Latent »

Question: Explain to me the term "latent" from the book "Physical Information"?

Answer: It is about information, its "surplus" which is missing in Shannon's definition, and without which the law of conservation does not apply, first of information, then the amount of uncertainty, then probability, and then for energy. However, no matter how easy it looks, the latent (hidden) or say lateral information, is not easy to explain.

Namely, the Shannon's information is a special case of "Information Perception" which is a coupling of a subject and an object, in short of two entities. In that book, it can be seen that the information of perception can reveal a hidden excess of information, some lateral information in relation to the mainstream, but to ask of it to describe all the possible finesse of such would be too much.

An example of a situation that remains completely invisible to Shannon's information is demonstrated by the rings in the picture above (Borromean rings). They are three rings in a coupling in which no two are coupled. The origin of the field of force (origins of force), which was discovered in 1970 by the Russian physicist Vitaly Efimov, is similar. He noted that the three quantum components could be combined to form a state similar to the Borromean rings.

In such a state, the forces resulting from the combination of the three particles are greater than the sum of the forces associated with the individual particles. Efimov's forces have been confirmed by real experiments, although this effect itself is an Emergence property that does not exist in any particle on its own. Consistently, my book confirms the existence of such phenomenon in information as well.

Time Arrow »

Question: Just one more question. From which field of physics should I start researching the passage of time? (Detail from the conversation.)

Answer: From whatever, not just from thermodynamics, or quantum physics, and one can always be found somewhere next to (my) information theory. For example, from kinematics, that story would go something like this.

The time of the body moves more slowly seen in relative motion. To the one who is leaving, we are still in the past, and to the one who is coming to us, its future is approaching. The wavelengths of the Doppler effect are longer for the outgoing, shorter for the incoming (Space-Time, 1.3.3 Red shift).

Coherently, then, treating wavelengths as the densities of the probability of finding a given particle-wave at a given place, we find that the arrival of the future is more probable to us than its departure. I am thinking of taking us into the past of the environment (Information of Perception, p. 66). Thus, we enter the theory of probability of motion, and with-it informatics.

Question: Incredibly, we are there in two steps, in the story of the "arrow of time". I thought you had an example of entropy after all?

Answer: I have, of course, but they are shabby. However, such can also be seen from a "more interesting" side, for example in the following way.

Entropy grows spontaneously — says the Second Law of Thermodynamics, about the unhindered transfer of heat from a body of higher temperature to a neighboring body of lower temperature. According to the theory of information, this means that a higher entropy (of a colder body) contains less information than the same heated one, so in such a molecule they move less unpredictably, they oscillate less The newer and more interesting part of that story is that we are all moving together towards a more organized world (contrary to the usual understanding).

More organized, as more certain statements, are less informative (when we know what will happen and it happens, then it is not big news), so we can paraphrase that we "go from ignorance to knowledge", from uncertainty to certainty. Let us remind ourselves that information is as indestructible as energy, and that the described move towards the future is also a way of accumulating memories. The physical world is better organized, there is less and less information of the present, but the more of its action is from the thicker layers of the past.

Current »

Question: Does it seem to me, or are you really avoiding information theory for explain of the electromagnetism?

Answer: I avoid it, but only in these texts, because the private proposals I am dealing with could completely reject even these few colleagues who seem to believe me. Again, I hope the next some things are obvious.

Two parallel electrical conductors, in the picture on the right, through which current flows in opposite red arrows, create a magnetic field that repels them, and in the case of the same direction — which attracts them. This has been known for a long time and a lot has been known in electromagnetism for a long time.

Let us consider the same situation further, in a new way, when "currents" make up a single electron, and due to the principle of minimalism, when "rejection" occurs with excess information and "attraction" in case of lack. The fact that electrons moving in the same direction become information deficient (magnetically attracted) tells us that the absence of information is selective.

I remind you that in "information theory" I define time by the number (amount) of random events, and its slow flow of the system in relative motion by the departure of part of that system into a parallel reality. Among other things, this is how I used to explain Bernoulli's equation (Intake), and now the interference of free electrons in the same current.

