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

Baron Pike: on 10/5/12 at 8:15am UTC, wrote I'd like to hear an explanation of how the future events that alter the...

wilton.alano@gmail.com: on 11/15/11 at 9:32am UTC, wrote Marcel, You are right, there is no 'present' at all. It's just a word and...

Gene T Yerger: on 6/22/11 at 16:45pm UTC, wrote Marcel, I understand you. It is the concept of the relativity of...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 6/17/11 at 3:17am UTC, wrote Wilton, (re-post / re-edited) A universe may start from nothing, or just...

Anonymous: on 6/16/11 at 22:51pm UTC, wrote Wilton, A universe may start from nothing, or just a tiny `"spark". Our...

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 6/16/11 at 18:12pm UTC, wrote Topic 641 2011-06-16 You people “mind boggle” on the wrong things! ...

Gene T Yerger: on 6/8/11 at 16:20pm UTC, wrote Julie, In my book The Meaning of Time: A Theory of Nothing I propose the...

Wilton Alano: on 3/12/11 at 14:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I do agree with the contents of your last post(above). Really,...



FQXi FORUM
July 23, 2017

ARTICLE: The Destiny of the Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

T H Ray wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 16:39 GMT
I have read most of Paul Davies' books. He never disappoints, in his ability to stand on the leading edge, and push just a little further.

I agree that the idea is profound. I don't think it is strange, however. I made the conceptual leap in a paper for NECSI ICCS 2007:

"1.3.8 Consider some arbitrarily chosen future state space as the initial condition -- consider the present state as chaotic. We would find that this model is dual to the second law of thermodynamics -- energy flow toward disorder -- because what we perceive as movement toward a future state is exactly the same as the future state movement toward the present. We already know that we choose the present state only by convention; what would be the difference, though, if we reversed the convention?"

Time, Change and Self Organization

I found, in a complex system model, that positive feedback infomrs the future state; negative feedback, the present.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jack Sarfatti replied on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear TH Ray

The URL to your paper does not work.

report post as inappropriate

Jack Sarfatti replied on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT
It's more than a convention. There is real physics here. See Roger Penrose's discussion of Ben Libet's "presponse" for example in The Emperor's New Mind and Dick Bierman's more recent replication experiments at the University in Amsterdam.

report post as inappropriate

Jack Sarfatti replied on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
The issue is "signal nonlocality" that violates quantum physics. See papers by Antony Valentini online. The actual presponse experiments on living brains are direct evidence for signal nonlocality in my opinion. This means that quantum physics as formulated even by Yakir Aharonov with his additional post-selected destiny vector is only the dead matter limiting case of a more general theory in the same way that special relativity is the limit of general relativity when the curvature tensor vanishes in a region of spacetime.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 20:19 GMT
How can there be something in the future(which as not yet occured,and thus has no time signature) that can influence the present_time, the now, when all evidence is that all the "nows" have most definately been influenced by events of/from the Past?

Any retro_causal tachyonic_quantum sidestepping signal system, must bypas the present time and influence the past. prior to event occuring at the now moments!...which still will be past causations, viewed from the now moment observer?

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 21:38 GMT
I don't quite get this sentence: "In some cases, the observed deflection during the intermediate step can be amplified by a factor of 10,000, depending on choices made in the final step." This looks like a handwaving argument designed to grab publicity.

So what if you get the amplification, and then decide NOT to do the final step?

Does anyone know of the appropriate achive papers on this?

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 22:38 GMT
Clearly the intermediate measurement is unavailable to the experimenter until after the final step is performed. Otherwise this wouldn't be much of a finding, would it?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 16:07 GMT
Karl,

I don't get your argument either. Why are the intermediate experiment results not available at that time? The way that I understan this dual state/time approach to QM is that it does not obtain anything else except the standard predictions of QM. And one of this predictions is non-signaling. The way the sentence is written in the article, it seems to imply a violation of non-signaling. That it why I asked if anyone has the appropriate achive papers to take a closer look at their claims. I smell a rat here.

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 19:58 GMT
Florin -- I just meant that (I assume) the experiment is set up so that the experimenter does not know the result of the intermediate experiment until after the final step. If he/she did, then we wouldn't infer anything interesting from correlations between the final step and the intermediate measurement. (I think.)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
To be honest this sounds questionable. There is an idea I have from this borrowed from Feynman. Feynman proposed that the path of a particle weaves all around space and time, even backwards in time. The thought occurred to me that maybe there are only one of each type of particle in what ever group there is which describes particle physics. So an electron being shoved through a semi-conductor chip in you computer is the same as an electron in a charge separation current generating a quasar jet --- and every other electron as well. So the difference between the earliest state of the universe and the final state of the universe might then just be some unitary operation, or some quantum information preserving transformation.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 14:25 GMT
Fixing link:

Time, Change & Self Organization

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 3, 2010 @ 17:01 GMT
Some thoughts muddling up my head, with minimal coherence:

I tend not to see time as a cause, but an effect, so the notion of the future affecting the present or past isn't really coherent. It's more a question of emergence, as in what patterns are we missing which will manifest as events evolve. Is there some whole that is not apparent in the sum of the parts, at least those measurable? In a sense, can the chicken be predicted from the egg. In a political sense, what we see as that negative feedback loop of collapsing probabilities be missing some larger positive feedback loop in which the current state of chaos is a form of logical pattern. Order emerging from the chaos of collapsing order.

