A couple of years ago I published a book called Decoding Reality, in which I argued that the most fundamental units of reality are not energy or matter, but bits of information. I also claimed that this resolves the age old issue of creation ex nihilo, namely how something can be created out of nothing. The answer, I maintained, was in the fact that the bits of information making up the universe are quantum. Quantum physics is based on the idea that information can be created completely spontaneously, namely without any preexisting information.
Most of you science buffs out there will, of course, know that science progresses in abrupt jumps, and every once in a while a new theory gets discovered that forces a radical departure from previously held views. I indeed viewed the evolution of science, through what the philosopher Karl Popper called the process of "conjectures and refutations," as another instance of information processing. But if it's not unlikely that quantum physics will one day be surpassed, then what confidence should you have in my main thesis? Could it be that the new theory will claim that some other entity -- and not a bit of information -- is yet more fundamental? In other words, will the post-quantum reality be made up of some other stuff?
I believe that the answer to this question is "no."
For a start, quantum physics is really well-established. It's had about 100 years of complete success as far as experiments. In fact, quantum physics is so accurate that we physicists are getting desperate (let's be honest here: we'd love it to fail, since this opens the door to discovering a new theory, and for a physicist this is the easiest way of entering the Physics Hall of Fame). Even the weirdest of quantum predictions (what Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance") are now established beyond reasonable doubt. Quantum objects seem to know about each other in a way not allowed in the classical world, and even when these objects are far apart they act as an inseparable whole.
The fact that quantum spookiness is so well established means that if the new theory comes along, it cannot imply that the world is less spooky than quantumly. The post-quantum world can only be even spookier!
Now, people are studying all sorts of post-quantum scenarios theoretically (it's good to do this kind of stuff since one never knows where a breakthrough will come from -- these are the "unknown unknowns"). And it so happens that they all have to maintain the same degree of genuine randomness as quantum physics. It is not easy to see this -- not because the arguments are intrinsically difficult, but because they are lengthy (it all goes back to spookiness, so please trust me on this one).
The random creation of information, according to the above logic, will remain in post-quantum physics and therefore, bits of information will still be in the best position of explain the creation of everything out of nothing.
Interestingly enough, some other ideas also survive the onslaught of post-quantum physics. I have studied this recently with my colleagues Markus Mueller of Perimeter Institute and Oscar Dahlsten of Singapore. We have found that the link between information and disorder (as quantified by the infamous entropy) remains in the new theories. This implies, for instance, that the link between the black hole entropy and its area (quantified by the famous Bekenstein-Hawking formula) is also likely to continue to be true.
So, are any predictions in my book going to be wrong if quantum physics fails? Yes, and possibly many. One of them is that I argued for developing quantum technology -- quantum computers -- and described its advantages over the present technology. If quantum physics fails, then we have to construct technology based on the new physics (but this is good news, since this can only be even more powerful). Likewise, I argued that living systems might be using quantum physics to process information more efficiently. This too fails in the post-quantum world, which again is likely to be good news, but it might also bring a new twist on the relationship between physics and biology. Could it be, as one of the pioneers of quantum physics Erwin Schroedingeralluded a long time ago, that biology will force us to come up with new laws of physics?
We are all busy thinking that a new theory will come by studying quantum physics and gravity and that we need to probe smaller and smaller regions of space and time to get there. But, maybe in order to explain the existence of life we need to come up with another theory of physics -- something going well beyond quantum physics.
I guess that's why nobody is proposing it. It does live comfortably in strawman heaven, though.
:-)
I couldn't even grok the rest... it was so confused.
:-)
So far that experiment hasn't been devised, though... and I don't see much coming out of the corner of the "critics" of quantum theory on that front.
Not to mention that, if your theory is correct, then it assumes that these fluctuations have continued continuously. Otherwise, it seems like a real long shot (maybe one requiring some sort of supernatural creator) to not only have ONE of those fluctuations but for that SOLE fluctuation to have resulted in a universe so exquisitely and, frankly, bizarrely tuned to bring forth life-----e.g., just what is that cosmological constant which cosmologists thought would be zero?---something ALMOST zero but NOT QUITE?
So then we've got an INFINITE number of potential universes. Sounds to me like metaphysics, not physics. As the ability to develop more powerful microscopes (CERN) and telescopes (Hubble, etc) has about reached the limit, we'll probably never be able to answer ultimate questions. Which is about where we are at. So instead we're told to rely on math which leads us to these INFINITE universe theories or superstring formulas which, as Witten himself acknowledges, may be INFINITE as well.
Nope, I think the next frontier is the interaction between consciousness and so-called reality (e.g., what causes the "wave function" to collapse?)
There is no "Holy Bible" in science. That would been too easy!
Our science is in an infantile stage of development. There are much to learn about surrounding universe and purpose of our existence.
"Space and Time" is a human concept that's likely to fall flat in the realm of Dark Matters and Neutrinos.
80% of universe is made of such exotic materials where Quantum Mechanics do not apply because there is no solid data about them. Even we did obtain information about alien worlds, it would be mind bending to say the least...
I believe there is a limit how much human capable understanding the new frontier. Greater intelligence intervention is probably necessary to further our cause in the universe.
The rewards will be new physics theories and scientific discoveries.
Issac Newton is old school only be surpassed by likes of Albert Eisenstein.
