The Simulation Hypothesis

 A Computer Simulation Hypothesis of the Universe: paperlessforms@gmail.com

Introduction

This paper postulates that the universe is based entirely on data – binary or another number base – and is working in a similar (but not exactly same) the way that a computer works. The notion of a Universe made of ‘solid particles’ like atoms and quarks – suffers from basic philosophical contradictions. Quantum Field Theory posits no solid particles anywhere – everything is described using ‘fields’ and a particle is simply a perturbation in fields crossing each other.

The metaphysical existence of space itself is questionable in traditional philosophy – and no traditional philosopher has succeeded in explaining it. Indeed, Greek philosophy kicked-off with Parmenides questioning empty space – his argument went something like this:  Something that *is* exists but something that is *not* does not exist. Space is said to be nothingness – but *nothing* does not exist, so how could an object *move around* in something that does not exist! OK, thats a very rough picture but you may get its meaning. Xeno later supported him with his famous paradoxes.

Now space as a *Virtual Reality* explains these contradictions easily. Because then space is simply a numbered matrix or 3D numerical grid as in a computer simulation. The *position* of objects is simply referenced by coordinates held in computer memory. Indeed neither a pixel on a screen nor an object in ‘real space’ has any property (like temperature, mass, color etc) that defines its location. Locations are computed and not physical properties.

Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Argument (Oxford Uni paper) assumes that the simulation *hypothesis* is true before it draws certain conclusions made possible by the concept of simulated Universes. (e.g. if any were ever built there would be a great number of simulations, but only one ‘real’ Universe and hence we are more likely to exist in a simulation then the ‘real’ Universe)

This paper concentrates on the truth of the simulation hypothesis itself by which we would then live in a ‘3D fully immersive virtual reality’ – almost as if it were a computer game! We look at evidence that this is the case. Then old ideas about a ‘real physical Cosmos’ made of non-divisible ‘solid’ atoms would be need to give way to a type of ‘software generated’ Cosmos – made of nothing but binary data – as it might exist in a large computer.

Pythagoras claimed the Universe was based entirely on numbers (the Monad) and this answered, for them, some philosophical absurdities about a Universe made of basic building blocks, such as earth, wind, fire or some time later ‘atoms’. This paper examines how ancient philosophies contributed to, and hindered a more accurate description of the Cosmos. Many old philosophies are deeply ingrained into our psyche (e.g. free will, the void, atoms etc).

The mathematician Von Neumann, a contemporary of Einstein, made the mathematical breakthrough (the Von Neumann Machine) that provided the underlying theory for computers to be built. He also tried to put a similar digital theory forward as a mechanism to explain the Cosmos, but it was rejected at the time.. The Von Neumann machine is the basis of *all* modern computers. They all wok on this principle. It is important to note that all previous philosophers such as Plato, Pythagoras, DesCartes did not know about or understand this powerful capability of using numbers to drive data transpositions.

A digital model answers intractable philosophical conundrums (such as what exactly is space, vacuum, void) and awkward mathematical infinity issues thrown up by the Standard Model of physics. Infinity problems plague modern physics but disappear when using digital theories. As an example, a simple infinity issue is to answer the question why a basic force does not increase infinitely as separation between particles becomes  smaller and smaller. Classical physicists fudge the issue by baldly stating that the force ‘cuts off’ at a certain small distance – but offer no good reason why it should suddenly drop away.

A digital view offers a rational and comprehendible view of the Universe – all that is required is a source of numbers and the rest follows. Philosophy is saved because the underlying philosophies of time and space are consistent. Many previous philosophies struggled to explain phenomena adequately and threw up contradictions indicating that the Cosmos may not be what it appears to be.

Going out-on-limb for a moment, lets think about this theory on spiritual and religious ideas – the concept of a creator of the cosmos, is more likely in this model because it answers the fundamental question of how a Universe could originate (a *design* by intelligence and intelligence is already possible in a digital system). However this is salient conjecture here, but a sure-fire subject for future papers.

A propositional view (data view) of quantum physics was first pursued by Von Neumann and John Wheeler – contemporaries of Einstein (relativity) and Heisenberg (quantum mechanics). The American physicist John Wheeler, once exclaimed ‘We are all living in a giant computer’.

In this paper, allowing a small “information space” can readily explain quantum entanglement at a distance. In this model correlation between two entangled particles is maintained because they both ‘point’ to the same data location in a ‘cosmic memory’.  If we can accept correlation between two particles as achieved by data then the state of all particles must be using the same mechanism – because all particles are entangled to some extent. The inevitable conclusion then snowballs that the whole cosmos must be data driven.

