Why Quantum?

Lorraine and Robert,

There is enough unfinished business from the Golden Era of Newtonian science to keep me preoccupied, so being an old fart I'll let others dispute what the proper definition should be of 'information'. Much of what is taken today as a priori knowledge is at best a first approximation in realist terms, and what might appear to be real physical phenomenon as we observe it, is representative. Garbage in: Garbage out. Is the electromagnetic wave a travelling wave moving at light velocity, or is the waveform a standing wave across the length of which a dynamic energy progression occurs that produces effects that are interpreted as a travelling wave? If gravitation operates in accord with inverse square law translated at light velocity, does that mean a gravitational wave travels at light velocity, or is the modern inflationary view the result of our observation looking across a trough and through the crest of a standing gravitational lens? What does the size of the perforations in the shield screen of the door in my microwave oven tell me about the physical cross-section of the microwave region of the spectrum? Answers to such naïve questions would be informative enough for me. jrc

John,

"Is the electromagnetic wave a travelling wave moving at light velocity"

Yes. Unconfined, real (as opposed to idealized) waves, are of finite length and duration. They actually move from one place to another (think of RADAR pulses); hence, they are "traveling" and are not "standing" in place anywhere.

"What does the size of the perforations in the shield screen of the door in my microwave oven tell me about the physical cross-section of the microwave region of the spectrum?"

It tells you that microwaves have wavelengths much greater than the diameter of the perforations.

Rob McEachern

Lorraine,

"today's common definition of information, which you subscribe to, is completely unsophisticated"

That may be. But that does not diminish its usefulness. After all, the original meaning of "unsophisticated" meant "devoid of sophistry".

"you and many others have in effect failed to comprehend the difference between a living person and a facsimile of a person."

Now that is sophistry.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

The size of perforation is indicative of the amplitude not the wavelength. The observed constancy of Planck's Constant in the confines of any wavelength strongly suggests that a finite volume exists that is also invariant. The common assumption that the wave is a transverse wave lacks a rationale for why it can be quantized along any chosen measurement line of propagation without limiting its lateral dimension. And it is entirely an assumption of Newtonian physics predicated on refraction by crystalline substances. Neither does it provide a rationale for the particulate characteristic. Just because we don't have a theory that combines gravitation with electromagnetism, doesn't mean that a finite 3-D volume is not gravitationally bounded which confines the Quantum per wavelength. Its what the energy does in that confined volume that moves at light velocity. Link sausage. And quite frankly it never occurred to me that the constancy of the Quantum meant an invariant volume until the simple algebra in solid geometric modeling turned out that way. jrc

Georgina,

As you say, things/events exist without our observing them, so I agree that: "The material universe exists independent of us". But if I bump into this material universe, then I will definitely affect the material universe (as well as what you call "the Image reality we experience"). So surely you are not claiming that the "material universe" is ENTIRELY independent of (e.g.) me?

Tom,

Re "Is information of the information relationship, new information? ":

I contend that at the particle level, the particle's "information relationships" (which we represent as laws-of-nature and numbers) are subjective experience: subjective experience is of information categories and information relationships. But at the particle level there is nothing very complex going on e.g. there is no information ABOUT information, or information OF information.

I contend that new information is new relationship, which is the outcome of quantum decoherence - it's a type of abrupt change (represented by a new number assigned to an existing category of information). This abrupt change is created by a particle, and its effects are subjectively experienced by the particle and other particles. This contrasts with the subjective experience of smooth/continuous/consequential change (which we represent with numbers) which is the characteristic of existing static relationship - there's nothing new about static relationship. Note that there are absolutely NO calculations going on: there is only relationship.

Re "Once again, I remind you that I have not promoted a definition of information yet":

I hesitate to ask, but how do YOU define information?

John C and Rob:

I thought we had the microwave oven door business sorted out, and now John has cast doubt on it! (I haven't got one, but I will have to check one out).

Rob,

Re "today's common definition of information, which you subscribe to, is completely unsophisticated": What I said wasn't very well put. I should have said: "I think the definition of information, which you and many others subscribe to, is not useful as a basis for understanding the nature of reality, especially fundamental reality." But, as you say, the definition "does not diminish its usefulness" in other areas.

Re "you and many others have in effect failed to comprehend the difference between a living person and a facsimile of a person.": I never meant that literally - I only said that to illustrate the point that the facsimile, the mere representation of the real thing is honoured with the hijacked name "information", while the real thing is supposed to hide in the background unacknowledged. I believe that this is because there is a reluctance to face up to the true nature of information in the universe, i.e. that it is subjective experience (consciousness).

