possible issues with the Bell theorem are discussed.

Author Bio

Andrey Akhmeteli obtained his PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics from Moscow University and has worked there, in other research and education institutions, and in industry.

Download Essay PDF File

Andrey,

As of 7-6-13, 2:33 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

    Andrey,

    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.

    Dr. Akhmeteli,

    Please do not confuse nature with physics. Nature stores reality. Nature does not store information about realty because information about reality is not real. Please Wheeler your essay.

    Is nature real? Yes.

    Is information real? No.

    Joe

      Dear Akhemeteli,

      Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. So you can produce matter from your thinking or from information description of that matter. . . . ?

      I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

      I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

      Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

      Best

      =snp

      snp.gupta@gmail.com

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

      Pdf download:

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

      Part of abstract:

      - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

      Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

      A

      Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

      ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

      . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

      B.

      Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

      Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

      C

      Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

      "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

      1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

      2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

      3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

      4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

      D

      Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

      It from bit - where are bit come from?

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

      ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

      Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

      E

      Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

      .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

      I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

      ===============

      Please try Dynamic Universe Model with some numerical values, give initial values of velocities, take gravitation into consideration( because you can not experiment in ISOLATION). complete your numerical experiment.

      later try changing values of masses and initial values of velocities....

      Calculate with different setups and compare your results, if you have done a physical experiment.

      I sincerely feel it is better to do experiment physically, or numerically instead of breaking your head on just logic. This way you will solve your problem faster.....

      Best

      =snp

      Dear Mr. Fisher,

      Thank you for your comment.

      I am afraid you are trying to kill the messenger. According to the rules of the contest, the possible topics include the following: ``How does nature (the universe and the things therein) ``store'' and ``process'' information?'' So why don't you explain to the organizers of the contest what you are trying to explain to me? Why don't you suggest that they please Wheeler their rules? If you are just not happy that sometimes I use the verbs "store" and "process" without the quotation marks (please note that there are the quotation marks in the title), you are much more detail-oriented than I am. Good for you!

      Let me also note that I don't really discuss reality or irreality of nature or information - I just offer some realistic model, and this is a different thing. Whether information is real or irreal, it's important, otherwise why would it matter what I wrote in my essay or what you wrote in your comment?

      I wish you every success

      Andrey Akhmeteli

      Dr. Akhmeteli,

      I am not trying to kill anybody. The topic of the contest is "It from Bit or Bit from It. There are no possible topics I have been made aware of. Perhaps you should spend a little more of your time learning about reality and a bit less time offering abstract realistic models.

      I wish you luck too.

      Joe

      Dear Mr. Fisher,

      Thank you for your comment.

      With all due respect, the contest rules do not depend on what you have or have not been made aware of. You may wish to look at http://fqxi.org/community/essay and look, say, for the word "store". You'll see what "Possible topics or sub-questions include".

      I wish you every success.

      Andrey Akhmeteli

      Hi Andrey,

      Firstly, I admire your humility despite your high academic qualifications as a theoretical physicist. A good essay, even though the academic content is high. Since you may also be inclined towards primitive, no-frills models, what will the most primitive 'It' having no charge, no color, no spin, no mass, just a minimum extension only look like? Then, wont you consider the most primitive 'Bit' or binary choice, as existence/non-existence since it lies at the "very, very deep bottom" (Wheeler), being a 'bit' coming before other possible 'bits' can be contemplated? Can any Bit or It get more primitive than this?

      Secondly, as an expert can you give me your opinion about the 'Planck length'. Does it have any physical significance or is it just an artificial mathematical figure?

      If you have time, you can see my model in my essay.

      Good luck in the contest,

      Akinbo

        Dear Andrey Akhmeteli:

        I can't discuss your essay just because I am an old physician that does not know mathematics and almost don't know physics either. So why I am writing you, just because you are a physicist and because of that you can be interested to find out what the experimental meaning of "time" is. I just sent you a summary , so you can see if you are interested or not.

