CATEGORY:
It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013)
[back]
TOPIC:
A Space-Time Information Paradox by Anton Lorenz Vrba
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 3, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Essay AbstractIf we study cosmic phenomena or life, ultimately, we can simply state that nature is the interaction with the rest of the universe. Alternately expressed, a change of state is the result of the interaction with the information content presented by the universe. Information is thus a preserved quantity; this philosophical view sparked the black hole information paradox debate. This essay explores the question if information is preserved in space-time. Using the established physics theories a new paradox is uncovered that has been ignored by whoever it was presented to; an answer is still outstanding!
Author BioAnton Vrba is an electrical engineer. He pursued a career in R&D, manufacturing and construction project management. His interests are mathematics, physics and economics. He is a lateral thinker and stimulates others by asking challenging and uncomfortable questions.
Download Essay PDF File
Philip Gibbs wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Anton, Very good, I like this kind of thought experiment. I will have to study you appendix more carefully to understand why charlie seems to see more information than Bob. It should not work out that way.
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:03 GMT
Philip, I hope you will come back and elaborate your comment why it should not be that way.
Paul Reed wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 06:26 GMT
Anton
“From this result it is very clear to the me that information based
physics and Einstein’s relativity are not compatible”
Leaving aside whether your concept of information, etc, this is not the issue. Einstein’s concept of relativity (forget SR which is irrelevant, it is a conceptualised circumstance-he said so) deems there to be a time differential in physical...
view entire post
Anton
“From this result it is very clear to the me that information based
physics and Einstein’s relativity are not compatible”
Leaving aside whether your concept of information, etc, this is not the issue. Einstein’s concept of relativity (forget SR which is irrelevant, it is a conceptualised circumstance-he said so) deems there to be a time differential in physical existence. He did not say this as such, but this is the net effect of what he did say, once one discounts his mistakes. That is, he did not understand the reference used in timing, and thereby created an extra ‘layer’ thereof, which was counterbalanced by his failure to have any observational light.
In other words, he thought he was attributing the time differential to the relativity of observation, which is indeed where the time differential actually occurs. But he was not, because there was no observational light, which is a pre-requisite of sight. Any light Einstein alludes to (ray of, lightening, etc) is not observational light, just a constant against which to calibrate duration and distance, which he happens to exemplify in terms of an example of light. It could have been anything. But he chose examples of light for fairly obvious reasons, ie this is, if it is observational light, and not lightening for example, what enables observation.
What he said he was going to do is irrelevant, it is what he did that matters. That is, his declared second postulate is null and void as normally interpreted, because he did not have any observational light. It is, literally, just a statement of the obvious. Light, as a physically existent entity, always starts at the same speed (because it is the result of an atomic interaction not collision) and like everything else will continue at that speed unless impinged upon. De facto, in its ‘pure’ state, it will make a good reference constant, especially since, coincidentally, one needs light to observe, although any example of light is not necessarily observational light just because it is light.
The ensuing attempts, including his own, to rationalise observational light speed and rate of change (as manifest in timing) are pointless, because they are chasing an issue which does not exist.
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 15:44 GMT
Anton,
I am terribly sorry, but I did not understand your essay. Reality is unique and because it is unique, reality must only be occurring once. There is no reason to try to codify and transmit any part of one’s reality anywhere else.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 13:09 GMT
Anton,
There is a certain real balance to reality in that one can know when one is informing and when one is being informed of useful real information in all real situations. Since the advent of fabricated communication devices, there is no balance for the purpose of the dissemination of abstract information is simply its uncontrollable size. Machines now distribute practically all information and machines now receive practically all information. Millions of TWEETS and billions of emails are produced daily few of which will ever be read by any human being.
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:07 GMT
Joe, I am sorry that you have not fully understood my simple thought experiment, I take a complete general view what information could be and think of the information carried in a beam of electromagnetic radiation. If it is encoded by humans or carries the information of a natural process, i.e. a beam of sunlight, which contains the reality of the moment it was created . Please also read my below reply to Marcoen's comment.