Cheers,

Lorraine

Lorraine,

Sorry about the microwave, I don't drag my own soapbox out much even though its not a very big one. I prefer to have conversation about ideas and only resort to throwing down my own thang when its the only way to challenge a prevailing view. And the traverse wave is a holdover from the ether, how could the quantum be observable in an invariant wavelength without a limited lateral arc-length(?), that sort of thing. Oh, you can get small cheap microwaves at thrift stores, mine is an oldie that doesn't make me do other stuff than nuke up a coffee or some left-over. They're great for that.

As for "But at the particle level there is nothing very complex going on e.g. there is no information ABOUT information, or information OF information." Okay... but given that we already have a particle, a priori. Then in any association, quantum or classically, complexity arises which could be said to be information whether two particles share it with an observer or not. That, I can live with, I think partly I'm prejudiced because information has so many letters to type.

Classically, and in constant conflict with QM, the actual physical concept of particulate matter is a complex mathematical problem. It is the 'one field' that Einstein tried to resolve. Briefly, just how would one account for distribution of a quantity of energy in a spherical volume that becomes continuously denser towards the center in a manner consistent with the inverse square law? And what would keep it from becoming ever more dense until all the energy is swallowed into a singularity? And what sets the lower bound of density so that the particle's field boundary is no different in density than the surrounding density, yet remains a self-limiting boundary? 'the boundary of the boundary is zero'

In classical terms its sometimes said that the energy 'knows' its 'in touch' with itself. So there in that sense the information does become complex. Formally, however, the preferred term is 'coherent'. The energy is self-adhesive, and non-granular. A continuum. Peace? jrc

John,

"The size of perforation is indicative of the amplitude not the wavelength"

If that were true, diffraction would not be dependent on wavelength and aperture. But it is.

"The common assumption that the wave is a transverse wave lacks a rationale for why it can be quantized along any chosen measurement line of propagation without limiting its lateral dimension."

An idealized "plane" wave, has a constant value, at all locations within a plane, that is perpendicular to its propagation direction. Consequently, it can be perfectly "reconstructed", from a single sample (the value of the constant). Hence, the complete traveling plane wave can be reconstructed from samples taken along a single line, parallel to the axis of propagation.

With a little added complexity, to the reconstruction process, the plane wave can be reconstructed from samples taken along any line, including ones not parallel to the axis or propagation.

Real (as opposed to idealized) waves cannot be treated that way. That is why large apertures in telescopes and camera lenses, are required to reduce the diffraction effects, that limit image resolution.

Rob McEachern

" ... at the particle level there is nothing very complex going on e.g. there is no information ABOUT information, or information OF information."

I see. So your spelled out representation -- "information" -- doesn't stand for anything, and is therefore meaningless.

"Note that there are absolutely NO calculations going on: there is only relationship."

Lorraine, do you know what the word "calculation" represents?

"Re 'Once again, I remind you that I have not promoted a definition of information yet':

I hesitate to ask, but how do YOU define information?"

This

Robert,

That's like a cardboard box. Granted, illumination decreases classically at greater distances from the source. But if I cut a square piece of corrugated material and place the source mid-point of a side, I've got the physical model of a series of plane waves. How's that work? OTOH, the same criteria of refraction that you cite would also be observable in an interactive electromagnetic effect propagated by a volumetric waveform having a circular cross-section at any given point along the line of propagation with the greatest amplitude occurring at midpoint. That model also provides a rationale for the rise and fall of intensity, as well as true particle moment end points. But if you are bound and determined against spacetime, I've done more roof work than I care to remember or look forward to, just how thin IS this corrugated plane stock you want to sell me? jrc

Lorraine,

you wrote "So surely you are not claiming that the "material universe" is ENTIRELY independent of (e.g.) me?

Unlike the Image reality you create from received sensory data the material Object universe does not require you in order to exist itself.In that sense it is independent. You are a part of that material universe and are able to have effects upon other constituents of the material Object universe, other Objects and potential sensory data that you receive. Potential sensory data is also being emitted or reflected from your surface that can be received by other people or objects or remain in the Object universe's data pool.

Stefan,

I was trying to defend my own explanatory framework which appears to contradict what John Wheeler said. Quote"No phenomenon is a physical phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. The universe does not exist 'out there,'independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators."My emphasis.

The illusion is in taking out a rabbit that does not appear to exist not taking one out that the spectators know is in the hat. There would be nothing remarkable about that. The spectators can be shown the hat and allowed time to examine it prior to rabbit going in. The spectator can be given a brief glance of the "empty" interior of hat with rabbit inside (if it is a small one) as it can be concealed within a pocket in the lining. Then the rabbit is extracted and appears to have popped into existence. The magician does not necessarily have to put the rabbit (o-rabbit) in the hat it can do that itself if trained or he can just tip it in from the pocket under the table where it is waiting. He does not have to see it for it (o-rabbit) to materially exist. But it does have to be seen for an Image reality fabrication (i-rabbit) to be formed by the audience and that is what comes into existence. The audience 'brings about what appears to be happening' in John Wheeler's words. The blood sugar experiment was to show that things exist independently of us when we are not looking at them.

