Dear Armin,

Thank your for your astute comments.

Yes, sensitive dependence on initial conditions offers the possibility for explaining the two-slit expedient. Classical chaotic scattering can produce patterns that look very much like diffraction patterns. This sort of behavior is discussed in detail in a series of papers in a special issue of "Physics D," introduced by a paper by Bleher, Grebogi, and Ott; a more straightforward discussion is given in the book, "Classical Dynamics: A Contemporary Approach," by José and Salatan; both are listed under Ref. [6] in my essay. The basic idea involves the intimate mixture of chaos and order in various locales of phase space for chaotic systems. This admixture can be very fine, since bifurcation diagrams for such systems tend to be self-affine, mathematically at least, all the way to infinite magnification. If a system finds itself in such a regime, then an almost infinitesimal variation in initial conditions can cause it to move back and forth between ordered (cyclic) and chaotic behavior, which means the difference between a particle's landing in a predictable location and being scattered "unpredictably" (not really fundamentally, but for all practical purposes it might as well be). Hence, the apparent diffraction pattern. This is only one of the so-called paradoxes of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that can more or less be explained by analogy, having a parallel explanation in terms of nonlinear dynamics. Superficially, nonlinear dynamics and its extreme (chaos) can be just as counterintuitive as quantum mechanics, but upon deeper scrutiny, their peculiarities come about more logically.

Best wishes,

Bill

Dear William,

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.

Hello Bill - I'm a seventy yr old lady so I can call you that !!!!

I love it that you question 'mainstream' & are looking for alternatives such as might be found in non-linear processes with their concatenating feedback - & feedforward - loops.

My own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.

Nor whether they are processed non-linearly !!

Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.

For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.

My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.

One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.

Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back. (Note : Not a digit in sight !!)

How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.

Yes, geometrical-cum-informational-objects do, indeed, get processed non-digitally by our brains - & I'm quite sure that many of these processes are thoroughly non-linear - with massive amounts of feedback/feedforward loops, but which processorial work results in 'collations' - not in SOLUTIONS TO 'algorithms' or arithmetical or algebraic calculations - just collations - just 'regroupings' of select geometrical objects according to pre-established re-grouping (collating) protocols !!!!!

I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.

This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute!!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!

Margriet O'Regan

    Dear Prof. Knuth,

    Thank you very much for your comments. I read your essay, and I was overwhelmed by the beauty of it! Imagine being able to come up with relativistic space-time symmetries from a different but straightforward and logical approach. Not being all that familiar with ordering theory, I had to take most of the derivations on faith, accepting the physical analogies as stated, since they seem quite reasonable and not at all forced. I downloaded your arXiv paper, "The Physics of Events," and I'll study it thoroughly during the next month, so perhaps I can have more astute questions and/or comments after that.

    I'll also download your other paper, "Origin of Complex Quantum Amplitudes," and work on it. My comments above to Stoica make a start to answering the linearity vs nonlinearity compatibility problem. But, from an experimentalist's physical aspect, I think that your ideas of influence and response indicate a fundamental feedback, a sure sign of nonlinearity. And the influence-response picture fits in with the original interpretations of the Uncertainty Principle, which fell out of favor with the rise of the Copenhagen interpretation. Maybe we can have a more cogent discussion this autumn.

    I also wonder why Cvitanovic's work didn't attract more attention. Perhaps he was simply ahead of this time. His 1987 Physical Review Letter came before the quantum information burst and before most people were really aware of chaos theory. Perhaps now is time for a revival of applying periodic orbital theory to "simple" systems such as the He atom or the H molecule-ion. (With good numerical agreement, I think chemists would welcome this sort of analysis.)

    And it's amazing to find someone else who generated fractal ferns on an Amiga! (Another promising platform that didn't survive.) As an extension of this sort of thing, the time is ripe to explore electrons in the two-slit experiment using chaotic scattering. I think the two-slit experiment is a prime example of using an overly-simplified model to reach questionable conclusions. Most of the analyses use pictures where the dimensions are far, far greater than the actual wavelengths, where the experiments would show nothing. Performing a detailed microscopic analysis, with the electrons indeed interacting with the individual atoms forming the slits could well produce a situation for chaotic scattering, with its resulting quasi-diffraction patterns. I hope you find this a worthwhile endeavor.

    Again, congratulations on an impressive essay. I made a few remarks on its thread.

    Cheers,

    Bill McHarris

    Dear Vladimir,

    Yes, I rated your essay a week or so ago. I thought it was a terrific essay.

    Best wishes,

    Bill

    Dear William,

    Now is last day to completing somewhat our discuss and conversations.

    I has find your work interesting for me, I have read it and has invited you to discussion (see my post above.) I did not get answer however. I think you was busy, just tired or with some other reason. Anyway, I must give my rating to your essay as really one good work, presented in contest that I have do.

