Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/4/16 at 17:27pm UTC, wrote Pentcho, Having looked into Relativity 2, I recommend it to those who are...

Stryderunknown: on 3/4/16 at 11:22am UTC, wrote Fold the Brukner_causality (jpg) illustration in half vertically and you...

Pentcho Valev: on 5/24/15 at 22:26pm UTC, wrote The following argument is valid (although Einsteinians are unable to prove...

Pentcho Valev: on 5/22/15 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote Effect without Cause in Einstein's Relativity Hanoch Gutfreund: "The...

Vladimir Tamari: on 3/24/13 at 3:51am UTC, wrote oops sorry - here is the correct link to Eric Reiter's unquantum.net

Vladimir Tamari: on 3/24/13 at 3:21am UTC, wrote Hi My reaction to this new research about reordering causality went...

John Merryman: on 11/20/12 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Thanks Zeeya. Should be interesting.

Zeeya: on 11/18/12 at 18:36pm UTC, wrote Hi John and Wilhelmus, We'll follow this up soon, don't worry! In the...



FQXi FORUM
June 23, 2017

ARTICLE: Cheating the Causal Game [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:16 GMT
Thanks for the update on this important research. My own essay in the current competition also addresses the role of spacetime and the ordering of random information in a dynamic causal framework.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
By the way, well done for reaching the finals of the essay contest Tom!

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Thanks, Zeeya! You're very kind.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
It is quite logical that when you are not "stuck" to the arrow of time that cause and event are no longer ordered in the known and accepted way.

The only thing I cannot understand is how gravaity should be explained in the quantum way, my perception is that is more an "emerging" force, like consciousness is emerging.

See "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" and "REALITIES OUT OF TOTAL SIMULTANEITY"

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 02:52 GMT
The arrow of time and causality are not the same thing. Ask yourself; Does yesterday cause today? Does one rung on a ladder cause the next? Causality is energy transfer, not sequence. The sun radiating on a rotating planet creates the effect called "days."

Time, the measure of units of change, is an effect, similar to temperature. As an analogy, time is to frequency, as temperature is to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 14:35 GMT
John,

You wrote, "Causality is energy transfer, not sequence." Your statement would only make sense if we didn't know that the transfer of heat energy from hot to cold causes water to boil. That's a definite ordered sequence of events.

In any case, you're missing the authors' point. They're talking about the transfer -- not of energy -- rather, of information contained in a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 17:16 GMT
Tom,

I don't doubt we will continue to develop ever more effective methods of measuring and relating measurements on non-linear systems. Mine was a more general rant on the focus of measurement and not what is being measured, as in the two examples I gave, where both Barbour and Anderson clearly argue for a Machian, emergent view of time, then switch to describing it in terms of how best...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT
John, I don't know anyone who treats " ... a sequence of events like days as causal ..." I don't even understand what that could mean. Julian Barbour's view simply rests on what Einstein coined as "Mach's principle," meaning that every particle in the universe moves relative to every other particle. The critical difference between Mach's principle and general relativity is that GR disallows any causal connection between bodies that propagates faster than the speed of light ("All physics is local."). Local causality isn't a feature of pure relativity; i.e., Mach's mechanics.

"There is no more a 'fabric of spacetime' anymore than there are giant cosmic gearwheels causing epicycles."

Epicycles are caused by mathematics, not by anything physical. Spacetime is demonstrably physical. Be scandalized by the facts, if you must. However, if one speaks of changes in relations among mass points, one speaks of changes in relative points of spacetime. "Matter tells space how to bend; space tells matter how to move" (~ Wheeler). That doesn't settle the question of whether time is fundamental or whether space is fundamental -- it does, however, settle the question of whether spacetime geometry is fundamental. It is. And it does settle the question of whether information is fundamental. It is.

The remaining question is how continuous spacetime geometry relates to discrete quantum information.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 06:28 GMT
Let's rather question "well-defined spacetime in which we live" and "pre-existing time". A time scale that can be bent stretched and even flipped is obviously an abstraction from reality.

I see it not justified to ask whether space, time and causal order are truly fundamental as long as the chance is obviously high to reveal mistakes in theories and in the interpretation of experiments. I maintain all five Figs. of my last essay.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Eckard : Your "well defined space-time in which we live" is also the past, the pre-existing time in our memories.

