Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home


Previous Contests

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 8/7/13 at 8:18am UTC, wrote Paul, Thank you very much for reading and rating my essay and for your...

Walter Smilga: on 8/7/13 at 5:25am UTC, wrote Yuri, yes, I have rated your essay. Walter

Yuri Danoyan: on 8/7/13 at 3:22am UTC, wrote Hi Walter Are you rated my essay? Yuri

Paul Borrill: on 8/6/13 at 23:33pm UTC, wrote Walter - I enjoyed your essay very much, I just rated it highly. ...

George Kirakosyan: on 8/6/13 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Walter, I am going to rate your essay on high score. However some...

George Kirakosyan: on 8/6/13 at 15:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Walter, I have read your essay (with advice of Vladimir R!) and find...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 8/6/13 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Walter, Very interesting and important insights on the nature of the...

Walter Smilga: on 8/6/13 at 6:20am UTC, wrote Dear Amazigh, Thank you for your comment and for rating my essay. I will...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Peter Jackson: "Steve, Saying you 'couldn't find' a plot shows you didn't see my paper!..." in Black Holes Do Not Exist,...

Peter Jackson: "Abhas, I agree your work shows the flaws of many beliefs about 'black..." in Black Holes Do Not Exist,...

Peter Jackson: "Akinbo, Jason. Re-mission from moving absorbers varies from static cases...." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Steve Agnew: "The very beautiful timekeepers of our galaxy are the pulsars and there are..." in Killing Time

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Akinbo "Do we need to ask the grey aliens for help on this Peter's..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Thomas Ray: "If you haven't gotten it by now, Eckard, I don't think further explanation..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Eckard Blumschein: "Tom, I misspelled Maupertuis as Maupertius. Wiki/Mauperuis does the same..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Vladimir Rogozhin: "Eckard, To grasp the nature of time is necessary to "grasp" the dialectic..." in Killing Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Truth Seeker
Watching particles fly through an interferometer might help to unveil higher-order weirdness behind quantum theory.

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.


FQXi FORUM
October 1, 2014

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - It From Bit or Bit From It? [back]
TOPIC: It from Bit, or Bit from It? by Walter Smilga [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Walter Smilga wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT
Essay Abstract

The basic concepts and numerical relations of theoretical particle physics, including quantum mechanics and Poincaré invariance, the electromagnetic and the gravitational interaction, the leptonic mass spectrum and the mass of the proton, can be derived, without reference to first principles, from intrinsic properties of the simplest elements of information, represented by binary information. What we comprehend as physical reality is, therefore, a reflection of mathematically determined logical structures of information.

Author Bio

I studied Physics and Mathematics at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Then I spent four years at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich and completed a PhD degree in Physics at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen. In the following twenty years I held positions in R&D in the optical industry. For another seventeen years I worked as a freelance software developer. My research interests are algebraic structures in particle physics and foundational issues of physics.

Download Essay PDF File




Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Doctor Smilga,

I found your essay to be exceptionally informative. Your meticulous explanation of binary structure will I am sure be found to be truly significant and will have to be adopted for all future physical investigations into information theory and practice.

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 09:13 GMT
Mr. Fisher,

thank you very much for your kind remarks about my essay.

report post as inappropriate


Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
Hi Walter,

I am interested in conformal gravity so I have downloaded your “Emergence of Space-Time and Gravitation (2013) J. Mod. Phys., 4, in press. arXiv:1111.4311)”. It needs time to examine but I am looking for that approach. With conformal gravity I have got acquainted mainly from Mannheim’s publications.

The direction seems to be correct. In general it is looking for a proper metric as Einstein’s one and FLRW have failed in some scale ranges. However this approach touches only big distance-scale phenomenon. I have proposed to apply that approach also to all scales to find out a scale invariant universal metric. It could possibly describe particles and weak/strong/electromagnetic forces and gravity would be emergent. The job is not easy so I have proposed an experiment to be sure this is not a huge waste of time.

Details in references to my essay.

Best regards

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
Hi Walter,

I do not agree that "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature." I also disagree that, according to Bohr's dictum, "the question of 'how Nature is' cannot be answered by the methods of physics".

I am of the school that still clings to the hopes of Newton and Einstein that we can derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by deduction

Aside this, a good essay from the Bohr perspective of looking at reality. You are welcome to criticize and disagree also with my essay,if you can state good reasons for doing so.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 10:48 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your interest. It seems that we went to the same school: It is also my hope "that we can derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by deduction."

