• [deleted]

  • Post #62

Dear Sir,

We have the following comment on the above post.

The framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data is a mechanical process and not a conscious process. Since the robot is limited by energy/volume constraints and design constraints (g.i.g.o.), it will not be able to perform conscious functions. The reason lies in the nature of infinity and its difference from a very big number. A robot functions within a very big number, whereas consciousness is in the realm of the infinity as explained below.

Number is the property of all substances by which we distinguish between similars. If there are no similars, we designate it as one. Infinity is like one - without similars - but with the exception that whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible. The robot can compute, which means it can do mathematics with bigger and bigger numbers, but not infinity, because even the designers of the computer have not perceived infinity.

When we think of any conscious action, one similarity that distinguishes it from other actions is that while the application of forces and their effects vary in each case, the contents of the "conscious" part is always similar. We might have knowledge about different objects, but the "knowledge" part is always similar. Since it has infinite varieties, it is one of its kind, but infinite in its spread. Secondly, like all infinite objects like time and space, it does not interact with others, but exists by itself, while all objected are covered by it in different proportions. For example, measurement is a mechanical process, but the perception of the result of measurement is a conscious process. The result of measurement is always a number, which is time invariant as explained in our essay. Since the perception of the result of measurement does not change or interact with the time evolution of the system, it fits the above description. A robot may continue to measure higher and higher numbers, but reaching infinity is impossible theoretically and practically.

Yet, we derive digital big and small numbers from the analog infinite description. Hence, we can still know the conscious process. In fact, we derive all mechanical processes from conscious processes. But the mechanism is different.

Regards,

basudeba.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #63

Hi all,

Sorry dear Edwin for your thread.

Dr Dr Cosmic Ray,

Hope you see the uniqueness of our Universal sphere, really hope you understand this essential evidence.

It's so important this uniqueness.

You see, I hope, the fractal of sphere ....

ps you are skilling but you don't analyze foundamentally the generality.

Sincerely

Steve

Relevant info--- Jason Wolfe made remarks on Peter Jackson's page that bear repeating with respect to my essay. He points out that "one particle is its own reference frame." Peter has quoted Einstein saying much the same thing, and the figure on page 6 in my essay shows how this fits my theory. Jason then states:

"...redshift reduces the frequency, and therefore reduces the information content that is being carried..."

I hadn't thought of that. I asked on another thread, months ago, just exactly when it became gospel that information is never lost? I have quantum mechanics texts from the 1930's (Dirac) to the 1980's (Sakurai) and QED and QCD texts from the 90's and 2000's, and I don't recall seeing in any of them that 'information is never lost'. No one answered my question.

But assuming this to be the case, Jason then covers this case by saying:

"But if the photons are again blue shifted, that should recover the information content."

That's a great statement, but it begs the question: Where was the information stored in the intervening period? Also, consider a photon that's never been red-shifted, but then falls into a hole. If it's blue-shifted, then information must be being created.

I'm still interested in the answer to when it became gospel that info is never lost.

Jason's idea is relevant to the interaction between the photon and the C-field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #65

    Hi Ed,

    Certainly in the application of DVD's (red lasers vs. blue lasers) it is appropriate to say that a Blu-Ray disc can hold more information than a standard DVD. But does this analogy apply to Spacetime? Is information lost and regained (How can it be regained? Does digital reconstruction occur?) or is Spacetime simply stretch and compressed? Perhaps Spacetime is compressible (at least to a point?), and it is this property that allows so much information to be stored in a Black Hole. Regardless, I don't think that a physical infinity can exist in our finite Universe, so even a Black Hole has a limit as to how much information it can hold (~10^123).

    Have Fun!

    Ray, thanks for the comment. We agree on many things, and I'm still trying to compose a reasonable response on your thread. I also agree about physical infinity being non-existent. I am trying to clean up my remarks to appear on Christi Stoica's essay, which deals with the issue of information. I think this is a point that needs to be understood.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Cristi Stoica's most impressive essay treats identical points that can exist with no distance between them and still retain their identity, with focus on loss of information at a singularity.

    But in Feynman diagrams two identical particles can enter into an interaction and two identical particles can exit the interaction, and it is impossible to track the identity through the interaction--they may, or may not, have switched places. I don't believe there is even the need for assuming zero distance between them. That is, we apparently don't need a singularity to lose track of identity.