        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

          Dear Dr. Gianni,

          Thank you for your comment. I have read it (I have not received any e-mails from you), but, regretfully, I have no meaningful comments. Maybe other physicists can use your ideas, but I am afraid I cannot.

          Thank you

          Sincerely yours

          Andrey Akhmeteli

          Dear Akinbo,

          Thank you for your comments and kind words. Einstein said: "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." What I offer is indeed a "no-frills" model, but I cannot call it "primitive", as that would mean that such parts of the model as the Maxwell equations and the Dirac equation are also "primitive" - I just cannot say that. So for a "primitive" model to be of interest it should be able to describe a significant part of what we know. I am not sure this is true for the model of your essay.

          As for the Planck length, I should note that, while I don't know much about general relativity, I would expect the Planck length to be crucial for physics, as it includes the most fundamental physical constants, and nothing else.

          Thank you

          I wish you every success

          Andrey

          Hi Andrey,

          Very encouraging to see someone arguing in favor of a local realistic model for QM.

          Do you see a connection between your approach and the local realism produced by quaternionic QM that Joy Christian and (separately) Carlos Castro have described?

          In my Software Cosmos essay I cite these two formulations of QM to argue that a discrete foundation is sensible. I will have to add yours as another possibility.

          Hugh

            Dear Hugh,

            Thank you for your kind words.

            I don't quite see a connection between my approach and Joy and Castro's work. Unlike them, I don't think there can be violations of the Bell inequalities in local realistic theories (I don't consider superdeterminism here), but I doubt that such violations are possible in nature either (as there has been no loophole-free experimental demonstration of such violations).

            As for "a discrete foundation", recent work by 't Hooft might be of interest for you. He uses cellular automata.

            Thank you

            Best regards

            Andrey

            Dear Andrey,

            It is good to see your essay here. Although I personally do not hold a "local realist" vew (To me, a better term would be "local spacetime realist") I appreciate efforts to illuminate the issues from all angles.

            One thing I did not see discussed in your paper was contextuality. How do you make your framework contextual?

            I personally take standard quantum mechanics at face value with one exception, and here there seems to be a surprising agreement between us: That the conjunction of the unitary time evolution and the wave reduction is a contradiction if one assumes that pre-measurement states and immediate post-measurement states are on the same footing. But to me that just suggests that the reduction represents a true transformation from one kind of quantum state to another that is altogether on a different footing.

            In any event, I hope that you will get lots of useful feedback and wish you all the best,

            Armin

              Dear Armin,

              It's nice to here from you, and thank you for your comment and a good question.

              My approach is indeed contextual: while the fields are (fundamentally) always well-defined, that does not mean that observables of quantum theory, such as coordinates or spin projections are well-defined, and the measured values of these observables do depend on the instrument. Furthermore, strictly speaking, no measurement is ever final, if we take unitary evolution seriously - a pure state cannot turn into a mixture through unitary evolution.

              Thank you

              I wish you every success

              Andrey

              Dear Andrey,

              Thanks for your comments. Leaving the 'No-frills' model for a second...

              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, can you kindly answer 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

                Dear Akinbo,

                With all due respect, this is an essay contest, not twenty questions. If you are too busy to read an essay, why do you feel you have to rate it anyway? And if you don't think it is enough to read my essay to rate it, it's fine with me. However, your questions are too refined for me: for example, my pocket is not deep enough to hold a million dollars, and if it were, why would I go to work if I had found a million dollars in my pocket?:-)

                Thank you

                Best regards

                Andrey

                Dear Andrey,

                No offence meant but you have challenged me and I have read your essay. It is very nice. But many essays are off point and I wanted us to focus on the topic at hand. For example apart from your opening paragraph, information does not appear again till conclusion. 'Bit' does not appear at all neither does 'binary digit'.

                All the best in the contest.

                Cheerio,

                Akinbo

                  Dear Akinbo,

                  I tried to explain why my essay is not off topic in my replies to Joe Fisher. It looks obvious now that I should have explained that in the essay.

                  Thank you

                  Best regards

                  Andrey