Hi all, Sorry for the volume of e-mails in a short space of time. I really want to push the arguments further now.

## Advertising

Consider the following: symmetrically the "black hole information loss" problem, the "initial state of the universe" problem, "the cosmological constant" problem, are all rotations under symmetry of the exact same issue. Effectively, the "unsolved problem" of every current physical theory is the exact same one, under "rotation", especially string theory, where the "unsolved problem" is how to explain the high-dimensionality of the theorized "vibrating strings" (which, if you think about it, are exactly, by rotation, the "hidden entangled states". What do you think "time-dilated length-contracted microscopic singular black holes that ever went into them and radiating all that information over time via Hawking radiation outward are, anyway?" Aren't there creepy exact symmetries here? How many equivalent rotations of symmetry do you need, exactly to be convinced? Isn't physics the systematic science of "finding" symmetries in the "observable universe"? What, exactly, is quantum computing? In theory, it is the concept of creating superpositions of multiple "possible universes and conspiring to have them obtain exactly "one" bit of information out of them at a time out of "thin air" via superposition, averaging over a branching superposition of states, instantly, via superposition? I have already argued, in fact, that entanglement is exactly gravitation, and that our universe is, in principle, entangled with the entire rest of the universe. Aren't they all exactly the same problem? Isn't all physics "quantum computing?" in some sense? And isn't quantum computing theorized to be conceptually plausible? So what is the LHC really? Isn't it a tool for probing deeper and deeper into the "history" of the universe and its "small scale" structure? Isn't, by symmetry, probing deeper and deeper into the "laws" of the universe too, and by symmetry, a possible tool for connecting to some "future" state of the universe? What, in principle, is the difference between the LHC (and "any" collider") and a quantum computer providing information you would not have otherwise, about the local initial configuration of the world? Aren't we "discovering" the "local laws" of the universe, in any case, even if they are not the "most fundamental" ones? Also, didn't we ask ourselves if the LHC would open up a microscopic black hole that would end up destroying the Earth based on it? I predict, now, that we will actually be able to prove at some point that the LHC does in fact, every time it runs, open up a microscopic wormholes to the some symmetric opposite ends of the universe? What is the opposite "end" to us in the most general symmetry? Is it not, in fact, the net information of the entire universe, in some way? What "is" the net information of the "entire universe", and couldn't is very plausibly be conscious in some way? Thank you all for considering my argument. F.H. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the > following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically > "the exact same theory", modulo the additional "bit" of information > that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is > the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about > singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every > respect, as it "necessarily must be" since it follows exactly from the > asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional > structure of "any" form (i.e. including string theory). > > Since no "true" gravitational singularities exist, then "every point > in space is an apparent black hole" because "no point in space is an > apparent black hole". Thus, at every point in space, a "bit" of > information (or a "photon") can escape from the "observable" universe > on our scale, "go into the past", and come out "in the future" in a > symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of > reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features > of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through > locally closed loops can look like "point" particles with some net > entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all > intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way, > and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the > divergence and appearance of other "fundamental forces" early in the > inflating universe. > > It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the > contemplation of the "singularity", and that our inability to discover > the "true" laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of > knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and > the black hole. It follows that this fact was "exactly true" all > along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless > consequences of our "local" geometry of space, and our civilization > has, in fact, rather than been trying to "discover" the next laws of > physics, has in fact been struggling to "unlearn" the concept of > "Indeterminacy" and "quantum mechanics", since QM follows from GR, the > postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless > equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully > completed the "fully" deterministic general laws of physics. > > Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested: > the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each > "observer" point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or > actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely > deterministic, and "you" for any defined "you" is getting non-random > information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be > added to you by the "rest of the universe" in some systematic fashion, > down to the tiniest quantum of "universe". This implies that there > "is" actually, some "quanta" of the universe, a "photon", and each > "photon" is having information added to "it" from the "rest of the > universe", in a systematic fashion, and recursively so for every > "observer". This is actually a fully generic model for the universe, > and the absolute generalization of QM and SR. > > Next, consider the fact that you are "conscious" and possibly > "indeterminstic" (i.e. have subjective free will). I think I do. > Therefore, I am not a "quanta" of information, or a "bit", but it was > "added to me" from "somewhere". No, consider the mathematical closure > of this observation. What does this imply about and anthropic > principle and "fine tuning"? Does that make sense anymore. Also, does > this not mean that our "observable universe", for "some definition of > observable", from "any subjective observer's point of view", is > constantly being added non-random information from "outside". > > I truly beg you all to consider this argument fully. > > Please let me know what you think, > F.H. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Felix Hoenikker <fhoenikk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Every "apparent" event horizon is really a separation of two >> universes, where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with >> the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an >> expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, by >> the uncertainty principle, this means the "outside universe" is >> "really" simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably >> finite many possible universes (i.e. bitstates), with the net >> information between the "inside" and "outside" views cancelling out to >> zero. Equivalently, every "classical" black hole is really in a >> microscopic superposition of countably finite many bitstates, again >> with the net information "inside" and "outside" cancelling zero. >> However, it cannot converge to a singularity, because it cannot encode >> "bitstates" forever in the same volume, therefore it must leak >> information in the form of "photons" (i.e. Hawking radiation). >> >> Equivalently, the Hubble volume receives information one photon at a >> time from the "outside" in the form of cosmic background radiation, >> that information being about the prior state of the otherwise casually >> disconnected universe. (i.e. CMB == Hawking radiation). The >> equivalence principle implies length contraction and time dilation. >> Gravity mediated by photons is the single fundamental force of the >> universe. All other sources of apparent information and causal >> connectivity (i.e. all other forces) are the result of the initial >> state of the universe at the Big Bang, the only true singularity. The >> laws of the universe are extremely simple. >> >> This is the digital unification of GR and QM. What do you think? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.