    I find the idea that black holes can evaporate and all the 'information inside' be reconstructed ridiculous, but I know that others do not. Yet, why would one insist that such is the case? The implication seems to be that both classical and quantum time evolution laws are violated if info is lost. As noted Jason Wolfe points out that when photons are red-shifted, they lose information

    Yet if, as many fqxi'ers seem to believe, the real nature of time is essentially NOW, and Einstein's block time is an illusion, or at least a mathematical extrapolation that goes beyond reality, then what seems to be necessary is a physics that accurately describes interactions taking place NOW.

    But can we have gotten to NOW by two (or more) different paths, based on different initial and/or boundary conditions? A sort of generalization of the Feynman example above.

    So has anyone proved the 'uniqueness' of the history leading up to NOW?

    I'm of the opinion that, as Feynman said of QM, no one understands information. Some big names treat information as if it is a particle. Information is not a particle. I am not sure what is even meant when one speaks of 'information at a point of space', whether or not a zero or finite distance from another point.

    So is our current physical state of existence NOW reachable (in theory) by two or more different histories. It seems to me that only a probabilistic answer is possible, and when probability enters the picture, information becomes even more complicated.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #68

      Hi Edwin,

      Regarding information, I like Stefan Weckbach's essay. I briefly talked about complexergy (complexity - energy), but didn't really talk about information. In my essay, I suggest that Scales mandate all large numbers and their inverses. I think that all large numbers in our observable universe are based on Dirac's Large Number ~10^40 (10^41 is closer to the experimental value, but 40 is a nice round number), and geometrical powers thereof (Note that Stefan's number is approximately this large number cubed - cubed because of 3 spatial dimensions? Likewise, the cosmological constant is approximately the inverse of Stefan's number, so we are dealing with "Infinity" and its inverse as Cristi's essay addressed).

      Is information lost? Lawrence and Philip have entangled qubits of strings (with "electric"-like and "magnetic"-like charges) that may keep track of this information of order ~10^120 using the combinatorial spin-flips of, say, 496 (496 is E8xE8*~SO(32)) different "particle states".

      Chriti's essay is interesting, but he seems to imply that Spacetime is divisible ad infinitum, and I don't buy that idea. I think that scales collapse these continously "smooth" Spacetime manifolds into discrete lattice structures. What lattice structure? I'm not certain, although FCC, BCC, HCP, graphene, buckyball, and diamond structures are all worthy case studies.

      Also, Christi implies that these infalling particles can be separated by "zero" distance. I don't think it is exactly "zero", but rather the inverse of a very large scale number. Even IF it this distance of separation is exactly zero in the x, y, and z coordinates, these "degeneracies" could still be broken by other dimensions, such as string theory's hyperspace.

      I didn't consider the core purpose of these essays to address information, but we seem to be going in that direction...

      Have Fun!

      • [deleted]

      • Post #69

      Ray,

      always a mixing with some names of pseudos extrapolations.

      Conclusion You need to restudy your foundamentals and you need to buy an other t shirt ahahaha.

      Are you really conscient of what you say in fact ??? I doubt.Like many You speak and that's all.You proof in fact your errors in live.

      The most impressing is that some doctors are so vanitious, that's implies that they continue in their road and in fact they don't continue to learn the foundamentals.In fact it's just a play for recognizing.

      It's the reason why probably they speak always about the same stupidities.

      A real open minded accepts the foundamentals and rationalities, it's only simple like thaty, when a people is right, I accept.It's the real soul , the real mind of a real searcher of truth.

      Diract large number??? Can you inert it where you want for the study of the real number of entanglement, I doubt, and even for the calculation of the infinite spaces, thus like I said, totally withut sense.

      Spheres entanglerment and lattices(FCC,...)???? where uis the real fractal and the latticers between spheres if the number is finite,and the volumes increase towards the center ,and the number decreases towards this center.Futhermore the expansion contraction must be inserted in the two senses, quantic and cosmolog.

      qbits of strings????? you confound really the computing and the reality,the duality is logic and the system is finite.The oscillations are correlated with spinning spheres an their volumes.The sense of rotations spin. and orb. are essential.