Looking more closely, two one-way free electrons are attracted, which makes them bidirectional and repulsive. However, when they are repulsive, they are still two-way and then repulsive again. In other words, by inducing a magnetic field, the attraction of electrons is unstable (equilibrium state) which spontaneously turns into repulsion and continues to do so.

That is why (free) electrons are repulsive by electric force, because they induce a magnetic force that repels them, and because of such filtering of information by the movement and action of the principled minimalism of communication. The very beginning of this story is twisted enough that I keep the rest, for now, to myself. Feynman diagrams are enough for you.

Inertia »

Question: Information theory explains inertia?

Answer: Yes, with the principled minimalism of communication. More likely, more probable outcomes occur, and we consistently say that nature is stingy in scattering information. On the other hand, there is the law of conservation, which prevents the reality from melting just like that.

In the picture, we see the effect of inertia when the car brakes, reduces speed, and the passengers' bodies try to continue moving at the previous velocity.

In the above question, in the explanation of the "Time Arrow", it was noticed that physical states are developing (moving) towards more probable positions, and so towards the future. Now let’s add, they go from the past because more information comes to them from there. Forward, in the future there is less and less information of the present (Growing), but this shortage is supplemented by action from the thickening stocks of the past.

The future hides its uncertainties (information) from the present much like the body in motion has its own (proper) information hidden from the relative observer. Observing a moving body, we do not perceive a part of its own information, which are then in its reality and into the parallel reality inaccessible to us.

The deficit of relative events is as many times greater as the observed time course is slower. As information is equivalent to action (product of energy and time) and the law of conservation applies to both, the relative energy of the body is as many times higher as the time it passes more slowly. From this we already sense the connection between information, time and inertia.

In order to bring the body of potential (proper) energy E_p into motion with velocity v, it is necessary to add kinetic energy E_k = m_pv²/2, where m_p is the rest mass of a given body, so that its total energy E = E_p + E_k, or more precisely E = E_pγ, where γ is the Lorentz, relativistic coefficient (Space-Time, 1.1.7 Special relativity). This is well known to us from physics.

In the same scale (gamma), with which the relative energy or mass of a given body increases (which is determined by the well-known relativistic relation E = mc², where c is the speed of light in vacuum), time slows down and units of length shorten in the direction of motion. What we now add is that to the same extent part of the body's own (proper) information is in parallel reality for the relative observer.

Hence the increase in inertia, we will say, due to the need for information to be extracted from the "external" reality of the body into the current one, or in other words due to the "excess" communication of a given body that "gets stuck" in parallel times (Mass). Inertia is a consequence of the general minimalism of information. A special case of the same principle is the principle of least action, well known to theoretical physics.

Building on the previous answer, we see that the present from the past is also moving towards the future by inertia. Due to the general saving of communication (interaction), the present can also be said to "escape" from the past, or to act as if the past is "blowing" it away.

Dimensions »

Question: Can you tell me what dimensions of space-time you are talking about?

Answer: It is common to consider dimensions as a measure of the size of an object, say a cabinet by its length, width and height. By abstracting the idea of measurement, geometry finds that a point has no dimensions, a line has one dimension, a plane is two-dimensional, and space is three-dimensional. Physical space is a present that develops, multiplies and transforms over time, forming a 4-dimensional space-time continuum.

Striving for precision, things get complicated. The surface can be curved and extend into all three dimensions of the space, so it looks as if it is not two-dimensional. In 1827, Gauss (Inflexion) defined types of curved spaces that could not be ironed. Such is the saddle surface, or the sphere of the opposite Gaussian curve. That is why the surface of the Earth cannot be accurately represented on flat maps. The space-time of a strong gravitational field is similar, according to Einstein's general relativity.

The Koch snowflake is a flat geometric figure of limited, finite area, and unlimited, infinite perimeter. In Descartes' rectangular coordinate system (Oxyz), by rotating the hyperbola (y = 1/x) around the abscissa (x-axis), a hyperboloid is formed which, with the coordinate plane (x = 0), forms a 3-D figure of finite volume (π) and infinite surface (2πlnx → ∞).