Marcoen Cabbolet wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 19:26 GMT
Anton,
The idea to use this thought experiment to prove that information-based physics and relativity are incompatible, is quite original. Whether or not you have succeeded in your purpose is another question.
Let's look at one particular detail. The analysis of the thought experiment yields the equation on page 2; you then claim that this equation forms a contradiction with your axioms of information-based physics. The correctness of your proof thus depends on the correctness of the equation, and the correctness of your axioms of information-based physics.
On the right hand side of the equation, we have c²+v²/c²-v². This is a ratio between two real numbers, which is again a real number. So on the right hand side we have a real number. For the equation to be correct, the left hand side must thus also be a real number. That means that the symbols I
Charlie and I
Bob must also be real numbers. From the text it is obvious that these symbols represent information. Thus, in your essay (or at least in the thought experiment), information is a real number. Can you give a motivation for that? E.g. in quantum physics one says that the wave function contains information. But the wave function is a much more complex entity than a real number. So could you elaborate on your choice to represent information by a real number? Or do you mean not information but the amount of information?
Best regards,
Marcoen
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 21:57 GMT
Marcoen, thanks for the read and comment. The ratio I
Charlie to I
Bob is the ratio amount of information received. The correctness of the ratio (c
2+v
2)/ (c
2-v
2) you can confirm in the appendix, equation 1 of the appendix is the text book explanation to the null result of the MM experiment, all other equations thereafter use the same principles or methodology.
Yes, you are correct in saying that information in the context of quantum physics the wavefunction contains information. In the presented thought experiment, I take a super-ordinate view; the ratio I
Charlie to I
Bob could be information from anything starting with information encoded in say an AM modulation signal as in communication, to the quantity of information within the numerous wavefunctions that describe each and every photon in the packet . Furthermore, if we take a simplistic view that each cycle in the "beam packet' equals one photon (machine gun principle) then ratio represents an energy ratio.
The real discussion that I wish to stimulate is the continuation of Phillip Gibbs comment. His sentence "It should not work out that way" is an observation but not a scientific statement, what I am after is a mathematical explanation/proof, using the contemporary theories, to show that the result is indeed I
Charlie = I
Bob, that what Philip expected.
Marcoen Cabbolet replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Anton,
Here's just an intuitive thought.
In your thought experiment, information is encoded in a photon ray. A beam is then a number of such parallell rays. Now what if we say that the measure for the amount of information in a ray is just the number of subsequent photons in that ray. The amount of information is then always an integer.
In your thought experiment, the device that cuts off the beam cannot split a photon. So regardless of any relativistic effects, both Bob and Charlie detect a ray with the same number of photons, say N. So then we get I
Bob = I
Charlie = N, in agreement with Philip's comment. So if we define the amount of information as above, then the outcome of the thought experiment doesn't indicate an incompatibility of information-based physics and relativity.
So apparently things depend heavily on the measure that we define for the amount of information. What are your thoughts on that matter?
Best regards,
Marcoen
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 08:24 GMT
Marcoen, Nice try, yes you cannot split a photon, Now consider a 1 Watt red laser, and as Energy = Planck constant times Frequency (E=h f) the number of photons per one metre beam are:
N = (L/c)/(h f) approx 11 x 10
9( h=6.6 x 10
-34 J/s ; f=4x 10
14 Hz ; c=3x 10
8 m/s ; L=1)
however what I can agree with you is that the ratio is not a real number but a rational number i.e a fraction of two integers.
Marcoen Cabbolet replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 09:31 GMT
Anton, the photons are light quanta, which in the thought experiment are released by Alice. Relativistic effects do not create or annihilate photons, so how can Bob and Charlie receive a different number of photons? I would say that the ratio of the numbers of photons received by Bob and Chalrie is not just a rational number, it is 1. What argument is there against that?
