Uncategorized

Ambjorn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., & Loll, R. (2008). The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe. Scientific American, 299 July(1), 24–31.

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The next revolution in physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barrow, J. D. (2007). New theories of everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving The Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the world wide web. New York: Harper-Collins.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Campbell, T. W. (2003). My Big TOE (Vol. 3). Lightning Strike Books.

Case, J., Rajan, D. S., & Shende, A. M. (2001). Lattice computers for approximating euclidean space. Journal of the ACM, 48(1), 110–144.

Cole, K. C. (2001). The hole in the universe. New York: Harcourt Inc.

Collins, G. P. (2006). Computing with quantum knots. Scientific American, April, 56–63.

Davies, J. B. (1979). Maximum information universe. Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices, 186, Jan, 177–183.

Davies, P. (2004). Emergent Biological Principles and the Computational Properties of the Universe. Complexity, 10(2), 11–15.

Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene (Vol. 2nd). Oxford University Press.

D’Espagnat, B. (1995). Veiled Reality: An analysis of present-day quantum mechanical concepts. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Einstein, A. (1920). Ether and the Theory of Relativity. University of Leiden. Retrieved from http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

Fredkin, E. (2005). A Computing Architecture for Physics. In Computing Frontiers 2005 (pp. 273–279). Ischia: ACM.

Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos. New York: Vintage Books.

Guth, A. (1998). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Perseus Books.

Hartle, J. B. (2005). The Physics of “Now.” Am.J.Phys., 73, 101–109

Hawking, S., & Penrose, S. (1996). The nature of space and time. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.

Hawking, S. W., & Hartle, J. B. (1983). The basis for quantum cosmology and Euclidean quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D28(2960).

Heylighen, Francis, & Chielens, K. (2009). Evolution of Culture, Memetics. In Meyers, B (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer.

Kauffman, S., & Smolin, L. (1997). A possible solution to the problem of time in quantum cosmology. arXiv Preprint, https://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9703026, 1–15.

Mazur, J. (2008). Zeno’s Paradox. London: Penguin Books.

McCabe, G. (2005). Universe creation on a computer. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys.36:591-625.

Penrose, R. (1972). On the nature of quantum geometry. In J. Klauder (Ed.), Magic Without Magic (pp. 334–354). San Francisco: Freeman.

Randall, L. (2005). Warped Passages: Unraveling the mysteries of the universe’s higher dimensions. New York: Harper Perennial.

Randall, L., & Sundrum, R. (1999). An Alternative to Compactification. Phys.Rev.Lett., 83, 4690–4693.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Smolin, L. (2001). Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. New York: Basic Books.

Smolin, L. (2006a). Atoms of Space and Time. Scientific American Special Issue, A Matter of Time, April, 56–65.

Smolin, L. (2006b). The Trouble with Physics. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Tegmark, M. (2007). The Mathematical Universe. In R. Chiao (Ed.), Visions of Discovery: Shedding New Light on Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Walker, E. H. (2000). The Physics of Consciousness. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Watson, A. (2004). The Quantum Quark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitworth, B. (2008). Some implications of Comparing Human and Computer Processing, HICSS 2008, The 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences, 7-10 Jan, Waikaloa Village, Big Island.

Whitworth, B., & deMoor, A. (2003). Legitimate by design: Towards trusted virtual community environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 31–51.

Wilczek, F. (2008). The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether and the Unification of forces. New York: Basic Books.

Woit, P. (2007). Not even wrong. London: Vintage.

Wolfram, S. (2002). A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media.

Next

The following questions are addressed in this chapter. They are better discussed in a group to allow a variety of opinions to emerge. The relevant section link is given after each question:

1.   Can information be defined in purely physical terms? Do so, or explain why it isn’t possible. (QR2.1.2)

2.   Does a hologram copy of physical events replay reality? What is missing? (QR2.1.3)

3.   If the universe is a virtual reality, what would be necessary to save and reload it? (QR2.1.3)

4.   Can one copy a physical state? What about a physical event? What about a quantum state?  (QR2.1.4)

5.   How does quantum processing differ from the physical processing? Why is it so powerful? (QR2.1.5)

6.   If the physical world is a virtual reality, what is the screen? What is its resolution and refresh rate? (QR2.2.1)

7.   State Zeno’s paradoxes. How does physics resolve them? How does quantum realism resolve them? (QR2.2.1)

8.   Is space something or nothing? If nothing, what transmits light? If something, what is it? (QR2.2.2)

9.   Would a network simulating our universe be centralized or distributed? Explain why. (QR2.2.4)

10.   Why do polar dimensions explain our space better than Cartesian dimensions? (QR2.2.5)

11.   How can space expand “everywhere at once”, as physics says? (QR2.2.6)

12.   What is the main problem of using a polar space? How is it resolved? (QR2.2.7)

13.   Compare an extra dimension curled up in our space with one that contains our space. (QR2.2.8)

14.   If reality has a fourth dimension, why can’t we enter it? (QR2.2.8)

15.   If light is a transverse wave, like a wave on a lake, on what surface is it vibrating? (QR2.2.9)

16.   Traveling at near light speed slows down your time, so does this mean you live longer? (QR2.3.1)

17.   Is there any evidence for time travel in physics? Why is time travel in one location unlikely? (QR2.3.2)

18.   Why can’t quantum entities go back and forth in time? (QR2.3.3)

19.   If three dimensions of the quantum network represent space, what does the fourth represent? QR2.3.4)

20.   Why is cosmic background radiation from the early universe still all around us? (QR2.4.1)

21.   What caused the initial inflation of the universe and what stopped it? (QR2.4.2)

22.   What happens if a data transfer in a simulation fails? How do our systems avoid this? (QR2.4.3)

23.   How could a quantum network avoid transfer failures? (QR2.4.4)

24.   Is the vacuum of space empty or full, and if full, what is it full of? (QR2.4.5)

25.   Why is theoretical physics no longer advancing? (QR2.5.1)

26.   What can science do when a theory no longer generates new knowledge? (QR2.5.2)

27.   Do the equations of quantum theory describe what is imaginary or what is real? Justify. (QR2.5.3)

28.   If the equations of quantum theory describe nothing, why do they predict physical events? (QR2.5.3)

29.   Is quantum realism a “God theory”? Why or why not? (QR2.5.3)

30.   If quantum waves are processing waves, how does that change our understanding of quantum theory? (QR2.5.4)

Next

Modern physics is at a crossroads because while past equations like E=mc² were one-liners, the new equations of string theory fill pages, if not books. If science gathers knowledge from the tree of nature, the low-hanging fruit of single-line equations have all been picked. The era of equations is over so better tools like computer simulation are needed but while simple equations can be deduced from patterns in data, simulations need a valid model of what is being simulated. Current physics is stagnating because it chose the desert of physical realism over a future based on quantum realism.

QR2.5.1 The End of Physics?

QR2.5.2. Grounded Physics

QR2.5.3. A New Perspective

QR2.5.4. The Quantum Model

Next

In physical realism, matter objects are real but the space between them isn’t, so it is just nothing and nothing, by definition, should do nothing. Yet light waves travel in even the purest vacuum so space doesn’t do nothing, it hosts light. If light waves travel in a vacuum, space as the medium of those waves can’t do nothing. Likewise, that gravitational waves travel in space implies it is something with the sort of elasticity to allow that.

A space of nothing should have no properties but space enables the property of distance, as if there is nothing between the earth and the moon, why aren’t they touching? That space allows the property of distance even without matter present suggests again that it isn’t nothing.

If empty space was really empty it would have no energy but the evidence is that:

“… space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty.” (Bohm, 1980) p242.