A special problem in the geometry of the dimensions made the Peano curves (Space-filling curve). The claim that by extending the line we get only a longer line and a constantly one-dimensional figure is simply not true. These are just some of the complications I had in mind when opting for the topological inductive definition of dimension, which I used somewhere at the end of my mathematics studies in Belgrade (early 80's) to establish the dimensions of the universe. Here's how.

The point has dimension zero. The finite number of figures of dimension n = 0, 1, 2, ... is also a figure of dimension n. A figure whose part can be isolated, separate some of its interior from the outside, at least with the help of a figure of dimension n has dimension n + 1. When parts of a line (straight or curved) can be isolated with two points (finally many points), the line has dimensions one. The circle separates the calotte (cap) on the sphere (the surface of the globe) so that the calotte and the sphere are of dimension two.

As we can see, this dimensioning does not require the notion of metrics (measuring length, area, volume), but only the seemingly more natural notion of separation (physical bodies, actions, influences). Nevertheless, it is still a natural number that in many cases coincides with other "simpler" definitions of dimension.

In physical reality, it can be assumed that the "present" separates the past from the future. In the special theory of relativity, Einstein (1905) showed that the term "now" is relative, that it depends on the state (uniform, inertial and rectilinear) motion of the observer, but that each of the moving systems he considered has its own (proper) consistent present. In other words, the space-time of the special theory of relativity, especially if only one system in motion is observed, has dimension four.

However, space-time formed by the gravitational field is so curved that individual, relative systems in it do not have a present that could separate the past from the future. Therefore, the space-time of the gravitational field is at least 5-dimensional. As its spatial part can still be considered 3-dim, it is an additional dimension of gravity, a new temporal one.

The last remark separates information theory from string theory, where additional space-time dimensions are also considered, but only spatial ones. It can be shown that the additional temporal dimension implies a universe that is not deterministically ordered, that such a model of the world is consistent with (my) informatics and closer to Everett's quantum mechanics "many worlds" (Pseudo-reality) than some other ideas of the multiverse. But complications are yet to come.

Uncertainty, which is now suddenly implied, requires constant variability, development of the environment and obsolescence of conditions that would not change. Therefore, I also imagined 4-D space-time, a present that lasts, of which a prison is made, a room that should isolate a part of world events, prisoners from the outside. There is no real uncertainty without tearing down the walls of that prison and sometime in the future there will be some possibility for the prisoner to go beyond such a structure. Therefore, space-time is at least 6-dimensional.

Question: Did you then (80s) first think that information could be two-dimensional?

Answer: You ask insightfully, yes. It is normal that in such considerations of dimensions, I was also interested in why space would be exactly three-dimensional and that the border of the body, i.e. the "border of the senses" through which information is transmitted, came to my mind, which should, consistently, be two dimensional.

The present is a space of dimension three, and what separates its entities are the structures of dimension two that are the bearers of communications. Hence, the idea of the connection between subject and object was called "information perception", which I only began to take more seriously much later.

Complex »

Question: What is the view of information theory on complex numbers?

Answer: Complex numbers, like all other structures in mathematics, do not exclude infinity — they are realities.

You can see this from the way of determining additional times (Dimensions), or from further treatment of relativistic equations in which we can take any four of the six dimensions of space-time, to directly declare three of them (x₁, x₂, x₃) spatial (x, y, z), and the fourth (x₄ = ict) was considered the product of imaginary unit (i² = -1), speed of light (c = 300 000 km/s) and what we understand as time (t).

Quantum physics will also come to the same, if it is not there already (imaginary numbers). The point is, I believe, that all that could happen is some kind of truth (Dualism of lies), because what we could prove cannot happen — will not happen. This is the root of my generalization of the objectivity of truth, that is, the treatment of mathematical facts as some kind of reality.

The datum that our sensory consciousness does not reconcile easily with the mathematical type of perception, I consider a normal, expected animal reaction built during long evolutions, a difficulty as in the case of, say, understanding an abstract real number.

CPT symmetry »

Question: Is there any negative information?