Regards, Marcoen
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 09:43 GMT
Marcoen, Thank you, logic tells us that relativistic effects should not alter the the light quanta in a predefined space (Bobs shutter to mirror and return) as seen from different reference systems HOWEVER the mathematics, detailed in appendix of the essay, does not confirm this - That is the paradox
The philosophical discussion should be steered to a mathematical discussion discussing why the mathematics throws this curve ball.
Paul Reed replied on May. 10, 2013 @ 04:42 GMT
“The philosophical discussion should be steered to a mathematical discussion discussing why the mathematics throws this curve ball.”
What should be realised is that there was one definitive physical occurrence, which in doing so (ie the sequence progressing) physically interacted with something else which was not inherently part of that sequence, but which is physically existent, to create light, etc. Certain physical properties (ie constancy and speed of change, imperviousness to physical influence, etc) thereof mean that this is a representation of that physical occurrence. That is, it can be converted with a standard set of rules to reveal what occurred. Which is why sight evolved, because it gives the possessor an advantage (you can avoid being eaten/you can see a potential dinner). Light, as in what is convertible if received, is, more or less the ‘same’ for all recipients. Obviously, the physical entity received is not. Also light takes time to travel, so apart from environmental circumstances in each case, the relative spatial position of recipients with respect to the occurrence is important.
The ‘relativity’ is not in physical occurrence. There was not a different occurrence for everything that happened to received some indication that there had been an occurrence. The relativity is in the receipt of a physically existent representation of that occurrence, aka light, which depends on relative spatial position. Which of course can alter whilst the light is travelling.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 09:34 GMT
Anton,
Let's continue about why "mathematics throws this curveball", as you put it.
I think it has to do with the definition of information.
If you define the amount of information received as the number of photons received, then Bob and Charlie receive the same amount of information.
But if you define the amount of information received as the total energy received, then Bob and Charlie receive different amounts of information due to relativistic effects (red shift).
So there is your curve ball. I would say: it is not a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of defining 'the amount of information received'.
Can you agree with that?
Best regards,
Marcoen
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Mikalai Birukou wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:40 GMT
Why do you think that "The information content of the universe is constant."?
Consider observations of early universe: lots of more or less homogeneous stuff. Now, some billions years later, there is way more structure, thus information, and at many levels, e.g. clusters of stars, and clusters of cells.
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
Mikalai, It has to be constant. The Black Hole Information Paradox debate is based on this principle and great minds discussed this endlessly. If the information changes then please tell me who changes it and how it is changed.
Paul Reed replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 04:00 GMT
Er, perhaps because what is generating this 'information'-information being representation of something, ie information is not just existent, per se-is altering??
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 10:17 GMT
Paul, The information contain is a constant, the distribution is changing that is what we observe. Consider quantum entanglement, i.e the experiments of Prof Anton Zeilinger with entangled photons and quantum teleportation, the sum of information of the two entangled photons is constant, change something in one photon and by "spooky action" the other changes in opposition. The same principle applies to the universe as a whole.
Do not mix observation with information
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 10:20 GMT
Error in first sentence: The information content is a constant, .....
Paul Reed replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 04:59 GMT
Anton
“the sum of information of the two entangled photons is constant”
Leaving aside whether this conception is valid (ie corresponds with reality), this is not information, but a physically existent characteristic, which is why you say before that: “The information content is a constant, the distribution is changing that is what we observe”. As I said, information is not what is existent, per se. Otherwise the concept of information is meaningless, everything is in a sense information for us, but that is not the point.
“Do not mix observation with information”
Observation is the receipt of a physically existent representation (aka light) of what actually occurred. Think about that.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 06:36 GMT
Paul, You hit the nail on the head "...everything is in a sense information for us,..." that is my point of view and that is where we agree to differ.
However, this whole discussion misses the point of my essay.
hide replies
Gordon Watson wrote on May. 10, 2013 @ 23:00 GMT
Anton,
From your abstract: "Alternately expressed, a change of state is the result of the interaction with the information content presented by the universe. ... ."