That empty space isn’t empty(Cole, 2001) is illustrated by The Casimir effect. Two uncharged flat plates held close together in a vacuum register a force pushing them together. Current physics attributes this vacuum pressure to virtual particles that pop out of the “empty” space around the plates but how can emptiness create particles? Quantum theory allows the Casimir effect because it says that a point of space can’t constantly have zero energy. The dynamic nature of space causes the energy of the vacuum but a truly empty space couldn’t have this property.

Martin Rees suggests how space could be something as follows:

“Empty space seems to be nothing to us. By analogy, water may seem to be nothing to a fish – it’s what’s left when you take away all the other things floating in the sea.”

He suggests that space is something although it seems nothing to us because it is a constant background. Empty space isn’t a physical thing but as Einstein said it has to be “something” for relativity to work:

“…there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis.” (Einstein, 1920).

And quantum theory itself implies some sort of quantum ether:

“The ether, the mythical substance that nineteenth-century scientists believed filled the void, is a reality, according to quantum field theory” (Watson, 2004) p370.

The current answer to this conundrum, that space is something and nothing, is field theory. In the case of light, space hosts an electromagnetic field that rotates into an imaginary fourth dimension as described by Maxwell’s equations. The “nothing” of space now hosts non-physical fields that cause physical effects but how does empty space do that? In physical realism, physical effects have physical causes but field theory’s fields aren’t physical any more than space is. That non-physical fields have physical effects works as long as no-one asks “What is really going on?” How can the “nothing” of space plus an imaginary field create the “something” of a physical force?

In quantum realism, empty space is the quantum network running a null process and matter is the same network running another process. The network shows nothing or something in the same way that a screen can show blank or an image. When the network presents as empty space, it runs a positive-negative null process that sums to zero. When it hosts light, a non-zero displacement moves across it, and when it hosts matter, that displacement remains at a point, as the following chapters explain in more detail.

Space as network null processing has a distance property so the earth doesn’t touch the moon because there are null nodes in between. Space as the network doing nothing can also be that through which matter moves but how can empty space as null processing have energy? If empty space is null processing, why isn’t the result all zeros?

The answer is that a null process is a positive-negative displacements that is only zero at the end of each cycle. On a synchronized network, all the nodes would be zero at the same time but the quantum network is asynchronous so that isn’t so. Thanks to light, it is mostly synchronous but not perfectly as each node cycle runs independently, so all the nodes of empty space aren’t zero at the same time. The quantum theory statement that points of space fluctuate in energy reflects the essential asynchrony of the quantum network. The points of space average zero over time but at any instant they aren’t simultaneously zero, as quantum theory says. Like the static on a blank screen, space averages to nothing but isn’t constantly so. The quantum network is the non-physical medium that Einstein suspected had to exist.

Newton saw space as like a tablecloth that presents the cutlery of objects but quantum theory sees dynamic states that only average to nothing. That space is more like what Wheeler called a quantum foam than a passive surface is evidenced by the Casimir effect but if empty space is “full” not empty, what is it full of? Physical realism has no answer but quantum realism says it is full of quantum processing.

When one looks through a window, one sees the view but not the glass transmitting it. One only sees the glass if it has imperfections, a frame around it, or if one can touch it. Now suppose the “glass” transmitting physical reality has no imperfections so it can’t be seen, is all around so there is no frame, and it transmits matter as well so we can’t touch it. The quantum network is like a perfect glass that flawlessly reveals the images of physical reality without showing itself. It is the fullness that we call emptiness.

Next

How can a quantum network conserve photon transfers? Our universe as a virtual output can’t use a common clock as it has no common time, it can’t use fixed buffers as stars and galaxies occur unpredictably and transfer locks would lead to dead areas that we don’t observe.

When a pebble falls into a still pool, it creates a wave of ripples that spread on its surface. This physical wave begins when the pebble “dents” the pool surface to begin an up-down motion that spreads out in all directions as ripples. Now imagine “dropping” a photon process on the quantum network where by its nature it also spreads out in all directions as quantum wave ripples. A quantum wave isn’t physical but the dynamics are the same. The photon initiates a displacement where it begins that spreads by the dynamic nature of quantum processing.

Any node involved in this processing wave now has two things to do each cycle: run the process in the node and pass it on to its neighbors. For a network, this raises a question irrelevant to physical waves, namely “Which happens first?” One might expect a node to run the photon process first then pass it to its neighbors but this could give transfer losses for asynchronous nodes so it is better to first pass the processing on then run what it receives.

If nodes transferring photon processing waited for destination nodes to finish their cycle, the speed of light might vary for the same route, which it doesn’t. That light doesn’t wait implies that nodes immediately receive any transfer as an interrupt. In computing, an interrupt is a signal that is always received whatever a processor is doing, e.g. in Windows, pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del keys simultaneously generates a CPU interrupt that runs the Task Manager.

The quantum network pass-it-on protocol is that each node first passes on its current process as an interrupt then runs any processing it received. The interrupt may “lose” a cycle but transfers are never lost because interrupting a processing cycle before it finishes isn’t a problem but losing transfers is. That light is immediately passed on makes the speed of light constant and that quantum packages are always passed on avoids transfer losses.

Yet interrupts could cumulate if a circle of nodes each interrupted the next before it finishes its cycle, giving an endless interrupt loop where no processing runs at all, like the deadlock loop earlier. Fortunately, expanding space adds new nodes not just at some “edge” but everywhere. A new node that enters our space has no processing to pass on for its first cycle and receives only, which stops any pass-it-on interrupt build-up. Nodes that accept processing but pass none on prevent pass-it-on interrupts from cumulating.

Since the speed of light is constant, light spreading throughout the universe acts to synchronize the network despite it being decentralized. The effect isn’t perfect but that light transfers everywhere keeps nodes in synchrony.

In this protocol, nothing ever waits so there is no need for buffers, perfect synchrony isn’t required so there is no need for a central clock and one step-transfers avoid a two-step transfer deadlock. The quantum network is decentralized to increase performance and reliability but no transfers are lost. Light moves on every cycle, no transfers are lost, and adding new space prevents infinite pass-it-on interrupts from building up.

Next

When network nodes transfer data they must ensure that what is sent is received, as if one node sends two data packages and the receiver only gets one, the second is lost forever. Losing a data transfer like that in SimCity might cause an object in it to suddenly disappear for no reason. If our world did that, we would notice! Our universe has run for billions of years with no evidence that even a single photon has been lost so if it is a network-based virtual reality, it must have some way to avoid transfer losses.

Our networks avoid transfer losses by transfer rules like the Internet hypertext transfer protocol or http. Such rules include:

1. Locking. Lock a file for exclusive access before the transfer.

2. Clock rate. Set a common clock rate for transfers.

3. Buffers. Use memory buffers to store transfer overloads.

Locking. My computer stores this chapter as a file on disk and if I load it into a word-processor to change it, the system “locks” it exclusively. If I try to edit the same document a second time, it says it is “in use” and won’t let me. Otherwise, if I edit the same document twice, the last save would overwrite the changes of the first, which are lost. Yet locking allows the transfer deadlock case in Figure 2.13, where node A waits to confirm a lock from B that is waiting for a lock from C that is waiting for a lock from A, so they all wait forever. If the quantum network used locking, we would encounter “dead” areas of space, which we do not. Another way is needed.

Clock rate. Motherboards avoid the double-send of locking by using a common clock rate. When a fast central processing unit (CPU) fetches data into a slow register, it must wait for it to happen. Waiting too long wastes CPU cycles but using the register too soon gives garbage from the last event. The CPU can’t “look” to see if the data is there because that is another command that needs another register that would also need checking! So it uses the clock rate to define the cycles to wait for any task to complete. The CPU gives its command then waits that many cycles before using the register. The clock rate is usually set at the speed of the slowest component plus some slack, so one can over-clock a computer by reducing the manufacturer’s default wait cycles to make it run faster, until at some point this gives errors. This requires a system with a central clock but we know that our universe doesn’t have a common time. A virtual universe that ran to a central clock would cycle at the rate of its slowest node, say a black hole, which would be massively inefficient. Again, another way is needed.