Answer: In the world of quantities, where phenomena are valued as smaller and larger, it is logical to recognize "negative" values. At least as a deficit in relation to a surplus, where the optimums or zero quantities are somewhat special in a given context. The principle of minimum information could, I believe, dictate such divisions.

Another reason for a more serious consideration of "negative information" would be charge-parity-time symmetry (CPT symmetry). It is a requirement that the equations of physics remain invariant with simultaneous changes in the signs of charge, spatial coordinates and time, which both, the theory and experiments, currently support. The picture above is from the appendix on one of the tests of these symmetries (space–time symmetry).

Consistently, we have negative information that is objective in the sense that the subject which perceives it cannot simply exclude it. Moreover, our world, our point of view, is symmetrical to the class of subjects who see the principle of minimalism of information in reverse in relation to us. For us, the probability of the outcome of given random events is increasing, for them it is less and less probable.

Observing growing probabilities as a reduction, that is, a reduction in the emission of information as an increase, sounds incredible, but that is exactly one of the two ways of understanding this paradox that I will try to retell. The first is the literal understanding that there is a negative flow of time, that for some particles, such as antimatter, time flows in the opposite direction from ours. The antiparticle of an electron is a positron.

The explanation of electromagnetism by information theory, in the above question (Current), is simply then transferred to the symmetric. Two (imaginary) parallel conductors in which the currents of electrons and positrons flow in the same direction would be repelled, and in the case of opposite currents they would be attracted. Analogous to the above, looking at individual particles as "currents", divergence now becomes an unstable state (equilibrium), and attraction is stable.

Another way to overcome the paradoxical symmetry of charge-parity-time is to emphasize the multiplicity of choices. The past is the same and unchanging, but the future is not. The present is a discreet, countless infinite set of events (space-time) that leaves the past behind, while the set of possibilities is a continuum. Therefore, the chance of something returning to a given event of the past is zero and in that sense the outcome is impossible.

In this second interpretation, it is not necessary to deny the possibility of the opposite flow of time of some particles, but we only determine that the probability of such an outcome is zero. The interesting thing about information theory is that it can as one accept both the first and the second interpretation.

Accepting both interpretations, we see the positron as a series of always new particles into whose past our present goes. This sequence is not interrupted, because the same (appropriate) conservation laws apply to both types of particles, here electrons and positrons, and otherwise those for which time goes in opposite directions. It is impossible to randomly choose a specific positron of its past in our future, because the probability of such an outcome is zero, just as it is impossible for us to go to a specific state of our past.

Question: So, the structures are possible in which times flow in opposite directions?

Answer: Yes, and they are separate, special species. Information for one, for another it is not and, therefore, there is no communication between them. It will additionally turn out to be the same, implying uncertainty in the news: the second such structure would have to answer the question of the first before it gets the question. But from this way of "evidence" we see the possibility that such "communication" between them exists in the event if this world is deterministically arranged.

Namely, in the world of determinism, with causes that always have only one by one consequence, it would be conceivable for a "mind" that can see all the necessary causes and consequences in a given situation so that it can answer the questions before receiving them.

Senses »

Question: Do our senses fit into information theory?

Answer: An interesting and rarely asked question. However, I started with it in the volume "Nature of Data", Novi Glas, Banja Luka, 1999. In the part "3. Senses " where I write, among other things, that the activation of sensory cells requires a certain intensity of stimuli, the so-called stimulus threshold. The physical energy that is able to excite the receptor and thus produce a certain effect on the organism is called a stimulus.

Within the previously known details of the biology of perception, the emphasis is on the connection of the subject who perceives and the object of perception, which left me for a long time with a strange impression that resulted in the book "Information of Perception", Economic Institute Banja Luka, 2016. At that time, I firmly believed in Shannon's (1948) ideas, about which I wrote the book "Mathematical Theory of Information and Communication", Society of Mathematicians of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka 1995.

I often answered questions here about the "information of perception", about the parts that I would skip now. It is enough to notice the combination of subject and object that comes from the mentioned knowledge of biology and physiology of our senses, and on the other hand from the fact discovered in the history of psychophysics, that within the stated limits the differential threshold tends to be a constant fraction of stimulus intensity, ΔW/W = const, where ΔW is the energy that must be added to produce the perception of change.