John,

"Granted, illumination decreases classically at greater distances from the source"

There is very little distance between one side of the barrier and the other, in the situations under consideration (microwave oven). That has no relevance whatever to wave penetration through a barrier with holes.

"But if I cut a square piece of corrugated material and place the source mid-point of a side, I've got the physical model of a series of plane waves. How's that work? "

It does not work. That is not a model of a plane wave.

"an interactive electromagnetic effect propagated by a volumetric waveform having a circular cross-section at any given point along the line of propagation"

That is not a plane wave. There can be no "circular cross-section", because "plane" means infinite in extent. It is not an "expanding" wave, that gets bigger in "cross-section" as it moves away from the source; it is already as big as it can get - infinite. That is what "plane" means; its transverse geometry is an infinite plane, at all distances from the source (which must also be an infinite plane, or, as an approximation, must be infinitely far away).

There is nothing special about electromagnetic waves, in regards to "Faraday cages", that block wave propagation.

Water waves, also "vibrate" transverse to their propagation direction. But if you put a massive steel barrier, perforated with holes a tiny fraction of a wavelength, out at sea, even waves with huge amplitudes with "bounce" (reflect) off the barrier; the wave will not penetrate through the small holes, although a small amount of water will.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

We seem to be on divergent paths. Enjoy your journey. jrc

To be very simplistic, I would argue information, as well as its root, form, emerges from the intersection and interaction of different energies.

We extract information by intercepting energy and measuring whatever form has been encoded by previous encounters. Considering light can convey this form for billions of lightyears and not revert to any base state, this expression of energy as form should be given as much or more conceptual weight than assuming the information/form must be primary because the static definition of measurement is what our minds process.

It is similar to assuming the universe must be geocentric because that is how we perceive it. Measurement is an particular action and has to be recognized as such.

Dear Georgina,

let us differenciate some things:

For the ordinary rabbit/hat trick of the magician - with a rabbit the physical size we are common with by everyday observation - we all know the trick, means how it works.

Now, here we are speaking about physics at the microscopical level. If someone claims that there is a yet unknown 'trick' (means physical process, physical mechanism) that leads us to a false view of some things happening at the microscopical level, he can do this due to different starting asumptions, which are:

1. He just claims it without having any idea of the underlying trick and does not believe himself what he is claiming. So by asking him to explain the trick, he cannot give a meaningfull answer in physical terms. His starting assumption by claiming something to be existent is, that he cannot be proven to be false - and therefore his assumptions will survive all falsification (see Russell's teapot).

2. He claims it without having a full theory of the underlying processes', but only a vague analogy at hand. The starting assumption then would be that his analogy is proof enough to show that what his theory says is the underlying reality of the microscopical level of nature.

3. He claims it by having a full theory of the underlying processes' but unfortunately only he can understand the 'trick' itself and its full implications. The starting assumption would then be that his brain is somewhat different from all the ones that cannot understand his theory. Note that 'having a full theory' does not necessarily imply that this theory indeed does describe the underlying processes'. It could also be the case that he has overlooked some subtle details that are in contradiction with already known experimental results. Note also that 'having a full theory' does not necessarily imply that this theory indeed does *not* describe the underlying processes'. But without being able to fully *retrace* the theory, nobody can realize the correctness of the theory. The theory in question would be of no use for the scientific community, it would be just as the claim that God does exist, because someone has received devine revelation and all the others have not received it.

4. He claims it by giving a detailed description of the theory *at work*, by eluminating the 'trick' for all known experimental results so far. The starting assumptions therefore would seem to be strongly valid and applicable. Note that this possibility does not rule out other competing theories which offer also a detailed description of them *at work*. So by giving a detailed description of them *at work* does not make them more true than another theory offering a detailed description *at work* (see the discussions wether Many-Worlds or Bohmian pilot-wave is 'more true').

5. He claims it by giving a detailed description of the theory *at work* and at the same time proposes an experiment for which his theory gives a certain prediction which is in contradiction with the prediction of a competing theory. The starting assumption here is, that his theory *could be false* and has to be tested experimentally to strengthen its claims in relation to other competing theories.

Would you agree with those points?

Best wishes,

Stefan

John C and Tom,

Re "But at the particle level there is nothing very complex going on e.g. there is no information ABOUT information, or information OF information.":

I must admit that I'm not very definite about this assertion, and I'm not necessarily going to stick to this view. But whatever view I eventually come to, there is the issue of the TYPE of mathematical or logical representation that would be necessary to represent the situation. I contend that information is subjective experience, so I'm talking about the symbolic representation of the subjective experience of the particle.

