11 comments on “Quantum Information & More

  1. I did say it was weird … I’m just reporting what I find … I’m saying I find it hard to believe.

    (BTW it’s not exactly “nothing” anyway … in their words it’s the “nothing that is”. They are re-defining nothing.)

    I see you’re at Cornell. I’ll take a look at the link you gave me. Thanks.

  2. Island, whoever you are, are you qualified to comment on the papers cited (I’m not) ?

    Not sure I treat Einstein or Occam as the last word here. Does the “Diaz-Rowlands re-write of the Dirac equation” stand up to academic refereeing ?

    (The something from nothing aspect here is incidental to my interest BTW. I can buy a no-beginning / no-end argument philosophically. I believe standards of argument and evidence get stretched thin in these domains, and are open to as much debate as the theories themselves.)

  3. I’m not qualified or I’d rewrite it myself, except as it applies to Einstein’s closed and finite model… where it belongs.

    You can probably get an answer to your question by asking it here:


    But not always and there is a moderation delay… so if not, then you might try here:


    But be sure to apologize in advance if you’re off whatever relevant topic is up for discussion.


    The point of my linked article was to show that Einstein got robbed… or at least, he missed an opportunity to reject the arguments for an infinite universe that severely weakened his theory, because matter generation in that model causes expansion.

    RE: Causality

    Particle creation in this model causes tension between the vacuum and ordinary matter to increase, since it results in an offset increase in negative pressure and gravity, so continuous matter generation will eventually create enough tension to compromise the forces that bind the universe… and it’ll blow… again… just like the last one and the one before that, inflationary theory is an un-necessary has-been band-aid if the vacuum has volume when a big bang occurs.

    Someone besides me needs to write down the basis of wave functions in this background, including an expansion of the field in corresponding creation and annihilation operators – compute the stress-energy tensor in that background – quantitatively describe the vacua – and then works out the matrix elements of the stress-energy tensor between the vacuum and the one-particle states.

    Once some better person than I does that, then it can hopefully be quantitatively shown how Dirac’s Hole Theory works to hold this model stable and “flat” as the universe expands, because particle creation becomes the mechanism for expansion when the normal distribution of negative energy does not contribute to particle pair creation, which can only occur in this vacuum by way of the condensation of negative pressure energy into isolated depatures from the normal background energy density. This new physics repairs Dirac’s Cosmological model and his Large Numbers Hypothesis, as well, which, in-turn, completes and clarifies the Anthropic Principle, which is where Robert Dicke originally got his anthropic coincidence from.

    The anthropic principle is actually a thermodynamic principle… but that’s a whole nother related story.

  4. Pingback: Psybertron Asks » Anthropic Principle - Why the Fuss ?

  5. I just don’t believe in quantum uncertainty… if given that I’ve reasonably proven that Einstein was right.

    So… why did you get so much grief?… Does it have anything to do with the anthropic principle and the ID debate?

  6. OHHHHH… you got grief from me… LOL… you’re kinda obscure in your method for communication, and I didn’t get the reference to the link at first.

    Sorry… *duh*

  7. Sorry the trackback links can be confusing – that’s the software for you.

    As I say, if you don’t believe in quantum uncertainty, and you think Einstein had the last word in this space, I can only assume you have some impressive physics credentials. I will point some other physicists at your anthropic proof of Einstein and see what they say.

    You say “resonably proven” – as I said in the other thread – what makes a good argument / explanation is my main topic here at Psybertron. (How do we know ? etc)

    Two things are certain – there’s more to it than Aristotelian rationality, and there is no such thing (beyond axiomatic mathematics) as “proof”.

  8. Yeah… like the physics that’s about halfway down the first page of my website… and I’ve already, in this thread explained what else needs to be done to see what happens with quantum theory.

    That doesn’t change the fact that Einstein could have rejected arguments for an infinite universe by postulating that the pre-existing mechanism for matter generation in his model will resolve the problem.

    Einstein didn’t know about particle potential in the quantum vacuum, but he didn’t need to in order to head-off the attack that killed his theory.

    The ball is still in their court, in other words… until someone proves him wrong.

    I hope that you will actually bring said physicist here, rather than to just have them dismiss my stuff without really having a clue about the physics that’s behind it.

  9. Pingback: Psybertron Asks » Cybsoc links Nilpotence with Ashby

  10. Pingback: The Integral Information of Pan-Proto-Psychism | Psybertron Asks

Leave a Reply