The theory answers philosophical paradoxes and anomalies that present themselves when trying to describe the universe in terms of ‘real physical space’, and ‘real particles’ – but standard QF physics shows matter to be defined only by fields. i.e. no ‘solid particles’

It is difficult to write an understandable description of the digital Cosmos without referring to what humans have already ascertained about how they think the Universe works . We would lack the vocabulary for one thing –  vacuums, space, atoms, light, energy, mass etc. So a brief study of ancient philosophies helps supply words and concepts for us to compare and review the old with the new.

So lets look at humans grappling thousands of years ago with a description of what really is true (in their opinion) ….

Ontologies:

1) a) Ancient Philosophies

Epicurus 341-271 BCE – early ideas of atoms
Epicurus thought that the world was made from atoms, which he considered as not being able to be cut up smaller, – very small pieces of matter that move in the void – empty space. Then objects are collections of atoms. Their properties and events are explained by collisions, rebounding, and entanglement of atoms in a space.

Because Epicurus believed that objects cannot come to existence starting from nothing, he thought the universe had no beginning, and therefore would always exist. Atoms cannot simply ‘come into existence’, or ‘go out of existence’. Objects can change form but not simply disappear from the Universe.

Epicurus thought that if the universe was size unlimited, you could go to the end, put your fist out and that would be the next region at another starting position. He argued that there must be an unlimited amount of void (empty space), otherwise, the infinite number of atoms would not be able to move around. Aristotle also thought the universe was infinite.

Democritus 430-370 BCE – Objects cannot ‘leave’ the universe

Democritus expanded on Leucippus’s and Epicurus atom theories.

He argued against the idea of being able to divide objects ad infinitum as this would mean they would ‘go out of existence’ which could not happen in his view. ‘Objects cannot leave the universe’. This was one of the basic ideas that allowed atom theory (indivisible smallest particles) to gain acceptance.

“The Swerve” early allusion to Indeterminism
Epicurus and Democritus thought there was a natural tendency for atoms to fall straight downwards, at constant speed! And Lucretius says, ‘atoms would ‘fall downward, like drops of rain, through a deep void.’ So a swerve was added ‘to preserve human freedom and break the bonds of fate’, otherwise the history of atomic motions in the universe would determine everything that occurs, including action of mankind. The issue about ‘free will’ extends to religion. If there were no free will then everything is already mapped out for us and there is no point trying to change our fate by prayer etc. So the swerve idea was based on mystical ideas of fate. This argument is still with us in many quarters to this day!

Pythagoras 569-475 BCE – The Monad
The Pythagorean Monad as one source of all – the One meaning without division.
The number series was related to geometrical objects. The dyad evolved from the Monad – from it numbers, from numbers to points, from points to lines, then 2-dimensional shapes, three-dimensional volumes, then real objects, (made from the 4 elements earth, water, fire and air). The idea that the Universe was made entirely by mathematics and numbers was a dangerous idea at the time and the pythagorean society were secretive probably to avoid arrest by religious organisations of the time.

Plato 428-328 BCE – Atoms made of geometric shapes
The famous “Timaios” dialogue, displays Plato’s ontology of the universe.
In Plato’s view, objects are composed of tiny triangles built into symmetrical bodies (Plato’s bodies). Namely, the cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedrons which act as the basis for the four elements and thus the whole ‘physical world’. These are the variable geometrical structure of space-time objects and manifestations – all things constituting nature are reducible to these geometric structures. Plato – ‘Mathematics lies outside space time’.

Plato’s Cave – ‘Reality’ could be an illusion
Plato’s believed – in the theory of forms – that the material universe as it appears to us is not the real universe, but only a ‘shadow of the real universe. He goes on to illustrate this by using shadows in a cave as a metaphor.

Plato’s Fifth Dimension – the famous 5th Dimension
Plato posits a fifth element (related to the dodecahedron) named quintessence, of which the universe itself is made. Notions of ‘extra dimensions’ are very popular today to explain mysterious phenomenon – in the author’s opinion in a digital Universe extra dimensions are not so necessary to explain reality. A ‘virtual reality’ description suffices of itself.

Bhagavad-Gita – Early Hindu reference to geometries
In Chapter 11 of The Bhagavad-Gita (ancient Hindu scripts) is a portion on the Science of Numbers, where Krishna shows Arjuna the “vital geometry” of the Divine Form, with all the living force lines.

b) More Modern Philosophies

Anthropic Theories

The Anthropic Principle was proposed in Poland in 1973, during a special two-week series of symposia commemorating Copernicus’s 500th birthday. It was proposed by Brandon Carter? The anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.

The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, “conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist” is “easy” to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic.

According to Jürgen Schmidhuber, the anthropic principle essentially just says that the conditional probability of finding yourself in a universe compatible with your existence is always 1. It does not allow for any additional nontrivial predictions such as “gravity won’t change tomorrow.” To gain more predictive power, additional assumptions on the prior distribution of alternative universes are necessary.[24][28]

Leibnitz 1646 – programmed instructions

The ontological essence is the monad and its irreducible quality. From a pre-established harmony, the monad obeys a programmed instruction set, in that it is then guided at every moment.