      Extradimensions E x....???? a pure joke ....I have an idea, you must rethought your interpretation of the - the 0 and the infinity.

      Regards

      Steve

      To all,

      This is written to explain my final equation for those who do not speak partial differential equations or are not comfortable with such. It's obvious that I think it is a beautiful equation, and do not wish to limits its appreciation to only those familiar with PDEs.

      The equation reads phonetically: partial-sub-rho(time) = partial-sub-x(mass)

      What is shown in the derivation (in an appendix), but not explicitly shown in the final equation, is that the units are inverse Planck's constant, that is, the right hand side is "per unit of action".

      Now partial-sub-rho(time), where rho stands for volume, means "the change of time in a region of space".

      and partial-sub-x(mass), where x stands for distance, means "the change of mass with distance" (across the region of space).

      The result is a simple equation that represents space, time, distance, and mass in quantum units of action.

      Now this probably won't make much sense if you think of solid mass, like a chunk of lead, but if you think that a gravitational field (in a volume of space) has energy (proportional to the field squared, like all fields, according to Maxwell) and use Einstein's E=mc**2, then we can think of the change in the gravity (across the region) where the distance x is the 'width' of the region in the direction of maximum gravitational change. It usually helps to draw a picture at this point where each side is represented.

      So we have a change in time (time dilation) in a region where we have a change in the gravitational field energy/mass and the two are related. This simple (and beautiful) equation fell right out of my generalized Heisenberg quantum relation, which fell right out of my Master equation that claims that if we start with one field, and nothing else in the universe, the field can only evolve by interacting with itself.

      For those interested in time dilation, I think this is a unique equation that expresses a quantum way of looking at it.

      Even experts in partial differential equations are never hurt by simple explanations, and I hope this helps some by explaining time dilation in a simpler way than it is typically explained.

      Regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Cristi,

      I find your answers enlightening. Thanks for the explanations. You do have an excellent grasp of the issues. Interested readers should follow the link provided to your answers.

      Dear Ray,

      Part of a response I gave to Cristi Stoica relates to your statement that, "satisfying the Coleman-Mandula theorem is the crux of that balance."

      Cristi made the point that, "in Quantum Theory the time evolution is unitary, hence the information is preserved." I agree but think the following relevant:

      Martinus Veltman notes that Feynman rules are derived using the U-matrix, even though formal proofs exist that the U-matrix does not exist. (Diagrammatica, p.183). The U-matrix is unitary by construction, and implies conservation of probability, probability being "the link between the formalism and observed data." In my mind, this leaves some room for 'free will' in the universe, (with consequences for information) but I have not pursued the U-matrix much farther than that. Veltman claims the U-matrix and the equations of motion are to be replaced with the S-matrix, in which the interaction Hamiltonian determines the vertex structure.

      The Coleman-Mandula theorem, (according to Wikipedia) states that "the only conserved quantities in a "realistic" theory with a mass gap, apart from the generators of the Poincare group, must be Lorentz scalars." But this seems to constrain only symmetries of the S-matrix itself, not "spontaneously broken symmetries which don't show up directly on the S-matrix limit."

      As the 'scattering' matrix is used to make sense of particle collisions, this seems reasonable, but 'scattering' of particles is a very artificial (if necessary) way of studying particles, that may attach undue importance to symmetry and, as I've noted in my essay, leads to a Lagrangian that is based on inventing fields, whether or not those fields actually exist in nature. If they can be solved for then they are considered in some way 'real', and this leads, IMHO, to much of the confusion today.

      Veltman states that "unitarity, Lorentz invariance, locality, etc, are in some sense interchangeable." This seems problematical in light of today's push to banish locality from QM.

      I don't claim to understand the solution to these problems, just to note that there seems to be some circular logic going on, and I'm not sure that logic is preserved around a complete loop of the circle.

