Is Bit It? by Jennifer Nielsen

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

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

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

Jennifer,

What an excellent essay; I tend to agree with Roger Granet above and the physics community could certainly use a few more feminine perspectives . . .

In your conclusion you state, "[...] It is not at least in the classical sense a 'put up job'; if we ever find it resembling one, it's generally because we put up the 'job' ourselves, and IT"S ALWAYS WISE TO CHECK FOR WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS REALLY REPRESENTING." In order for models, mathematical or otherwise, to be ontologically meaningful, all variables must have a real-world referent! Certainly one learns this in Differential Equations and Daniel Schwartz delves into the subject rather formidably with his dissertation on approximate reasoning. So since the inseparability of Hilbert Space describes Quantum entanglement and Quantum entanglement is robustly supported by the Aspect experiments, the Mach-Zehnder experiments of Herzog et. al., and now the multi-simultaneity stuff, what real-world referent does the Hilbert Space refer to?

I posed this question to Phil Gibbs on his section of this forum but he doesn't feel the Hilbert Space needs a real-world referent. Thinking William Tiller's proposed "Deltron Moiety" might fit the bill, I asked Dr. Tiller, in a private correspondence, how the Hilbert Space fit into his theoretical framework. His response: "Since my duplex space model has both mathematically real and imaginary parts, it would seem to have to have a relationship with Hilbert space but I have not yet explored that." Perhaps he will explore it in the future . . . In any event, it seems to me the question deserves a bit of imagination thrown at it!

I thought the Crichton quote at the end of your essay was a really nice touch. I'm originally from Nebraska but after a stint in the Marine Corps I fell in love with the sea (I'm an old-school diver); so allow me to share a favored quote from Steven Callahan:

"I wish I could describe the feeling of being at sea; the anguish, frustration, and fear, the beauty that accompanies threatening spectacles, the spiritual communion with creatures in whose domain I sail. There is a magnificent intensity in life that comes when we are not in control but are only reacting, living, surviving. I am not a religious man per se. My own cosmology is convoluted and not in line with any particular church or philosophy. But for me, to go to sea is to glimpse the face of God. At sea I am reminded of my insignificance - of all men's insignificance. It is a wonderful feeling to be so humbled."

Best regards,

Wes Hansen

For whatever reason the link to the dissertation of Mr. Schwartz doesn't respond in the proper manner so: http://dr.archives.pdx.edu/xmlui/handle/psu/4542. Yeah, this one works; I didn't include the preceding "dr" in the previous HTML tag . . .

Well no wonder you're so brilliant - you're Dad is a lawyer!!

Whew . . . I understand the 'blank' expressions, blank mind, etc. If anyone had taken a picture of me the first couple of days after I 'tried' to begin writing, they might have mistaken me for 'a cow straddling a railroad track staring at an oncoming train' . . .

Again, I really enjoyed your essay. If you are so inclined, I would enjoy keeping in touch. (If nothing else, I can whine about the cost of having 2 sons and a daughter in college at the same time . . .)

Best,

Ralph

Dear Jennifer Nielsen:

I read your essay and your answer to Dr Corda I underestand you are a physic student. That it is why I writing you, because I did not understand one bit of your essay. Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your discipline among the sciences, it is the one that make more use, of what everybody call's "time" and it is being used, without knowing its definition and which is more important the experimental meaning, by the way is just a remnant word without physical existence.

So I sending you a summary of my essay "tHE DEEP NATURE OF REALITY" because I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( nobody 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

Sorry about that. The link to my essay is here

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

Michel

Hi Jenny,

I'm glad to see you got the details straightened out. You now show up as author, and I assume can rate, etc.

I wanted to thank you for your comments on my page, and also follow up on one of your questions. Specifically, you asked me: "Are you familiar with the idea of Roger Penrose that gravity and mass is what causes decoherence? Was wondering how you would interpret his ideas." My answer, in brief, was: "I don't buy his idea of gravity and QM nor his and Hameroff's idea of consciousness as the QM of microtubules...".

But that is my opinion. I noticed yesterday that Phys Rev Letters just published Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021302 (12 July 2013) "Effective Field Theory Approach to Gravitationally Induced Decoherence", to the effect that: "Adopting the viewpoint that the standard perturbative quantization of general relativity provides an effective description of quantum gravity that is valid at ordinary energies, we show that gravity as an environment induces the rapid decoherence of stationary matter superposition states when the energy differences in the superposition exceed the Planck energy scale."

If you are interested in that topic, you may wish to check that out.

Thanks again for your comments and good luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman