In recent years, the notion that information may be the basis for reality, rather than the other way around, has become more popular. Here we consider the issue within the context of a general relation between the role of physical objects against the background in shaping the pattern of distinctions that can then be translated into information. It is found that from this perspective, in classical physics substance is more fundamental than information, while in general relativity they are on an equal footing. Quantum superposition and collapse, on the other hand, introduce new considerations. A foundational principle is introduced to give an explanation for quantum superposition, and from this principle it becomes evident that to the extent that one frames the nature of quantum objects in terms of this dichotomy, in quantum theory information is more fundamental. This implies that the description of quantum objects in a superposition is dependent on features of the background, as these features set boundary conditions on such manifestations. Thus, if this principle really does underlie quantum mechanics, it means that the term ”background independent quantum theory ” has to be considered a contradiction, which has implications for the search for a quantum theory of gravity. 1
In recent years, the notion that information may be the basis for reality, rather than the other way around, has become more popular. Here we consider the issue within the context of a general relation between the role of physical objects against the background in shaping the pattern of distinctions that can then be translated into information. It is found that from this perspective, in classical physics substance is more fundamental than information, while in general relativity they are on an equal footing. Quantum superposition and collapse, on the other hand, introduce new considerations. A foundational principle is introduced to give an explanation for quantum superposition, and from this principle it becomes evident that to the extent that one frames the nature of quantum objects in terms of this dichotomy, in quantum theory information is more fundamental. This implies that the description of quantum objects in a superposition is dependent on features of the background, as these features set boundary conditions on such manifestations. Thus, if this principle really does underlie quantum mechanics, it means that the term ”background independent quantum theory ” has to be considered a contradiction, which has implications for the search for a quantum theory of gravity. 1
Modern fundamental physics remains fragmented: quantum mechanics and general relativity describe different regimes of reality but do not fit into a single coherent architecture. The status of quantization and Planck’s constant is unclear (why the world is fundamentally discrete), the role of information as a physical entity is not well defined (how it relates to energy and matter), and questions of initial conditions and the arrow of time remain unresolved. There is also a gap between the quantum description, the Standard Model, and the macroscopic classical world where complex structures and life emerge. In my work, I propose to view reality as a system of layers connected by a single mechanism: the flow of binary quantum information (0/1 and their superpositions). On the fundamental quantum layer, these binary quanta of distinguishability operate; their collective dynamics generate the Standard Model as an effective field theory and then project onto our macroscopic layer with a specific geometry (in terms of a torus-like structure). In this framework, quantization, gravity, the parameters of the Standard Model, and the quantum-to-classical transition become different manifestations of the same underlying architecture, rather than a set of unrelated patches. For feedback or questions: Email: linkoln.linty@gmail.com Telegram: @AntonZibnitsky
There are several links between information theory — between »information as such« whatever that might mean — and the foundations of nature, i e, basic physics. Well, since physics a science still evolving (despite propositions that »the end of science« now in sight), some of the links between information and physics are hypothetical. One linkage fairly obvious — thermodynamics depends upon entropy or some measure of order or disorder, and that clearly has something to do with information. The other possible relationship might be between the uncertainty that a key characteristic of quantum mechanics. We can never know everything on the quantum scale; the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells that the more information we gain in one direction the less we know in another. If we, on that scale, obtain certainty as to one factor, then another will stay entirely undecided — try to affix a position to a quantum particle, and the momentum will be out of bounds entirely. (This the established dogma currently, though there are some deviating ideas.1) Then the question arises: who does the actual measuring, with what — what particles, at what level, are involved in this act of, as it pronounced, forcing the wave function to collapse? This wave function is the indeterminate particle: the various statistics describing the probabilities that the particle (which simultaneously takes on aspects of a wave) may be in one state or another. We will now attempt to discuss these different — or are they really different? — interdependencies, starting with black holes.
Abstract The subject of quantum reference frame transformations gets popular lately with some interesting new theoretical development partly for the reason that the physics involved is becoming experimentally accessible. The position of a position eigenstate when observed from an object with ‘uncertainty’ in position would be seen with ‘uncertainty’. In fact, even the existence of entanglement is reference frame-dependent. We present an improved formulation of such a transformation and give a novel way to describe exactly by ‘how much’ the ‘value of the position’ has changed which fully encodes all information about the changes, including the ‘uncertainty’ and entanglement. That is an application of the notion of noncommutative values of physical quantities we introduced to understand the reality of quantum physics and beyond. Some implications on fundamental physics will also be discussed. In particular, we suggest thinking about quantum gravity as a theory of general quantum relativity, alleviating Penrose’s notion of incompatibility of qauntum mechanics with the relativity principle.
In last years, we are witnessing a trend, of trying to describe the laws of nature using informational tools instead of by functional tools. This change towards more abstract description of the nature, is a natural development, as from the time of the Greeks, through the time of Newton, followed by Analytical Mechanics, all the way up to General Relativity and String Theory, there was always a preference to the more abstract and general description of nature. The reason we prefer the more general and abstract descriptions, is that they give us a more objective point of view at the laws of Nature, which allow us more effectively to separate between Phenomena that are the manifestation of the deep laws of Nature, and Phenomena that are just being resulted by our very specific point of view at the universe, and the specific description that we have decided to give it. The more abstract descriptions give us a better frame of reference in our attempted to understand the origins of the laws of Physics. Informational description of the Universe is suspected to be better than the Functional description, as it is a more abstract and general point of view of the Universe, and yet, there is no complete and simple way to translate every Physical Theory to informational language. In this article I have attempted to do just that, by taking two tied Philosophical arguments, and giving them a Formal and Mathematical meaning, by so upgrading them into Physical Principals. The first Principle is the idea that the only objective thing in Nature, that does not depend at the observer point of view, is the different options that realty can exist in. This set of options of reality is meaningless and lacks structure in any way besides their combined number (cardinality), and I name these options of reality “cosmoses”. The second Principle is that there are observers, that are bound to one option of reality, but unable to separate between their cosmos to other cosmoses. This inability to completely know in what cosmos they do exist, creates a local structure. This structure, and the way it changes over time is what creates the structure of the universe that the observers (including you dear reader) measure. By using this simple language, I was able to suggest some new tools and predictions.
Quantum information has dramatically changed information science and technology, looking at the quantum nature of the information carrier as a resource for building new information protocols, designing radically new communication and computation algorithms, and ultra-sensitive measurements in metrology, with a wealth of applications. From a fundamental perspective, this new discipline has led us to regard quantum theory itself as a special theory of information, and has opened routes for exploring solutions to the tension with general relativity, based, for example, on the holographic principle, on non-causal variations of the theory, or else on the powerful algorithm of the quantum cellular automaton, which has revealed new routes for exploring quantum fields theory, both as a new microscopic mechanism on the fundamental side, and as a tool for efficient physical quantum simulations for practical purposes. In this golden age of foundations, an astonishing number of new ideas, frameworks, and results, spawned by the quantum information theory experience, have revolutionized the way we think about the subject, with a new research community emerging worldwide, including scientists from computer science and mathematics.
Some simple preliminaries are set out to guide the investigation of what work appeal to the concept of information might do for the foundations of quantum mechanics. One point noted is that if all that appeal to information were to signify in a given approach is the advocacy of an instrumentalist view, then we would not be left with a very interesting, or at least, not a very distinctive, position. Another is the warning that the factivity of ‘information’ (one can’t have the information that p unless it is the case that p) tightly constrains what a direct appeal to the notion of information can do for you in understanding the quantum state.