I'm inclined to take a smaller, though related, step: The word "state" in QM might be beneficially replaced by "state of information." A "change of state" then occurs when new information comes to hand. Thus the Bayesian idea of learning and updating from observations.
But this still leaves me questioning your continuation: "... . Information is thus a preserved quantity; ... ."
Am I being too concrete when I say: "Anton, here's some new information for you; just a short note to compliment you on the fine quality of your presentation. Absolutely stunning!"
Since (even neglecting the gain that I suspect you just received), I gained information from my interaction with your information: How then, please, is information a preserved quantity?
PS: Would you mind also telling me how you generated that presentation? For I'd like to attempt it myself.
With best regards, Gordon
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 11, 2013 @ 08:13 GMT
Gordon, I appreciate your comments and compliment.
When I think of information I divorce it from the living and thus can ask what is the information a piece of space dust receives. This takes some abstract thinking to make sense. The next step in abstraction is not to think in particles, or what I call marble theory, but to think in wavefunctions, and to describe the universe as one single wavefunction. The universe's wavefunction cannot change, however all the sub-wavefunctions which make up particles and your thoughts can change relative to each other.
In essence, the above has been proven by the many experiments that demonstrate instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" or action (information) transfer by entangled photons.
Therefore, if you present me with a new observation or information, in doing so you needed energy and by mere act of living, you converted or rearranged many wavefunctions. It sounds like a crackpot idea, but the more thought you give it the less crackpotty it becomes. Ask yourself the question how is knowledge programmed into the living, what we call instincts. I.e. how does a turtle that just hatched from its egg know which way to dig itself out of the sand, and once it reaches the surface what makes it seek the ocean and then as a grownup how does it navigate back to the same beach to lay the eggs for the next generation. There is one important step in this cycle; turtles being loners have no Internet or example in the species from which to learn how to reproduce, furthermore how do they meet in fast expanse of the ocean? All per pre-programmed information that does not get lost from generation to generation.
All in all, I am trying to approach the question how it was possible for inorganic materials to arrange themselves and form the basis of life. In doing so, preconceived ideas have to be broken down, which include well-established theories.
Now to your PS. Again thanks for the compliment. I use the free LaTeX a typesetting system that allows you to create your own style, it takes a bit of learning. I use the modern font Palatino for text and it is matched with the awesome Euler fonts for math. For an optimum reading experience it is important to limit the number of characters per line to between 50 and 60, and to provide enough white space between the lines. The sketch was done in LaTeX using TikZ & PGF. You are welcome to email, address in the essay.
Gordon Watson replied on May. 16, 2013 @ 07:09 GMT
Anton,
I'm planning to get back to you -- to discuss information and interactions -- as soon as I get my essay done.
This short note is to say: Many thanks for sharing your formatting system; it's as good as I've seen. For now, though, I've decided to plug on with my current system -- having little time for new tricks until I get my essay up.
However, as a return favour, I'm pleased for you to be the first to know publicly: "The quantum is classical." Me having the impression that such a conclusion might be close to your own thinking.
So, with the title settled -- "Deep physics, easy maths: The quantum is classical." -- the rest is downhill. (My use of that last reflecting some of the clever words you've invented!)
More soon, and my thanks again,
Gordon
report post as inappropriate
Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 01:37 GMT
1- Krausse does state the possibility that we are at the centre of the universe, but Copi et al. seemed to assiduously avoid that conclusion from the CMB multipole anomalies. Did you add geocentrism to Copi's explanations as an unspoken truism?
2- Analysis of the MMX using Doppler shifts of the Earth's motion makes the heliocentric system mandatory... that is, makes the Sun an absolute ref frame. I'm wondering why did you have defied relativity? Can you give evidence thzt if the Earth were at rest, there would be no Doppler shifts?
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 07:34 GMT
Robert, (1) If you read Krauss statement fully he carries on that the idea of heliocentrism (that is what the CMB data suggest) is absolutely crazy and if in any way I implied that Copi et al believe we are center of the universe I apologies. I, as Krauss, believe that this result suggests that there is new physics at large that we have not yet discovered.
