Dear Sir,

You are absolutely correct that "each general domain relates a physical object differently to the background against which it exists". We have extended this concept to the Universe in our essay "INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776" published on May 31.

The central idea of QM that "a physical system does not have a definite state because it must be described in terms of what is called a quantum superposition of states, until one attempts to make an observation or measurement of the system", only expresses the limitations of our observation. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unobserved states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Hence there is an uncertainty inherent in it, which Shannon calls entropy. In perception, the concept about the object of information remains in a superposition of states in the memory because the mind is not attached to it - hence not observing it. In response to some stimuli that draws our attention, it collapses to a yes/no state to conform or deny its resemblance with the predefined concept. It has nothing to do with the state of the object, which evolves temporally in accordance with deterministic laws of physics. The Moon will continue to exist and the proton-neutron or up-down quark conversion will continue even when we are not looking at it. There is nothing like a 'undead' cat. It evolves independent of observation. The so-called collapse is fantasy, as observation does not kill or make the cat alive. It only reports the state of its temporal evolution in relation to the condition it exists.

Practical application of QM is related to technology that is developed by trial and error methods taking hints from the observations and not theory. The theories in QM are postulates guided by technological factors and not the opposite. The original postulates like extra dimensions, graviton, strings, quantum foams, branes and braids, etc have not been found - some after more than a century.

Your "pattern of distinctions" is at the root of number system. Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other similars, then it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending the times of perception of similars, many can be 2. 3. ....n. Zero is the spatio-temporal absence of something that exists elsewhere. Infinity is like one - without similars - with one difference. While the dimensions (the perception of difference between the "inner structural space" from "outer relational space" of an object) of 'one' are fully perceptible, the dimensions of 'infinity' are not perceptible. Since there are no similars like space or time and since the dimensions of space and time cannot be perceived fully, both are infinite. Like different objects with numbers can co-exist, different similarities can co-exist. Mathematics, which is linear and non-linear accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars, is possible only between numbers, whose dimensions are fully perceived. Hence mathematics using infinities is not possible. Complex numbers are hypothetical and not physical. It is like adding horn and rabbit to describe the horns of a rabbit, which is physically not permissible. Hence, they cannot be used in computer programming.

Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements, i.e., comparison between similars), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Information is not tied to one's specific knowledge of how particles are created and their early interactions, just like the concepts signifying objects are not known to all. But it should be tied to universal and widely accessible properties. Fresh impulse (readings, symbols), when cognized by a conscious agent (compared with memory as those known concepts or otherwise - yes/no), is information. Otherwise, it is data.

Both space and time are related to the order of arrangement in the field, i.e., sequence of objects and changes in them (events) as they evolve. The interval between objects is space and that between events is time. Both space and time co-exist like the fundamental forces of Nature. To that extent, space can be a background structure also. This makes motion possible. Similarly, the sequential arrangements of letters form words with different concepts conveying fixed meanings. This makes communication possible.

The statement that "general relativity is considered a background-independent theory" is not correct because velocity of light is medium based, as it is related to the refractive index of the medium. Maxwell's equations are background invariant. Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. Transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is a transverse wave, it is background invariant. Einstein's ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell's Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the background structure. The so-called non-interacting dark energy may be the background structure. We have discussed it in our essay.

In the thread of Dr. Reed and many others, we have proved that the equivalence principle is wrong description of facts. Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. He assumed space as empty and mass-less, which it certainly is not. Since space is full of energy; hence mass according to the mass energy equivalence principle, then the mathematics of General Relativity is highly misleading. Further, it should be based on a constant differential that is not zero and seek the motion of some given mass or volume. This mass or volume may be as small as we like, but it cannot be zero (hence no infinities). This causes several fundamental and far-reaching changes to the mathematics of GR, but the first of these changes is of course the elimination of singularity from all solutions. Therefore the central "fact" of the black hole must be given up. Whatever may be at the center of a black hole, it cannot be a "singularity".