Buffers. Early networks avoided transfer losses by protocols like polling that route every event through a central node but centralization was soon found to be inefficient. Protocols like Ethernet improved efficiency tenfold by distributing control, letting nodes run at their own rate and using buffers to handle overloads, so if a node is busy when another transmits, the data is stored in a buffer until it is free. Buffers let fast devices work with slow ones, so if a computer (fast device) sends a document to a printer (slow device), it goes to a printer buffer that feeds the printer in slow time. This lets you carry on using your computer while the document prints. Yet planning is needed, as big buffers can waste memory while small buffers can overload. The Internet fits buffer size to load, with big buffers for backbone servers like New York and little buffers for backwaters like New Zealand. If our universe is virtual, stars are like “big cities” while empty space is like a backwater where not much happens. To use buffers, the network would have to know in advance where stars occur which is unlikely, and allocating even small buffers to the vastness of space would waste memory. Again, another way is needed.

Next

When science found that all the galaxies were expanding away from us, it wasn’t hard to calculate back to a moment in time and a point in space when our universe began. Big bang theory is that over 14 billion years ago, all the matter of the universe existed at a point singularity that then exploded out to create what we see today, but this simple extrapolation from now requires several miracles for it to be true.

The first miracle, as noted earlier, is that our universe of something had to be created from nothing. The second is that all the matter of the universe had to exist at a point singularity of infinite matter density. This is a miracle because in current physics, matter at that density would immediately collapse into a black hole from which nothing could emerge, so the universe would be stillborn. To avoid this, Guth proposed inflation theory (Guth, 1998), that an immense anti-gravity field appeared from nowhere to expand the universe faster than light for 10-32 seconds. This solved the black hole problem but what then stopped the inflation? Solving this needed another miracle, that the anti-gravity field then suddenly vanished, for no known reason, to play no further part in the universe.

The old creation story that God made the universe is now replaced by the story that nothing made everything at a point of infinite density that expanded faster than light by a magical force that then disappeared forever, leaving the universe to sedately evolve into the galaxies, stars and us. Given three miracles, the theory works, but a theory that replaces one miracle by three isn’t a very convincing story.

Quantum realism proposes that our universe came from a primal reality that existed before it began, so it avoids the “something from nothing” miracle by stating that the physical world is a virtual reality.

It then proposes that like every virtual reality, our universe “booted up”. When a Windows computer boots up, it first loads a tiny CMOS program that then loads a kernel program that then loads a bigger BIOS that finally loads the full Windows operating system. It is a step-wise process not an all-at-once process, so it is proposed that the first event created one photon in one unit of space. Booting up a computer isn’t booting up a universe, but applying the same principle of starting small avoids the singularity miracle because one photon isn’t a universe.

How can a virtual photon just “appear” on a quantum network? In computing, a client-server relation is where a network server gives its processing to clients, as when a server runs many terminals, each just a keyboard and screen connected to a network. Pressing a keyboard key sends a request to the server to send the right letter to the client screen. One server can run many terminals because it transfers processing much faster than clients run that processing. Even if client terminal users type as fast as possible, in-between each keystroke the server can handle hundreds of other people typing. The next chapter explains how a photon’s quantum wave spreads as a client-server relation but for now, note that the sudden appearance of a photon on a network doesn’t require a “something from nothing” miracle, as the server is just another network node. And a universe that began as one photon avoids the singularity miracle, as what initially exists physically is just a tiny seed of the universe to come.