    Regards,

    George Kirakosyan

      Thank you Bill for your comments and your generous words regarding my essay.

      Perhaps Cvitanovich's work is not well-known in these circles.

      I have not been on the FQXi forums, but perhaps discussing it there might be a useful endeavor.

      I also am delighted that you too used an Amiga!

      We seem to have a proclivity for obsolete platforms!

      Looking forward to continuing discussions...

      Kevin

      Dear Richard,

      Thank your for your observations. Yes, the interplay between observation and system makes for feedback, which can easily generate nonlinear behavior. I enjoyed reading your essay, which covered many of the same sort of ideas. It's all to the good that we are now able to question the strait-jacketed, forced Copenhagen patterns.

      Best wishes,

      Bill

      Dear Dipak,

      Thank you for your kind words. Yes, chicken and egg, rather observer and observed, are in a sense inseparable, which leads to feedback and nonlinear behavior. I read your essay with pleasure -- it's a neat, fresh approach to the question from a more philosophical approach. My biggest question concerns how we can discern an analog vs a digital Nature. If our detection (sensory) system happens to be digital, we cannot distinguish between analog signals and digital signals on a much finer scale than our system's scale; similarly, if our detection system were analog, Nature probably requires much higher resolution than we possess in order for us to discern the difference. Could you comment on this?

      Thanks,

      Bill

      • [deleted]

      • Post #81

      Dear Héctor,

      Thank you for your kind comments. And you are much too self-depricating -- your resume is most impressive, and it was a pleasure to read an intelligent essay written from a different perspective. (Minor English language flaws didn't detract significantly, by the way.)

      What I most liked about your essay was its common sense approach. Scientists, physicists in particular, can get themselves tied up in knots when considering time, as is well documented by the FQXi contest on the Nature of Time. Einstein shied away from time as an absolute to be explained and considered it to be merely a variable. As you may well note from my essay, I come down strongly on the side of Einstein in the Einstein-Bohr debates. Einstein, after all, was not the head-in-the-clouds person the popular press makes him out to have been. His forte was his ability to relate theory to down-to-earth experimental facts. (Bohr was the abstract philosopher, who delighted in tortuous arguments.) His greatest successes were when he had experimental facts to guide him. (HIs spinning his wheels in later years was partly due to the fact that then he didn't have experimental guidance to follow.) A fascinating book is "Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps," which relates the years leading up to Relativity. Poincaré was a considerably stronger mathematician than Einstein, and by all rights he should have been the one to formulate relativity. Yet he was stuck in tradition and failed to make the necessary leap that Einstein made -- and Einstein made this leap partly because of his practical experience at the Swiss Patent Office in getting clocks coordinated and on time.

      When treating time as a mere variable, relativity is nowhere nearly so shocking with time dilation, the twin paradox, etc. And one can make the time variable linear, which leads to more complicated behavior in other variables, or one can force linearity onto other variables, which causes time to undergo all sorts of conniptions. Your idea that our understanding is locked into an epistemological, limited understanding is noteworthy, but we are stuck with what our senses can tell us. Of course, this does not answer the question, "It from Bit or Bit from It?" -- it may well be the epitome of Charles Ives' Unanswered Question! I think the strength of this FQXi contest lies in its diverse perspectives, and I find yours to be significant.

      Best wishes,

      Bill

      Dear William,

      Excellent and well written essay! I found your statement, "...beauty in equations does not make a theory true - or relevant. Only experimental investigation - and the ability of a theory to be falsifiable can do that" to be reflective of the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. Although you have a different approach to the topic than I do, I found your essay to be insightful and intuitive and most worthy of merit.

      I could go on and on... perhaps another time.

      Best wishes,

      Manuel

        Dear Manuel,

        Thanks for your kind words. I really enjoyed your essay, as well, and I rated it highly. Since time is short and the server seems to have slowed down to a crawl, I'll respond more fully later.

        Cheers,

        Bill

        Dear George,

        Thanks for your comments. I was late is getting started with my answers and have simply become overwhelmed. I did read your essay and rated it very highly. I'll respond more fully to your above comments in a day or two.

        Best wishes,

        Bill

        Dear Margriet,

        THank you very much for your lovely comments. I truly appreciate them. And I must say your are very astute and have a lot of common sense -- it gives a breath of life to this contest.

        I read your lovely essay, and I agree with your views. (I also rated it highly.) As you gleaned from my essay, I am strongly in favor of an ontological, realistic view of Nature -- I come down strongly on the side of Einstein in his debates with Bohr. And if quantum mechanics were to contain significant nonlinearities, it could well do away with the distinction between it and classical mechanics, which (almost!) all of us agree is ontological. Because time is short and the FQXi server seems to be slowing down, I'll reserve further comments both your your letter and to your essay until things have quieted down. (I think we can still make comments after the voting has ended.)