That the energy ΔW for the perception of change is proportional to the energy W already given was well-known Weber’s law (1834). Adding in order the thresholds, integrating, we find that the intensity of perception is equal to the logarithm of the energies. A step from there is Hartley's formula (1928) about information as the logarithm of (equally probable) outcomes.

The constant fraction in Weber's expression must be determined by concrete measurement for each type of stimulus, and there are large differences in the values of these constants for different senses or types of energies. I developed the idea of these differences in the book "Multiplicities" (2018). The assumption was that deviations in extreme cases (intense stimuli and great energies), as well as the absence of some sensory perceptions, come from the very evolution of our senses and their errors at least as much as from the nature of data.

The next part of the story about our senses that I tried to "fit" into (my) theory of information is the surface. Whether it is skin contact, or light, smell, and even sound, communication between subject and object takes place across boundary surfaces. The formalism of such an observation contains a scalar product of the vectors "subject abilities" and "objective circumstances" (S = ax + by + cz + ...), a series of observables that span a two-dimensional vector space.

So, the answer to the above question is affirmative. However, information theory is still in the domain of technology, electronic computers, a bit of physics and almost no biology. I believe that it only seems to us that it has nothing to do with our senses and that such an understanding will change in time.

Crowd »

Question: Why do you think that the crowd reduces the number of options and thus causes synchronization (Tsunami), isn't it the other way around, that it makes a bigger offer and increases the number of possibilities?

Answer: Maybe a recently published scientific paper that seems to support me (blocks of atoms) can help. It is noticed in the text that atoms like to interact with light, that they easily absorb it and radiate it all around them, but that ultra-cold, dense atomic clouds do not have that property.

"The way densely packed atoms absorb or scatter light is different," says physicist Amita Deb of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, a coauthor of another of the studies. According to Pauli exclusion principle, two of the same atoms cannot be in the same quantum state and, in a crowd, it happens that a compressed atom cannot change momentum, making it equal to another atom.

When an atom scatters light, it receives a momentum, changing its quantum state, because it sends light in the other direction. But if an atom cannot change its state due to overcrowded conditions, it will not scatter that light. The cloud of atoms becomes more transparent, transmitting light instead of scattering it.

To observe the effect, Margalit and colleagues irradiated light through a cloud of lithium atoms and measured the amount of scattered light. The team then lowered the temperature to allow the atoms to fill the lowest energy states, suppressing light scattering. As the temperature dropped, the atoms scattered 37 percent less light, indicating that many were prevented from scattering it. Some atoms could still, for example, push it into quantum states of higher energy that are not occupied.

From the standpoint of information theory, we can conclude that the effect of reducing options in the mentioned crowd is made by "principled difference", which comes from information as a tissue of matter and uncertainty as its essence, and whose special case is Pauli's exclusion principle.

In some other cases, I find this reduction in options even more obvious, such as the stumbling block of passengers in a crowded bus. They have to move from entrance to exit little-by-little and synchronized, all because of the restrictions in movement they make on each other.

The mass that "waves" in this manner is an example of the transfer of the freedom of individuals to the collective. Otherwise, an unconditional increase in the "amount of opportunities" for all participants, with an increase in the density of bidders, mostly and especially in more severe cases, would go despite the principle of minimalism of information. Excess of the information becomes misinformation.

Creation »

Question: Your ideas about the "constant creation" of the universe are fantastic (Growing), in a positive and negative sense. They are foreign to me and I believe they are very original. Do you have any example, elaboration, application, to understand them better?

Answer: You are right about originality, because the idea of "permanent creation" of the universe does not come from religion, nor is it possible in a deterministic universe (dominant in science), at least not in the way I interpret it. It is rude, young and unexplored, but I can try to answer the question.

