A Universe Made of Stories by Philip Gibbs

Dear Philip,

Thanks for taking me on a pleasing little ramble through a series of intriguing ideas. I was sorry you didn't get back to your thought about stories, at the end... but I agree with you that there's still a lot to be learned from the strange combination of broken and unbroken symmetries in the laws of physics.

One thing I found striking here, which well describes the point of departure for the second section of my current essay: "With no information the universe is the sum of all possible histories, described by all possible laws of physics. In terms of information "Nothing" means "everything."

For me, the problem is that when everything is possible, there's no constraining context in which anything in particular is even definable, let alone measurable. So the question is, what story leads from here to the situation of our current universe, where so many different kinds of information are all definable and measurable in terms of each other?

There are two sides to the meaning of "fundamental" - one of which you emphasize: "a level of reality that is not derived from anything else. Fundamental laws are not in any way accidental or arbitrary. They must be as they are, because they could not be any other way." It's not clear whether this actually applies to anything in the physical world. Bu the other side certainly does apply - that is, things are fundamental insofar as they provide a basis for other things.

I argue that the complex structure of atoms is the basis for all observable information in our universe. Since that structure clearly depends on many deeper layers, I tell one possible story, taking an "archaeological" approach, digging out features of our currently well-established physics that require the least complex contexts to define them, and ordering them in a sequence of "pre-historic strata."

Though I haven't developed this thought in my essays yet, I think the reason so many different kinds of symmetry appear in physics is that symmetries mark a boundary between two levels of definition - a point where one type of information can be defined, but no context yet exists to define a related kind of information. If that makes sense, then this gives us a powerful tool for sequencing the strata.

I hope you get a chance to look at my essay and let me know what you think - not necessarily before the deadline for ratings. The feedback is more important to me.

Thanks again -- Conrad

Dear Philip,

I came to your essay just after unloading some thoughts on Bell's beables: me believing that they are (for Bell) the existents in any universe of discourse -- thus, for Bell, not always physically real -- though they are real for me in my favoured universe of discourse = spacetime, itself a real physical beable. Which is my excuse for thinking, before I'd left your first page: my other universe of discourse consists of stories, ideas, observations, etc. mathematics. The former in my native tongue (generally); the last [the best logic] in a universal tongue for us all.

I then stopped feeling guilty for my distracting thoughts when I saw your underlying math finally burst forth! (Though I'm still wrestling with p.7.) So, to cut to a few short stories: (i) You should expect a Xmas bonus from my highlighter supplier.

(ii) "If young researchers are all corralled into one pen it could turn out to be in the wrong place. The chances are they are going to be influenced only by the highest profile physicists." Like Bell and Aspect using a straight line to denote a NAIVE (and now ubiquitous) local HV theory when a simple classical theory [with a very elementary correlation] gives an informative curve equal to one-half the correct EPRB value: thus rendering the corrective remedy [a similar elementary correlation at source] devoid of false mystery. (See recent comments near the foot of my essay-thread.)

(iii) "It just requires mathematicians and physicists to bring their knowledge together" -- just like engineers! Mundanely, have a look at modern pressure-vessel codes.

(iv) Or, apropos your "just" requirement, just see the PS (below) in this [from my essay-thread]:

Background to my theory: Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

PS: To those who dismissed my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic." [End of background story.]

Philip, assuring you and your collaborators that critical comments are welcome at any time,

With best regards: appreciating your thought-provoking essay, and (as always), thanking you for viXra.org;

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Philip,

The well-founded approach I use, and the algebraic group, replicate QC/ED quite well... no need for exploring an unknown 'landscape'.

{I found the band-like solution at the conformal boundary of the string theory landscape! ;}

Dear Phil,

On another's page, you said, "I like simulation myself, and I'm always interested to learn what other people have tried."

Based on this I am providing the link to a Bell's theorem simulation (on viXra) that is fully non-local [ A and B never appear together locally, except at birth] and uses Bell's discrete variables +1 and -1 to show that his theorem is not violated. I then use continuous variables, representing the actual Stern-Gerlach data and show that Bell's "impossible to achieve" correlation is achieved.

Cristi Stoica and I discussed the physics of this on his page [also copied to my page.]

The non-local simulation model is shown on page 5 and the discrete and continuous variable results are shown on page 6. The figures represent 10,000 random spins and SG-orientations.

In another simulation, Modern Classical Spin Dynamics, based on the same model of spin, I generate ~10,000 spins passing through an inhomogeneous magnetic field, and show that this exactly overlays the actual SG data [fig 6 on page 20].

A lot can be learned from simulations. If you have any that you have done, I would be interested in a link.

Finally, you are busy with responding to others as this contest closes, so you need not bother responding to this comment. It is FYI.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Phil,

Can't open a dialog with you without expressing gratitude for the service you've given the community via vixra. Many heartfelt thanks.

First pass thru your essay was overwhelming in both breadth and depth. Can't hope to address it all, or even significant fraction. Where relevant and possibly helpful will outline connections between ideas in your essay and the geometric Clifford algebra vacuum wavefunction model Michaele and I have been working with.

