Thanks Jennifer,

I very much look forward to that and further discussing your work

Cheers,

Antony :)

Dear Jennifer,

I too think it's very cool that we can say all that in binary lol. Good to see yet another woman on board -- and I hope you won't mind me burdening you with certain responsibility by pointing out that out of the handful of us taking part this year in this traditionally male-dominated discussion, you're the most qualified. I loved how you summarized our typical female sensibility and pragmatism in the concluding quote from Michael Crichton. Thanks for all good laughs! I dare say that I too have a few laughs in my essay. I invite you to read and comment on it :)

    Dunno if I'd classify it as a dissatisfaction with the foundations of physics but I have a dissatisfaction with considering any explanation (or at the very least any of our current explanations) final. I came to science because I am big on empiricism (somewhat obviously, I guess) but I do think science is about exploring reality on a fundamental level, and I appreciate that FQXi is encouraging this side of the "ballgame" so to speak. Obviously more immediately practical areas will garner more funds, but paradigm shifts become inevitable after lots of information is gathered and I think formalizing how people are processing all the new information through essays is extremely important and can lead to "aha" and (heheh) "Eureka!" moments.

    I will check out your essay and am interested in your concept of a "something more." While I took a relativist approach in the end of my essay (I don't literally think that photons and electrons are mythical as Crichton indicated, although I do think that they are essentially models not the deepest reality), I believe that we are going to get closer to understanding it in the near future. It's been a while since the last major shift in understanding (relativity & quantum mechanics). I do suspect people who think about it deeply are going to be rewarded again soon.

    Cheers...

    Jenny

    Laughter is the best medicine for all of us, sometimes especially physicists! :D

    I will read your essay soon. Excited to finally have a community code so I can take part in the ratings etc!

    I hardly feel the most qualified but I have at the very least put in a lot of (sometimes awkward) thought! :D

    Glad to see there are other "gggrrls" in here-- high five and mega kudos!

    ^_^

    Cheers!

    Jenny

    Another possible point I thought of later is that Aspect and Wheeler were contemporaries ^_^ But I do think it took a while before the result of the Aspect experiment and the others like it thereafter were generally accepted (correctly or incorrectly) as a hard-to-dispute win for non-locality.

    It's definitely true that we need more physicists with imagination; if somebody could reinterpret Bell's logic that would be quite a development.

    Cheers and good luck -- I have my code now so I will be reading and rating :) I'm excited to be part of the community.

    Best of luck!

    Jenny

    Joe,

    Thanks so much for your comments -- I'm delighted that you found it understandable. I teach physics in the summers to incoming freshman pre-medical students, and my deepest hope is that some of them leave having internalized the scientific method and made it their own. To me the power of science is that any person can use the scientific method to make discoveries for themselves once it is taught to them, and is thus one of the most empowering approaches to participating in "reality" (whatever that is). So science, to me, is a universal thing, not something that should be reserved to a few people who have studied intense mathematics or are going for PhD's. :) I like that FQXi is opening the playing field and potentially rewarding people who give deep thought to these things regardless of whether science is their profession or not.

    Will browse for your essay, or you can link it to me if you have written one! Otherwise (if you are just a reader) kudos for reading and learning with us and submit next time :D

    Jenny

    Hi Jennifer,

    Very cool essay! You made several excellent points and not once did I become dizzy with words I couldn't pronounce or mathematical symbols I've never seen before. (AND, you have a sense of humor . . . so . . . are you really a physicist ? ? ?) If you teach half as well as you write, then your students are indeed, very fortunate. Two pho-thumbs up from me on your essay.

    Would you also consider reading mine? I was deeply struck by your comments about, "the power of science is that any person can use the scientific method to make discoveries for themselves once it is taught to them, and is thus one of the most empowering approaches to participating in "reality" (whatever that is). So science, to me, is a universal thing, not something that should be reserved to a few people who have studied intense mathematics or are going for PhD's. :)"

    I'm beginning to wonder if stating my author credentials as simply, "a non-specialist member of the general public" was a mistake; so far, I've not even had a response to questions and comments I've made on other people's essays. (Although I still think that mentioning I'm a lawyer would have been far worse . . .)

    Here's the link to my essay (and I promise I won't sue, or tell anyone if you read it.)

    http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1910

    Best to you,

    Ralph

    Thank you, Ralph! Don't worry about your bio -- the "III" after your name was enough to convince me you were someone important ;)

    I will definitely take a look at your paper, and thank you for commenting (and forgiving my early AM facetiousness!)

    I am glad that my comment stood out to you and I appreciate that you enjoyed my essay; I certainly had a lot of fun with it myself after I began writing it, despite much staring at a blank computer screen with a more blank expression and even more blank mind before anything finally came out.... :P

    My dad is also a barrister--you guys deal with the law, this is natural law -- close enough, right? :)

    *clicking paper now* Good luck in the contest !

      Jennifer - grateful as we are for fqxi to give opportunity for potentially left-of-field ideas to be heard I think they do not go far enough - they are too worried about supporting the wrong horse. That the fundamentals need to be challenged is their whole raison d'etre but they have shown no willingness to support researchers like Eric Reiter's unquantum work who has experimentally proven that the point photon concept is wrong.

