Does Information Reside in More Than One Place?

Some believe that as we say with the Uncertainty Principle you can measure the position and momentum of the particle, but not at the same time. Susskind also has another idea he calls "black hole complementarity" where we can make two measurements of the events of a massive massif star depending on where the observers watch is well rewound. The observer on the outside seeing a mass fall into the black hole will say "Wow!" You know it's being shredded up at the surface, it resides on the surface. But an observer inside the black hole would say, well it plummets to the center and then burns up in the center. Thus Susskind as well as T'Hooft have this idea that either observer is equally valid and so the same information resides in two places. This is also like the Uncertainty Principle and like relativity basically the same kind of idea because you have two different observers and they measure different mass and energy of the other high speed mass (or with the supermassive massif they have distinct vantage points to see other events..).

This isn't the same as saying there's no high speed connection between the observers. The problem here is if you have the observers agree to different results of the same experiment, essentially the speed of light is slow in Special Relativity for example. And if there is no causal connection between the events they're loosely connected, but because the speed of light is slow the connection between like say here and alpha centuari is 4.3 light years or so and if we measure an event from here we have to wait four years or so so if there's influence seen by the "slow" speed of light. And by that time alpha centauri has changed and moved a lot no doubt, (the ancient astrologers have more unchanged ways of measuring time than measuring astronomy these days). And so we have no or little connection between them so alpha centauri and all other mass in the universe would be radiating outward. It's not connected so it moves in it's linear motion, not linear A Sumerian, it's changed more than astronomy somewhat no doubt! Special relativity measures much, uniform motion is what relativity does best. The speed of light is constant, the motion is uniform, the speed of light doesn't change.

The problem is that relativity doesn't explain acceleration well because the mass energy equivalence of relativity is rather a more superficial energy energy equivalence in GWD in the sense that it's derived it's derived from the motion of the high speed mass. More more motion more mass, more energy in SR. And mass is like an acceleration, it spins around and around under its own attraction. And you really can't measure mass like an energy equivalence because mass is where there's a connection holding it together like gravity. The connection problem is the same as with the wave particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle and relativity. If you have a coin and you flip it and it spins around if by your limited vantage as an observer for some reason you could only measure one side of the coin at a time. First of all, you'd say what guarantee is this, an 1950 coin worth 20 thou? Couldn't you just move around to the other side of the coin? What comic physics is this, right? We know there is a real connection.

The Uncertainty Principle and quantum unfamiliarity are closely related to Planck's Constant and the constant itself is much or mostly related to the speed of light being the speed of the constant of action. There's always a certain amount of motion of the field per unit time whether it's linear or angular. Since Planck's constant is the foundation in all of subatomic physics we conclude that since relativity itself has that problem of connectivity only if gravity is faster than light to connect up the points would it not fizzle out to 0 density in infinite time. So too for the Uncertainty Principle we might conclude that if there really is no connection between the two sides of the coin the coin would radiate outward, and so the same kind of problem. Different observers in relativity get different results, they're different so they're not connected, they're radiating out in their own inertial frame not concerned with the connection between them. Even so the idea that information resides in more than one place is both true and not true. At short range like for electric charges the same field can shield and not know itself, while at lower energy for forces like gravity or the EPR, the field may be at higher speed (because it's lighter than light so much faster) so much it's almost in one place (though perhaps not quite to not be infinite and not violate causality, ultimately cause not energy conservation may turn out to be the foundation of the cosmos because there seems to be evidence that gravity is like a superfluid and winds up the cosmos, otherwise if heat always flows from hot to cold, how was it hot?). There is no doubt for these opposites where there is also a connection binding them, the connection must be faster than the tendancy of the opposites to disconnect. Thus for Plancks constant and the speed of light, the speed of light may not be the limit.

The problem of the Uncertainty Principle and the lack of connection and relativity too is the tendency to radiate outward locally and this is one reason why I believe gravity may have a faster than light connection and also why the Uncertainty principle may fail by way of Einstein's idea of a low energy particle to reduce the subatomic equality of the measure and measured, if it too is lighter than light it may be faster than light. If only at the speed of light there would be no connection between position and momentum and the particles would explode. In GWD with gravity at the speed of light via relativity the moon would have the slow light and disconnect, soon spinning outward. Recent experiments seem to uphold Einstein's idea about the low energy particles.

If you don't have a faster than light connecting the position and momentum, a 50 cent coin has 2 sides one 50 cent not two 25s! I liken the connection between the phases above, this connection would seem to be indeed be like a gravitational field and not coincidence. To say there's no gravitational field there at that energy like of subatomic particles, I disagree. If you have two masses like common lower energy masses around us at room temperature even in the luxury with heat around us and you adhere them to a beam. If you toss the masses up in the air so they spin around the com around which the masses spin is in "empty space" the same as the earth and moon rather on a smaller scale. We might say gravity isn't there and it's not important if the beam is the main adhesion, but the center is not in the beam.