(2) I do not believe that we can define a center of the universe using the three dimensions we observe, for the same reason that we cannot define the center of the surface of a sphere, but that is not the subject of the essay.
You ask: "I'm wondering why did you have defied relativity?" That basically is the subject of the essay, as stated in the title, it is paradox revealed by a mathematical analysis using special relativity transformations and Doppler shifts that give an unexpected result. Furthermore, I believe the community here has sufficient knowledge of both SR and Doppler, to address this mathematical analysis with the hope to get an explanation for this unexpected result, however everyone, who commented above, has avoided the analysis.
Anonymous wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT
Anton,
Your equation implies the prohibited operation of dividing by zero.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Don't know what happened. I did log in.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 11:05 GMT
Tom, only if Bob can travel at the speed of light which he cannot! There is no divide by zero if v less than c
This contrasts to the ÷0 which is a absurdly accepted principle in physics, i.e the ÷0 that defines black holes and the so called associated event horizon. That is why I do not believe that black holes exist as described by science; however, that volumes of super dense masses exist is beyond dispute.
Back to the essay, have you an explanation for the result that intuitively should not be?
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
Anton,
Bob can't travel at the speed of light, but information does. The speed of light is constant, so it can be normalized to 1. Then if one accepts your premise and Charlie/Bob are traveling at the same velocity, your result is 2/0. If they are traveling at different velocities, your result has a negative value.
This is in perfect accord with special relativity. A particle of...
view entire post
Anton,
Bob can't travel at the speed of light, but information does. The speed of light is constant, so it can be normalized to 1. Then if one accepts your premise and Charlie/Bob are traveling at the same velocity, your result is 2/0. If they are traveling at different velocities, your result has a negative value.
This is in perfect accord with special relativity. A particle of positive energy(such as Charlie and Bob)and zero momentum possesses negative mass. Einstein's unreduced equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + (pc)^2, where p is momentum.
You write, "This contrasts to the ÷0 which is a absurdly accepted principle in physics, i.e the ÷0 that defines black holes and the so called associated event horizon."
The black hole event horizon has nothing to do with division by zero. Because the speed of light is constant for all bodies whether at relative rest or in accelerated motion, an event (i.e., the interaction of 2 particles) is confined to the black hole interior when the body's escape velocity exceeds the speed of light; therefore, an observer outside the event horizon cannot receive information from the interior.
Perhaps you are thinking of the topological definition 1/0 = oo for the complex plane compactified to C*, the simplest Riemann sphere, which has one simple pole at infinity (rather than the two poles of an orb, like the Earth). However, this also has nothing to do with division by zero.
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT
Tom, we are now off-subject but look at
Wikipidea Schwarzschild Metric and the very first equation is a divide ÷0 when r
s = r, and r
s defines the event horizon.
Do I need not say anything more?
Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 15:04 GMT
Anton,
No, you needn't say more. Don't you want to know, though, when your algebra is wrong?
Wikipedia is not a great source for this kind of thing. However, (hopefully) fixing your
link , one will find that "The Schwarzschild metric is a solution of Einstein's field equations in empty space, meaning that it is valid only outside the gravitating body. That is, for a spherical body of radius R the solution is valid for r > R. To describe the gravitational field both inside and outside the gravitating body the Schwarzschild solution must be matched with some suitable interior solution at r = R."
As I said.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 19, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Anton
Congratulations on a well-explained, ingenious and relevant essay on the contest Question. Its compactness is welcome because it allows one to concentrate on the few points to be understood.
Your approach is interesting, and if there is anywhere the paradox can be resolved it may be in pinpointing the slippery concept of "information". For example I strongly disagree with the prevailing point-photon particle concept. Will your arguments still stand if - for example - information is embedded in amplitude modulated continuous electromagnetic waves? What about if there is a discrete ether medium?