Nick Bostrom 2003 – Living in a computer simulation

This argument assumes that things are as they appear and that the Universe is not the “invention of a brain wired up in a vat of liquid”
Quote: “we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become post humans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.”

If the simulation hypothesis is true then at least one or more of the following propositions must be true:

1) Almost all civilisations at our stage of technical development go extinct before technological maturity (e.g. Nano tech kills them)

2) There is a convergence of civilisations in that they lose interest in doing ancestor simulations. (There may be nothing worth learning or it’s ethically wrong etc etc)

3) We are almost certainly living in a simulation. (Because there would be many ancestor simulations being run, but there is only one ‘real’ or initial simulation, thus we are likely to exist in an ancestor simulation)

Also quote: “A common assumption in the philosophy of mind is that of substrate-independence. The idea is that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates. Provided a system implements the right sort of computational structures and processes, it can be associated with conscious experiences. It is not an essential property of consciousness that it is implemented on carbon-based biological neural networks inside a cranium: silicon-based processors inside a computer could in principle do the trick as well.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Newton – Flat Galilean Space
In the Newtonian view Space was a flat, three-dimensional arrangement of point locations, expressed by Cartesian coordinates; time was, in this view an independent one-dimensional concept.

Einstein – Curved Space
Einstein showed that for a complete description of relative motion time must be included as well as the three spatial dimensions. He accounted for gravity by using a mathematical artifact named ‘curved space-time’. (But this does not explain how gravity curves space)

Quantized Space
In general relativity, space-time is assumed to be smooth and continuous—and not just in the mathematical sense. In the theory of quantum mechanics, there is an inherent discreteness present in physics. In attempting to reconcile these two theories, it is sometimes postulated that space-time should be quantized at the very smallest scales. Current theory is focused on the nature of space-time at the Planck scale. Causal sets, loop quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics all predict a quantized space-time with agreement on the order of magnitude.

Immanuel Kant – Space as a Result of Gravitation
He thought that 3 dimensional space was a result of an inverse square law of gravitation.
Kant’s argument is historically important because the gravity idea is introduced, but John D. Barrow said that “we would regard this as getting the punch-line back to front: it is the three-dimensionality of space that explains why we see inverse-square force laws in Nature, not vice-versa” (Barrow 2002).

2) Real Physical 3 Dimensional Space? Absurd consequences:

Introduction
This paper posits the notion of  “real physical 3 dimensional space” as a mathematical construction that is implemented in information. A 3D computer virtual reality would be a useful metaphor for such an ontology.

The classical notion of space i.e. an Epicurean vacuum existing in ‘nothingness’ has philosophical difficulties in explaining the extent of such a space (infinite?) and how objects are actually situated in known positions in such a space. Without a matrix of coordinates objects have no exact positions – there are no reference boundaries and no obvious metric that measures a distance.

Einstein – Space losing its Physical Reality
In a letter to Schlick, Einstein wrote about general covariance [8] that “thereby time and space lose the last vestige of physical reality” (“Dadurch verlieren Zeit & Raum den letzter Rest von physikalischer Realität.” [8]).
The idea of space losing ‘the last vestige of physical reality’ was an insight that Einstein repeated many times.
Minkowski Space
Minkowski space describes a physical system over finite small distances and is applicable only in a Newtonian limit of systems with no gravitation. When gravitation is included, space-time ‘is curved’ and we use not special relativity, but then general relativity.
Minkowski space-time is a Lorentzian manifold maintaining a causal structure in space. “Mathematical physics restricts a connected manifold and paracompact Hausdorff space-time [14 Mangiarotti, Marathe, Sardanashvily]

These later additions are nevertheless based on a flat space starting point and its this that we will question now. Lets step back to the original flat space onto which curved space is set and propose a thought experiment in which we will set up or create a spherical volume of space in nothingness. By nothingness here we mean what is ‘outside our universe’, or preceded the universes ‘creation’ – ie where there is no space at all.

So let us contrive somehow to create a simple flat space in nothingness – its a thought experiment.

Lets define our spherical radius to be 1 million miles and thus the volume is
4/3 pi r cubed. = 0381-28431

This space will be in nothingness, that is a point of no size that exists at no location (we have no space as a location yet). We cannot blow air into this nothingness, we must first create a ‘vacuum in which to blow air. We cannot put any object into it. Can we make a field somehow? We cannot place electrodes into a point or any other way to put a field into the point. There is no comprehendable or rational way to do it even in a thought experiment. The best we can do is make a divine command ‘let there be space’ with no explanation as to how it’s achieved.

1) What holds up this real physical space? – there is nothing, its empty space. It could not
be defined physically because there is no physicality with which to create it (its easy to
define it mathematically however)
2) What defines its boundary? – as Epicurus asked ‘could we go to the boundary and put our
hand through?’ – the boundary is mathematically defined to be at 1 million miles, but there could be no hard boundary in a physical sense.