Like that you explicitly state "My aim is to provoke your mind with ideas...", this shift of focus from the fundamental to ideas. You sure trotted out a bunchload, often with keywords very effectively highlighted in bold. In the next paragraph we have emboldened - emergent, stable vacuum, fundamental, broad landscape, hypothesis, unnaturally fine-tuned, and what is?

Where to start?

emergent - that which is not fundamental. Two bold birds with one stone there, emergent and fundamental :-)

stable vacuum - here we go back to fundamental geometric objects of geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra ala Hestenes et.al - point, line, plane, and volume elements, all orientable. The eight component Pauli algebra of 3D space. Claim this as vacuum wavefunction model. No issues yet with stability. It is just geometry without fields.

landscape hypothesis - probably safe to ignore this, let it die a quiet death. Two more bold birds with one stone here :-)

unnaturally fine tuned - tuning comes from topologically appropriate quantized fields assigned to vacuum wavefunction, to elements of the Pauli algebra. Simplest is to start with just EM quantized fields - electric charge, magnetic flux quantum, Bohr magneton,... To assign field quanta to the eight elements requires five fundamental constants input by hand - charge quantum, permittivity of free space, Planck's constant, speed of light, and electron mass (to set the scale of space via Compton wavelength). Whatever fine tuning exists in such a geometric wavefunction model is done at this point. There are no free parameters. It remains to be seen how natural or unnatural such a model is. We claim it is naturally finite, confined, and gauge invariant.

what is? - the enigmatic unobservable wavefunction and wavefunction interactions driving the proliferation of quantum interpretations.

next paragraph asserts that neither time nor space is fundamental, with geometry emerging from something more fundamental. Not unreasonable to suggest this 'something more fundamental' is comprised of the scalar point, vector line, pseudovector plane, and pseudoscalar volume elements of the Pauli vacuum wavefunction. Time then emerges from wavefunction interactions as modelled by the grade/dimension-changing geometric product, yielding a 4D Dirac algebra of flat Minkowski spacetime, the particle physicist's S-matrix. Time (relative phase) emerges from the interactions. In this view space is more fundamental than time, time is emergent.

then the story jumps to Feynman and the path integral. What is being integrated is the evolution of quantum phase. What governs that evolution are the quantized interaction impedance networks of electromagnetic geometric wavefunction interactions. That's what impedances do - they govern amplitude and phase of the flow of energy.

Like that essay pauses at this point, timing is perfect, to dance around a definition of the fundamental, then starts again with a different question, introducing the story analogy, and hot button word 'information'.

Similarly, seems like a good place for this comment to pause.

Again, many thanks for the gift of vixra.

Best regards,

Pete

Dear Phil,

It is a pleasure meeting you here in FQXi again.

Once again, you wrote an entertaining and inspiring essay. Thanks for sharing it with us. Your work deserves my highest estimation. Being a physicist of gravitation, I particularly appreciated your statement that "General relativity may be celebrated as the most aesthetically pleasing theory in physics, yet it must emerge from something deeper and possibly less appealing to our minds", despite I hope that such a something deeper will be equally appealing to our minds!

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss on fundamental issues with... Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Thanks for your comment. You were hit by the anonymiser bug, but you left enough clues for me to identify you.

The questions and comments have clarified the situation for me since writing my essay, but I am less clear about the definition of fundamental. Perhaps what is really fundamental is the information that is added at different levels and the relations between them. the next step should be to formulate a mathematical model.

I will look again at your essay.

unanonymising here.

Thanks for mentioning clarification you developed from questions and comments, have not yet followed your thread but your mention suggests to me it will be time well spent.

re "...information that is added at different levels and the relations between them", where does that information come from? Is it not emergent from wavefunction interactions, just as the infinite variety of snowflakes emerges from H20 wavefunctions?

can/will you be a little more specific re what a math model might look like?

Hello Philip,

A belated read of your essay reveals confirmation of my own fundamental thoughts concerning 'What is "Fundamental"?' As you note, 'The universe exists, so there must be answers.'

Such was my own conclusion: the prerequisite for all that 'is' - is Existence.

'Everything is nothing in the absence of Existence'. Amen.

If you have a moment to read, comment and rank my essay at this, the eleventh hour, I would much appreciate it. I am aware that there is 'ice' on the slope today moving ranking scores downwards, in my case from 6.8 to 6.3!

Go well and good luck in the final assessment.

Gary.

Dear Philip,

My experience in reading your essay was that it was really nice locally, though somewhat hard to navigate as a whole. I liked your discussion of the geometry problem best, though I suspect it does less for your case than you suggest. In the example, the symmetries were an epistemically helpful ladder to the solution, which can be kicked away in the end (though you can learn from how others climbed it). Yet, for physics, you suspect to find symmetry in a fundamental theory beyond those we have now. Isn't that in tension, or did I misinterpret this?

The batch of entries I selected to read includes the essay by Ilja Schmelzer: section IV addresses the loss of symmetry across symmetry change. I think it would be interesting if you two could discuss this directly.

Best wishes,

Sylvia - Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It