Hi Jennifer

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck,

Than Tin

Dear Jenny ,

I hope my translation is good!

I enjoyed reading your essay, very nicely.

Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question :

In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.

I think there is no separation between bit and it, like space and time.

For me, there are two points of view :

1-« And there isn't really anything else. »-Michael Crichton, The Lost World

2-Otherwise, I say there isn't really anything else than 0 and 1.

You say : «..that electrons which have interacted may become entangled..»

I am not physicist, « quantum entanglement » is ordinary and simple interaction or something else ?

Can you bring me an example in classical world ?

No trivial example because I try to understand deeply the Nature.

With accessible words, if possible, please.

I will rate highly your essay, after that.

And good luck.

Please visit My essay.

    Dear Jennifer,

    You are correct,

    I am sorry in the delay in replying you. I did not check the replies. FQXi should have issued a notification that you have replied....

    It was my proposition, it was not an inference to your essay. What I mean is that we should be more close experimental results for our propositions.

    I think we form a picture of anything in our mind, and keep them in our memories. We communicate about that picture to others, which we call information. When we die we loose all these pictures and memories.

    Now in this context, can we create material from information...?

    You can discuss with me later after this contest closes also.

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    Jennifer, Wheeler point was not that classical physics is based on information: it was that quantum physics is based on information. There is no "post-Aspect-experiment perspective". With all its interest, what the Aspect experiment has done is nothing else than confirming what was written in any introductory quantum-mechanics book. Aspect experiments (and similar) have not changed by a bit our understanding of the world. They have only confirmed what we knew already. And what John Wheeler in particular considered clearly established.

    carlo

      4 days later

      Dear All

      Let me go one more round with Richard Feynman.

      In the Character of Physical Law, he talked about the two-slit experiment like this "I will summarize, then, by saying that electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, but the probability of arrival of these lumps is determined as the intensity of waves would be. It is this sense that the electron behaves sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. It behaves in two different ways at the same time.

      Further on, he advises the readers "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it. 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

      Did he says anything about Wheeler's "It from Bit" other than what he said above?

      Than Tin

      Hi Jennifer,

      If you were bored one day in the lab at KU please try to carry out my simple spin experiment with your students. http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

      Maybe we could find out if "bits are states representing information about a system" or they are also parts of that system?

      "He (Raamsdonk) argues that classical connectivity in spacetime geometry arises by entangling the degrees of freedom associated with two regions of spacetime..." And I would ask what if these two regions are only manifestations of e.g. two electrons?

      You have cited Crichton and this is all about our perception and in that sense (and of course not literally) I think that we live in a "Matrix".

      Best regards,

      Jacek

      Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

      If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

      I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

      There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

      Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

      This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

      Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

      This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

      However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

      Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

      Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

      The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

      Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

      This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

      Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

      You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

      With many thanks and best wishes,

      John

      jselye@gmail.com

      Oh Jennifer, that's a beautiful concluding part from you, ever I've seen here. So many many thanks and obviously "laughs" for our living in "sun" and "sea".

      However (now seriously), that "quanglement" issue may also be a localize issue in future, who knows, in an enough span of 'hundred years'!

      I invite you in my essay (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1855)where I tried to draw a picture of reality, within the digital limit of our observations,(which includes all 'It', 'Bit", observers like us and of course information as an image of all those). We can imagine there a picture of any kind of particle systems (irrespective of all micro to macro levels) to possess simultaneously but inversely proportional quantize "Space" and "Anti-space", "time" and "anti-time" and so on.

      Right now, I cannot give you proper math model, but there are enough logic behind to say that when two entangled particles are separated (or reduced) in their quantized "Space" there simultaneous inverse quantized "Anti-space" comes into inseparably closer (or say elongated). Particularly, when any one of "Bit"s changes, the other entangled (say as inverse) "Bit"s are also instantaneously become changed. So there will be no need to send any signals between the entangled pairs to exchange information in superluminal or luminal or sub-luminal in types.

      You can find there some series of inverse relations as well for the purpose.

      Now we are in the very end of this contest to exchange our comments.

      This rating reality is basically restrict us to enjoy the good essays in windy time and space. However, I like to rate your essay and also expect rating from you if possible. Above all I am interested some comments from you on my essay.

      With regards

      Dipak

      Jennifer - what a delightful essay. Despite my initial reaction to Gameboy, Pac-man and Pokemon analogies, I started to get interested when you brought in Penrose's Quanglement.

