Classical physics is built upon the concept of classical information. The classical bits of information can be read, copied, multiplied, processed, stored or erased. Determinism is the main characteristic feature of classical physics. Determinism implies that the knowledge of the mathematical structure of the physical laws and the current state of a physical system is sufficient for calculating, at least in principle, the state of the system at any other future time. Maxwell's equations axiomatize neatly classical electrodynamics. Matter is made of massive elementary particles such as the proton, neutron and electron. Einstein's axioms imply that space and time are no longer independent but are interwoven into a single continuum known as spacetime. All irrational numbers are represented by infinite aperiodic decimal expansions. The collection of all rational and all irrational numbers forms the set of real numbers. A convenient way to geometrically represent the real numbers is to use points on the real line.
Classical physics is built upon the concept of classical information. The classical bits of information can be read, copied, multiplied, processed, stored or erased. Determinism is the main characteristic feature of classical physics. Determinism implies that the knowledge of the mathematical structure of the physical laws and the current state of a physical system is sufficient for calculating, at least in principle, the state of the system at any other future time. Maxwell's equations axiomatize neatly classical electrodynamics. Matter is made of massive elementary particles such as the proton, neutron and electron. Einstein's axioms imply that space and time are no longer independent but are interwoven into a single continuum known as spacetime. All irrational numbers are represented by infinite aperiodic decimal expansions. The collection of all rational and all irrational numbers forms the set of real numbers. A convenient way to geometrically represent the real numbers is to use points on the real line.
In general, a physical theory is based on some fundamental principles concerning space, time, matter, and the laws prescribing how matter is distributed in space and how it evolves in time, and even how spacetime itself changes in response to the changes of matter. The spectrum of the known theories is very diverse, since they are based on different assumptions. Some theories assume that space and time are totally independent, some that they are warped in a continuum named "spacetime", and some even that there are more dimensions than the usual 3+1. Most theories consider that space and time are continuous, but many recent theories consider them to be discrete. Most dynamical laws of fundamental Physics are deterministic, but apparently Quantum Mechanics shows that they may have an indeterministic component. Despite these distinctions between various theories, our intuition and experience tells us that they have a lot in common. In this paper I will try to capture the common features in a single mathematical structure. This is not a Theory of Everything, but only a mathematical structure which is common to most physical theories known so far. We will see that these theories can be obtained as particular cases of this structure, which I will call "world". In particular, the worlds described by the Classical Mechanics, the Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics are examples of worlds according to this definition, but also some theories attempting to unify gravity and QM, like String Theory. The purpose of this distillation is to provide a mathematical common background to both physical and metaphysical discussions about the various theories of the World.
What is information? A short answer could be: Anything that changes our minds and states of thinking! Information is virtual. It can be carried by speech, an image, scratches on a stone, patterns in a photon field, the connections of neurons in our brains or even by the wavefunction of an electron. Information does not depend on the actual means of transmission nor does its identity change when changing the carrier. Information is physical. It needs to be sustained by a physical substrate and rearranging that substrate to contain the wanted information requires to spend energy or work. Without a physical world, information can not be stored, processed, or transmitted. Our world is permeated with different representations of information. Actually Information about the physical laws governing our Universe can be found everywhere and in everything. Could it then be that the real fundamental elements of this world are tiny bits of information? Could we get it from bit?1 A number of researcher investigate this possibility, and several of their attempts to recover physical laws from the principles governing information are reported about in this special issue on physics of information. The articles by Gregg Jaeger,2 by Ariel Caticha,3 and by John Skilling and Kevin Knuth4 address the reconstruction of quantum mechanics from information theory. Furthermore, Kevin Knuth and James Walsh5 show how to recover space-time from particles sending each others signals in an initially geometry-free setting. A central element of most works on information is the concept of a probability. Probabilities can be defined via various routes. Most familiar might be their definitions by the frequentists school as relative frequencies of events (in the limit of infinite amounts of such). A more general definition of probabilities is the Bayesians' one, which regards probabilities as quantifiers of statements, expressing how much those should be expected to be true. Although this definition looks subjective on the first glance, it rests on a solid mathematical theorem by Richard Cox6 that any extension of binary logic to a continuum of single valued truthfulness quantifier that respects a minimum of requirements must be isomorphic to probability theory. And this definition turns out to embrace the frequentists' definition in case that infinite numbers of comparable events are actually available and can be counted. The majority of authors of this special issues seem to favor the Bayesian perspective, which is probably a result of our own, the guest editors', preference and not necessarily a reflection of the prevailing position of contemporary scientists. The different views on probabilities of frequentists and Bayesians are addressed by the article of Allen Caldwell.7 He builds a bridge between these antagonistic camps by explaining frequentists' constructions in a Bayesian language. In particular, his argumentation why the omnipresent p-value in statistical and experimental literature might often capture a relevant signal of model misfit is reassuring, given that a large fraction of our medical system is based on decisions backed up by p-values. A Bayesian might add that it would be even more reassuring, if a system rigorously build on logic and its continuous extension would be used for decisions affecting live-or-death questions. The laws governing probabilities themselves seem to reflect that of more elementary mathematical structures. Kevin Knuth shows how these emerge from lattice theory, which deals with relations in partially ordered sets like that of collections of possibilities.8 The sum rule of probability theory is a direct consequence of the underlying lattice structure. Interestingly, a number of other theories are resting also on such lattices and therefore exhibit their own versions of sum