Our mini 3 dimensional space set in nothingness is not realizable physically but is easy to implement in information. Information implements the x,y,z in length and orthogonal directions easily, in fact its what information does best (continuous x,y,z as arrays).

We may ask if information can exist in nothingness?
Information has no mass and no size so it could exist in nothingness if nothingness is defined as lack of spatial dimensions. We are not discussing time in this thought experiment, but there is no reason why that cannot exists an information constituent. Time and information could be closely bound and help to create each other.

A compact space-time posses closed time-like curves, which are outside our usual notion of causality. So most physicists only consider a small subset of all the possible space-times. General Relativity adds geometrical restrictions and Penrose-Hawking posited a singularity in this way.

Implicit Assumption of Space Existence – False Assumption?
The formula for a space-time interval is:
x2 + ct2 + y2 + z2 = 0
There is a cause effect relationship between two events

The proper time is a time-like space-time interval:

This proper time interval is measured by an observer with a clock who travels between two events in an inertial frame.

x y z t is used to define space (flat) but it is assumed that it can exist only because we observe that it appears to us to exist. There is no a priori reason other than that (excluding gravitational space which shapes and sizes flat space but nevertheless uses flat space as a starting point.
It is suggested that this is a flaw that can no longer be ignored in the light of modern knowledge.

Quantized Space-time

General relativity assumes continuous space-time but at the plank length loop quantum gravity, string theory, black hole thermodynamics and causal sets all predict a quantized space-time.

Non perturbation quantization of diffeomorphism invariance gauge theorems [9] employ loop quantum gravity and has the advantage of not requiring the higher dimensions that some view as artificial or incorrect.
John Wheeler’s Quantum Foam – Information Explanation
Mention should be made to so called quantum foam or space-time foam devised by John Wheeler – 1955 [7].
This foam was thought to be a foundation of the universal fabric but it is also used as a description of subatomic turbulence at extremely lengths. At these lengths the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to come into existence, and then go out of existence, without violating any conservation laws. Also this length becomes less the energy of virtual particles increases.
This is hard to visualize physically because it means there is ‘matter and energy’ everywhere in space-time regardless of position or presence of any ‘real matter/energy’.
But in informational this is very easy to realize because the information is proposed to lie behind space-time and consequently accessible everywhere. The HUP area probably being the access window to the so-called ‘information space’.

Physical Space and Quantum Space
The notion of a real physical space existing in nothingness is suggested in this paper to be unsupportable as an ontology. What would support it? What is it size? Where are its boundaries? These, and other, logical problems suggest that 3 the dimensional space (that we live in) cannot be a ‘real physical space’ rather it must be a mathematically constructed and implemented space. How can a space be constructed?
3D space is remarkably easily constructed from information – in the same way that a computer constructs a 3D virtual world. Information processors are able to implement the mathematical notion of a 3D space and provide an illusionary but effective 3D space. A 3D space can be manipulated and constructed using arrays – a very efficient system for a computer.

The following quote alludes to the puzzling link between relativistic space-time and non relativistic quantum mechanics. QFT and QM repeatedly uses (and needs) Lorentz Invariant mathematical entities to describe its behaviour.

Bohr & Ulfbeck [16] :
“For ourselves, an important point that had for long been an obstacle, was the realization that the position of a particle, which is a basic element of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, requires the link between space and time of relativistic invariance.”

Information Space
Relativity, Lorentz Covariance, Special Relativity and General Relativity all hold as an algorithmic interpretation of this space. A so-called absolute space only exists as the ‘holder of information’ – i.e. its not a 3D space, rather a space that contains information. An information space.

This information space contains that
1) Information does not need a 3D space to exist since it has no physical size.
2) Information has no mass, charge, or energy.

In (our view of) nothingness, information may exist because it does not require a 3D space to ‘house itself’.

3) Entanglement

Introduction
Entanglement of particles is the correlation of quantum entangled states that exists even when the entangled particles are physically separated.
This correlation has been measured to occur at 10,000 times the speed of light. But it is theoretically an instantaneous relationship.

Causality
There is no strong causal relationship between the correlation of states because no real information needs to be transmitted or exchanged for correlation to be present. If one particle is an up spinner the other particle is a down spinner, but due to superposition, the up or down spin state is not defined until observation. A Bells test needs to be performed in experiments.

Transmission of Knowledge?
Although no signal is exchanged between entangled particles it is considered that there is, nevertheless, some connection between entangled particles, for how else could the states remain correlated?
What is gained is the knowledge of a remote particles quantum state. Then if Alice observed a down spin particle she would know that Bob had an up spin particle. This is ‘one bit’ or in John Wheeler description of a proposition. See: Quantum Logic theorems.
The reason this author for the correlation is that the particles quantum states are not in fact separated at all. They exist in the information space where all quantum states are adjacent.
Put another way, the state information is an information entity that both entangled particles ‘point’ to. There is no physical separation perceived. This only applies to the correlated states and not the whole particle. The whole particle exists (or is ‘painted’) in the real physical space that is governed by special relativity, general relativity, Lorentz Covariance that makes up our observed reality.