As for the tests described, it seems a variation on the "spooky action at a distance" phenomena, but rather than entangled particles affecting each other at the same moment, it's whether the events of a particle can reach back and affect prior actions of the same particle. I think this raises the question of just what is light and energy. Is it these individual points, or is there some larger field effect, such that the same field is being tested and setting parameters of the rest of the field. Dunno. Better get back to actual work and not keep goofing off.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 02:49 GMT
Tom,

Make that the negative feedback loop of collapsing structure, as the three dimensional space contracts into the gravitational vortex of receding events. With the positive feedback loop of the expanding continuous energy of future potential.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

report post as inappropriate


012 droid wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 15:51 GMT
hmmm, well I can't speak for the science aspects of this, however, as a philosopher, this would be more upsetting than Darwin on more paradigm than one from a philosophical POV.

So the universe may be Teleological? wow. clearly self reflecting, self teaching, self referencing intelligence would play a unique role in such an environment.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 17:12 GMT
droid,

More Aristotelian than Platonic. The problem with monotheism is that it makes the assumption the absolute, the universal state, is an ideal, but it is elemental, so a spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell.

So it would be something of a blind teleology. Striving for the purpose of striving, rather than attaining any particular goal, as anything attained is simply a marker to be surpassed. Thus blind energy moving from one event to the next, as this perceived structure recedes into the past.

Each generation serving as first model, then foundation for the next. Occasionally though, the whole structure giving away under accumulated expectations and a new operating system has to be built, allowing more degrees of freedom, but less leverage to work with.

Happy $th! Damn! Make that happy 4th!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 17:27 GMT
Then after manymanymany generations of this building up/forward, falling back/down the folding action turns single celled organisms into multi-celled ones. Now we are trying to repeat on a species level what nature created on the organism level hundreds of billions of years ago. The current build out is due for a break down, but eventually humanity may be the biology evolving a central nervous system to a planetary organism. That's sort of what I mean by does the egg understand it is to be a chicken.

report post as inappropriate


a mendelsohn wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 20:54 GMT
I believe the article refers to experiments conducted by John Howell's group at the University of Rochester:

Starling, D. J., Dixon, P. B., Jordan, A. N. & Howell, J. C. Phys. Rev. A 80, 041803(R) (2009)

Dixon, P. B., Starling, D. J., Jordan, A. N. & Howell, J. C. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 173601 (2009).

You can get the articles here:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~jhgroup/papers/starling-p
ra-09-10.pdf

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~jhgroup/papers/dix
on-prl-09-04.pdf

Here is a link to a summary of the work in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7283/full/
463890a.html

The tie-in to time reversal and retrocausality is discussed in the Discover article linked from the "Destiny of the Universe" article above.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 02:55 GMT
Thank you for the links. The experiments are very interesting. But the claims of "The Destiny of the Universe" are just bogus.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 03:03 GMT
Here is te main review paper on all this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105101v2

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 22:39 GMT
.

The question may be: "What is the Universe?"

Is our neighborhood the entire stuff?

Once from a supposed nothing, nothing could have started, the universe had not beginning. If it had no beginning, that is its real nature: energized matter.

So, why thinking it will have any end? Until proof in contrary, it is eternal.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Wilton,

A universe may start from nothing, or just a tiny `"spark".

Our universe abides by the rule of non-contradiction.

nothing and something cannot exist at the time time = a contradiction.

The important part of that statement is = "at the same time".

If something could exist always separated from nothingness by "time" , the contradiction would be avoided.

Conclusion: a universe that abides by the rule of non-contradiction may start from nothingness and it will allow only "time" as substance in it, because only

time, by its very nature, avoids the contradiction between existence and nothingness.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel replied on Jun. 17, 2011 @ 03:17 GMT
Wilton, (re-post / re-edited)

A universe may start from nothing, or just with a tiny `"spark".

Our universe abides by the rule of non-contradiction.

Nothing and something cannot exist at the same time = a contradiction.

The important part of that statement is = "at the same time".

If something could exist always separated from nothingness by "time" , the contradiction would be avoided.

Conclusion: a universe that abides by the rule of non-contradiction may start from nothingness (!)and it will allow only "time" as substance in it, because only time, by its very nature, avoids the contradiction between existence and nothingness.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Rob wrote on Jul. 5, 2010 @ 04:47 GMT
If an idea violates causality, it is probably a non-starter.

report post as inappropriate

Wilton Alano replied on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 22:28 GMT
"If an idea violates causality, it is probably a non-starter. "

Rob,

Maybe the cosmic fabric (universe) be an infinite sequence of causalities. Even so, the question remains: How everything started? Is the idea of "infinite" acceptable?

The Idea of a start is perhaps the most durable erroneous idea of humankind.

There is no reason to think that "once upon a time" the absolute void ever existed.

The unquestionable proof that such a reality have never existed is that we are here; once from that supposed "nothing", nothing could have emerged or came to light.

So, it's better say with bold words: The nature of the cosmic fabric is being energized matter - simple like that. There have never been a void-nothing.

report post as inappropriate


Roy Johnstone wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 03:46 GMT
Haven't read the above review paper yet, but at first this seems to be a kind of "delayed choice" set up? The results of these sorts of experiments, originally devised by John Wheeler to show that there is no reality until a conscious observational choice is made, can easily be explained by the David Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. In that view there is no "weirdness" or mystery, no "backwards in time" causation. It also derives all of the results of standard QM, is arguably simpler and certainly not as weird as the idea being proposed in this article!

report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT
This article seems reminiscent of an earlier blog which addressed speculation that current operations at the Large Hadron Collider are being sabotaged by physicists from the future. (And, btw, how can we get back to that earlier blog? I don't see any obvious link to it.) It's my recollection that the earlier piece flogged this horse nearly to death, but it probably lacked a discussion of the recent, alleged experimental "evidence" of future influence over the past.

That serious people can be having what pass for serious discussions about the "future" influencing the "past" reflects a serious lack of understanding regarding the fundamental nature of time. What we perceive as "the flow of time" is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, a view which leaves scant opportunity for a non-existent configuration of the universe (i.e., "the future") to influence anything.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 22:48 GMT
Here is a nice and clear explanation by Sandu Popescu of what is going on here :

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/32

Causality is not violated because post-selection happens after the middle weak measurement. And while thinking that the future affecting the past may simplify the analasys, there are highly non-trivial efects in the standard analasys which get hidden, like the existence of super-oscillations: an oscillation of a band-limited function which oscillates faster than its fastest Fourier mode. It all boils down on realizing that weak measurements are not measurements in the normal sense with a link between values and probabilities. In fact weak measurements can even be imaginary and are the effect of averages on the post-selected ensamble.

I disagree with both Sandu Popescu and the author of the paper. Instead of imagining future influences on the past, I think a more fruitful approach is to consider violations of Bell and Tsirelson bounds and clarification of the measurement problem in the mezoscopic domain (i.e. emergence of real measuremet values in strong mensurements from weak measurements featuring complex and values larger than the largest eigenvalue)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 7, 2010 @ 02:53 GMT
I never thought that weak measurements at all implied backwards causality. The value of observable under a weak measurement increases as the pre and post selected states become orthogonal. So the Hardy result of permitting an electron and positron to interfere in a beam splitter is possible as the non-annihilation probability is amplified in this way. The freedom to rotate the pre and post selected states does indeed produce overlaps which are imaginary valued.

This only has something to do with future outcomes maybe in the sense of the Wheeler-Delay Choice experiment. The apparent interference between the pre and post states can be seen I think as a WDC experiment type of thinking.

What Florin indicates here are states which are in between being pure or entangled states and states which are the outcome of measurements. There is this "nether world" in between the two, which may have some relationship to weak measurements.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 7, 2010 @ 15:44 GMT
WDC, like the 2-slit experiment on which it is based, concerns the path of a single particle. Both 2-slit and delayed choice, then, deal with particle-like properties of the interference pattern.

When we speak of future events meeting present events, we want to stay in the domain of wave-like properties, where the interference patterns (and therefore particle superpositions) are preserved in a 2-point n-dimensional relation. In my model (my "time barrier" paper, eqn 5*) partial order in the moment (the least-time state) is represented by the asymmetry of gravitating bodies -- i.e., the projected area around each point, based on the difference in escape velocities, differs by a slight but nonzero amount. Because escape velocities carry unique values in the gravity field and continuously change with the spacetime field, the field interference patterns maintain continuously changing superposition in a combined field on orthogonal axes.

In general relativity, the state of the spacetime field determines the strength of gravity ("space tells matter how to move"), while matter is at relative rest in the field ("matter tells space how to bend"). In "The relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field" (The Meaning of Relativity, Appendix II, Princeton 1956) Einstein writes, "It does not seem reasonable to me to introduce into a continuum theory points (or lines, etc.) for which the field equations do not hold. Moreover, the introduction of singularities is equivalent to postulating boundary conditions (which are arbitrary from the point of view of the field equations) on 'surfaces' which closely surround the singularities. Without such a postulate the theory is much too vague." What I've done is to project on the Riemann surfaces closely surrounding the singularities (2-point boundary) a time-dependent area which I find does not commute between points, making the time metric n-dimension continuous.

This result suggests that the spacetime field and the gravity field are independent and orthogonal, though combined -- like the electric and magnetic fields.

Tom

*Correcting error in notation: Eqn 5 E_v should be V_e

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 03:03 GMT
Tom,

I got here a bit late so I can't write too much. The gravity field has analogues of the electric and magnetic fields. The coordinate and momentum metrics are conjugate in the same way that D and H fields are conjugate. There is likely a departure, for coordinates also do not commute, so there is an extended noncommutative C* system.

More later

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 17:23 GMT
Aren't D and H fields empirical? My memory is dim on this. What I have in mind, at any rate, is a field conjugation that gives us a direct relation between the classical "corkscrew" path of time and the tensor metric. I know -- that's badly stated; the formalism I imagine, however, should very well show us the restricted domain of future events, even though the range is infinite.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 04:04 GMT
Lawrence,

Let's see if we can find a classical physics example. Suppose we pre-select all attempted conquests of ancient Rome. Then we post-select the cases where the attacker reached Rome but his conquest route was 100% blocked by the Roman armies. Then we ask for the middle measurement: which route did the invading army took? So what we have? We got Hannibal and his Alps crossing. He got from state |A> = attack Rome at time t_1 to state |B> inside the Italian peninsula but with all known paths blocked at time t_3 and = 0 and at time t_2 he was crossing the Alps (weak measurement with amplified values.) But is this proof of backward causation, or of future affecting the present? Not at all. The only valid conclusion is that if you want to transition between near orthogonal states, you need to do things out of the ordinary, or think/act outside the box.