Our purpose is not to criticize your essay, but express our views so that you can take these into consideration. Learning is a never ending process and we learn from each other. We liked many of your discussions. You are welcome to read our essay or write to mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

    Hi Armin

    I believe that Nature is tolerant in the sense that it provides for redundancies to occur. Without the redundancies or the existence of alternative ways of doing things, I doubt that we or anything else in the universe could have existed. Linguist Noam Chomsky has shown how children were able to acquire automatically their native tongues, even under parental circumstances that are worlds apart. In the context of physics, Richard Feynman has proved that his all-paths formulation of quantum mechanics is the same as Schrodinger formulation.

    In my essay "Analogical Engine", Wheeler's "It from Bit" can be represented as a duality similar in form to "same-difference", or to "wave-particle", or to "quantum-classical", or to "order-disorder." After adopting the premise "What quantum is to classical" is similar to "What same is to difference", I have concluded that the Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities, and a necessary condition of existence for thoughts and things.

    Since your essay topic is about similarities (as required by superpositions) and differences (as required by distinctions), I wonder whether the Constant in your Eq. (1) has similar role that the Planck constant had in quantum theoretical developments. As you know, the Planck constant is obtained historically by the interpolation between low- and high-frequency regimes of the black-body radiation.

    I hope I've more to say while I continue to digest your excellent essay.

    Regards

    Than Tin

      Dear Basudeba,

      Thank you for reading my essay. What is really going on behind the scenes in quantum mechanics has not yet been universally settled, so each of us entitled to their own views.

      Let me just suggest that if you want to bring the "mind" into play, and wish for others to take that possibility seriously, you will have to find a way to formally incorporate it into the framework of physics. By this I mean that you will have to

      1) find a precise definition of "mind" which might even be amenable to quantitative analysis,

      2) find a way to express this idea such that it can be incorporated quantitatively in the mathematical framework and equations of quantum mechanics, and

      3) ideally derive a testable prediction from it.

      Until all that happens, I am afraid that such propositions for understanding quantum mechanics at a deep level will be dismissed as fringe or worse, pseudoscience (unfortunately, even if you do the above, you are still not guaranteed that it won't be dismissed as fringe science).

      Notice that I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but that if you really want to advocate your interpretation of quantum mechanics more widely so that others will seriously consider it, you have a lot more work to do.

      Here are some comments on the individual paragraphs you wrote:

      Re: Technological applications vs theory

      I think it is exactly the opposite from the way you describe. The original axioms of quantum mechanics in its modern version were developed around 1924-1927 based on experimental data that had, at the time, no foreseeable technological applications. The Rayleigh scattering, blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, spectral line emission, double slit, stern gerlach etc. experiments were not carried out because they were technological applications but fundamental science experiments meant to help us understand nature. Once the theory was developed, it set the groundwork for technological applications. Things like "extra dimensions, graviton, strings, quantum foams, branes and braids" are all speculative extensions that came later, and, I agree, their empirical verification so far has been dismal.

      Re: Foundations of mathematics

      This is not an area about which I know a lot, but let me say at least regarding complex numbers, keep in mind that the imaginary number i appears in Schroedinger's equation, and that equation has worked for the last 90 years or so to describe nature so there must be some physical connection.

      Re: Ether and background

      Why light (or for that matter anything) has wave properties in the absence of a medium is an open question that apparently most physicists have unfortunately relegated to the realm of philosophy. I have worked on a framework which gives an explanation and does not require a medium. Essentially, the wave properties are due to phase factor that is associated with each quantum state, so the question then reduces to why there is a phase factor associated with each state (which is incidentally also responsible for the imaginary factor i in Schroedinger's equation). If you are really interested to know more about it, you can take a look at my submission to the third FQXi contest, "A Derivation of the Quantum Phase". Frankly, to make sense out of nature, I do not need an ether.

      Re: Relativity

      It seems that you think that both special and general relativity are false. The argument that you will run into by physicists is that these are "tested" every day several thousand times, e.g in the form of particle accelerator experiments, GPS corrections and astronomical observations.