However, talking about Nature at first requires a common understanding of the definition of "Nature". Bohr makes a clear distinction between "Nature" and "what we can say about Nature." I think this distinction is wise and necessary for the following reasons. In the experiments of particle physics we measure some numbers (masses, charges , transition amplitudes...). The task of theoretical particle physics is to "explain" how these numbers come about and how they are related to each other. "Numbers" belong to the category of "what we can say about Nature," not to "Nature". Interrelations between numbers deduced from representative sets of these numbers, called "theories", may be able to model some aspects of Nature, but, again, they are not "Nature."

In my essay I argue that what we see in the experiments of particle physics is the reflection of structures inherent to binary information. So "what we can say about Nature" (by making experiments) does primarily not even refer to "Nature" (whatever this word means) but to logical structures inherent in binary information.

Of course, we may give these logical structures, together with their numerical values that they show in certain experiments, the name "Nature". But then this is merely a definition.

Regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Walter

Your essay is too complicated and highly specialized heavy, probably will not fit the criteria widely disseminate knowledge among the masses.

I honestly can not understand is that what you are presenting and what you want to focus to solve problems?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
Dear Hoang,

I regret that you have problems reading my essay.

This essay is about the informational foundations of particle physics, so unfortunately some familiarity with mathematical methods of quantum mechanics is required. I sketch how fundamental properties of theoretical particle physics can be derived from intrinsic structures of binary information.

By comparing the obtained numerical values with empirical data I come to the conclusion that what we see in the experiments of particle physics reflects structures inherent to information rather to "nature".

Regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 11:34 GMT
Correction:

...inherent to information rather than to "nature".

report post as inappropriate


JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Hello, Walter,

Congratulations on a very expert exposition of the It-from-Bit position. Now, I disagree with this position, for the reasons that you can see in my essay, but there is one reference you make, to the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP), that may be a terrain for a most interesting discussion. You correctly interpret the PEP in support of your position, BUT, what follows the PEP in reality are not abstract entities, but real electrons and some other leptons. In my view, thereis here the basis for the emergence of complex real processes including /non/-digital information. I look forward to your comments.

Best regards,

Joseph Brenner

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 08:09 GMT
Hello Joseph,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your interesting remark "... BUT, what follows the PEP in reality are not abstract entities, but real electrons ...", which gets right to the core of my essay.

As you have noticed, my position is strongly influenced by Bohr's statement: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 00:21 GMT
Walter,

You do lay out the argument quite clearly that information is fundamentally binary, but I'm not quite sure you make the argument that information is fundamental.

Are you sure there is not also a dichotomy of energy and information? Medium and message?

Information theory doesn't care what the medium is, but it still needs one, otherwise it's pure abstraction and that mathematically, doesn't exist. How is a zero dimensional point any more real than a zero dimensional apple? You may have distilled away any real electrons from the theory, but have you distilled them away from the paper its written on?

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT
John,

There seems to be a great deal of confusion within this contest over "real things" and "information about real things," over "information" and "informational structures," and over "real world" and "physical theories."

It is the privilege of theoretical physicists to work with the information that they get from the experimental physicists. On the one hand, this means simply a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
Walter,

Thank you very much for being so clear spoken and forthright. I am certainly one of those observers on the outside of the process and I do appreciate that what we can elicit from nature is just information, but I have come to think it has created some mental boxes that are creating impediments to understanding. In my current entry, one of the points I make is that information is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 01:52 GMT
Dear

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

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...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,

I am certainly not able to produce material (matter) from thinking. My essay concerns information about matter, and I think you will agree with me that information is different from matter.

Walter

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT
Walter,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate


Harlan Swyers wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 13:07 GMT
Walter,

I like your essay. I very much like the ideas of volume factors as it relates to groups. My only concern is how one responds to critics who would argue such things are numerical coincidence?

I dug into some of the reference material, and liked this statement:

"Gravitation is not provided by coupling " to an external field." Rather it is the outcome of correlations within the quantum mechanical state-space of matter resulting from the condition of irreducibility. These correlations lead to the equations of classical conformal gravity. In short, gravitation is a quantum mechanical property of matter.

Physical space-time turns out to be just another quantum mechanical property of matter. Its geometry in the large is determined by the equations of conformal gravity."

But does gravity wave? The argument is that anything that waves has a particle description. Since there is indirect evidence of gravitational waves as measured by energy loss from binary neutron stars, the evidence points to the existence of gravitons. Can those be explained in the context of volume ratios?

Apologies in advance if I am overthinking this, your essay is one of the best in the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Harlan,

Thank you for your interest in my work and for your comments.