The universe of uncertainty, which I am developing, consists (at least) of three spatial and as many temporal dimensions, four of which, regardless of which, make up "reality", while I call the rest "pseudo-reality". Additionally, any 4-D of these 6-Ds represent some reality with a remainder that for such is a pseudo-reality. Unlike official physics, in which this addition can also be reported (Einstein's general equations, as and quantum relativistic, allow this extension), my information theory insists on the objectivity of uncertainty, along with its relativity and stratification.

The consequences of the "objectivity of uncertainty" are the non-acceptance of the 6-D universe as a static container of random events (through which we pass with our present), as well as the acceptance of infinity, or mathematical truths in general, as parts of "some realities". Therefore, information is divided into free (quantum and more complex) and others. Parts of the "others" are also the infinities that arrive in the "6-D container" that change it.

One type of "change" of the rest of the universe is the objectivity of its unpredictability, along with its relativity and stratification. This now means not only that pseudo-reality changes by choosing reality, but that they do not have to contain the same events including real of the subjects. For different subjects 6-D universes are not identical!

Namely, if 6-D universes (realities with pseudo-realities) were identically equal to all participants, we would have the mentioned static container and, for example, we could deceive (bypass) Heisenberg's relations of uncertainty. Moreover, in the algebra of quantum mechanics we would have only commutative operators. Also, the choice of the "arbitrary 4-D" space-time from the 6-D universe would not be possible, because the principle of minimalism of information would oppose it.

Making »

Question: Does our consciousness participate in the creation and change of the cosmos?

Answer: That question concerns my interpretation of "Free Will" (Information Stories, 1.12) and interaction. Read that article, and then at least one more, say about physical reality. The idea of a Creator and Matrix whose only software we would be, will underestimate our participation in the world around us, just as the idea of creating or managing the cosmos by us will overestimate our consciousness. That, in short, would be the answer I will explain.

The information of perception S = a₁b₁ + ... + a_nb_n speaks of the coupling of two series, the vectors a = (a₁, ..., a_n) and b = (b₁, ..., b_n), which, among other things, can be interpreted as quantum states. Then S = a ⋅ b is their scalar product. The coefficients of these vectors are complex numbers whose squares of intensity, |a_k|² or |b_k|², are the probabilities of measuring the given states as k-th observables.

We also know that the product a⋅ b will be larger, but never larger than one, when this coupling is more likely. Details are in the book Quantum Mechanics, Hölder's inequality (1.309). The greater the information of perception, the greater the tendency to combine the two states. This S can be conceptually separated into quantum coherence, which is also present in an individual quantum system, from quantum entanglement, which then makes no sense.

Incidentally, we note that the nondeterministic theory of information here agrees with the deterministic theory of chaos. The movement of butterfly wings in Mexico could start a storm in Texas, according to Edward Lorenz, who discovered the theory of chaos on examples from meteorology. An insignificant trigger can significantly affect the natural flows of cause and effect, and it is precisely this consequence of his theory that stands well with the power of our free will — if such exists.

Let's build on the idea of "small triggers with big consequences" to the previous explanation of creation (Creation) in a better picture of the power of our will to control the universe. The same goes for the appearance of coherence, now as a walk through our (observer's) times of a single quantum state. We see this in the experiment "Double Slit" (Information Stories, 2.17) of particles-waves of low energies and openings close to each other.

Quantum coherence is an idea started in the 1970s (Heinz-Dieter Zeh, 1932–2018, German theoretical physicist) that a single particle or object has wave functions that can be divided into two separate waves, as opposed to decoherence when there is no definite phase connection between two different states. Decoherence is the absence of quantum properties such as interference, superposition or entanglement. The states then behave like classical systems, like macroscopic objects.

Unlike splitting one particle into two through a double-openings curtain, which then interferes with one on the diffraction screen, in the case of quantum entanglement there are always two different particles. In the first case (quantum coherence), the particle is in conjunction with itself and therefore directly harmonized, unlike "phantom remote action" (Conservation) when harmonization is indirect.

Although we understand quantum coherence and entanglement as microscopic phenomena, they can be "small triggers with big consequences". Our consciousness can then reach very high with low-energy possibilities, but, I repeat, let's not overestimate that power. In this way, with the same restrictions, it also could confuse the accounts of the Creator.