A friend read your essay but did not wish to join the online discussions directly, and emailed me the following comment:
"Special relativity has always been challenged by paradoxes, the twin paradox and the barn and ladder are the classics and well known. Vrba's information paradox is new to me, analysing the MM-experiment using a continues wave and Doppler shifts instead of a point particle does make sense and is closer to what happens in nature, his logic seems to be correct and I presume he has checked his maths - this is going to be interesting what explanation will be given"
With best wishes in the contest,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on May. 21, 2013 @ 09:11 GMT
Vladimir, thank you for comments, yes the argument does hold for amplitude modulated signals, only cycles are counted , how the information is encoded is immaterial. I doubt that a discrete ether medium will solve the problem; one has to look wider and solve the many aspects of physics simultaneously, the island solutions or the house of physics, which you pictured so nicely in your essay last year just do not work anymore. I fear a ether theories are will only lead to an island solution.
I am still waiting for the reply that says "Anton that is a lot of BS you published there, because of so and so" and shows me an error in my presentation in the normal scientific method, that is using mathematics. That is not forthcoming, instead I get off-topic and generalised comments, even from a Ph.D who can only manage "It should not work out that way."
basudeba mishra wrote on May. 30, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your conclusion is very interesting. The following observations may interest you.
Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Your conclusion is very interesting. The following observations may interest you.
Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a medium through which the reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. Since light is propagated in transverse waves, Maxwell used a transverse wave and aether fluid model for his equations. Feynman has shown that Lorentz transformation and invariance of speed of light follows from Maxwell’s equations. Einstein’s causal analysis in SR is based on Lorentz’s motional theory where a propagation medium is essential to solve the wave equation. Einstein’s ether-less relativity is not supported by Maxwell’s Equations nor the Lorentz Transformations, both of which are medium (aether) based. Thus, the non-observance of aether drag (as observed in Michelson-Morley experiments) cannot serve to ultimately disprove the aether model. The equations describing space-time, based on Einstein’s theories of relativity, are mathematically identical to the equations describing ordinary fluid and solid systems. Yet, it is paradoxical that physicists have denied aether model while using the formalism derived from it. They don’t realize that Maxwell used transverse wave model, whereas aether drag considers longitudinal waves. Thus, the notion that Einstein’s work is based on “aether-less model” is a myth. All along he used the aether model, while claiming the very opposite.
Regarding Einstein, there is a great degree of misinformation. The concept of measurement has undergone a big change over the last century leading to changes in “mathematics of physics”. It all began with the problem of measuring the length of a moving rod. Two possibilities of measurement suggested by Mr. Einstein in his 1905 paper were:
(a) “The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest”, or
(b) “By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod”
The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here also we are reminded of an anecdote relating to a famous scientist, who once directed two of his students to precisely measure the wave-length of sodium light. Both students returned with different results – one resembling the normally accepted value and the other a different value. Upon enquiry, the other student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the accepted value, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, for precision measurement he applied length contraction to the scale treating the star Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. The scientist told him to treat the scale and the object to be measured as moving with the same velocity and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of sodium light is infinite. To a surprised scientist, they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of sodium light!
Some scientists we have come across try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion. They claim that if we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of motion, then there will be no length contraction. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding the rod in a transverse direction. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference because the length contraction, if real, will be in the same proportion for both.
The fallacy in the above description is that if one treats “as if all three were at rest”, one cannot measure velocity or momentum, as the object will be relatively as rest, which means zero relative velocity. Either Mr. Einstein missed this point or he was clever enough to camouflage this, when, in his 1905 paper, he said: “Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks”. But is this the velocity of k as measured from k, or is it the velocity as measured from K? This question is extremely crucial. K and k each have their own clocks and measuring rods, which are not treated as equivalent by Mr. Einstein. Therefore, according to his theory, the velocity will be measured by each differently. In fact, they will measure the velocity of k differently. But Mr. Einstein does not assign the velocity specifically to either system. Everyone missed it and all are misled. His spinning disk example in GR also falls for the same reason.