        If by Antipodean you mean Australian, I spent a marvelous month there last fall, traveling to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Port Douglas for the solar eclipse. A marvelous, beautiful -- and friendly -- country!

        Best wishes,

        Bill

        Dear William,

        I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

        I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

        You can find the latest version of my essay here:

        http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

        (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

        May the best essays win!

        Kind regards,

        Paul Borrill

        paul at borrill dot com

        6 days later

        I received the following e-mail message from Dr. Klingman on 8 August:

        *Dear Bill McHarris,

        *I made the mistake of waiting until I had read your other papers before commenting on your essay. This put me near the end of the comments on your page. After you returned and began diligently answering each comment, I watched daily for you to reach mine. But we ran out of time.

        *I am therefore using email to say that I very much enjoyed your essay and found it stimulating. I hope you are correct in your suppositions. I also believe that you will find my own essay very interesting. I have recently developed a technique for non-linearizing Einsteins' linearized (weak field) equations. While this may sound nuts, it actually does two things: It makes it possible to actually solve the equations, and it allows one to use the analogy with Maxwell's equations in intuitive fashion (which intuition simply does not exist for the full field equations).

        *For this reason I still invite you to read my essay, and I would still appreciate your comments, either on my essay page or by return email.

        *http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1779

        *Thanks for participating in the contest, for so diligently answering the comments, and for the decades you have spent attempting to educate physicists about the implications of non-linearity.

        *My best regards,

        *Ed

        And here I take the opportunity to reply:

        Dear Ed,

        Thank you for your very kind words. Unfortunately, I ran out of time before answering you properly, but I hope this belated response will partially make up for it.

        I read your essay, and I was overwhelmed with it -- especially the first part, "Why Do Physicists 'Believe' Current Theories"! You eloquently and succinctly sum up many of my own thoughts on the subject, so I fully agree with you. Physicists are human like anyone else, so they are not impervious to allowing themselves to be swept along by current fashion. Besides, many of the far-out ideas are far "sexier" than more prosaic explanations, such as nonlinearity. (I never thought I would refer to any aspect of chaos theory as "prosaic," but I guess, compared with string theory and interactions at the Planck scale or the Many-Universes Theory, it doe sound less far out and exciting.) The semi-popular press aids and abets these tendencies. For example, the latest issue of "Scientific American" contains an article, "Quantum Physics: What Is Real?" that makes all sorts of speculations without much hard physical basis.

        Not being much of an expert on General Relativity, I must admit that I couldn't follow much of your reasoning -- I'm sure the condensed, "nine pages" also contributed to this. But the interplay of linearity and nonlinearity seems well worth pursuing. I make a few more comments under your thread.

        Again, thank for your remarks and for your e-mail.

        Best wishes,

        Bill

        Dear Bill,

        Thank you for your gracious response. I knew that we shared several ideas about the current state of physics, having read your essay and some of your other publications. We apparently share an understanding of human foibles and fashion. But primarily I'm excited about your perspective on non-linearity as potential source of 'weirdness' in QM.

        From your comment on my thread I'm uncertain as to whether you are familiar with gravito-magnetism or mistake it for gravity plus electromagnetism. The 'magnetic' aspect of gravity is analogous to but completely separate from electromagnetism. As indicated in my essay, the gravitic C-field is sourced by mass density (in motion) and electrons and quarks are arguably the densest mass in the universe. This seems generally to have been ignored, along with the nonlinear nature of the field. If the nonlinearity is not taken into account the field is considered too weak to have much effect. However I believe the nonlinearity, combined with the extreme density, do produce effects, and I am optimistic that my approach will produce quantitative results, not just a qualitative explanation of current anomalies. If you read my previous essay, The Nature of the Wave Function (also suffering from a nine page limit) you may find a better explanation of how the C-field relates to QM. As a result of questions and comments I've received about that essay, I've extended the approach and hopefully improved the theory. If the nonlinearity works as my preliminary calculations suggest, then it plays a greater role in particle physics than has been supposed. I hope to solve several specific problems in this area within the coming year.

        Briefly, Einstein's full nonlinear field equations deal with almost 200 derivatives with 20 constants to be solved for. This, on top of the nonlinearity, makes the topic extremely nonintuitive. But the linearized equations resemble Maxwell's equations sufficiently to permit analogical thinking, upon which much intuition is based. I intend to be guided by this analogical thinking while adding the nonlinearity back into the problem in (what I hope to be) a computable approach to the problem.

        I would very much like to keep in touch with you.

        Thanks again and my very best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Write a Reply...