      It is not inconceivable that they could one day be replaced by a better theory, but if you think that this is the case you will need to do the same things I mentioned at the beginning of this post, but applied to relativity. It will be a steep path.

      Good luck and thanks again for reading my essay,

      Armin

      Hi Than,

      Thank you for reading my essay. The general thought about redundancies sounds highly plausible to me. I will read your essay and post a comment there shortly.

      Equation (1)is different from ordinary equations in that it is more a template for equations than an equation in the usual sense. If you substitute Planck's constant you will still need to specify at least one other term to allow it to specialize to a known equation. Of course, two candidates for (arrangement of substance) come immediately to mind: Energy and momentum. In that case (using the inverse of Planck's constant), you get on the left the frequency and wavelength for a quantum object i.e. a photon. I had actually not thought about it in this way before, but off the top of my head I don't see any reason why one could not think of those relations as special cases of equation (1).

      So, thank you for your comment, I'll think about this some more.

      All the best,

      Armin

      Thanks Armin for your detailed explanation. I scored you high because I thought you were open to all ideas from classical to GR to Quantum theory as exemplified in your essay. But it appears you may still have an undue affection for Lorentzian relativity, which in my opinion is unjustified by all you said in your essay. This is your right though.

      In Lorentzian relativity space is denied any background/substantival quality whatsoever. GR tends to re-introduce this in a way.

      However, by decoupling time from space we both come again to common ground. Take a look at my amateur essay before deciding whether time can in a way introduce a pattern to the otherwise smooth space. Whether we both agree or not, your essay was very rich.

      Best regards,

      Akinbo

      Dear Sir,

      Thank you for the explanations which give us more food for thought and we will pursue those. Incidentally, if you read our essay, you will understand our ideas better. We have brought the concept of mind not as in psychology or metaphysics, but as a mechanical operator following the laws of physics. When you discuss information, you cannot avoid conscious mind - whether you admit it directly or indirectly, because information has value only when it is perceived as such. Otherwise it is data. Perception necessarily implies mind.

      Extra dimensions came before QM. The other experiments you have mentioned are related to technology that was developed by trial and error methods to verify certain new aspects found from other observations. This led to the formation of postulates some of which became theory.

      The degree of uncertainty and manipulations (contrary to mathematical principles) of Maxwell's equations also confuse everything as shown below. The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger's differential equation:

      d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0.

      By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions (adding two more equal terms by replacing x with y and z) does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A three dimensional equation is a third order equation implying volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume [x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z)] and [x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z)]. Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.

      We never advocated ether model. We hold the so-called dark energy as the background structure.

      SR begins with a wrong note of measuring lengths of moving objects. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.

      The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In his June 30th, 1905 paper, he treats the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!

      In response to the first query on our essay, we have given proof that the experiment that is said to have proved time dilation is a hoax. The GPS result can be attributed to density variation between outer space and the Earth's atmosphere that changes the refractive index leading to slowing down of light. The same is true for particle accelerator experiments that are contained in high flux magnetic tubes. When driving a car, the speedometer reading and the actual kilometer readings do not match. It is always slower due to air friction. In the thread of Dr. Reed and many others, we have proved conclusively without contradiction that equivalence principle is wrong description of reality.

      Hope you will read our essay. Incidentally, we are not out to change the world. We want clarity of our thought by asking questions that we feel important.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear Armin,

      Thank you for the reply. I think that the possible ways your are talking about may be approached with Grothendieck's methodology accounted for in my paper.

      I answered your questions at the location of my essay.

      Thanks and good luck,

      Michel

      Armin,

      bravo. What a fine, well argued essay. It is very well written -- your best by far! Even the non-specialist like myself could follow easily and understand. I hope this year your ideas will finally find the recognition they deserve. IMHO your logic is infallible.