If the first event was when one node of the quantum network gave its processing to other nodes, how did the rest of the universe arise? Creating one photon also created a “hole” in the quantum network that began space. As the first space was tiny, the first photon had a very short wavelength and so a very high energy. Current physics extends the electromagnetic spectrum indefinitely but a digital network has a minimum wavelength, so light has a maximum energy. One photon in one unit of space implies an extreme photon of maximum energy. It is then reasonable that putting a white-hot photon on the quantum network triggered other nodes to do the same, giving the chain reaction that physics calls inflation. A tiny “injury” to the quantum fabric quickly became huge, just as a pinprick can quickly rip a taught fabric apart.

Inflation as the quantum network “breaking apart” into servers and clients to create all the processing needed for a virtual universe then occurred faster than the speed of light because this “ripping” occurred at the server rate not the client rate. This avoids the need for a massive anti-gravity field from nowhere to expand the universe in a faster-than-light miracle. In this view, the initial plasma was:

“… essentially inhabited by massless entities, perhaps largely photons.” (Penrose, 2010) p176

What then stopped inflation from continuing forever? If inflation created space as well as photons, each step of the chain reaction created not only a unit of light but also a unit of space. Adding space increased the wavelength of light, diluting its energy, so cosmic background radiation that was white-hot at the dawn of time is now cold. The photon chain reaction grew exponentially but a hypersphere surface grows as a cubic function and a cubic growth will overpower exponential growth if the resolution is quick (Figure 2.12) as by the evidence inflation was. This then avoids the miracle of a massive anti-gravity field disappearing forever.

That the physical world is a virtual reality makes this theory possible, as a virtual reality can be created from nothing in itself, it can initially boot-up very small and it can be contained in a virtual space that expands. In science, one assumption followed by logic is simpler than three different ones followed by logic.

Little rip theory is that the first event created one photon in one volume of space that started the faster-than-light chain reaction that physics calls inflation but space expanded at each step to cause the chain reaction to stop, but not before it made our finite universe. Space then continued to expand to reduce the energy to levels suitable for life. It follows that the expansion of space isn’t just an oddity of physics as without it, life couldn’t have evolved. It also follows that the creation of our universe was a once only event that hasn’t repeated since (J. B. Davies, 1979). Galaxies have come and gone but since inflation, the quantum processing that generates the universe has remained constant.

In conclusion, the “big bang” wasn’t big, at first anyway, nor was it a “bang”, as before the first event there was no space to expand into. It was a little rip in the fabric of reality that cascaded to create the quantum processing of our universe until the expansion of space “healed” it. The real miracle is that not only did a primal reality create everything we see today as a virtual reality but that continues to do so today. The creation of our universe is an ongoing process not a one-shot event that happened long ago.

Next

In 1929, the astronomer Hubble concluded that all the galaxies were expanding away from us, leading science to conclude that the universe is physically expanding, but it seems to be doing so everywhere at once not just at its edges. If space is expanding “out”, why is light from ancient times after the big bang still all around us today as cosmic background radiation? If space is expanding, what is it expanding into? And if space is something not nothing, where does new space come from? A physics based on physical realism struggles to answer such questions.

Quantum realism suggests that space is the surface of an expanding hypersphere (2.2.5). One might think that we are on the outside of that sphere but it makes more sense to be on its inside. Our space is then the inner surface of a big bubble in the fabric of reality not the outer surface of a big bang exploding into nothing (Figure 2.11). Space then has no center or edge like the inner surface of a blown-up balloon. It also expands everywhere at once as new space as added from the quantum bulk. The waves that move upon it in any direction wrap around, so ancient light wrapped around to end up everywhere, including all around earth. This answers questions like:

• What is space expanding into? It is expanding into the quantum bulk.
• Where is space expanding? Everywhere, as the bulk fills “gaps” that arise everywhere.
• Where does new space come from? From the quantum bulk that contains our bubble.
• Are we expanding too? No, existing matter isn’t affected as new space is added.

In the next chapter, space as a surface lets light vibrate upon it, even in “empty” space.

Next