If mass and energy were completely the same it would be as easy to convert mass to energy as energy to mass, and there would be no way to tell them apart, like the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, there are perhaps 10 distinctions between mass and inertia, e.g. mass is where a plenum, energy less matter, inertia or energy radiates out, mass attracts and implodes, ect. the many and the one. This also seems like the wave particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle and other problems of complementarity. Thus the mass energy equivalence combined with the complementarity problem would mean mass and energy would have nothing to do with each other. They have something to do with each other but it's not exact, this is why the equivalence of mass and energy is somewhat sound in GWD yet it has these other problems without solution by way of relativity alone.

Though I have agreed with t'Hooft in general, another idea he has edited with Susskind is where they're saying all the information in an object resides on it's surface. Though t'Hoft seems to be good more with the type of physics I agree with, and I tend to not believe in Hawking's physics much I tend to disagree with this. No doubt Hawking was the highest in his physics score when he entered college, he is a best seller and was head of the math department Newton once also was leader of, and t'Hooft has won the Nobel prize and improved our knowledge of the weak force. I think of t'Hooft as the best of the three, and the idea that all the information resides on the surface of a mass seems to me like at first glance to relate to someone as great as Gauss whose pioneering work in surface geometry in the early 1800's was a great contribution to math that made him one of the three great math geniuses in time and all of physics, ect. I think this idea even if t'Hooft was coauthor has shortcomings. When you devise a general idea like Gauss did, or Einstein with relativity, for it to hold water there have to be no general disproofs in just common sense around us. If it's a classic, there's no easy disproof, and the disproof of this "all boundary theorem" seems to be about the Earth. The surface doesn't somehow control all the information because we can expect inner events like of lava flows and magma to change the Earth in time without outside intervention and without flow in or out. If we believe in the Uncertainty Principle and the speed of light as the limit in subatomic physics and all the rest, the speed of all the surfaces spin at the speed of light to uphold relativity well but here too like with this "earth problem" if all the particles spin at the speed of light inside and outside and mass is indeed spinning energy, the electron is already at the speed of light, spinning at the top speed so no more mass can be added on, thus all particles heavier than an electron have no explanation and so the idea that the surface controls the rest isn't so, certainly it's partially so and to do work means the surface is changed, but if all is in the universal boundary, than if no information by definition is sent in or out, there can be no change anywhere inside it and all the change here and there nearby is a nondum (same great Latin, 21st century Greek.) Click here for more, my elaboration of this idea, about the stability of the proton, ect..

You may say about relativity, the invariance of the speed of light, aha, it's a symmetry, like Noether's symmetry, we all know these are well proven in subatomic physics and elsewhere no doubt! To which I say, while symmetries abound, some are deeper than others. I believe the absolute space time of Newton isn't in for a revival soon and that relativity is true about the speed of light so much of relativity isn't going to be disproven either. I hold that Special Relativity is about what's seen from a distance like light and not what we feel as a force of pull or push like gravity. Relativity seems to be about "vain appearances" about the looks of the light, but the deeper symmetry seems about the lower energy F=ma (nonquanta) not Emc2 where you have acceleration not just linear motion. F=ma is more fundamental and deep because gravity holds the cosmos together and this is the first of my Three Foundation Principles of the Universe.

Relativity has seemed to me like a blind alley blinded of light and the speed of light that leads us to conclude that information is not all in one place. In truth no doubt it's both connected and not connected, our arm is in one place and out leg is in another place if we put our arm in the range and our leg in the ice box, in general as a percentage we're both hot and cool, with connection and lack of connection both, so relativity isn't going anywhere but still there may be deeper truth that may help us know more than otherwise, click here for my synopsis site, about gravity and Faster Than Light..

If we had a large ship that could only send or receive waves at it's own ship wavelength and the waves were slow, the problem that the waves were influenced by the observer would be solved if we suddenly found a higher speed wave, even so the physics of the waves and ships wouldn't be gone, and presumably there would be more uses of relativity than FTL waves, even so if they are proven by the experiments I propose they may find use in communications, computers, the EPR, and other information rich technology.

That different observers in SR get results leads to contradictions; an observer on one slow ship will see another set of events on the high speed ship than an observer on the medium speed ship and the contradiction the two observers will find in the histories they record can't be reconciled when both are at medium speed. The wife you see on her high speed starship won't both bake and burn the dish with different thermal history, due to changes in the wavelength of the (thermodynamic) light. Click here for more about contradictions in relativity..

Physics Synopsis.
..