      This is part of the reason I start with the logic of one field, and work from there, ignoring, for the most part, the established formalism's of QM and GR if they don't map 100 percent into my model in a way that will satisfy experts in either field.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Ray,

      I agree that information seems to be playing a large role in these essays. I'm not opposed to that, but as I've stated numerous times, I don't really believe that any one 'understands' information, other than in a superficial, mathematical fashion. There are far too many attempts to treat information (or a 'bit' of information) as a particle, which I take to be wholly misplaced. Information is not a particle and a bit of information is not a particle. Information may not even be physical, in the way normally meant, unless 'physical' incorporates consciousness in some manner as indicated in my previous essay. The fact that information relates to the physical world, but also to learning, intelligence, and wisdom, let alone both computation and communications bandwidth, tells me that information is a very complex thing to understand. Reductionists may believe that 'wisdom' is an abstraction, but I doubt that you do.

      There are treatments of information as relating to the area of a black hole that, in addition to treating info as particles, are not even necessary. I believe that I have derived the exact same results (ie equations) without even introducing the concept of information. More on this later. In some ways I hope that a future fqxi contest may focus on 'holographic' physics, as I have much to say on this topic. I also believe that 'entanglement' is a major source of confusion, as I've indicated in other remarks.

      Ray, I don't have strong opinions on the 'big numbers'. My theory starts with Newton's gravitational constant (set to one) and then demands Planck's constant, and then a maximum speed of light, which leads to charge and the fine structure constant, and then a new constant kappa (~ 10**31). That's about it. As I mentioned, I can explain relative mass order of all charged particles, but I cannot derive the actual mass spectrum (yet).

      I can see how a lattice-based approach may need more numbers, including large numbers, but I haven't needed them and don't have opinions. Physics theories clearly need numbers, but also need to avoid 'numerology'. I'll try to pay more attention to these issues.

      Finally, I tend to agree with your statements about Cristi's essay, but read his answers to me. I think he explains his position very well.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Eugene,

      congratulations for your essay, it is impressive but also good looking. I like the search for a final explanation and unity in which you are engaged. I would like to understand more about the fundamental field you propose, maybe you can recommend me a reading to start with. On a general note, I have the feeling that we both think that there is something important about the fact that the topology is more fundamental than the metric. Also, it seems to me that we both think that a spacetime description, such as that of General Relativity, would require a more local approach to Quantum Mechanics.

      I wish you success with the contest and with your research,

      Cristi Stoica

        • [deleted]

        • Post #75

        Dear James,

        I agree with you that it would be beautiful to "derive the laws of physics from a single field." But searching for a final thoery implies we do no yet know the 'true' laws of physics!

        Regards,

        Robert

        • [deleted]

        • Post #76

        Dear James,

        Please allow me to clarify my previous post.

        I greatly admire Dr. Klingman for his generosity and praise, and I assume his ideal is to derive the 'true' laws of physics by assuming a 'primordial field.' Presumably such a theory would then be able to explain away, or account for, everything that came before. The end result would then truly be an unambiguous final theory!

        Regards,

        Robert

        Dear basudeba,

        I tried to make clear to Steve above that, as you say: "The framework in which the 'robot' is processing measurement data is a mechanical process and not a conscious process."

        That is why I said the following: I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will) and no robot will ever have awareness or free will (although guided randomness may simulate free will)."

        For a brief presentation of my view of consciousness, please review my previous essay, in the 'Ultimite Limits' contest. It is found at

        http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

        and is titled: "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" by Edwin Eugene Klingman

        You may find that you agree with me. I regret that my answer to Steve did not clear up the misunderstanding.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear basudeba,

        It seems that we agree on a few things. Everyone seems to have their own idea of time. Of course I know that forces and fields are not the same.

        As you see if you have studied my essay, I attempt to explain everything from one primordial field. The field that seems to make the most sense and leads to an explanation of 'everything' is the gravity field. In my mind I am quite certain that gravity is not a composite of (3, 5, 7 and 11 varieties). Nor do I wish to contemplate "all physical interactions classifying it to 122 categories".

        We probably will not be able to resolve these differences such that both of our theories are compatible, but thank you for the observations.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear basudeba mishra,

        I am not a fan of big bounces or multiverses, or any other attempts to go beyond the physical limits of our universe. I also believe that the simplest possible solution is the best solution, and I can conceive of nothing simpler than 'one field'.

        While the LHC may be a waste of money, nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish between the many theories that have arisen, many of which make different predictions. If absolutely no new particles are found (as has more or less been the case for forty years now) then, given current economics, it will be exponentially harder to justify an expensive 'follow-on' collider. This is one reason I expect the LHC to stretch things out as long as possible.