If Albert Einstein is the old school with his theory of relativity, who is the next genus take humanity down the road to enlightenment?
To make breakthrough, one must think outside of his/hers environment. this is especially important in fields of science and medical research.
Or tell that to your brain which keeps you walking, running, jumping and dancing... by making the necessary Newtonian calculations in real time to keep your body from collapsing or bumping into things all the time.
:-)
The way science works is to build from past experience.
Standing on the shoulders of giants, Giants like Copernicus, Aristotle, Newton and Einstein (old school), is how we advance science & technology.
The new schools of physics are sure to come, if history is our guild.
The big breakthrough is likely to come once scientists conducting experiments outside of Earth environment. Newtonian Laws works well here on planet Earth and within our solar system (flatlanders), its unlikely to suffice in places like alien worlds.
The difference between religions and science is... variables. In religions there is no variables. it is what it is. However, science needs constant change of variables to feed its growth. Perhaps, God have the last laugh!
`` For a start, Quantum Physics is really very well established``….Who doubts this?
``Will the post quantum reality be made of some other stuff?``..Why ask this question?... Reality is forever made up of the same stuff, except that it gets understood better with time.
Have we discarded Classical physics and determinism?... No we haven’t.
A serious understanding of the laws of causation will reveal that even the motion of quantum particles is guided by classical interactions.
Consider Roger Penrose`s statement:
``Probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms or molecules – these evolve deterministically – but seemingly via some mysterious larger scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive`` …Emperor`s New Mind.
Even the Big bang will someday be explained by the laws of causation.
Perhaps it was the super consciousness of the last stages of the previous universe that prepared the programme with a built in Anthropic Principle.
Why?
Well, because his theory, though he doesn't mention it, assumes that these "something out of nothing" quantum fluctuations have been continuing FOREVER. The consequence of that, which physicists acknowledge, is that there are an INFINITE number of universes. Though the physicists then say that ONLY a TINY sliver of those universes support life, they seem to forget that even a tiny sliver of an infinite number is itself infinite.
The consequences of that? Well, that anything which CAN exist does exist an infinite number of times in an infinite number of variations. Who could then possibly doubt that consciousness has evolved far beyond our own to the point where it has mastered "creating" a universe such as ours or, at least, creatures such as us who EXPERIENCE the universe as we experience it through our consciousness WHATEVER the quote/unquote reality out there really is.
Why might that consciousness do such a thing? Well, how about out of boredom with their likely immortal existence?
To name the basic component of the universe ''information'' seems to be an exercise in the manipulation of meaning.
Information is abstract. It does not exist in space-time. (You cannot see, feel or touch it, only means whereby it is encoded).
It exists intermittent at moments of decoding and encoding. (It has no persistence of existence).
It is dependent upon consciousness to exist. If no-one can decode, the encoded is lost - as in certain dead languages.
Creating a new meaning for the word ''information'' carries dangers of reification arising because of existing uses. So, why do it? Why not use another word?
(Reification is a process whereby any contents of the abstract domain are treated as having objective existence in space-time). Reification is the causal process in the development of religion and myth.
Machines do not contain information. They contain encoded data which when decoded by a living person becomes information. By using word ''information'' in sense you do, you create a host of problems.
EDP in everyday language deals in information. But it does not really. It deals in code. Books in everyday language contain information. But they do not really. They contain code,. Code only becomes information when decoded.
Shifting from loose EDP usage to explaining fundamental composition of the universe? No.
"Ils me traitèrent de fou en 1896 lorsque j'annonçai la découverte des rayons cosmiques. Ils n'eurent de cesse de se moquer de moi, puis, des années après, ils purent vérifier que j'avais raison. A présent, je présume que l'histoire se répétera quand j'affirmerai avoir découvert une source d'énergie jusqu'ici inconnue, une énergie sans limites et qu'il est possible de canaliser..." Nikola Tesla.
La maîtrise des sources d' "énergie cosmique" libérera l'humanité ! Kc ;-\
Well the only reason we know ANYTHING about quantum physics is because of scientists. The actual term "quantum" as applied to the mechanics of particles at the that level was coined by a physicist, Max Planck, who was attempting to solve a problem in classical physics. But you seem to be sneering at scientists and physicists as if you somehow understood these things better than they do. Please correct me if I'm wrong by expressing your admiration for the genius of the people who came up with these concepts.
The cornerstones of quantum mechanics, Pauli's Exclusion Principle, The Uncertainty Principle, Planck's Constant, Schrodinger's equations describing the wave function, Dirac's quantum theory of the electron, are all (as their names often suggest) the product of physicists. And so is the concept of quantum entanglement or action at a distance. And yet you assert that physicists "haven't gone there" Not only have they "gone there" they are the ONLY people to have done so in any meaningful way. And they've come back and told us about it, if that's not extending an already flimsy metaphor too far.
:-)
There must be a better, cheaper way.
And the space elevator (or towers etc.), they work great on planets like Mars... but Earth is really the end of the spectrum. And, again, we are merely replacing one problem (enormous amounts of kinetic energy) with another one (enormous amount of static energy in the tension of the cable)... it's not really a win once you analyse the concept in detail. That's very normal for engineering... one can replace one complex technology with another, but one can never make the total amount of complexity go away.
This is not rocket science. It's information theory and that's very well established and has been for over half a century.