Aharonov’s basic equation is: A_w = / and the amplification happens when = almost zero because of the very small denominator.

Let’s have another example: . = nearly zero. Let A=a qualifier-type problem. Now pre-select all PhD physics graduate students and post select all Nobel Prize winners. Then one would expect unusually brilliant solutions of the qualifier-type problems for Feynman and others in their graduate student years. And indeed, this is what it happens on average for most of the Nobel prize winners early in their career. But can we conclude this is evidence of the future (winning Nobel prize) affecting the past (a brilliant solution for qualifier-type problems)? No. This is no guarantee of success; it is only a pre-requisite. And here lies the fault of the argument of Aharonov, Davis, and Popescu. Amplified weak measurements are only a pre-requisite of the evolution toward a final orthogonal state, and not a guarantee. There is no destiny at work here.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 04:09 GMT
Let's try this post again with greater then and smaller than signs replaced by paranthesis...

Lawrence,

Let's see if we can find a classical physics example. Suppose we pre-select all attempted conquests of ancient Rome. Then we post-select the cases where the attacker reached Rome but his conquest route was 100% blocked by the Roman armies. Then we ask for the middle measurement: which route did the invading army took? So what we have? We got Hannibal and his Alps crossing. He got from state |A) = attack Rome at time t_1 to state |B) inside the Italian peninsula but with all known paths blocked at time t_3 and (A|B) = 0 and at time t_2 he was crossing the Alps [weak measurement with amplified values.] But is this proof of backward causation, or of future affecting the present? Not at all. The only valid conclusion is that if you want to transition between near orthogonal states, you need to do things out of the ordinary, or think/act outside the box.

Aharonov’s basic equation is: A_w = (Future|A|Past)/(Future|Past) and the amplification happens when (Future|Past) = almost zero because of the very small denominator.

Let’s have another example: (Future| = (Nobel Prize|. |Past) = |graduate student). (Nobel Prize|graduate student) = nearly zero. Let A=a qualifier-type problem. Now pre-select all PhD physics graduate students and post select all Nobel Prize winners. Then one would expect unusually brilliant solutions of the qualifier-type problems for Feynman and others in their graduate student years. And indeed, this is what it happens on average for most of the Nobel prize winners early in their career. But can we conclude this is evidence of the future [winning Nobel Prize] affecting the past [a brilliant solution for qualifier-type problems]? No. This is no guarantee of success; it is only a pre-requisite. And here lies the fault of the argument of Aharonov, Davis, and Popescu. Amplified weak measurements are only a pre-requisite of the evolution toward a final orthogonal state, and not a guarantee. There is no destiny at work here.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 12:53 GMT
I think there's a bit of conceptual misunderstanding of what one can expect from the back-reaction of future events to present. One is not saying that the present is determined by the future, such that predictions for present states become exact. One is saying that the present is partially ordered, such that assuming least-action, the probability field is restricted to a known or arbitrarily chosen future state. An example of a known future state would be a folded protein (cited in my ICCS 2007 paper linked earlier).

In the Aharonov-Vaidman paper that Florin earlier linked, the authors take a quantum theory approach with a 2-state vector system, and derive classical time symmetry. In my preprint, "on breaking the time barrier" I take a classical approach with a 2-point boundary value, and derive quantum time asymmetry. One should think that these theories are dual, because one would find that the asymmetry my theory predicts for four dimensions is very tiny, and quantum time asymmetry is only apparent in d > 4.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Willton Alano wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 23:05 GMT
Hi,

My feeling is that what we take as "the universe" is just our close neighborhood and that the 'cosmic fabric' is as infinite in time as in space.

His nature is being 'energized matter' and no end is available to that (no start, no end).

Accepting this apparently absurd idea seems to be the solution...

Cheers,

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Wilton,

Our observable Universe may or may not be infinite. I tend to think it is proportional to a geometrical power of Dirac's Large Number, 10^40 (such as the cosmological constant in 3-D is 10^(-120)~(10^40)^(-3). But if Scale Invariance is true, then our Universe is just a fractal fragment of an infinite Cantor dust. So infinity is the set of self-similar Universes.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 10:10 GMT
But dear Ray,

The universe is finite, the space is infinite, the time is constant in its locality and moment.

Why do you say that about the infinity.....a set of universes.....that has no sense Ray in a whole point of vue respecting the uniqueness of all thing.

I think it's better to focus on a fractal of a real volume and mass, here the center of our Universe.

The infinity must have its fondamentals also, because we must differenciate the physicality and its intyrinsic laws and the unknown and its eternity if I can say.

Thus when we speak about physics , we accept its laws and equations.

We can see the truth when the confusions appear .....

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 23:23 GMT
Florin,

I agree there is no "destiny" with weak measurements. With the states (f| |p) for future and past states the ratio (f|O|p)/(f|i) for the past and future states nearly orthogonal can be seen as adjusting either of the two states f or p, to preferentially select p or f, or some class of states “close” to them. A perfect selection appears to be where the denominator is zero, but this is a singular case and it appears that this ratio is not physically applicable. It is in this way that this could be seen as a process of manipulating states at one time to select outcomes at another time by their overlaps or measure with an observable or operator.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 11:54 GMT
Good points, Lawrence -- and exactly the reason I favor a strategy of comnplex analysis on the Riemann sphere to reconcile quantum and classical behavior. The expression 1/0 -- because the Riemann sphere has only the one simple pole at infinity -- is defined to be infinity. This is the division by zero that creates a logical mess in the arithmetic domain.