      I read your essay the next day after it was posted and started writing my comments, but then was distracted and later on my laptop decided to reboot itself. Basically it was about the same (there was much more) and I finished expressing my curiosity as to what comments the 'big shots' would post. And lo and behold, Prof. D'Ariano did just that the next day:

      "taking "distinctions to be a prerequisite for the definition of information" you assume Bit from It. No wonder that quantum theory cannot be background independent."

      Trying to understand him I re-read his essay and comments on his thread again. He is very keen on making his own theory background independent. I have just read Prof. Boroson's essay and his view of information is in line with yours (he defines it as differences). Perhaps Prof. D'Ariano could find no fault in your logic either and thus felt that the premise must be wrong -?

      As for my critique of your work, I thought that section 2 was a bit dry and basically unnecessary, but everything else, especially the proof itself, simply superb.

      The other minor issue, which had no affect on my high evaluation of your work, had to do with the esthetics of the page layout. You had enough space to separate the paragraphs so that there would be more room on the page, which would make reading it an even more pleasant experience and would make it easier on the eyes.

      Also, I was intrigued by some similarity in themes, the order of discussion, and even a few key words in our essays -- even though of course my style of a savant naturel lol is not even close to your polished academic style. But those few similarities made me think that we draw from the same source.

      Anyway, I very much appreciated you sincere critique of my essay last year and I hope you could find time to do the same this year. Thank you :)

      -Marina

        Dear Armin

        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 description of matter called information from nothing. . . .?

        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

          Hi Armin,

          I am reposting because maybe you forgot about me. I am really interested in your opinion about whether our theories have anything in common or not. I don't care for the rating. But if you are busy sorry for bothering you.

          Very good essay indeed. I rated it very high, one simple reason, my theory is the concrete implementation of your idea. I postulate that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, then I end up with a line and do whatever is possible on it, and bang, QM is born along with space , matter and energy. One advantage in my system is that time becomes just a change of state.

          I do disagree with the last two paragraphs, but they are relatively minor issues, and I am ready to discuss that and others if you like. Please take a look at my website you will be happy. I hope you can do basic programming.

          The programs are at my website

          http://www.qsa.netne.net

          please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

          you can find my essay at this link

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

          Thank you.

          P.S. my ancestors are from Pars province. I listened to you piano piece. Why do Iranian music sound so sad even when they are meant to be happy ? I guess it is superposition!!

          Adel

            Dear Adel,

            I did not forget about you. After I went to your website, I was impressed that you had written a program to simulate basic standard QM results, and I wanted to take more time to understand your approach more deeply before I comment, especially because you start out with lower-dimensional objects, a central part of the framework that I am working on.

            With all the essays it is a little overwhelming just to answer the ones authored by the people who have posted on my column, but I will post a response soon.

            Thank you for your patience,

            Armin

            Dear Basudeba,

            You wrote: "We want clarity of our thought by asking questions that we feel important."

            Good, from your response it is evident to me that unfortunately you misunderstand the meaning of the spatial derivative and the Schroedinger equation. I will try to explain, and hope that you will receive my explanations in the spirit of the words you wrote.

            First, on the spatial derivative: It refers to a rate of change of some quantity (in the denominator) as you change position along the specified coordinate. Let us suppose we want to know how a field, symbolized by, say, F, varies as we consider positions along the x-axis. We would then write

            [math]\frac{dF}{dx}[/math]

            to denote the rate of change of F with respect to a change of position along the x-axis.

            If dF/dx=0 then that means the F is constant along the x-axis. Note that the constant need not be 0, because all the spatial derivative tells us is how F changes as x changes. It does not tell us anything about the value of F itself. if F is greater than zero, then F has the same constant value everywhere along the interval of x that you are considering, and if F is smaller than zero then it has the same negative constant value everywhere along that interveal. if F=0, then it is zero everywhere along the interval of x that you are considering.

            If dF/dx is smaller than 0, then the Field Strength decreases as you go farther along x (i.e. it becomes weaker). Again, this tells us nothing about the value of F itself, at any point it could be positive, negative or zero but in the direction of positive x it will be less than at that point, and in the direction of negative x it will be greater.