Chaos »

Question: If you removed the objectivity of chance from your information theory, what kind of theory would you get then?

Answer: Deterministic chaos, a continuation of an otherwise well-known theory (Space-Time, 1.1.5 The universe and chaos). That's how I actually started, with the idea that the Chaos is only (temporarily, unknown to us) the Cosmos and nothing more (Greek Χάος and Κόσμος). At first, I did not believe in the "objectivity of chance" and, interestingly, that theory became similar to mine today's, except that it was a bit futile.

Uncertainty is again layered, relative, conditioned by knowledge, like the example of "hunters against prey", where the former catch the last with traps, cunning, and greater intelligence. With the growing "volume" of knowledge in our world, we would have more and cosmos and less and less chaos. If we defined the quoted volume of knowledge more precisely, it would show that it becomes a measure of some "information" and the new theory of chaos in the sequel would increasingly resemble to one where I am now, to the theory of information.

Its flaw is that I didn't know what to do with time. Discussions about additional dimensions of time (Dimensions) seem to lose their meaning, and the past, present and future become a whole that is difficult to separate. The problem with infinities is similar; hence that they exist in mathematics, so logical and consistent, and that they do not exist in reality. Therefore, it will be that the universe is something more than what the "chaos theory" could offer us, I concluded at the turning point.

The Cat in Box »

Question: Can you add something about "Schrödinger's cat"?

Answer: Again, and different from my last light text (Schrödinger cat), fine. By the way, the picture on the right is from the popular tribune from Belgrade 2018: "Who killed Schrödinger's cat". To continue, firstly look at those two attachments.

Before we opened the box, something could have killed the cat, says Schrödinger's story, and only finding out whether we saw her alive or dead defines that previous, perhaps deadly event for her. Due to the huge mass (m) of the real cat, i.e. even higher energy (E = mc²) due to the magnitude of the speed of light (c = 300 000 km/s), and on the other hand Heisenberg's uncertainty relations (ΔE Δt ≥ h) which because of too small Planck's constants (h = 6.626 × 10^-34 m² kg/s) indicate a too slight delay of the past (Δt), this story is oversized.

However, it is the reality of the microworld, in which, according to Heisenberg, only measurement defines the previous real trajectory of the electron. When there are no other subjects that would perceive the mentioned electron and when measurement is its only interaction with the outside world, then measurement is the only opportunity to exchange information. Then there is the transformation of uncertainty into certainty, such as the situation before and after throwing coins or dice, or the realization of random events in general.

The total information before and after is the same, but "before" it was expressed by possibilities, and "after" it is more detailed values. The amount of information is unchanged but its content is different. Measurement is a violent event that replaces the form of "multiplicity", more possibilities in the same place (at the same time), with the type of "uniqueness". This further reminds us of the transformation of Bosons into Fermions, particles of which may be more in the same place into those that cannot.

But that's not all, because the "universe of uncertainty" is constantly changing. It is changed by the outcomes of random events, they define the passage of time and always new states of the whole. The events are more probable, from more to less informative, so the universe itself is never as it used to be. With these outcomes, it "spends" (I paraphrase), from becoming more unpredictable, it becomes more predictable, more orderly, calmer, as if its uncertainty is slowly "burning" in for eons, and for us imperceptibly.

Since (Growing) is less and less substance (fermion) and more and more space (boson) and light turns into dark matter, for now we can guess that time is slower and that the remaining visible (current) energies are more and more important (to us). The effect of the influence of the present on the past, demonstrated by Schrödinger's imaginary experiment with a cat in a box, is diminishing. Heisenberg's uncertainties of duration (Δt) will mean less and less as actual energies grow.

In that sense, the more organized world of the future, which for now promises the development of events, will lose its influence on its past and will be increasingly determined by it. If there is no reversal of such a development, the distant future of the universe would be gloomy, monotonous, without the substance we know today and therefore uninformative. Schrödinger's story about the cat out of the box would no longer have today's point.

Question: The less perchance there is the shorter the uncertainty of time?