You express your concern that some critics may consider the numerical values that I presented as pure coincidences without any physical meaning. Such objections are in fact very popular because they do not require any intellectual effort by the critics. Of course we know about numerous attempts to "explain" e.g....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Walter,

I like what you have done here, particularly around the remarkably close mass to the proton. This along with the leptons reminds me of the Koide formula and my work on the Koide formula giving a result for the proton, neutron and electron of 1/2 to 0.49999994. Another close relationship with regard to mass. This is based around geometry of simplexes and the Fibonacci sequence - something which resulted in my essay. So I hope you have time to read it.

I've found 3-4 others who approach reality in this general way, which is quite encouraging.

Nice work - well done!

Antony

report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 01:46 GMT
Hi Walter,

Excellent essay, a very clear and focused presentation with an interesting result.

I wonder if you are familiar with the work of Tony Smith. He uses the language of Geometric Algebra to derive properties for particles from internal symmetry states.

Also, you might be interested in a recent paper by Nassim Haramein, wherein he derives what he calls the "holographic mass" of the proton through purely geometric means.

While I take a much higher level approach in my Software Cosmos essay, I come to the same conclusion (It fom Bit) and along the way encounter similar geometric structures.

Hugh

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 10:45 GMT
Hi Hugh,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your positive comment.

Yes, I am familiar with Tony Smith's work. His work follows Wyler's findings of the formula for alpha and the ratio of electron and proton mass. This kind of mathematics can provide valuable hints in revealing the physics behind the geometry.

I am not familiar with Haramein's work. He seems to derive the proton mass not from geometry but from the gravitational constant and the "electromagnetic proton radius". A similar relation has already been known for a long time for the ratio between the "radius of the universe", the "classical electron radius", and the Schwarzschild radius of the electron.

I have not yet read your essay, but I will certainly do so.

Regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:11 GMT
Walter

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
Hello Walter,

Just re-read your essay. Based on your perspective of things

1) Would you consider existence/non-existence binary elements as you call it?

2) I sense from your essay that you may hold a relational view of space.

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

NOTE THAT in no other frame can circular motion between the bodies be described in this circumstance except in the 'observing' sub-atomic particle.

You can check and rate my essay if you have not done so.

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

what I call binary elements are mathematical structures used to describe information about nature. They exist as mathematical objects in the same sense as the sum of two numbers "exists".

Yes, I definitely hold a relational view of space. Space is a property of the desciptive language that I use to describe information about nature.

Do you mean the centripetal (gravitational) force between two bodies? On the particle level, this is in my understanding neither a property of spacetime, nor of distant sub-atomic particles, but a property of the (quantum mechanical) two-particle state.

Best regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Walter

Have you read my other contest essay?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 21:16 GMT
Yuri,

Yes, I have read your essay, but I cannot commend it, because, to be honest, I do not understand the point you are making.

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 05:59 GMT
Dear Walter,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 09:16 GMT
Dear Walter,

You have viewed in your essay, electro-magnetism, gravitation, masses of elementary particles, etc. from the physics of ‘binary information’ as basic. So it is no wonder when you say “physical reality is a reflection of mathematically determined logical structures of information”. That is ‘information’ is at the core of physics. You have good knowledge of mathematics of binary information and it becomes evident as one goes through various relations you have derived in your paper. The derivation of the masses of elementary particles is very interesting. Naturally you have given primary importance to Bit over It and it becomes evident when you say “theoretical physics has to be understood as a discipline that deals with the structure of information”. So physical reality is nothing but “a reflection of some predetermined informational structures that we take advantage of, in order to collect and categorize information about the physical world”. But here you have not defined what these ‘some predetermined informational structures’ are. It is very essential to know what these are. So make this point clear. I welcome for writing such an original and innovative article.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

The "predetermined informational structures" that I am talking about are, first of all, Bits (Equation 1), then their quantum mechanical description by two-component spinors (Equation 5), then space-time with its Poincaré symmetry as expressed by the constant Equation 15, then Dirac spinors in energy-momenmtum space as described by Dirac's equation (23), and also more complex structures as given by Equation 26 and by the lepton spectrum (Equation 33). I also refer to electromagnetic and gravitational interaction: In two other papers I have shown that the structures of these interactions can be understood as direct consequences of the quantum mechanical description in connection with Poincaré invariance.

I hope, I have satisfactorily answered your question.

Best wishes,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT
Dear Walter,

I found your essay most informative and concise in your approach to the topic. In your conclusion you mentioned that, "... physical reality is, therefore, nothing other than a reflection of some predetermined informational structures" which the findings of a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded has indeed validated. Although you have a different approach to the essay topic than I do, I found your conclusion inspiring and most worthy of merit.

