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 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
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

January 20, 2018

ARTICLE: Video Article: Time to Go Retro [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

doug wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 01:45 GMT
Yes, I'm confident CIG Theory is correct.

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 01:46 GMT
Are you confident that CIG Theory is correct?

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 02:13 GMT
I like that

report post as inappropriate

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 04:06 GMT
The terms 'past' and 'future' refer to configurations of the universe which we can visualize in our imaginations and about which we can speculate and hypothesize, but which have no objective reality for those of us who are living in the present. Our empirical observations lead us to conclude that the 'past' consists of those configurations of the universe which once had an objective reality, i.e., which once actually existed. These past configurations subsequently have evolved, through physical displacements of the various bits and pieces which make up the universe -- relative to one another -- into the 'present' configuration, portions of which we can perceive with our senses. And we infer that this configuration will evolve into yet others which we imagine as the 'future.'

We can only engage in educated speculation about what sorts of things will or will not be included in future configurations of the universe. By understanding the laws of physics, we can predict, or extrapolate, more or less accurately, the likely future configurations of at least some gross, observable features of the universe, up to a point, but we observe no empirical evidence of the objective reality of these predicted configurations. We find no 'fossilized remains' of the future as we do of the past, the reason being that the future, unlike the past, has never existed.

Believing in retrocausality in essence means believing that configurations of the universe which have never existed can affect configurations of the universe which *have* existed. This is simply magical thinking. Good luck with that.


report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
My posted paper – “ From Absurd to Elegant Universe” and my book – “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, cosmology, and Universal Reality” show that the observations of the universe and galactic expansion can be predicted without an absolute cosmic time and without any past, present, or future evolution of the universe. The fundamental assumption of an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

paul.valletta wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT
Very interesting article/video. The "map" quote by Eddington is really neat, almost as if Einstein was leaving something "out of the future"?

The "map" of course, is only a map if there is a red X upon it? From the red X, one can locate other red X's relative to one another, which actually creates the map itself.

Think about it,if the "map" is the big bang, then the X is Earth, here and now, relative to the big bang. Remove the X and replace it with another X, any location on the map will do, then this X will have its own distinct "now", relative to, only the removed X, because the removed X is actually paramount to all other X'S, we are not relative to any other big bang but our own?

From the Earth "now", to the instant of the big bang, there is a lot of red X's, from this text I am writing on this computer, the big bang has literally occured just seconds ago?

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 01:00 GMT
I expect that you will realize that all this talk of the past affecting the future, or whatever, are acts of desperation compared to a simple explanation that was considered but prematurely discarded long ago. It is the loading theory (LT). Take for example the double slit experiment with light; it is easy to understand with LT. Light is a wave. There are no photons. Emission is sudden at hf but thereafter spreads classically. Absorption is continuous, so the wave energy can load up to threshold hf and then show a particle-like reaction due to another emitted hf. LT is Planck's second theory of 1911.

We were taught in our textbooks that LT, also known as the accumulation hypothesis, was not at play; they misrepresented the experimental data. Out textbooks describe "the element of time in the photoelectric effect" (experiment by E O Lawrence and Beams). The argument convinced physicists LT was wrong, but they compared a minimum loading time with a total loading time. No fair. They ignored the pre-loaded state, which can react suddenly. LT can work easily for light.

The hard part is understanding LT with the charge-wave (electrons) and element-waves (atoms). I developed LT and applied it theoretically to key experiments. The situation is so shocking that I had to develop, perform, and describe in detail the crucial experimental test of QM, for the reader to take LT seriously. The new experiments support LT for both light and atoms. These are the only experiments that challenge a strong prediction of Quantum Mechanics, and reveal the flaw of QM. Please see essay: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

Thank you; Eric Reiter, August 2012

report post as inappropriate

Richard wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 20:02 GMT
I suspect that most physicists still struggle with the idea that time isn't fundamental. In addition to 'letting go' of the concepts of flow and direction of 'time' and the concept of 'now' as fundamental physical properties of reality -- we also need to remember that these appear to be very real emergent properties.