            If dF/dx is larger than zero, then the Field strength increases as you go farther along x, this is just the opposite of the previous case, again with no implication for the value of F itself.

            The quantity

            [math]\frac{d^2F}{dx^2}[/math]

            tells us the "rate of change of the rate of change" of F as we go along x. Notice that we are still considering the rate of change along one direction, not two, as you seem to think.

            If d^2F/dx^2=0, then this means that the rate of change of F (i.e. dF/dx) is constant. Note that the constant need not be zero. If the constant dF/dx is greater than zero, then this means that the rate at which F changes as x changes is positive, so F becomes larger at a constant rate as x increases. If the constant dF/dx is negative, it means that F becomes smaller at a constant rate as x increases. If it the constant dF/dx is zero, it means that that F remains the same constant value as you go along x, but again, this does not mean that F itself is zero (see above).

            If d^2F/dx^2 is smaller than zero, then this means that the rate of change of the rate of change is decreasing as you along x. Note that it dF/dx can be either positive, negative, or zero. If dF/dx is positive, then d^F/dx^2 smaller than zero means that the rate of change of F in the positive direction becomes smaller as you go along x. For every constant interval of x, the amount by which F becomes larger (more positive) decreases. if dF/dx is negative, then this means that the rate of change of F in the negative direction becomes larger as you go along x. For every constant interval of x, the amount by which F becomes more negative increases. If dF/dx=0 it means that F has reached a local maximum, it has gone as positive as it could, and now it is going to decrease in value further along x. Again, all of this has no bearing on the value of F itself, in any of these cases it can be positive, negative or zero (for example you can have local maximum that is negative if all the surrounding values for F are more negative).

            I will let you figure out what happens if d^2F/dx^2 is larger than zero, you have enough information to be able to do it. Please do it, for only then will you know whether you really have understood these concepts.

            Once you have done this exercise, can you guess what a third order derivative (d^3F/dx^3) means? Hopefully you understand now that it does not mean what you wrote above.

            All this is covered in any introductory calculus course or text. If you had calculus before, then I would suggest that you review it, and if not, then I strongly advise you to learn it before you make further attempts to clarify your thoughts about how the world works. I really think that without a minimum knowledge of calculus, it is not really possible to do understand how the world works.

            Now, on to the Schroedinger equation. Let me just mention upfront that you have written the time-independent Schroedinger equation. This is fine, but keep in mind that it only applies to states of constant Energy. If you want to describe the time evolution of any arbitrary quantum state, then you must use the time-dependent Schroedinger equation. It is the latter, incidentally, which has the imaginary numer i in it.

            The equation you wrote is the one dimensional Schroedinger equation which is used most often as a toy example when the dimensionality of the system does not matter for a particular problem. The three dimensional Schroedinger equation uses the three dimensional generalization of the spatial derivative, which is called the gradient. It is very straightforward to generalize the concepts mentioned above to three dimensions: You set up a coordinate system with three perpendicular directions, say i,j, k, and then do the same thing as above for each direction and sum.

            If what you said

            "A three dimensional equation is a third order equation implying volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume [x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z)] and [x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z)]. Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. "

            were correct, then the Schroedinger equation would not even give the solution to the Hydrogen atom. The reason that it can't give an analytical solution for larger atoms (numerically, one can find solutions to arbitrary precision) is something much more subtle. But let me stop here and ask you to sincerely reflect on the following:

            You made some arguments based on elementary mathematical mistakes that any math/physics freshman could instantly recognize. Should that not give you pause to consider whether your other arguments might not be based on similar misunderstandings? I am not necessarily saying that all of your arguments are wrong, but I think that the above illustrates that it behooves you to check the basis of your arguments (especially the mathematics upon which it is based) before you use strong words like "proof" and "hoax" to make highly controversial claims. It is really in your best interest, because I doubt that many physicists will take the time to interact with you otherwise.