Best wishes,

Manuel

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Manuel,

Thank you for reading my manuscript and for your friendly comment. I am glad that you agree with my understanding of physical reality. I promise to read your essay soon.

Best wishes,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 10:02 GMT
Hi Walter,

We corresponded on your essay June 21. If you would be reading my essay, read the JUDGEMENT in the blog in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. In that judgement points and monads turnout to be the possible bits. Thanks.

Akinbo

*Being a professional physicist you may be able to find grounds for appealing that judgement! :)

report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Walter Smilga:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Héctor,

Thank you very much for your comment and the summery of your essay.

I fully agree with you that physicists can create marvelous things from the concept of "motion". They have done so since the days of Isaac Newton.

Newton's mechanics can in fact be considered as a theory of motion. It is neither a theory of space nor of time. But to formulate the laws of motion some mathematical terms like velocity or momentum are required, and to attach numerical values to velocities and momenta physicists have introduced coordinate systems, consisting of three "space" coordinates and a single "time" coordinate. Then the velocity of a body can mathematically be expressed as the derivative of its position with respect to the time coordinate. So, in theoretical physics, "space" and "time" are nothing other than auxiliary parameters and there cannot be mysteries about well-defined parameters. This applies, in principle, also to quantum mechanics, special and general relativity.

Mysteries about time have been created mostly by poets, philosophers, and, unfortunately, also by string theorists or, more generally, by those physicists who believe that space and time must be "quantized" at Planck scales. (For me the greatest mystery about string theory is why still so many of our best physicists believe that this "theory" has anything in common with physics.)

In your essay you made a reference to Barbour: In his award winning essay "The Nature of Time" he gave a convincing and very clear explanation of how celestial motion and time are related.

Best wishes,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Walter Smilga:

When you read the essay, is a pity but you miss the most important part of it, especially for theoretical physicists: a)When using a clock is better to know what you are measuring with it, instead of not knowing it. b) that I describe an experimental demonstration with centuries old proved facts, that with the clock we are measuring “motion” and no the so called “time”. c) The difference in physics between using “time” and using “motion” instead, is that “motion” has a physical existence as a quality or property of every physical thing and as such can relate to every physical existing thing, affecting and being affected by it. With the so called “time” you only can measure durations of events, but you can’t relate it to any element because you don’t know anything about it, its characteristics. What we are measuring with the clock? Is the right question to ask, to find out and prove that the so called “time” is “motion” etc.

With my best whishes

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

Walter replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Héctor,

I think I have not missed "the most important part" you essay. On the contrary, I understand very well what you mean and I do agree with you that "motion" is more "fundamental" than "time". Therefore, I have tried to explain the difference between "motion" and "time" from a physicist's point of view.

I have argued that classical mechanics is in fact a theory of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:27 GMT
Walter,

That is a very interesting exposition of what emerges from binary relationships. Could it be though, that description and structure alone overlooks an essential medium?

My view is that the concepts of energy and information constitute a fundamental dichotomy. In that information defines energy and energy manifests information. This would still come close to your view that information is all that we can "know," since it is the defining structure. Yet we still have to account for the necessary reality that energy is conserved, so in order to create new information, old information is erased/written over. This process of creating and erasing information is what we experience as the "arrow of time." It is not a vector from past to future, but the process by which future becomes past. The earth doesn't travel a fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

If time were a vector from past to future, you would think the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. Since it ages/burns quicker, it fades into the past more rapidly.

Regards,

John Merryman

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
John,

thank you for reading my essay and for your positive comments.

I think I understand what you mean by "overlooking an essential medium". Let me formulate it this way: My essay is about informational structures. These structures describe what we can know, in other words, they describe the possible outcomes of experiments. Heisenberg made a distinction between "potentials" and "actualities" (cited in Nick Herbert: Quantum Reality). What the informational structures describe are at first the "potentials". By a measurement, one state of the potential states is selected: thereby this state becomes "physical reality". In this sense informational structures, in fact, describe both: the possible states and the state that is selected in an experiment. The latter describes "reality" or, in your words, "energy".

Conservation of energy is a consequence of Poincaré symmetry. Therefore, Poincaré invariant structures ensure conservation of energy by definition. (The possible states that they describe are only such states that are compatible with conservation of energy.) Also the properties of time are exhaustively dealed with by Poincaré invariance.

Best regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Walter,

Thank you for the reply.

I'm not equating energy with reality, what I'm saying is that reality is the dichotomy of information and energy. Any definition which could be applied to any particular state of energy would constitute information. As a dichotomy, you could no more have energy without information or information without energy, than you could have up without down....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
John,

Thank you for this explanation. I was not sure in which sense you are using the notion of "energy". Several other authors of this contest use it in the sense of "matter" or "reality". In physics, "energy" has a well-defined meaning. It denotes one of the four components of the energy-momentum vector, and I am using it in my essay in exactly this sense. There is no dichotomy between the (physical) notion of energy and information.

Regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT
Walter,

Very interesting essay. I found some quite brilliant and important analysis analysis which appears to have been missed by most. Also very well written, set out and argued. Yet at I understand your conclusions I could not agree less!

First points of agreement; Almost all of it! But including particularly; "it makes sense to define a set-specific frame of reference.",...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 09:38 GMT
Peter,

the posts are back again, so I can reply to your comments. I am glad that you like my essay and I thank you very much for your friendly words.

I will try to answer your questions:

"But is not a simple rotating dipole a binary system? Does it not then describe a torus not a 3-sphere in time? and then when also in axial motion through another (semantic if you wish) frame, not describe a smooth path of a (double) helix?"

I am talking about quantum mechanics, not about classical mechanics.The symmetry group that describes the spinor in relation to a reference frame is the group of rotations in three dimensions, which also described the geormetry of a sphere, not of a helix.

"...but otherwise I suggest you are closing yourself in Bohr's box by suggesting..."

I am not sure that I understand what you mean by "Bohr's box" in this context. What I want to say is that there are no substructures beyond binary information. Therefore, there is nothing to explore beyond the binary level. This does not mean that this will "condemn us to our limited understanding forever". It rather means that we have understood "everything" as soon as we have understood physics at the binary level.

If you allow me to give you an advice (referring to your essay): do not mix quantum mechanical with classical description, because this may lead to confusion. In the language of quantum mechanics the "in-between" 0 and 1 is described by the quantum mechanical state. It does not represent 'noise' nor is it a place where additional information can be stored or is waiting to be discovered.

Best whishes,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Walter Smilga:

I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.

...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Walter,

My detailed post to you was one of those lost in the server switch. Brendan says it may return, but I think he may have ignored the need to define a set-specific frame of reference!

I think your essay and points are very important (I intend to add many above shortly!) and is consistent with mine, but that the importance has been missed. In particular I agree we must always; "define a set-specific frame of reference." and recognise (which QM denies) a; "rich internal structure",

I noticed you asked Joseph Brenner; "Can we find an universal logical principle that "explains" all kinds of information about the physical world?" I think I show in my essay that we can. I've also just now, elsewhere, physically derived the LT direct from an underlying EM ('QM') mechanism."

However I wish to discuss your bottom line conclusion, perhaps after you've read my essay when I'm sure we'll find agreement on significant points.

Best wishes

Peter

PS; Ref Bohr. If we can find out and understand more can we not then also 'say' more!?

report post as inappropriate


Amazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:47 GMT
Dear Walter,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Amazigh,

Thank you for your comment and for rating my essay. I will also rate your essay.

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Walter,

Very interesting and important insights on the nature of the information. Essay deserves the highest rating.

Please look also my essay and appreciate my ideas.

With best wishes and regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Walter,

I have read your essay (with advice of Vladimir R!) and find it as properly formatted and nice written. I am definitely inclined rate it on good score because of touched large aspects and individuality of approach. However, some time is required to deep penetrate in your interpretation and to say something more reasonable.

Hope my work also can deserve your kind attention; despite it has certainly different task and direction. Every one from us actually want to listen first about own work! I think you also well comprehend our situation! So, welcome my forum!

Sincerely,

George Kirakosyan

report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Walter,

I am going to rate your essay on high score. However some discussin still necessary on the matter causal/statistical interpretations.

I am friendly asking you to check ref [9] in my work in your free time. Hope you will find something useful on this question. Then we can continue our dialog.

Nice to meet you.

George

report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:33 GMT
Walter - I enjoyed your essay very much, I just rated it highly. Outstanding description, very nicely done.

I will need to look up the history of the ratio of the masses of the proton relative to the electron, however, did you know there is also a first principles derivation of this in the paper by Patrick Tonin in this contest?

I would be honored for your review of my essay regarding the elimination of a background of time in analyzing entanglement. You can find the latest version of it here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
Paul,

Thank you very much for reading and rating my essay and for your friendly comment.

Yes, I have seen Tonin's essay, but I feel unable to comment it after only a first look at his essay.

I have also started reading your essay and I will comment it on your page.

Kind regards,

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 03:22 GMT
Hi Walter

Are you rated my essay?

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Walter Smilga replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:25 GMT
Yuri,

yes, I have rated your essay.

Walter

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.