      The tide turned when I read my favorite paragraph from your essay:

      "Yet in a world where nonlocality is now considered the best explanation for entanglement, it is obvious on some level that the two objects entangled in acausal correlation are involved with one another more profoundly than the two objects exchanging causal info in time via a transactional game of information ping pong. Something important is being shared here, even if we can't directly exploit it."

      Now I understand why you were encouraged by my essay and left a comment on my web page some time ago (which I will get to later today).

      After that point, I recognized that "your connecting the dots" between Penrose, Vedral and the entangled (what I call "dark") Higgs Boson was pure genius:

      "It is thus not only possible but absolutely necessary that classical information is intimately related to how processes evolve in time altogether."

      Well done. Super high marks for a concise, interesting, well researched and inspiring essay.

      Kind regards, Paul

        Dear Jennifer,

        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.

        Checking out your essay!

        I think that reality is not based on information, but rather that what we typically think of as information is based upon reality. However I believe that another kind of information, quanglement, may be at the heart of reality.

        Quantum entanglement is not a simple and ordinary physical interaction, at least not in the sense that it is classical. It is not possible to describe in classical mechanics. The simplest case is electrons which are entangled in terms of spin. When one pair is found to be spin up, the other will be found to be spin down. When you measure the electron, it changes the spin. But if you change the spin of one, the other will immediately change as well, no matter how far away that electron is.

        Cheers!

        Carlo,

        I've argued in my essay that both classical and quantum information are based upon reality (rather than reality based on info) but that quantum entanglement is another form of information entirely that may be at the heart of things. I think if what Wheeler considered was established we would not be having this essay contest :)

        forgive my cheekiness,

        Jennifer

        My opinion (which is actually not particularly unusual amongst physicists studying nonlocality) is that quantum particles which are entangled are part of a larger system and are in some way one system. Mathematically, with entangled wave functions, they are part of the same larger object, and nature reflects this. I believe the "share" is an absolute entity and a quantum resource different from any connection we can describe classically. The objects aren't "connected" classically; they are one.

        Cheers,

        Jennifer

        Thank you so much for your kind words Paul, I greatly appreciate it! Thank you for catching the gist of my paper -- I am pleased it stood out.

        Will be reading and rating your essay today!

        Cheers and best of luck,

        Jennifer

        Hello Rob,

        When I look at one of the electrons, I immediately impact what the other one is. Each time I check, the spin result changes, and the other one has changed in sync.

        No classical system works like that!

        Cheers,

        Jennifer

        Thank you Vladimir! I believe I gave yours a good rating. Apologies if I did not leave a comment; I will be catching up on all of this (a bit late in the game, I realize!) this evening.

        Cheers!

        Dear Jennifer,

        Thank you for your kind message on my blog. I also very much liked your essay. We can further discuss CHSH inequality and more after the contest if you wish. I rated your essay highly on July 11. I would appreciate your own mark. Good luck.

        Michel

        Professor Corda,

        Thanks so much for your kind words, I am very encouraged that the author of your wonderful paper finds my paper likeable! I am working through the mathematical presentation in yours and am learning a lot, thank you for presenting it here and sharing and thank you for sharing your comments on my thread!

        Cheers,

        Jennifer

        Hi Jennifer,

        As promised in my Essay page, I have read your pretty Essay. Congrats, I have found it fantastic! I strongly appreciated your ability to join and mix profound physical concepts together your intriguing sense of humour. From the pure scientific point of view, I liked both your invoking Godel's theorem concerning the limitation of binary code and your discussion on Quanglement.

        Thanks for giving me such a enjoyable reading, I am going to give you an high rate.

        Cheers,

        Ch.

        Jennifer,

        When I look at one of the coins, I immediately impact what the other one is. Each time I check, (along a different observation axis) the result changes, and the other one has changed in sync.

        SOME classical systems works like that!

        Rob McEachern

        Hi Jenny,

        I was reading your essay on my way home from a trip just now (and really enjoying it, by the way), and when I sat down to get back to it, I got caught up reading the comments here. I see that you've been gone for a while, but you're online today, so I thought I'd ask now if you could read my essay? I even linked it for you, since you wrote somewhere above that you wished they'd automatically link our essays when we post. That makes two of us! I actually suggested that on the main essay blog after the last contest--but alas, no such luck. Maybe next time...

        I'll post again when I get through your essay.

        All the best,

        Daryl