Using Hawking's analogy of going "north of the North Pole," we find that extending the time trajectory beyond the singularity allows more room for time to be physically real, even in the imaginary domain, without violating quantum unitarity in the real domain.

Tomk

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
Tom,

This is similar to a projective geometry. I would need to sit down with this and see if there is anything to what I see as a connection with the WDC. AS (f| and |i) are rotated to an orthogonal configuration it is uncertain how this sets one state, say |i) given the other.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 11:31 GMT
Future can affect the past ? N0 !

Even past can not effect the future. There is no time in the universe.

UNIVERSE IS NOW.

yours amrit

attachments: 3_Block_Universe.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Wilton Alano replied on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 23:52 GMT
Dear Amrit,

You are quite right, the universe is now! Everything just happens in the very instant of the present. Past is gone and future is an just a possibility.

Meanwhile, life is a trajectory (like a motion), there is a "now", a "before now" and a "after now". So, what happens in the past, do influence both present and future.

Cheers,

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 10:30 GMT
I like your ideas Amrit, youn know it,

but for the past which can affect the future, I do not agree, because all is the result of a polarization of evolution, we were fishs, we were, cells, we were CH4 H2O NH3....WE WERE AND WE SHALL BE ..............I agree thus for the eternity is now .....but we must acept also the physicality and its dynamics.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 08:53 GMT
Dear Alano, Dear Steve,

physical time is a stream of numerical order of change that runs in space.

Physical past and future exist only as a numerical order of material change.

yours amrit

STREAM OF TIME IS STREAM OF NUMERICAL ORDER OF MATERIAL CHANGE THAT RUN IN SPACE

time is not part of space, space is timeless in a sense that time is not 4th coordinate of space, space is 4D, X4 = ict where t is numerical order of material change we measure with clocks

attachments: Time_is_Numerical_Order_of_Material_Change.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Jack Sarfatti wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
I have been saying precisely this for decades now. For example my three books Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond, Super Cosmos all in print on Amazon et-al. David Kaiser of MIT Physics is writing a book in which I am prominently featured. See also Herbert Gold's 1993 book "Bohemia" Simon & Shuster where the above ideas are documented. I also have two papers on the Cornell archive on this one with Creon Levit NASA AMES also printed in IOP Proceedings of DICE 2008.

Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. (physics UC, 1969)

http://stardrive.org

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Jack,

This does sound a lot like your ideas. Would you like to contribute a more detailed comment or observation to this blog site? Personally, I'm having difficulty imagining the future affecting the past. Do tachyons really travel backwards in time (I realize that the light cone implies this, because tachyons outrace photons) or are they an example of the local present affecting the global present by simultaneously transferring "spooky" action-at-a-distance phenomena?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe, Ph.D. (HEP-PH physics FSU 1996)

report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Aug. 1, 2010 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Ray, dear Jack

tachions can travel in space only as physical time is a numerical order of their motion in space

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Dave Reardon wrote on Jul. 12, 2010 @ 17:03 GMT
I've always believed that the effect of a quantum wave function collapsing into a final state only after it has been "observed" provides an elegant "mechanism" for free will to operate without violating any laws of physics. After all, free will is something we are all aware of most directly through our own experiential knowledge. But how can operate in a brain governed by molecular biology? The...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 05:28 GMT
Dave, you touched on many issues. I too believe that free will gets an explanation in QM mostly because the whole is bigger than the parts and there are additional degrees of freedom which allow for genuine choices to be made, in particular in the way a question can be asked in an experiment which “steers” the quantum system. However, the future influencing on the past is against free will. T’Hooft has some ideas along those lines.

One key point to realize in this time symmetric formulation of QM is that the system is described by 2 state vectors, and the future one does not influence the past one. Instead, the amplification effects are a result of the interplay between the 2 states in the weak measurement case.

Davies idea of using the time symmetric formulation and the known begin and end state to understand teleology and the increase of complexity is interesting, but I am afraid it will not hold under close mathematical scrutiny. The problem is that the final state of the universe is only an asymptotic state and the time symmetric QM formalism cannot be used to predict anything. Think of the difference between convergence and uniform convergence. The existence of infinities (infinite future in this case) can very easily play nasty tricks.

About the question: “How can something come from nothing?" the answer is trivial: because it can. QM and relativity are core physics theories, and their interplay generates field theory and particle creation. Absolute nothingness is unstable as predicted by QM because it violates the Heisenberg principle.

About the question: “Which existed first, the rational or the irrational?” I’ll say this is an ill posed problem because it requires the concept of time which biases the answer towards the rational. I believe in a democracy of ontologies where on is not superior to another. For example, a virtual reality in a computer game is a viable ontology. The only valid question is the question of a creator/designer. Some ontologies cannot create themselves, and this does require a creator (in the example above the computer programmer, in other examples, the watchmaker). To prove that (our) God must exist (or not) is to prove that our universe cannot self-create (or not). In the end, you end up in an God-of-the-gaps type argument.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 08:32 GMT
universe has no destiny, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning no end, eternal,

we can only discuss about mankind destiny

if we will not wake up out of our minds into consciousness we will create bed destiny.........

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Wilton Alano replied on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Amrit,

We both - and I hope many more - have the same approach about what we call "universe": No start and no end. The nature of the Nature is being exactly what it presents: Energized matter.

To say the truth, there is no such a thing like a "universe" of things, once it is infinite and so, not mensurable or countable. The most proper word to define is "cosmos" or "cosmic fabric" (my preferred).

If no start in time exists, no limits in space eighter. So, lets start thinking the Cartesian approach of reality is not applicable to the "universe".

Cheers,

Wilton

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Amrit,

It's profound your ideas indeed.

I like your spirituality.We are indeed all linked.

I see the physical Universe with a kind of begining.

Thus I imagine like an ultim aim also eisting in the future.

I see this physical balance between cosmological spheres as a beautiful harmony between physical creations and their lifes and intelligences and consciousness.

At this point of Unification in the future, the time will be not necessary because the system shall be fusioned and thus the eternality between mass can arrive with this universal love.It's simply explained but I see like that.

You imagine the future, WE WERE WE ARE WE SHALL BE.....

Thus Indeed I agree about your conclusion, indeed you understand the aim of the physical Universe.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 18:06 GMT
Is my "now" = to,

A: the future's past.

or is my "now" evolved from

B:the past's future?

If A, then observing moment from say 1 second to the next second, will reveal the moment being determined, pre-existence, having allready having a destiny, or pre-arranged path.

If B,then observing any moments, 1 second to the next 1 second will reveal a "stretched" or lapsed time signature?

From an observational POV my "now" has happened in both directions A + B scenario's. The slight difference being time signatures are fixed for one moment, but is varied for another moment?

The experimentalists must FIRST determine which scenario they have created or not created ? which, by its very nature will have catastrophic consequence.

P.S cryptic variable intended ;)

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
What happened to this forum? It started with a nice article outlining a coherent theory of the causal influence of future events on the present, complete with experimental program -- followed by discussion of the known physics and scientific framework -- then dropped off into a neverland of philosophy and speculation.

The subject converges with other forums on this site, however, and I for one would be happy to engage, or re-engage, with the physics.

If anyone is interested in reviving the forum, I'm up for it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 17:56 GMT
A coherent theory like the l"ubth" system of falses extrapolations about the graviy.

Don't copy my theory please,

you want speak about all.

Let's go now.Let's peculate a little in total transparence and please.as English is my third language thus don't explain that in an other thread for your credibility.

Th you say so many stupidities, so many irony about our foundamentals, what is this irony, have you a specific job for this stupidity or is it a kind of vanity or perhaps it's all your works but you can't return in the good sense.

Your model TH ? your theory like the theories of some of your friends(I rest polite,I don't say the names) are a pure joke of business and that's all.

A kind of frustrated oif the system by lack of recognition.

If you prefer to be recognised by only the weakest part of the sciences community, it's your choice.

It's a pure joke of Ex and the team for the prizes...all is said GAME OVER.AHAHAH HUMOR FROM BELGIUM.....

Steve

report post as inappropriate

YLW replied on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 15:35 GMT
Hi,

I'm really a lay-person but very curious about a related article Back From the Future from Discover Magazine article and I chanced upon this discussion, which seemed interesting.

I was wondering if anybody could comment on this excerpt:-

"

The free will issue is something that Tollaksen has been tackling mathematically with Popescu. The framework does not actually suggest that people could time-travel to the past, but it does allow a concrete test of whether it is possible to rewrite history. The Rochester experiments seem to demonstrate that actions carried out in the future—in the final, postselection step—ripple back in time to influence and amplify the results measured in the earlier, intermediate step. Does this mean that when the intermediate step is carried out, the future is set and the experimenter has no choice but to perform the later, postselection measurement? It seems not. Even in instances where the final step is abandoned, Tollaksen has found, the intermediate weak measurement remains amplified, though now with no future cause to explain its magnitude at all.

I put it to Tollaksen straight: This finding seems to make a mockery of everything we have discussed so far.

Tollaksen is smiling; this is clearly an argument he has been through many times. The result of that single experiment may be the same, he explains, but remember, the power of weak measurements lies in their repetition. No single measurement can ever be taken alone to convey any meaning about the state of reality. Their inherent error is too large. “Your pointer will still read an amplified result, but now you cannot interpret it as having been caused by anything other than noise or a blip in the apparatus,” he says.

In other words, you can see the effects of the future on the past only after carrying out millions of repeat experiments and tallying up the results to produce a meaningful pattern. Focus on any single one of them and try to cheat it, and you are left with a very strange-looking result—an amplification with no cause—but its meaning vanishes. You simply have to put it down to a random error in your apparatus. You win back your free will in the sense that if you actually attempt to defy the future, you will find that it can never force you to carry out postselection experiments against your wishes. The math, Tollaksen says, backs him on this interpretation: The error range in single intermediate weak measurements that are not followed up by the required post­selection will always be just enough to dismiss the bizarre result as a mistake."

report post as inappropriate

T HRay replied on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 17:58 GMT
YLW,

Ah, yes -- thanks. I said something similar in my preprint "On breaking the time barrier", linked at "my site" above:

"2.5 We conjecture that just as we 3-dimensional creatures with 4-dimensional brain-minds arrive at such statistical results as central limit and regression to the mean by sampling large numbers of time-dependent events, Nature arrives at order by sampling large numbers of hyperspatial events that we interpret as the flow of time. Consider proton decay, which the extended Standard Model of particle physics predicts at something on the order of 10^35 years. Statistically, one expects to observe one proton of a group of 10^35 protons decay in one year. In other words -- what one measures in an interval of time, whether a year or a second, is independent of the metric of time or the orientation of that metric on the manifold of measurement. The information that one records is dependent on the chosen interval.