        But because we are able, with our wonderful imaginations, to think up many explanations, it will always be necessary for physical experiments to be performed, and when that is no longer feasible, physics will be dead.

        My belief is that a simple theory (such as my own), which accounts for all known particles, and would likely be disrupted by new particles (other than resonances) will only be accepted after other particles are not found. This will simply move the action to cosmology and material physics.

        We are a long way from resolving the issues, but fqxi is to be thanked for allowing us to present our ideas.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Cristi, I will try to recommend the best places to start in a day or so. Thanks for the interest.

        **** Special note to all ******

        I was surprised by a comment from my friend Ray, who has communicated with me for years now on our theories. Ray said:

        "Aren't we both guilty of creating symmetries or fields that haven't yet been observed? My approach anticipates a symmetry between Fermions and Bosons. Your approach anticipates a symmetry between electric-like and magnetic-like charges. Sure - your approach has already been observed in Electromagnetism, and it is a reasonable expectation for Gravitation, but that has not yet been observed."

        I simply must answer this, as loudly as possible. It is one thing to challenge my theory. It is quite another to challenge the existence of the C-field, which was first proposed by Maxwell, then treated by Heaviside, Lorentz and Einstein, among others.

        First, mine is not a symmetry between 'electric-like and magnetic-like charges'.

        It is based on translating Maxwell's equation (first done by Maxwell) from an electric-charge-based set of equations to a mass-based set of almost identical equations. It also derives from the weak field approximation of General Relativity. The analogy is as follows:

        .

        ....(Charge)-------(radial field)-------(current)---------(circulating field)

        ....electric.......Electric(E)field....charge x velocity....electro-magnetic(B)field

        ....mass..........Gravity(G)field....mass x velocity.....gravito-magnetic(C)field

        .

        To make it simple: the gravito-magnetic field *has* been observed.

        Two days after I submitted my essay I received the 3 Dec 2010 issue of Physical Review Letters 105, 231103 ("...on Non-Newtonian Gravity") which describes a 13 year study of LAGEOS satellite(s) that tracked the relativistic precession with one centimeter rms accuracy ("the most accurate measurement for the pericenter advance of a satellite orbiting the Earth ever made.") The results differ from general relativity's predictions by up to 0.2% and the difference is attributed to the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field.

        Darth Sidious scolded me (above) for saying that the gravito-magnetic field is not well known: "I regret, but you makes confusion on this point. Actually, gravito-magnetic effects are well known within General Relativity, i.e. the C-field...is indeed a part of General Relativity, see for example the recent review published in Astrophys. Space Sci. 331:351-395, 2011." [Thank you Darth.]

        Probably the best detection of the C-field is the experiment performed by Martin Tajmar, with, I believe, some confirmation from experiments in Japan and New Zealand. A good paper is one where he notes the results 10**31 orders of magnitude higher than expected:

        Martin Tajmar, et al, http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf 'Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment'. [ His measurements stand, his interpretation of the London moment has changed.]

        So I don't think it's accurate to say that the C-field hasn't been observed. It's been observed on earth, and in space, and is implicated in the 'flyby' anomalies, (see Grumiller, 'Model for Gravity at Large Distances', PRL 105, 211303, 19 Nov 2010.) Grumiller provides numbers needed for quantitative analysis and he reports the scale of observed anomalous accelerations which are compatible with my calculations.

        And there is, for most of us, little doubt that the "gravito-magnetic charges" exist. The gravito-magnetic charge is simply 'mass' (which I believe exists whether or not a Higgs is found) and the analogy to "charge current, qv" is simply "mass current, mv", also known as momentum.

        I invite everyone to read my essay again. As we all know, complex things cannot be digested in one reading. I try to read every essay that I am interested in two or three times. And each time I learn something new, often in conjunction with the comments that have transpired.

        A look at some of the above references may help those still not convinced.

        I was very surprised by the statement that mass (the gravitomagnetic 'charge') does not exist.

        The fact that I am the only person who has applied the Yang-Mills non-linearity of the C-field to particle physics has nothing to do with the existence of the field. It has more to do with habits of thinking that are based in linearity and the (always surprising) effects that derive from non-linear interactions.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman