Inform physics

[SSDS]

Hello ALL

 

"Shut up and calculate" (P.Dirac).

But it can be stricly proved that Universe is a sub-set of fundamental Set “Information”, so we cam say now: "be calm and calculate" since "Nature laws" as well as mathematics at all are inherent to the information.

- see http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1).

 

Some analogs, i.e. the conjectures that Universe is some "ensemble" – see, e.g., "the Everything list"

http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/about

including the papers:

"A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything", Juergen Schmidhuber;

"Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?", Max Tegmark;

- etc.

 

But the arXiv link above contains some answers on the questions – but what is this ensemble (set)? What are it’s properties? etc.

 

Cheers

[CaptainPanic]

I did (partially) read the links. I tried to read the first post in this topic twice.

Usually when I have no answer to a topic, I know which topic is being discussed, and I know I have insufficient knowledge in that particular field.

In this case, I don't understand what we're talking about... Can anyone enlighten me?

[DJBruce]

Captain I have the same question I think we are discussing something along the lines of the information paradox but I am not really sure.

[Phi for All]

But the arXiv link above contains some answers on the questions – but what is this ensemble (set)? What are it’s properties? etc.

Please clarify:

1. What questions are you talking about?

2. What is it you wish to discuss?

3. Are you promoting the "Everything List" group?

4. What does your title mean? Do we need to inform physics about something? Does it refer to a new type of physics (much as inline skates are a newer type of skates)?

 

Please be as clear as possible when posting in a discussion forum.

[SSDS]

Hello All

 

Because of last 3 posts are like as Phi for All’s one, I answer to the last mainly.

 

So the Phi for All’s questions:

 

(4a) "What does your title mean?"

- The title "Inform physics" means that in the thread a non-traditional, namely – "informational" –approach in physics is suggested for a discussion. This approach is not totally new – it well corresponds to something like of Feynman, Penrouse, Wheeler, etc. works; in last decade – there are the works of E. Fredkin, Max Tegmark, N. Margolus, etc.; where the conjectures that Universe is some "ensemble" (or “computer”) are considered.

 

(1) "What questions are you talking about?"

(2) "What is it you wish to discuss?"

(4b) "Do we need to inform physics about something?"

 

- but in the works mentioned above there aren’t answers on the main questions (given in my initial post) in this case - but what is this ensemble (set)? What are it’s properties (when its are very specific and interesting!)? And in the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043, V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1) these questions, as well as a number of another ones, are enlightened to some extent.

 

(4c) "Does it refer to a new type of physics?"

– yea. The inform approach is in the beginning, of course, but is strictly logically grounded and doesn’t contradict to any known true fact. And already now it is possible to point out – what will be, e.g., the ToE. It will be the theory of the set "Information" which, in turn, will be studied by using, first of all, the methods of the set theory (including logic and language sciences) and the synergetics. At that – by modifying / checking with the existent sciences, first of all – the physics.

 

At that even now the approach has rather a good heuristic potential and allows to construct some reasonable model, e.g. – of the gravity and electricity (see the link above) in framework of existent theories, makes much clearer a number of fundamental physic’s problems.

 

(3) "Are you promoting the "Everything List" group?"

– I’m not a promoter of the “Everything list” group by any means, but this group discusses the possibility of mathematical (as a set, as a computer, etc.) nature of the Material World (Universe) for a long time and the discussion contains somewhere some useful / interesting inferences and Inet links.

 

Besides:

- the approach is rather unusual and requires some time to evaluate. There is not of a discussion "something along the lines of the information paradox", but the approach is paradoxical to some extent. And before posting it is rather desirable to read full text in the arXiv link above, not "partially"…

 

Cheers

[Klaynos]

I think I kinda know what you're talking about here, but I'm only familiar with it in terms of computer (and specifically quantum computer) design.

 

I will read your links when I get some free time though! and try and answer your questions.

[SSDS]

Hi All

 

Because of the discussion in this thread stopped albeit there were some reactions, it seems that the paper in the link above requires some additional comments.

 

So:

(A) - the suggested informational approach is strictly logically grounded. Indeed all that exists are the words. To understand that is necessary to take into account a few rather evident things:

(1) – to detect on an experiment the existence of the information as some data and language – and that can make anybody practically at once;

(2) – to understand, that the information is the objective thing and doesn’t require any "sapiens" to exist;

(3) – to understand, that the information is unique thing which exists when there is no anything – that’s simply the cyclic statement "there is no anything besides the information that there is no anything…."

All above is rather evident and only requires to get used to such a conclusion.

 

(B) – All information about all exists in form of a Set "Information" which has a number of unique properties, when any concrete object(s) is (are) some sub-sets of this Set.

Among main sub-sets we know, first of all, the Matter and the Consciousness. Because in philosophy there isn’t a consent – how should the elements/ objects of this sub-sets be classified, in the link above some rule is proposed, at that we call as "Matter object" the elements/subsets of the Set that can exchange by the information (i.e. - interact) only by using true information. If an object has capability to produce or to apprehend false information, what evidently leads out of "material sub-set" – it isn’t "material" in some sense; the examples – the alive beings, somebody’s consciousness.

 

The last two ones – are besides the topics of this forum, but for the Matter one can obtain a number of consequences, that are in the link. In this post perhaps it is worth to note one: from that all is the information follows that all, including in the Matter subset, is discrete.

 

And so do the gravity. So there is some sense to try to detect this effect and in the link (more detailed - though with an error because of the Plank constant was used instead of the Dirac’s one –in the Refs in this link) some experiments are suggested, first of all – the experiment with measurement of random distortion of the photon beam frequency (it seems better results should be in the maser band) in Earth gravity; when the GR predicts the frequency shift of total beam.

Etc. - see the link

 

Cheers

[Tsadi]

I don't believe Dirac qouted that actually.

 

It's a myth.

[SSDS]

To: All

 

The main topic of this thread is the informational approach in physics (see the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043, V5 , and may be the first couple of pages in V1) and besides all SDSS’s posts in the thread that contain (till now) some comments to this link (the posts practically don’t contain repetitions)

 

To: Tsadi

As to QM both – dynamic and fixed information in the Matter change as bit-by-bit, when one bit "on the particle level" corresponds to action quantum – Dirac constant. E.g. – p_X*delta(X), E*delta(t), delta(M), etc.

On "lowest Matter level" fundamental logical elements (FLE, see the link) work, when the dimensions of FLE are equal the Planck length; flip time (one bit change) - Planck time; when for any particles, that are a close loop algorithms, these FLEs’ flips never stop, so this process is called in the paper as "informational currents".

[SSDS]

Congratulations with Xmas coming!

 

Now next iteration of the inform concept in the Physics appeared:

http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Now some little edition of the inform concept appeared:

http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819, V2. Including – the title, so now it is possible to make a references on the article…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Hello All,

 

Under the infoconcept (see links above) it seems rather reasonable to conjecture that there exists some threshold when at some distance, r, transmitted gravity momentum (near h/r) value becomes insufficient to change the t-IC of "receiving" particle and so gravity force on this distance between two Galaxies or between two protons becomes equal – i.e. equal to zero. How can that affect on the Universe’s structure?

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Next iteration of the infoconcept - http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V3, appeared. Main change is in sections 2.2.1 (Physics) and "Discussion and conclusion".

It seems that Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity theory are something the same…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

It seems that it would be useful to add to the SSDZ post above some comments relating to "Many World" concept.

 

Formally this concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the SSDZ’s arXiv links above – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.

But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.

 

At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=12208&p=127325#p127325

last post in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.

 

Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].

 

There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds. And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.

Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…

 

Cheers:-)

[SSDS]

Now next iteration of the informational concept appeared (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V4)

– some minor corrections and explanations; besides – as it seems, the concept allows to clear, to a certain extent, the question – What is the photon? – see new section 3.5.1.1.

 

And – sorry - erratum:

 

(1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta)

 

(2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d)

There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

 

There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux in a bunch - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

 

(3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3.

 

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Because of absence of comments in this forum I quote here

A comment/ answer in some another one:

 

[Comment]

I accept with information: Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language which can be - is language build on primes, which is capable to cary tha maximum information in any possible sequence of symbols. It contains no redundancy to exactly formulate the thoughts and also works as universal translator, any finite language is it's subset - that means every todays human or programming language and also formal language of mathematics can be described by primes.

 

[Answer]

 

- that’s something adequate, to some extent, to the informational conception; but not (of course) completely. In particular – when you use the term "God" – it should be defined previously. If It is some self- organized Essence (having a self- identification, some aims, etc.) then It is some subsystem in the Set "Information" which appeared to be under some reason or because of that a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information.

On another hand, if a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information, then the Set Itself can indeed be classified as the "Prime Creator", Deo, - as, e.g., G. Cantor said (see Wiki) "…The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute…"

 

But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe, It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

The discussion on a number of forums of the informational conception showed that some difficulties in the understanding of the conception sometimes take place.

 

So a separate article for the conception was made - some extended compilation of corresponding sections of the papers "The information and the matter" and "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"

 

- see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

 

Cheers

[khaled]

i think he this is about Meta-Physics,

[SSDS]

Now extended and more systematic version of the informational model in physics appeared see

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V5; though it remains be rather desirable

to have read the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 before/ also.

 

As it seems the SR theory becomes more understandable.

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:

 

Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the arXiv links above (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ) – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.

 

But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.

 

At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/v...127325#p127325

in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.

 

Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].

 

There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds.

And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.

 

Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted already a posting from some other forum. Now it seems a sense to continue such a practice. However, since the discussion was seems rather interesting but long, there is no room for quotation and so I point out here only URLs of two threads:

Main address:http://www.thescienceforum.com/Physics-forum-22f.php?sid=3a9a67800d59f2d4ca49afcece200b68;

2-th and 3-th pages.

 

The threads:

(1) What’s so special about light?

 

And

 

(2) 1/0

 

The first thread was cleaned by moderator from spamming and so is readable practically as a whole. The second – is spammed, so one should choose the posting "SSDZ - Guitarist" as a rule.

 

The discussions in these threads seem as practically complete, so maybe there is no necessity to post something else – only to read; besides – for answering on new posts it is tooo hot here now…

 

Cheers

Edited September 3, 2010 by SSDS

[SSDS]

Again because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted a posting from some other forum...

(the link above, thread "What’s so special about light?")

____________________

 

Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v2.

 

Three experiments are considered – two relating to the gravity randomness and one – relating to the SRT test.

Though in this thread the SRT problems were discussed and seems be made rather clear, a number of threads appeared where the same problems were touched again. All the problems arise from non-selfconsistence of standard ("axiomatized") SRT version. First of all – it leads to the twin paradox. The resolutions of the paradox as, e.g., "… Special relativity, by its very formulation, applies only in inertial reference frames…Therefore on cannon apply the equations that describe time dilation in the reference frame of the traveling twin by only in reference frame of the non-traveling twin.." Or "…Actually acceleration, and acceleration and gravity are equivalent (see the "equivalence principle" of general relativity) is the key to the resolution of the twin "paradox"… " – seem as quite non- satisfactory. Indeed – the main contraction of elapsed time for the traveller occurs just in the inertial path of the way, when the contribution of the acceleration/deceleration interval is comparatively small and is lesser with increase of the inertial path. On another hand – if the masses of the twins are let – 70 kg (even 700 kg) – such masses aren’t so large to recall about GR – here we have practically purely flat spacetime and purely SRT problem.

 

Another SSRT flow is the assertion that all "inertial frames" are equivalent, where any frame relates to whole spacetime in Universe. From this follows rather questionable implication that, e.g., every moving particle (which, of course, "have its reference frame") transforms whole spacetime; besides – because of relating to this particle all Matter in Universe "moves with [practically] the same (-)speed", the particle enlarges the energy of Matter - for some protons in the spacetime that is equivalent 10^17 of initial mass.

 

So the first SRT version that was developed by Vogt, FitzGerald and Lorentz basing on the experiment (M-M experiment) and the relativity principle (Maxwell equation must be invariant in inertial frames) seems as was more adequate.

The informational model haven’t the flows that are pointed above. The acceleration indeed have a role, but in SRT it only indicate that the traveller’s momentum rises/ decreases with corresponding rising / decreasing the traveller’s "own (individual, proper) time". When homebody’s momentum and the time are the same – to save some years is necessary to spend some energy.

 

On another hand – what is the mechanism that leads to changing of a FLE state at some impact (at acceleration)? – that is very important problem; and its solving possibly will allow to widen the informational model into "GR region".

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3.

 

Cheers

[SSDS]

In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:

 

 

Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the arXiv links above (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ) – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.

 

 

But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.

 

 

At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/v...127325#p127325

 

in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.

 

 

Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].

 

 

There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds.

 

And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.

 

 

Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…

 

 

Cheers

 

Regrettably I'm forced to repeat this post now. But this May besides those non-virtual people,

 

in the Net a sensation appeared also, e.g.:

http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation-and-math-proves-it

 

The novelty resembles in certain sense the informational conception.

 

Though it is a full rubbish, in one month (May) the "novelty" was widely spread; Google shows more then 100 000 links answering on

 

"You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" .

 

But here a good thing appears - in fact, the informational conception got a publicity...

 

Cheers

[DrRocket]

Hello ALL

 

"Shut up and calculate" (P.Dirac).

But it can be stricly proved that Universe is a sub-set of fundamental Set “Information”, so we cam say now: "be calm and calculate" since "Nature laws" as well as mathematics at all are inherent to the information.

- see http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and may be the first couple of pages in V1).

 

Some analogs, i.e. the conjectures that Universe is some "ensemble" – see, e.g., "the Everything list"

http://groups.google...hing-list/about

including the papers:

"A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything", Juergen Schmidhuber;

"Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?", Max Tegmark;

- etc.

 

But the arXiv link above contains some answers on the questions – but what is this ensemble (set)? What are it’s properties? etc.

 

Cheers

 

In case no one noticed that "paper" in the archives has a long list of revisions and no history of submission to any peer-reviewed journal. That, combined with the incomprehensibility of the text itself, is a big hint.