Our sense of time cannot be identical to the way in which nature orders time. Hyperspatial extensionality -- as Einstein and Minkowski, et al -- recognized, is not part of our experience. It is also true, however, that analytical time, appended as a field characteristic in a continuum of the Euclidean space of a tensor field model (Minkowski space-time) is not part of our experience, either. Einstein knew that because general relativity could not accommodate a physically real beginning of time (due to the Planck limit), it could not be mathematically complete. General relativity doesn't accommodate quantum gravity."

We probably should have more efficient ways of measuring proton decay. Experience and common sense once again prove to be the worst gauges of objective reality.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Mark Smith. wrote on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 23:20 GMT
The concept of backwards-in-time influence, could be a neat way of linking Cramers Transactional Interpretation with the MWI or bubble multiverse theory.

Any influences from the future back to the initial stages of the universe, may result in changes which would may give rise to alternative realities/origins, at both micro and macro levels.

Jack Sarfatti has himself mentioned the Transactional Interpretation in relation to this, his theory is along very similar lines, so perhaps his reasoning would agree with mine here?

report post as inappropriate


Jon Trevathan wrote on Oct. 5, 2010 @ 16:12 GMT
In this post I will discussed how the same boundary condition that is being used to mathematically derive a background independent quantum gravity (by causal dynamical triangulation theorists) might, in the context of the time symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics (TSQM) of Drs. Yakir Aharonov and Jeffery Tollaksen, be used to introduce a form of "teleology" into the time evolution of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 8, 2010 @ 14:14 GMT
Jon,

Thanks. Might you agree to narrow the discussion to the Aharonov-Tollaksen ArXiv paper alone? That keeps to the original content of the forum message, and hopefully will keep the science discussion from branching into another philosophical morass. I think there's enough real substance here to keep us all busy, and enough philosophy in TQSM (e.g., counterfactuals, measurement problem) to satisfy the philosophically inclined as well.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Jon Trevathan wrote on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Tom:

Since you started this discussion, I defer to the directions you would like the discussion to take.

Please note, however, that in the context of the quotation you included in your initial post: "1.3.8 Consider some arbitrarily chosen future state space as the initial condition -- consider the present state as chaotic. We would find that this model is dual to the second law of thermodynamics -- energy flow toward disorder -- because what we perceive as movement toward a future state is exactly the same as the future state movement toward the present. We already know that we choose the present state only by convention; what would be the difference, though, if we reversed the convention?"

1. I would suggest that Causal Dynamical Triangulation provides a candidate "arbitrarily chosen future state space" as "the initial condition".

2. In the context of the conjecture, the present state is "chaotic" relative to the posited initial (and ending) state.

3. The actualization event constituting the "Big Bang" would also provide a thermodynamically low entropy state relative to the present state.

4. "Your statement that "what we perceive as movement toward a future state is exactly the same as the future state movement toward the present" becomes a literal truth in the "contingency" of my conjecture.

5. The conjecture affirms your assertion that "in a complex system model, that positive feedback informs the future state".

6. Your predicted "feedback" from the "future state" would, both positively and negatively, influence how quantum events in the present are actualized.

7. The conjecture seems to address many of the questions and speculations that appear in Paul Davies' writings and books (http://cosmos.asu.edu/research/current.htm)

8. Solutions to some of the thorny problems of physics and philosophy seem to be apprehendable in the context of the conjecture.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 14:52 GMT
Jon,

I understand CDT as a calculational device, not a physical principle.

I agree that time's arrow oriented identically on a scale invariant set of self similar simplices has the remarkable ability to construct 4 dimensional spacetime. I would relate this result more closely to a coomputer version of the Abel-Ruffini theorem, however, than to physical spacetime. It's nice geometry, and I expect well worth pursuing into more exotic mathematics in the world of computer science.

For my own part, I find that a physical definition of "time" (n-dimensional infinitely orientable metric on random self-avoiding walk) structures space. The oriented simplex, IOW, is already a spacetime structure.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Jon Trevathan wrote on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 21:52 GMT
THE QUANTUM BOX EXPERIMENT:

In 2007, I had the good fortune of attending the "Quantum Paradox" class that was taught by Drs. Aharonov or Tollaksen at George Mason University. The "Quantum Box Experiment" was related at a class I attended. Although the experiment provides one "proof" that TSQM is "real", the findings have not, to the best of my knowledge, been published. Accordingly, the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Oct. 19, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT
Jon,

I apologize for not having read this all the way through previously. I thought it was a recap of the "weak measurement" results with which I am familiar.

The negative mass result matches a prediction in my "time barrier" paper. That is, I find that the properties of negative mass are nonlocal, such that the wave equation for quantum mechanical unitary is identical to the equation for negative mass normalized on a continuum of Mass |M| ("time barrier" 3.1--3.2). Positive and negative forms of mass cannot occupy the same local space, which seems to extend the Pauli Exclusion Principle to spacetime physics and thus bring us closer to a classical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I would be most interested in any other information your have on this experimental result. Thanks!