The most little time scale is untill now the "Planck-time", that is the indication of the frequency of our reality.

This frequency is not percepible to our senses, so we are aware of a smooth time (in our memories).

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 18:57 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Fig. 1 of my essay illustrates why I am questioning "well defined space-time in which we live" and "pre-existing" (prior to the very moment in advance existing up to positive eternity) time.

Why did you mention Planck time, etc.? Do you consider me someone who has something to learn?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 23:40 GMT
Hello Eckard,Wilhelmus,

You know Eckard, we learn all days :) how is it possible to understand and to discover all the entire secrets of our Universal Sphere, it seems so far of us this immensity. This 3D sphere. The quantum scale also is in the same logic. The singularities are far of us.

The universal sphere is fascinating in fact.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 19:04 GMT
Quote:"One of the biggest obstacles has been that general relativity and quantum mechanics treat time very differently. In the former theory, time is another dimension alongside space and can bend and stretch, speed up and slow down, in different circumstances. Quantum theories, however, usually assume that time is set apart from space and ticks at a set rate. Theories of indefinite causality...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
SciAm publishes an article by David Tong,based on his FQXi contest entry, from the digital vs. analog contest and it doesn't get a mention, let alone an article or blog post????

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 17:30 GMT
John, the article was already published in november 2011, I also gave (then) a post on the thread. Indeed it is strange that even george Musser could not get mre attention, but a reason might be that at the moment the essays are coming in everybody is sticked to his own trick on FQXi, which is logical.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
Hi John and Wilhelmus,

We'll follow this up soon, don't worry!

In the meantime, here's the link to David Tong's Is Quantum Reality Analog After All?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 01:59 GMT
Thanks Zeeya. Should be interesting.

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Hi

My reaction to this new research about reordering causality went something like this: "Oh No! Here is another group of talented imaginative young physicists who have found another aspect of probability to play with - are we in for another half century of multiverse-type thinking, this time around featuring micro-scrambled-time universes?" Doubtless clever mathematics can twist 'reality' around and make the outcome appear to follow experimental results. This may even lead to interesting computational methods, but does QM and general relativity need more bells and whistles to 'explain' their results?.

Should not effort be now rather directed to develop revisionist ideas that say probability itself is emergent, and can result from an ordered, linear, causal universal lattice, such as the one I described in my Beautiful Universe Theory ? Or Eric Reiter's experimental results showing that Einstein's photon is not the point quantum he thought it was - in my opinion that is the root mistake that created the particle-wave duality and made the probabilistic interpretation necessary. By the way it was sad that Eric's name for his theory 'Unquntum' was used in the title of David Tong's Scientific American article without any justification, or reference to the original source: Eric Reiter's home-page unquntum.net

Best to all,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 03:51 GMT
oops sorry - here is the correct link to Eric Reiter's unquantum.net

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on May. 22, 2015 @ 17:14 GMT
Effect without Cause in Einstein's Relativity

Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."

This is a lie of course (taught by 99% of the Einsteinians) - general relativity does not predict that the ticking rate of clocks varies with the strength of the gravitational field. Rather, it predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field. This means that two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other. That is, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause.

"Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein's schizophrenic world and yet the cleverest Einsteinians feel uncomfortable from time to time:

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 24, 2015 @ 22:26 GMT
The following argument is valid (although Einsteinians are unable to prove its validity):

Premise: Einstein's 1911 gravitational-time-dilation assumption is correct.

Conclusion: The acceleration of light falling to the Earth is negative, -2g (that is, the speed of falling photons DECREASES).

Clearly the Conclusion is absurd so the Premise is false (gravitational time...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 4, 2016 @ 17:27 GMT
Pentcho,

Having looked into Relativity 2, I recommend it to those who are interested in and able for unveiling of its basic mistake. Have fun.

++++

report post as inappropriate


Stryderunknown wrote on Mar. 4, 2016 @ 11:22 GMT
Fold the Brukner_causality (jpg) illustration in half vertically and you might be a little closer (only a little since it's Binary, apply it to super-symmetry and you get closer still.). Just consider the laboratories are in fact the same laboratory, however they are seen as different due to a paradox. In this instance Alice and Bob are actually two different outcomes in regards to development from their parents interaction (The entropy within reproduction and what gender they developed into etc.)

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.