            Finally, let me mention that on one point I stand corrected: I said that "extra dimensions came later" (i.e. after the development of QM in the mid 1920's" and you wrote " Extra dimensions came before QM". The earliest use of extra dimensions in physics (as opposed to science fiction) that I know of is when Theodor Kaluza wrote to Einstein that he had developed a 5-dimensional theory that unifies EM with GR. I checked, that was in 1919, so you were correct.

            All the best,

            Armin

            Dear Armin,

            I congratulate you for this very interesting essay. I was a pleasure reading your writings and very interesting to see how you applied Wheeler's conception of the it and bit to all fundamental areas of physics.

            Best of luck,

            Salvish

              Hello again,

              I just noticed that in my explanation for the derivative I wrote "denominator" to refer to F but I meant, of course, numerator.

              Armin

              Dear Armin,

              I think you present these answers very thoroughly and it's interesting to see how our views of reality and information have evolved over time. You've explored the question much more objectively than some, which is how it ought to be.

              I wish you all the best in the contest - I've also replied on my page too.

              Regards - pleased to "meet" you!

              Antony

              Armin,

              You are very well informed on the philosophy of foundational physics and have presented a very valuable contribution to the debate on information.

              You have made a good case that information comes from the underlying spacetime rather than the matter. Do you think that spacetime itself could be emergent?

              Phil

                Dear Armin

                I read parts of your paper, and am writing this whilst listening to your lovely piano music on your YouTube channel. In fact halfway through the reading I stopped to make a painting, inspired by the nice combination of the encouraging physics and the flowing music.

                I say encouraging because the question of background independence in Special Relativity, and as you demonstrate in Quantum Mechanics, has been a stumbling block in physics. Ever since Einstein arbitrarily decided that c was constant and therefore banished any idea of a background, the concept of an aether has become almost a dirty word in physics. This is regrettable not only because Einstein (Leyden 1920) said it was needed in GR, but because in recent years it has become obvious that QM requires some sort of vacuum 'substance' wherein the zero point energy resides.In fact you did not mention the ether in your essay either.

                Anyway I have a theory a work-in-progress Beautiful Universe Theory also found here in which the background is identical to the 'it' of physics - i.e. the medium is the message. I agree with you that 'the quantum object can be represented 'in terms of a superposition of these, and formatted in terms of information it is called a qubit'- - however in my theory that qubit is the very 'it' in a universal lattice - so it=qubit.

                With best wishes

                Vladimir

                  Dear Marina,

                  Thank you for reading my essay and your flattering comments. I just read your wonderful essay and will post my comments in your column shortly.

                  As far as Prof. D'Ariano's comment is concerned, I hope he did read the entire essay and not just the first part, because from reading his essay I found that in some aspects our views do not seem that far apart, though you are of course correct concerning the aspect of background-dependence. Thank you for calling my attention to pror. Boroson's essay, I will read it shortly.

                  Thank you also for your honest critique. All too often I find in the author's columns comments that are little more than either (spam) requests to read their (the commenter's) essays or attempts to ingratiate themselves with the authors to get a high score, so it is refreshing that you don't fall into that category. I try not to either, even though I am sure that it will have earned me some low scores, but, oh well, so be it. As for section 2, well I regard it as the set-up on which the development subsequent sections rest, but I agree I could have enlivened it some more. I will experiment with the paragraph layout to see whether in future essays I can improve this aspect.

                  Thank you again, and I wish you all the best,

                  Armin

                  Dear Adel,

                  I have now looked at both your paper, your website and your program and will now post some questions in your column.

                  Armin

                  Dear Adel,

                  Thank you for your comments. I think it is quite possible that one day physics and mathematics will be unified. I am not sure which paragraphs you are referring to, because the last paragraph sums my entire paper. I will shortly give my own comments on your paper in your column. I am glad that you enjoyed my music, I have two persian style pieces on youtube, I'd be curious which one you thought sounded sad.

                  All the best,

                  Armin