John, you say : "Classically, and in constant conflict with QM, the actual physical concept of particulate matter is a complex mathematical problem", but seemingly that's looking at a situation from the outside "God's eye" view. I guess, like Georgina, I am interested in looking at information and relationship situations from the inside subjective point of view, e.g. of a particle. "Peace? ": Never! I think we are all a bit obsessed!

Tom, re "So your spelled out representation -- "information" -- doesn't stand for anything, and is therefore meaningless. ":

Obviously the representation "information" means something to ME, and the fact that it means something to me is founded in the nature of physical reality, but I was talking about the "simple" PARTICLE point of view, and I'm concerned with the issue of REPRESENTING particle information.

Re "Note that there are absolutely NO calculations going on: there is only relationship.": Tom, physics has inferred that information law-of-nature relationships actually exist, and we can all agree on that. But where is the evidence that there is, in effect, a big calculator in the sky? Obviously physicists must perform calculations, e.g. in experiments in order to estimate physical outcome parameter numbers, but this does not mean that fundamental reality is also doing calculations. Where is the evidence for actual calculations being performed at the level of fundamental reality?

Thanks for the link to your "Time, Change and Self Organization" document - I'll have a look at it, but I fear that I will disagree with you!

Cheers,

Lorraine

Offline for a while. Te conversation has strayed just a bit from the original issues Lorraine raised at the beginning on Aug. 14, 2014 @ 00:26 GMT.

Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 18, 2014 @ 11:42 GMT

"You can't measure space; you can only measure e.g. distance between things in space: i.e. you are measuring relationships between things, not space itself". "In what sense would you suggest that space itself could be measured, or in what sense would you suggest that space could contain position information?" "I am contending that space itself contains no information at all BECAUSE it is a derived category of information: it is a result, not an entity that carries any sort of information. Space is fundamental-level information, but it's not the MOST fundamental-level information".

Distance IS Space. If you start to measure the 'distance' between two things, A and B with a metre tape, starting from A, as you draw your tape towards B, and you look up to complete the task, only to see that B has disappeared, have you measured anything thus far since there is no more 'relationship between things'? If you have not measured anything, then what have you been doing?

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 17, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT

Steve, your reply seems to introduce concepts that appear to complicate the "simple" question Tom asked. Do you agree or disagree that 'Action' simply means change of place or change of nature?

I partially agree with your answer to Q.2, i.e. Space is unique in having substance and no mass. Hence it cannot share all the properties of substances that have mass. Newtonians like to call it a 'pseudo-substance' as a result.

Tom,

"Motion or movement." Relative to what? Not all motion is relative. There is also Absolute Motion. Give Newton a fair hearing.

And by the way, does the Universe move and relative to what?

When something disappears, has it moved?

I am not sure you are right that Neutrinos have mass.

All the best,

Akinbo

"Not all motion is relative. There is also Absolute Motion."

How would one measure that?

" ... does the Universe move and relative to what?"

No one knows, because all motion is relative.

"When something disappears, has it moved?"

Akinbo, things disappear from local observation; they don't disappear from physical reality, by conservation of energy and information.

"I am not sure you are right that Neutrinos have mass."

It's in the news

"Tom, physics has inferred that information law-of-nature relationships actually exist, and we can all agree on that. But where is the evidence that there is, in effect, a big calculator in the sky?"

The evidence so far suggests that the universe is its own algorithm; a minority of physicists hypothesize that the world is algorithmically compressible, i.e., that all physical results stem from a master program.

"Obviously physicists must perform calculations, e.g. in experiments in order to estimate physical outcome parameter numbers, but this does not mean that fundamental reality is also doing calculations."

Parameters -- adjustable variables -- are input to a model, not output. You're right -- nature is not compelled to obey our mathematical results; that's why we compare those results to physical outcomes. When the physics corresponds to the language, one has a physical theory.

"Where is the evidence for actual calculations being performed at the level of fundamental reality?"

Where is the evidence that it isn't? Science isn't based in conclusions from evidence; it is based in correspondence between theory and evidence.

Tom, thanks for the link. Neutrinos may have mass but it appears the jury is still out with statements like, "A possible way of resolving this discrepancy is for neutrinos to have mass... ", "If this result is borne out by further analysis,..", etc. I just used neutrinos to illustrate that mass is a derived and not an absolute and primary property of substance. Even, E = MC2 shows this. Something that is in kilograms today, may not be in kilograms tomorrow.

If you don't agree the view that the universe had a beginning from nothing, is expanding then my argument from cosmology can be discountenanced.

Then as to "things disappearing only from local observation; they don't disappear from physical reality, by conservation of energy and information", the same insight from cosmology applies. Everything is Zero, if you call that a conserved quantity, okay. And, if something disappears from local observation, where did it go? To another place where it will still be locally observed? Disappearance is disappearance.

Regards,

Akinbo