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Adam wrote on Nov. 18, 2010 @ 23:57 GMT
Great ideas, but does raise the spectre that some outcomes might be weird loops in time without an obvious causality. Somehow they make themselves...

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 15:08 GMT
QUANTUM TELEPHONE.

I got a call in the early 80's from a pastor I would meet in the future.

He told me it was a call from the future.

He told me some things that I didn't know about the future.......

By making the call the future was joined with the past and the past the telpehone call became the cause of the future.The actual call was likely to have been a prank.

But the reasoning is sound I then became the cause of the call in the future and I wrote a book called Einstein proved wrong by simple maths and wrote a script called Dailtone about a lawyer who calls dead people from the future.

I would not have done these things except for the call from the future.......

Joe..

Do you think this describes how the future can affect the past.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Mastro wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT
This is such a convoluted premise that it boggles my mind. Does Paul Davies understand that anything that represents an "event" is always done in the present moment, and any observation of it is the present moment view of the past. How do you get around doing something that is not in the present moment? How do you get around observing something that is not a view from the present moment? These types of experiments would have more credibility in my mind if science reflected any understanding of "time".

The concept of past and future do not exist in the objective universe. The past and future are relational concepts to the present time and location of the observer. In the objective universe, all events happen at once in the present moment, and all observation is always looking into the past.

I look forward with interest to the results and conclusions of this experiment.

If the light in the past IS NOT affected by the actions of the present moment then I will look forward to the day I look in the mirror and don't see myself.

Maybe I should get an FQXi grant to verify that my reflection is indeed there.

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Peter,

I do agree with the contents of your last post(above). Really, everything just happens in the "present". But, there a curious question about: What 'slice of time' corresponds to the "present"? One second? Millionth of a second?

Cheers,

Wilton

report post as inappropriate


Gene T Yerger wrote on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Julie,

In my book The Meaning of Time: A Theory of Nothing I propose the idea of retrocausation in a different manner. The idea has its genesis in the Dirac equation. This equation allows for positive energy states (waves) in either a spin up or spin down orientation moving forward in time from the past and negative energy states (waves) in a spin up or spin down orientation that can be interpreted as moving backward in time from the future.

If the electron is considered a composite particle consisting of both positive and negative energy states and that there is a interference between these states as the phenomenon of Zitterbewegung seems to imply, then the electron’s internal clock can be considered the ad infinitum interaction of these positive and negative energy states. In this model, the singular positive energy state may have a spin up or spin down orientation and is in a sense a probability wave constituting an infinity of potential states that may be actualized. Each possibility has the same amplitude for actualization differing only in phase. There are six determined negative energy states (one pair for each dimension of the electron’s reality) with each pair consisting of a spin up state and a spin down state.

As the positive energy state moving forward in time interacts with each pair of negative energy states moving backward in time, the negative energy state singles out a unique phase of the positive energy state and one dimension of the electron’s reality is actualized. The resultant state of the electron is not a matter of objective chance but rather a result of its interaction with the negative energy state emanating from the future. The evolution of the positive energy wave function is, in effect, a deterministic process of retro-causation. The cause of the positive energy wave function’s collapse is the future, and the result of the interaction is the reality we experience in the present moment.

Gene T. Yerger

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT
Topic 641 2011-06-16

You people “mind boggle” on the wrong things!

There is no present. That, is, mind boggling for you.

Light takes some time to travel from your computer screen to your eyes, and that light speed is a limit in this universe. So, this inescapable time between your computer screen and your eyes means they are not at the same moment. What is the “present” if not you thinking that you and your computer are at the same moment? A “present” would require a volume within which everything is at the same moment, with no speed limit between any part within it. This would allow instantaneous communication... which is not possible!

We make/create a “perceptual present” by integrating, like a photographic film, various pieces of information based on their coincidence in our eyes, and not on their origin. This way, we may see in the same glance the Sun that is 8 minutes away, the moon that is a second away and your hand some micro – micro second away. A “ present” does not make any more sense than asking about the weather “now” on the planet Mars. Earth and Mars do not share a “now”.

Above, I used an “operational” definition to test the so called “present”. If things are part of a “present”, they are at the same moment and they should operate or communicate with each other in an instantaneous way. Our present day say physics says it can’t be.

So, anyone talking in a fundamental way of a “present” is way out there in the far field.

p.s. Please!!! Anyone! Say that you understand that! This is basic space-time.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Gene T Yerger replied on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 16:45 GMT
Marcel,

I understand you.

It is the concept of the relativity of simultaneity and it is in deed the way the universe is temporally organized. Each observer has his or her own notion of the present moment, and in this respect Einstein’s theory has blurred the lines between past, present and future.

But even to the great Einstein, this realization was not necessarily welcome....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

wilton.alano@gmail.com replied on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 09:32 GMT
Marcel,

You are right, there is no 'present' at all. It's just a word and a human useful perception.

As long as we know things are moving continuously (energized) and that movement makes 'time pace'. If present happens, so movement is not continuous, but discrete.

Is it?

report post as inappropriate


Baron Pike wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT
I'd like to hear an explanation of how the future events that alter the present do so in the irreversible patterns of all sequential change. Time reversal in sequence would seem to be the ultimate paradox.

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.