Question: It seems to be logical in one way or another. In the information theory we are talking about, time is key to uncertainty. In order for the world to become more causal (deterministically ordered), the reality of "lateral" times (Dimensions) would weaken, as well as "parallel realities", and with them the past. I remind you, in (my) information theory, the past is a kind of pseudo-reality that participates in the present in its "fictional" way.

Without random events, in that theory, there is no passage of time and no difference between past, present and future, all three would be one compact whole. There is no "indefiniteness of time" (Δt).

Double Slit »

Question: Explain to me the "double slit" experiment?

Answer: In the picture on the right, you see a wave approaching the first curtain, an obstacle with two openings behind which are two waves. They amplify or weaken each other with interference to leave more and less pronounced diffraction lines on the next curtain, the screen.

Thomas Young (1804) thus found the wave nature of light against the claims of Newton (1672) and Descartes (1637) that light is made up of particles. Planck (1900) discovered that the source of energy can radiate only in discrete quantities — quanta, and Einstein (1905) that it is absorbed in the same way. Light is, therefore, dual particle-wave.

Louis de Broglie (1924) suggested that all matter behave like waves, on the basis of which Schrödinger (1926) derived his famous wave equation of quantum mechanics, which predicts experiments with unusual accuracy. This means that Young's method in the picture works on other types of matter, such as rubidium atoms (Physics World).

What still makes this experiment strange is the same diffraction result obtained by releasing one particle at a time onto the first curtain, even in the case of long-time intervals between departures. However, there is no diffraction if one of the openings closes.

The first way to explain this splitting, say a single quantum of light (particle-wave), was quantum coherence. I mentioned it here as part of the perception information (Making). It is a flavor of the elementary particle-wave that in the conditions of the experiment the double slit is divided into two of the same, as if duplicated, so that after passing through both openings it interferes (with itself) and leaves a cumulative trace of diffraction on the screen.

The hypothesis of "objectivity of chance" (Dimensions) allows the idea of coherence to be extended to actual particle-wave duplication. When a possible but unfulfilled option of our reality becomes real in a parallel reality and, conversely, the one there can become our real, then there is a real chance that a small enough particle will exist twice in a short time in our reality (Quantum Tunneling). Also, that it "interferes with itself" in that reality.

Note that in this interpretation (information theory), otherwise strange, the absence of diffraction on the screen when one of the apertures is closed — becomes default. On top of that is the removal of uncertainty, hence the superposition on the way to the curtain, by declaring that the particle does not pass through the closed part.

For a more detailed understanding of the double-slit process, consider it using formulas. On this occasion, I will simplify formulas (1.74) and (1.75) from my book "Quantum Mechanics" (on looking for an interlocutor).

Let ψ₁ and ψ₂ be the wave functions of the first and second of the duplicate particle-waves passing through the first and second openings with probabilities respectively p and q. The total wave function on the screen will be ψ = pψ₁ + qψ₂. The probability of the observable, finding a particle on the screen, is ψ² = p²ψ₁² + q²ψ₂² + 2pqψ₁ψ₂. So, when one of the openings is less certain, say p > q > 0, then the second and third additions weaken in the measured wave. In the limit case, when q = 0, only the first of the double particles will remain on the screen, which means that there will be no interference nor diffraction.

I leave it to you to notice that this calculation is in line with the idea of the example of Schrödinger's cat (The Cat in Box). When it is certain that an "accidental event" in the box will not (want to) kill the cat, then it is also certain that by opening the box we will find the cat alive (dead).

Question: What about the influence of the past?

Answer: The past is a kind of pseudo-reality with possibly analogous influences as in parallel ones. The past affects the present, closer information to the present complements more. And their effects are also described by the well-known positions of mathematics, especially probability, and of course also physics, of which the most interesting for us here are the conservation laws (of information) and Heisenberg's uncertainty relations.

If we released one particle at a time at the first curtain, and alternately closed one of the two openings, with probabilities as in the above calculation, we should get the same results from it, regardless of where the additional action came from, from the past or some "side realities", I guess. But in order to determine the exact origin of the "double particle", we should have something more.