I suspect most would agree that consciences - and therefore free will - are also emergent properties. Following Kauffman's lead (Re-inventing the Sacred), emergent properties -- derived from but more than the sum of the parts of the underlying substrates -- are just as 'real' as the components of the substrate. Free will is only threatened if we assume some simplistic mechanistic mapping from day to day reality to the underling physical substrate -- and all the recent work in Complex Adaptive Systems tells us not to do this.

I'm very intrigued by Barbour's approach, and see Huw Price's T-symmetry arguments as stepping stones in this direction. But thanks to Kauffman my free will is just fine with that ;)

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 20:16 GMT
Taking a risk here since I am reading essays and haven't read the article in question:

"...emergent properties -- derived from but more than the sum of the parts of the underlying substrates -- are just as 'real' as the components of the substrate. "

I would say more real than its components. The supposed emergent property is pointing us back to our lack of sufficient knowledge of its supposed components.

Nothing emerges without justification. Gifts are from the God's. They should be intolerable in physics. The shortcut of 'emergent properties' taken by theoretical physicists is added to a line of previous shortcuts that have become so ingrained that they are now foundational shortcuts passed off as foundational facts. My definition of shortcut is for the theorist to give a name to an unsubstantiated property supposedly responsible for making it unnecessary to admit the lack of explanation for cause. That is what I think.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:25 GMT
Hello! My latest paper answers Eddington's Challenge, while referencing Huw Price's work!

MDT’s dx4/dt=ic Triumphs Over the Wrong Physical Assumption that Time is a Dimension,Unfreezing Time and Answering Godel’s, Eddington’s et al.’s Challenge, Providing a Mechanism for Emergent Change, Relativity, Nonlocality, Entanglement, and...

view entire post

attachments: 4_j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.jpg, 1_figure9.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) offers a far-simpler explanation of nonlocality, entanglement, "spooky action at a distance," and the double-slit and delayed-choice experiments, all of which I studied with J.A. Wheeler at Princeton University. In addition, MDT also offers the foundational physical model for relativity that Einstein yet sought, as well as the physical mechanism for time and all it...

view entire post

attachments: figure9.1.jpg, j.a.wheeler_recommendation_for_dr._elliot_mcgucken.2.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Jose P. Koshy wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
Anyway, past and future are connected through the present. Whether it is the past that decides the future or the future that decides the past,there is an element of determinism.Will we go back to determinism? Then Eddington has yet another chance.

report post as inappropriate

Ke Xiao wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
This is an interesting article.

My essay :"Rethinking the Double Slit Experiment" have discussed the three slits experiment. The cross-link angle establish the magic connection between two slit.

report post as inappropriate

David Ellerman wrote on Jan. 9, 2013 @ 14:53 GMT
The usual arguments for retrocausality using delay-choice experiments are all based on a fallacy which mistakes the sort of "separations" as in say Stern-Gerlach experiments or calcite crystals with a measurement. This fallacy is surprisingly common in textbooks as well. This paper covers all the usual examples from the texts and then considers the more sophisticated delayed choice experiments known as quantum eraser experiments. Since all these cases can be explained without resorting to retrocausality, it would seem that the whole facination with "retrocausality" is based more on the its "woo-woo" factor which some researchers seek to emphasize rather than dispel. There are so many counter-intuitive aspects of QM, that many researchers' critical faculties are so in abeyance that they will believe almost anything that allegedly appears in QM--such as retrocausality. But in this case, such a counter-intuitive in unnecessary.

Why delayed-choice and quantum erasers do NOT imply retrocausality

attachments: QuantumEraser2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hector Daniel Gianni wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 23:27 GMT
Professor Huw Price:

Physicist Andreas Albrecht quoted that When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." Of course Einstein was right "is what clocks measure and nothing more." and in this article we will...

view entire post

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.