Folks,
Kevin Kirby's opening remark on the Fluctuon model of Michael Conrad shed light on the role of information in physics and beyond. Here is some peripheral remark of my own, though a bit lengthy. 1) Practicing physics may look informational in exercising its own specification without saying so explicitly. A case in point is the renormalization scheme as demonstrated in quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED is quite self-consistent in specifying and determining the values of both the electric charge of an electron and its mass. Tomonaga-Schwinger have successfully set up a descriptive scheme of synchronizing the multiple times presiding over the virtual processes which might violate conservation laws in between in the light of the uncertainty principle in energy and time. The synchronization that is faithful to observing all the relevant conservation laws is an act of making both determinations of the mass under the influence of the electric charge and of its reversal coincidental, that is, the act of making both ends meet. A neat expression of the synchronization is seen in Dyson's equation in terms of Feynman's diagram. In short, the physical parameter called a mass or an electric charge is internally specified, determined and measured as such in the renormalization scheme of QED. So far, so good. 2) Michael felt some uneasiness with the renormalization scheme since the notion of information remains redundant and secondary at best there. Although the definitive values of the mass and the electric charge might seem informational to the experimentalist who intends to measure them externally, an electron in QED can already be seen to measure and fix them internally on its own. In the physical world describable in one form of renormalized scheme or another, that is to say, in the standard model of physics, information is merely a derivative from something more fundamental. The standard physicist has a good excuse for marginalizing information. If information has anything significant in its own right and can stand alone irrespective of whether or how it may become analytically accessible, on the other hand, one must go beyond the stipulation of the standard model. A notorious case that has strenuously kept defying the renormalization project of whatever kind attempted so far is quantum gravity, which was Michael's primary concern. Self-consistent scheme of justifying quantum gravity is required to reach continuity (gravity) as starting from discontinuity (quantum) and at the same time to reach discontinuity as starting from continuity even on an experimental basis. 3) The analytical tool Michael employed was conservation laws paraphrased in terms of elementary perturbation theory as Kevin noted. While the standard model is grounded upon the likelihood that all the relevant conservation laws could eventually be met insofar as one is lucky enough to encounter a specific form of synchronization, the Fluctuon model squarely faces up to the situation that there is no chance of expecting such a fortunate synchronous coincidence. Substantiating each conservation law on energy or momentum is a must in any case, while asking simultaneous fulfillment of all the relevant conservation laws is too much. What is unique to the Fluctuon model is its emphasis on the participation of persistent and itinerant disequilibrium or a Fluctuon in implementing conservation laws internally, though there is no room for it in the mind of the standard physicist. This perpetual disequilibrium is all pervasive and reverberating up and down and from left to right and back. 4) Once I asked Michael that while graviton is nice in its ambition of going beyond the standard model of physics, why not take up carbon chemistry as one more concrete example going beyond the hurdle? So far as we know, there has been no attempt for determining both carbon compounds as the building pieces of biology and chemical affinity latent in them in a mutually consistent manner. His reply was this. "Right, but I want to cover more even though it may look crazy to many. That is an issue of quantum gravity and life. Anyway, life is short." Granted. Best, Koichiro Matsuno
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