      You said "It's been a while since the last major shift in understanding (relativity & quantum mechanics). I do suspect people who think about it deeply are going to be rewarded again soon." Yaaaaay!! Its been some 30 years! I think you have not tried to challenge one of those foundational issues, or even a simple theory about why diffraction occurs, to say that! The current impasse is becoming obvious to more and more people, though, so you may be right after all.

      See My last year's "Fix Physics!" essay for an outline of what I think should be done.

      BTW What is the difference between an "Aha!" and a "Eureka!" moment? The former elicits responses like "well, well!" - the latter "A towel! A towel!"

      Vladimir

      Dear Jennifer,

      Nicely written and deep.

      But I don't see 'quanglement' as a primary concept.

      If one refers to non-locality, one can violate GHSH inequality without entanglement as explicitely shown in in Sec. 3.1 of my essay.

      Anyway, there are a lot of potential quantum structures to deal with that

      can lead to quantum Gameboys and further FQXi's.

      Have a nice not too binary day.

      Michel

        If you can prove that CHSH can be violated without entanglement that is quite an accomplishment! Kudos for trying and having the confidence you succeeded -- good luck in the contest. I'll study your proof. Would like to know what the "potential quantum structures to deal with that" refer to, perhaps a perusal of your essay will help.

        Cheers and take care,

        Jennifer

        You know, it would be cool if our names auto-linked to our essays when we posted :) Would make it a lot easier to click and read all of your papers. (But I am searching through the list when FQXi loads in...it's been a bit splotchy probably because so many people are logged in...)

          Hi Jenny,

          It *is* an exciting community. There are academics here, and also those who have been out of academia for long enough to have escaped the very real constraints that apply. For example, a surprising number of essayists have dealt with the fact that 'meaning', 'knowledge', 'awareness' and other aspects related to information inherently imply consciousness. Very few academics will touch this topic, at least not physicists.

          You have read my essay and have some idea of my built-in bias, which is that numbers and 'bits' are derived from physical reality, not the other way around.

          Wang Xiong's treatment of information as symmetry breaking, Mark Feeley's treatment of probability in QM, McHarris' essay on non-linearity, Janzen's treatment of time and relativity, Gordon's analysis of Bell's inequality and Vishwakarma's essay on the stress-energy tensor are examples of why FQXi is a great place! There are many, many more.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Jenny,

          My essay is called BITTERS. I do hope you can find a bit of extra time to comment on it.

          Joe

          Jenny,

          I have just checked my essay and I was delighted that you did leave a comment.

          Because I believe that the real Universe consists of unique, once, there are no measurements in it.

          Thanks again,

          Joe

          Jennifer,

          I just read the comments on your paper and plan to read your paper soon but I thought I would direct your attention to the Master's Thesis of Mateus Araujo Santos; he re-examines Bell's Inequalities and then proceeds to develop what he calls "Boole Inequalities." His abstract:

          "In this thesis we explore the question: 'what's strange about quantum mechanics?' This exploration is divided in two parts: in the first, we prove that there is in fact something strange about quantum mechanics, by showing that it is not possible to conciliate quantum theory with various different definitions of what should be a 'normal' theory, that is, a theory that respects our classical intuition. In the second part, our objective is to describe precisely which parts of quantum mechanics are 'non-classical'. For that, we define a 'classical' theory as a noncontextual ontological theory, and the 'non-classical' parts of quantum mechanics as being the probability distributions that a ontological noncontextual theory cannot reproduce. Exploring this formalism, we find a new family of inequalities that characterize 'non-classicality'."

          Based on your comment, "It's definitely true that we need more physicists with imagination; if somebody could reinterpret Bell's logic that would be quite a development." I thought perhaps you would enjoy Mr. Santos' paper.

          With regards,

          Wes Hansen

          Dear Jennifer

          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 Jennifer,

            I think you have gift for writing in a style that is accessible to the lay audience. As I was reading your essay, the thought crossed my mind several times that this could have been an article in a popular science magazine.

            I was not previously familiar with Penrose's concept of 'quanglement', also the term 'inter-it' seems quite appropriate for a description of the components of an entangled system. This was a refreshing read.

            All the best,

            Armin

              Dear Jennifer,

              The conventional proof of CHSH is given in Sec. 3.1 of the essay. It applies equally well to all squares of four n-qubit observables. The example provided is without entanglement. A step further you get the famous Mermin's square of Fig. 3a that contains 9 such CHSH proofs, and so on. As there are 10 such Mermin's square, there are 9x10=90 distinct two-qubit CHSH proofs. There are 30240 CHSH proofs with thre qubits, this number has to do with the 12096 3QB pentagrams, each of them containing 15 CHSH proofs, corresponding to the edges of the Petersen graph. The 15 CHSH proofs (that are 1x1 squares can be seen at the edges of the line graph of the Petersen graph, not shown in the essay).

              The significant step in the essay is being able to see the geometries (Fano planes, Mermin's squares and so on) as being controlled by the dessins d'enfants). Don't refrain to ask me the questions you like when you study the paper.

              Thank you again for your interesting essay.

              Best wishes,

              Michel

              Hi JENNY,

              01001001 01110011 00100000 01000010 01101001 01110100 00100000 01001001 01110100 00111111

              On fantasy island, that's how to say 'probably' nice in binary language.

              You can check me out on reality island and see if we speak the same language.

              10101+101=000

              Akinbo