rules: measures of sets, mutual information, the Euler characteristics of topological spaces, as well as quantum mechanical interactions that are quantified by pairs of numbers, the real and imaginary parts of complex probability amplitudes (see also4). The theory of information has very practical application in physics and elsewhere. Manfred Opper discusses how the solutions of stochastic differential equations can be inferred via variational methods, which have their origin in thermodynamics.9 Torsten Enßlin introduces information field theory (IFT), the information theory for fields, as a means to infer the configuration of a physical field from incomplete and noisy data.10 The mathematical apparatus for this is that of quantum field theory (QFT), just with ordinary probabilities instead of complex probability amplitudes as in the latter. Could it be that the difference between IFT and QFT is just be the same as between classical information theory and quantum mechanics, the transition from real valued to complex valued quantifier for statements? Anyhow, any practical inference machinery, be it for dynamical systems or for fields, requires sophisticated numerical methods. Michael Betancourt reviews Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods to calculate expectation values over high dimensional probabilities.11 Theo Steininger and coworkers present the NIFTy3 software package for numerical information field theory calculations, which can handle very high dimensional field inference problems.12 Finally, in an article focused on the subtleties of the Monty Hall problem and mostly aiming at information theoretical entertainment, Torsten Enßlin and Margret Westercamp investigate the possibility that human intuition might be more rational than contemporary psychology thinks.13 A number of possible topics for an issue on physics of information are not addressed here. We would have loved to have articles on Landauer's principle, which states that erasing information has to cost energy, on QBism, a Bayesian version of quantum mechanics, on artificial and biological neural networks, as well as any other aspect of the information-soaked biological world. What has a reader of this special issue to be equipped with in order to follow the lines of thoughts? In addition to the usual physicist's education, the minimal additional equipment are the basics of probability theory and the concept of entropy. Most of the other concepts used in the articles rest on those and are introduced there. Let A, B, and C be propositions (or possibilities). The probability P ( A | B ) of A being true assuming that B is true is a number between 0 and 1, with P ( A | B ) = 1 expressing certainty of A under B ( B ⇒ A ) and P ( A | B ) = 0 expressing certainty of not A being the case under B ( B ⇒ ¬ A ).
In a physical theory we typically describe a system in terms of its state . We specify the relevant physical quantities or variables and then use dynamical laws to find the time evolution of these variables to predict their values in the future. For example, in classical particle mechanics, the state of a system is specified by the positions and velocities (or, equivalently for us, the momenta) of all of the particles in the system (that is, r ( t ) and v ( t ) for each particle). Newton's second law, F = ma , then determines the time evolution of the variables, or of the state, of the system. For electrodynamics, the state variables are the electric and magnetic fields, E and B , and Maxwell's equations govern the time evolution of these. In classical physics (including relativity here), the state variables that are the central entities of the dynamical equations (typically the positions and momenta of the particles) are also the directly observable physical quantities. That is, the state itself is specified in terms of the observables of the theory. The essential features of the classical world view (as modified by relativity) are that the present state of a system in principle determines its future state (as in the flight of a baseball under the influence of gravity) and that the agency responsible for this event-by-event causal structure must propagate from the cause to the effect at some rate no greater than the speed of light.
An interpretation and re-formulation of modern physics which removes the presumption of the space-time continuum, and bases physical theory on a small number of rational and empirical principles. After briefly describing the philosophical principles underlying the theory, we rigorously construct a discrete model of quantum mechanics. Kets are names, or labels which categorise states of matter but do not directly describe them. The principle of superposition is seen as a definitional truism in the categorisation of states. This resolves the measurement problem of quantum mechanics by attributing the collapse of the wave function to information. The probability interpretation has a natural meaning in which the configuration of interacting particles plays the role of a hidden variable. The model supports a form of relativistic quantum field theory which does not depend on quantisation or second quantisation from classical mechanics. Continuous laws of wave mechanics are found in a discrete metaphysic which does not involve waves. Classical law is the expected behaviour of many elementary particles. The constraints on the theory are sufficient to establish that particles are point-like entities with specific properties found in nature. Newton's first law and conservation of momentum are established from the principle of homogeneity. Maxwell's equations are derived from the simple interaction in which a Dirac particle emits or absorbs a photon. Feynman rules are calculated for the discrete theory and differ from the standard rules by the removal of the ultraviolet divergence and the use of proper loop integrals. They give finite and unambiguous results.
Those defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truthy who confound real quantities with their relations and sensible measures. —ISAAC NEWTON, Principia Before we say anything about quantum mechanics, let us take a quick look at the Newtonian (or ‘classical’) view of the physical universe. According to that view, nature consists of an enormous number of particles. When Newtonian physics is combined with the theory of the electromagnetic field, it becomes convenient to think of these particles as dimensionless (even if there is a kind of conceptual strain involved in trying to think of something as having a mass but not any size ), and as possessing electrical properties – negative charge, or positive charge, or neutrality. This leads to the well-known ‘solar system’ view of the atom – with the electrons whirling around the nucleons (neutrons and protons) just as the planets whirl around the sun. Out of atoms are built molecules; out of molecules, macroscopic objects, scaling from dust motes to whole planets and stars. These latter also fall into larger groupings – solar systems and galaxies – but these larger structures differ from the ones previously mentioned in being held together exclusively by gravitational forces. At every level, however, one has trajectories (ultimately that means the possibility of continuously tracing the movements of the elementary particles) and one has causality (ultimately that means the possibility of extrapolating from the history of the universe up to a given time to its whole sequence of future states).
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].