The Quantum Mechanics Entanglement Equation

We make a tensor product of two non interacting systems A and B that have Hilbert Spaces Ha and Hb
:
insert equation

For system states and , the composite state is:
insert equation
But, not every state is a product of states. For an HA basis and Hb . The most general state in is then
. insert equation
This state is separable when giving and
But, it is inseparable when i.e. an entangled state.
Taking two basis vectors of HA and two basis vectors of HB, gives the following entangled state:
.
Using a density matrix of A for the entangled state we get:
equations

This equation is derived from the product of Hilbert space for two entangled particles. Note there is no spatial term in it, and indeed in experiment it is confirmed that the physical separation does not change the validity of the equation. There is no accepted physical explanation, but experiment confirms it to date of this paper.

Informational View of Entanglement
The explanation now is proposed that here is no perceived separation between the correlated quantum states – they are in information space where no physical separation exists at all – there is no 3D space in the information space. Hence entangled particle states are instantly ‘connected’ no matter where in physical space they may exist.

4) Quantum Field Theory
Introduction
In QFT, particles are thought of as excited states of a field (i.e. field quanta).
This is already a step towards an information view of the universe. Information algorithms are ideal to represent fields in 3D space because
1) An amended array object is efficient at handling distributed areas of wave like influence.
2) The action or collision of particles is easy to represent in terms of algorithmic equalities.
3) If no action occurs in ‘real physical space’ then no action is required in the information space either. i.e. no continual updates of real space is necessary for unobserved or superposed states.

Unification of fields and particles
It is impossible to define a wave function for a single photon, but using second quantization, such as creation and annihilation operators obeying commutation or anti-commutation relations the resulting properties correspond to the guessed corresponding field theory obtained by examining classical behaviors.
So a field like structure is used to describe photons as field excitations and a particle-like electron as excitation in an underlying electric field.

Indistinguishable Particles
Here it is the electron field that is the fundamental entity rather than the electron. This is crucial to the second quantization procedure in QFT. System can have constant particles numbers but this is not always the case where for example bosons are created.
In condensed matter physics, states with non-constant particle numbers are important when discussing superfluids because characteristics superfluids come about due to its state being a superposition of states with different numbers of particles. This would be better described in terms of information space in a system of correlated states than field perturbations.
Renormalization in Quantum Field Theory
The perturbation shift in the electrons energy due to the influence of an electromagnetic field gives rise to infinite results. This is due to summing energies at all energy levels at short distances where each gives a finite contribution.
This is overcome by renormalization in which there is a cap placed on these quanta energies. This effectively replaces a continuous space by a space where very short wavelengths are ‘not allowed’ to exist. Note, renormalization is a somewhat ad hoc solution to the problem of infinities. (note: [11] Vladimir Kalitvianski in ‘REFORMULATION INSTEAD OF RENORMALIZATIONS’ suggests that a natural solution arises instead of applying cut off transformations)solution is an informational structure where these higher energies are not algorithmically held as usable information. But a lattice is used to describe the normalization in QFT.
The renormalization groups (perturbation renormalizable) predict well for low energy systems where the lattice cut offs are insignificant, but do not describe high energy systems well, due to renormalization no longer being useful.

Possible Natural Renormalization Solution
Quoting Vladimir Kalitivianski [12]:
“It is also described with an atomic (positive charge or “second”) form-factor, so the positive charge in an atom is not “point-like”. The positive charge “cloud” in atoms is small but finite. It gives a natural “cut-off” or regularization factor in calculations”
This view supports the idea of a natural cut off that is provided by a quantum smear. In an informational view this would be seen as a limit of data precision and the idea that no data will be infinitely precise as this requires too many bits of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#Renormalization

Ultraviolet and Infrared Cut offs
Dressing particle theorems and cut offs confirm a need to cap the shortest distances and longest distances and this in information translates to a precision cut off that must be applied to limit the amount of data that is needed to specify a particle or perturbation location. It is suggested that the ultraviolet cut off is at about a plank length which needs approx 1KB of data (not Qubits) to specify it. [10] E.V. Stefanovich : Quantum Field Theory without Infinities

Informational View of Infinity Problem at Short Wavelengths
If we view fields (or particles) as data objects, then the location of a data object is described by a coordinate data item attached to the object. A field would then be an algorithmically defined entity using attached coordinate data.
When the spatial separation is very small, then the data coordinates become very similar. These coordinates cannot be infinitely accurate as this would require infinite data – this limit is probably true at any location. This precision of coordinate data is one of the predictions of this informational theory.
When separations are below this limit, another data mechanism must be used because the relationship between the particles will become Lorentz Invariant – they will perceive no separation and cannot be pushed closer together than that limit. There is no meaning to being closer together under these circumstances. Any interactions is then algorithmically determined in the information space.

Reeh–Schlieder / Newton-Wigner Theorem

The Newton Wigner / Reeh–Schlieder [13 Halvorsen ] theorem is a relativistic and local quantum field theory for any open Mikowski space set where the vacuum is a cyclic vector for the field. Then local operations on the vacuum state produces a state for the entire field. But the long range operator norms reduce as shown by the Wightman functions and increasing energy needed for long range actions limit the distance that correlation is active. But, the Newton-Wigner localization scheme posits correlation synchronicities at space like separation and at superluminal speeds.

Quote
A few years ago Michael Redhead (1995a, b) presented very illuminating analyses of the implications of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem and extended our awareness of the EPR type correlations existing in the bounded energy states of relativistic QFT. In the process, however, Redhead argued that an important ingredient in understanding these features for the vacuum was the impossibility, in the free field case, of converting the global statement of the absence of quanta in the vacuum as a whole, at any time, into local statements of the absence of quanta in bounded regions of space at any time. Unlike the case in non-relativistic QFT, the most obvious candidate for the number density operator at a point fails to commute with itself at distinct points of space. Thus one can not, simultaneously, claim the absence of quanta in two disjoint volumes, even in the vacuum. He then argued against the counterexample provided by the number density operators from Newton-Wigner fields on the grounds of the violation of covariance and physical inconsistency in the account of localization.
I believe this latter argument to be misguided and will show below that a natural generalization of the Newton-Wigner fields restores covariance, albeit not local covariance, and that interesting implications rather than inconsistency is found in the attendant account of localization.

Second, there are circumstances, for open systems, when the hyperplane dependent world-lines of the classical CE can exhibit superluminal motion. It can happen, for instance, whenever “energy” is flowing into the system in one region and out of the system in a space-like separated region. It’s a consequence of the global, collective coordinate nature of the CE. Here the analogy to Newton Wigner superluminal evolution is not terribly close
The HD-NW fields, and the states they create, display a counterintuitive superluminal component in their evolution, which, nevertheless is compatible with Lorentz covariance.
End Quote

Newton-Wigner Superluminal Information Ontology
Superluminal components in a space-like separation, has no comprehendible explanation other than a mathematical convenience. It becomes comprehendible however, if one considers an information based mechanism where the separation is zero. If and when Lorentz Covariance is required in a strongly causal effect, then that is added in algorithmically to give a Minkowski coordinate in the 3D placement.

Quantum Fields as Information

The QFT presents particles as excitations or perturbations in plane waves. In traditional description these so-called fields are located in all directions in 3D space and have a value at any distance. There is then the problem of how that field is exists and when an action occurs, then what feature of the field is enacted. Notions of virtual particles satisfy the mathematical requirements but lack a comprehendible physical description. They appear when required by the interaction. So, the virtual particles ‘know’ when to appear and in the mathematics will do so when the space time coordinates of interaction define it to happen.
A more sensible approach is to assume that the so-called field is an informational algorithm that defines location of a field (or particle) and another interacting field also has a similar algorithm. When a logical comparison of coordinate data shows interaction is needed, then this will happen in the information and if needed show a result in the observable 3D space.
1) If there is no interaction, then no field need be realized in the observable Minkowski or Reimann space. This overcomes the need for some type of field entity to ‘exist’ over near infinite 3D volumes. The so-called existence is realized only if an algorithmic comparison requires it, otherwise it is not needed and does not ‘exist’ as such
2) An informational structure of fields allows superluminal connection between Lorentz Invariance entities that are separated in 3D space, but not in information space.
3) When Lorentz Covariance, GR, relativity, are required to locate a real particle then the space-time coordinate correction is applied algorithmically.
4) The absolute space is then an information space. But this space is non spatial in nature and defines and creates the spatial space through coordinate data assignments to so-called real objects – be they thought of as field perturbations of particles.
5) QFT has in effect replaced the idea of a particle with a field. This is a step towards the informational creation of objects as now there is no ‘indivisible’ particle and we are a long way removed from tangible objects in the universe and more towards mathematically defined entities which exhibit themselves as though they were ‘real physical objects’.
5) Twins Paradox Revisited

Introduction
The twins paradox illustrates the separate spatial and non spatial spaces
In a graphic way. It also illustrates that what we believe is progression of time – lrets call it space-time – is related to 3D space and position of objects within it, and needs relativity, Lorentz, GR etc. But the underlying present moment is only algorithmically associated with space-time.

Lets us take some entangled particles, initially co-located. Then one set of particles is sent on a high speed trip and returned to its original position adjacent to the set of first particles but now ‘younger’ than their entangled partner set. The entangled states are still exactly correlated as initially even though one particle set is ‘physically older’ than the other.

Let’s assume that a measure of the age of the sets by their separations in space-time as shown in Fig 1a:

Fig 1a

In the older set of entangled particles the 3D separation between them is more than in the younger set because they have had more time to separate. But the correlation of states has not changed at all – they are still correlated as initially.

There is a Lorentz Invariant space – the correlation of quantum states and a normal space-time Lorentz Covariant space – shown by the spatial separation of particles. The only ‘evidence’ of ‘aging’ is their separation in 3D space with Lorentz corrections applied.

In an informational view, the data associated with 3D space for the particles has changed but the correlated quantum states – that do not exist in this 3D space – is not affected. We could strip the coordinate data away from the particles, but not from the correlated states because there is no spatial data associated with them – they are in information (non 3D space).

In the information space the process of information as it paints space-time must step in a clock-like way. Information cannot be processed continuously, rather step wise.

6) Unfolding Information Universe
The universe is thought to evolve from a so-called big bang to a present moment universe that we have now. Indeed an information based universe would require this to happen because information processes in a step-wise way. It would not be able to instantly produce formed galaxies, life forms etc from pure information – there is no algorithm that could do this. Even the universe is limited in its available tools – mathematics and information. So a universe and objects in it must evolve in a step wise manner.
7) Data Model For Entangled Particles
Introduction
Entangled particles maintain a correlation of quantum states even when separated.
This correlation has been measured to be more than 10,000 times the speed of light
[9 Salart] and is probably instantaneous.

Assume two entangled particles E1 and E2 are depicted in a data model as shown in Fig 5a. In this model the particle numbers are fixed and the space-time coordinates vary depending on where in space-time the particles are located.
The correlated state information is shown where each particle references the particle number (equivalent to a memory address in IT parlance)

Space-time Algorithm(E1,E2) => Space-time coordinates(E1,E2)

Correlation algorithm (E1,E2) => Observed State(E1,E2)

Particle Algorithm(E1, E2) => Particle number(E1, E2)

Fig 5a

The Particle number assumes a ball park number of 10100 = 300 bits
(Assume a googol for the number of quarks in the universe)

The spatial coordinate data (1000 bits) assumes a universe of radius 1026
metres and a plank volume as minimum of (10-35)3 giving:
Number of Spatial Coordinates = (10-35)3 * 1026 = 10200 = 1000 bits

The amount of data specifying the quantum state depends on the accuracy
of the observable that is used. There must be a cut off else this value could have infinite precision. (new subject to investigate) Estimate between 50 and 100 bits.

Designed universe: http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

7a Data Model For Quantum Preparation & Observation

Fig 6

In this scenario a photon wave packet travels along all 4 optical fibre. paths A,B,C and D and is observed as a particle at some point.
This is different from the entangled particles because the observing particle is unkown and must be calculated algorithmically from the spacetime coordinates. If a Bohm model is assumed this could be known at the outset of the photon and then the model is more similar to the entangled model. But generally an algorithm must determine when the wave packet and observing packet coincide. Since the wave packet can be in any path this creates a problem for an efficient algorithm due to the amount of possible locations. In this respect a simultaneous quantum computation could be used or a Bohm weak causality model. It is assumed that quantum computing models would be used because classic bit information lacks speed and efficiency for such a complex scenario as given above.
Whereas in the entangled situation the particle number (of the observer) is known at the outset, in this scenario it is unkown at the outset and the particle number is only determined on collision. (unless a Bohm model is used in which case the observer particle number would be known at outset)

Fig 7

The probability function is given by:

This scenario is requires a data algorithm to
a) Determine the position probability over the wavefunction area of the test particle:

The algorithm is not so demanding because it need only compute the probable coordinates for the particle at any time t and compare it to the contents of the corresponding space-time coordinate to say, 1 plank volume. The condition then is
For objects Test Particle and Observer Particle at the same time:

If (Test Particle).(coordinate value) = (Observer Particle).(coordinate value)
Then test particle wavefunction collapses as particle is observed and entangles with observing particle.

7a Spacetime Data Structure

Fig 8

Fig 9

8) Non Reversibility

A prediction of this informational theory is that the amount of data required to enable the universe to roll back time would be phenomenal and is unlikely that the universe would be able to do this. There is no computer system that can do this because a transaction log would need to be kept for a very complex number of parameter inputs. Likewise with the universe, such a data store is unnecessary and – even if it were possible – would ‘slow’ the normal operation of the universe. Although we cannot say for sure that such data is available, it is highly unlikely.

9 Step Nature of Progress/Evolution
An information universe progresses in its lifetime in a stepwise fashion. This is because information is processed by ‘clock ticks’ in information space.
A consequence of this is:
a) An instantly fully formed universe is not possible, it must evolve over time. The universe has got mathematics and information at its disposal and that is not enough to instantly create a formed universe.
b) The idea of entropy increasing is inevitable – particles spread out over time and there is no built in mechanism (known at this time) of reversing that process (see irreversibility above)

Conclusions
An information space has been posited which exists outside space-time and creates 3D space and everything in it. This information space implements through mathematics and logic the physical universe, but the underlying reality is information based.
Information processes step-wise hence an evolutionary universe and not a sudden formation of a fully formed universe.
Particle physics is now described by QFT in terms of fields, so the notion of actual solid particles is now far removed and even the normal physics research path is headed in the direction of information as the underlying basis.

References

7 John Archibald Wheeler and Kenneth Ford Norton(1998)”Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam”

8 Einstein to Moritz Schlick, 14 December 1915 [CPAE 8, Doc. 165]).

9a Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’
Daniel Salart1, Augustin Baas, Cyril Branciard, Nicolas Gisin & Hugo Zbinden

9b Ashtekar, Abhay (1986), “New variables for classical and quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57: 2244–2247

10 E.V. Stefanovich: Quantum Field Theories without Infinities

11/12 “Reformulation instead of Renormalizations” by Vladimir Kalitvianski
CEA/Grenoble, 2008
Also: http://vladimirkalitvianski.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/problem-of-big-corrections/#comment-2

13 Halvorson, Hans (2000) Reeh-Schlieder defeats Newton-Wigner: On alternative localization schemes in relativistic quantum field theory.

14 Equivalence principle, Lorentz structures and theories of gravitation, DOI 10.1007/BF02742799

15 Einstein 1915-b, 831 Einstein to Moritz Schlick, 14 Dec1915 (CPAE 8, Doc. 165).

16 Bohr & Ulfbeck (1995), section D of part IV, p. 24.

Too Add Refs:

1 N.D. Mermin, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody,” Am. J. Phys. 49,
940-943 (1981); N.D. Mermin, “Quantum mysteries revisted,” Am. J. Phys. 58, 731-734 (1990);
N.D. Mermin, “Quantum mysteries refined,” Am. J. Phys. 62, 880-887 (1994); N.D. Mermin, “What is QM
trying to tell us?” Am. J. Phys. 66, 753-767 (1998).
2 D.M. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Shimony, & A. Zeilinger, “Bell’s theorem without inequalities,”
Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131-1143 (1990).
3 P.G. Kwiat & L. Hardy, “The mystery of the quantum cakes,” Am. J. Phys. 68, 33-36 (2000).
4 P.K. Aravind, “Quantum mysteries revisited again,” Am. J. Phys. 72, 1303-1307 (2004).
5 F. Laloë, “Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems,”
Am. J. Phys. 69, 655-701 (2001).
6 G. Kaiser, “Phase-space approach to relativistic quantum mechanics. III. Quantization, relativity,
localization and gauge freedom,” J. Math. Phys. 22, 705-714 (1981); G. Kaiser, Quantum Mechanics,
Relativity, and Complex Spacetime: Towards a New Synthesis (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990), 92-98.
7 A. Bohr & O. Ulfbeck, “Primary manifestation of symmetry. Origin of quantal indeterminacy,”
Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 1-35 (1995).
8 J. Anandan, “Laws, Symmetries, and Reality,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 42, 1943-1955 (2003).
9 A. Bohr, B. R. Mottelson & O. Ulfbeck, “The Principle Underlying Quantum Mechanics,”
Found. Phys. 34, 405-417 (2004).
10 Kaiser (1981), p. 706.
11 R. DeWitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science (Blackwell Publishing,
United Kingdom, 2004), 213-219. DeWitt says his example “owes much to” N.D. Mermin, Space and Time
in Special Relativity (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).
12 A trans-temporal object, such as the car in this example, is understood to be a single entity even though it is constructed from many discernible entities in the spacetime view. This spatiotemporal construction of
identity in the face of multiplicity is done tacitly, for example, when someone says, “That’s a picture of me
when I was a baby.” See W.M. Stuckey, “Leibniz’s Principle, Dynamism and Non-locality,”
Phys. Essays 12, 414-419 (1999).
S. T. Ali, (1998), “Systems of Covariance in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 365 – 373.
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, (1984), Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Univ. Press.
R. Clifton, D. Feldman, H. Halvorson, M. L. G. Redhead, and A. Wilce, (1998), “Superentangled States,” Physical Review A .
G. N. Fleming, (1965a), “Covariant Position Operators, Spin, and Locality”, Physical Review, 137, B188-197.
(1965b), “Nonlocal Properties of Stable Particles”, Physical Review, 139, B963-968.
(1966), “A Manifestly Covariant Description of Arbitrary Dynamical Variables in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 7, 1959-1981.
(1996), “Just How Radical is Hyperplane Dependence?”, in R.Clifton (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.11-28.