Einstein uses a privileged frame of reference to define synchronization and then denies the existence of any privileged frame of reference. We quote from his 1905 paper on the definition of synchronization: “Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t’A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t’A - tB.”
“We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.”
The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Mr. Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In the above description, the clock at A is treated as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 06:49 GMT
Anton,
I agree, that information is a sort of a preserved quantity. But I do not agree, that information causes a change of any physical state. Information by itself cannot change anything real.
According to C.F.v.Weizsäcker information is nothing else than the a quantitative measure of FORM (in_form) that can be found on a physical structure or state. The more complex the...
view entire post
Anton,
I agree, that information is a sort of a preserved quantity. But I do not agree, that information causes a change of any physical state. Information by itself cannot change anything real.
According to C.F.v.Weizsäcker information is nothing else than the a quantitative measure of FORM (in_form) that can be found on a physical structure or state. The more complex the structure or state is, the more information is needed to describe it.
By generalizing this relationship between fundamental physics and information theory von Weizsäcker concluded:
ENERGY is INFORMATION.
(in: Unity of Nature)
If we take this statement as a fundamental "relation" not only energy has to be conserved, Information has to be conserved as well. That means, no information can be, in principle, destroyed. The black hole information paradox is therefore no paradox, it is mehrely the result of an insufficient description of spacetime-singularities. No information is really destroyed by them. An actual information has only been transformed into a virtual information, that is stored in the underlying field.
To highlight this insufficience it is useful to remember the behavior of waves. We know that waves - if are out of phase - can cause complete destructive interference, which looks very like a violation of conservation of energy. But we know that every time light cancels light "at one location" there is another location - usually nearby - where light reinforces light, and all the energy that is missing from the canceled location shows up at the reinforced location.
I think, we have to reason about the black hole destruction of information in a very similar way. And here I agree with you again. Using information theory the black hole paradox can possibly be solved.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT
Helmut, consider the case that you are enjoying a holiday on some tropical island and you receive the news, which is information, that a hurricane is approaching the island with probable catastrophic consequence. Your physical state will change dramatically from relaxed to frantic activity.
Now let's consider what is information in a physical sense and ask the question what information a piece of space dust receives, and when viewed from that point of view, information encompasses all physical phenomena that interact with that particle, and that interaction will cause a change of state.
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Anton,
Short and sweet is not problem at all when so accurately 'to the point'!
I think I have a simple logical solution for you, if you haven't already found it, but perhaps you can tell me on reading my essay.
Your axiom 3 stood out to me as nonsense before I'd finished reading it, so I was very pleased to discover that you'd found that too! There is however a slight 're-interpretation' of it that which works. It shows Einstein was closer than most think, but that one wrong assumption made nonsense of it all. It's actually better described in a Hadronic Journal paper here;
Emission/SR/QM resolution (Unfortunately few read that).
But well done with the essay. Sometimes small is very beautiful.
Best of luck,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Anton
The opening of your very good, but the conclusion was that to do I actually disappointment. It looks like you used a new question - answer more difficult - to answer the question posed.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
report post as inappropriate
Gordon Watson wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Anton; It seems you're still waiting for the reply that says, "Anton that's a lot of BS you published there, because of so and so."
Leaving the final nails to you, please consider:
In Fig. 1 you have L = AB = AC. So let's take the simple case where B and C are stationary in the same reference frame and A now moves away from both with speed v.
Clearly, if Alice sends duplicate signals to Bob and Charlie, they now receive the same information.
Let Alice now cut costs (eliminating duplication) and let Bob relay the message to Charlie via a mirror. Under you assumptions, Bob and Charlie still receive the same information.
Now let Bob install his shutter. Charlie now certainly receives less information than Bob and the paradox in your title is (in this simple case) a fallacy.
PS: Similar clarification of your gedanken yields the same result.
With best regards,
please return the favour via my Essay. Thanks; Gordon
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 08:38 GMT
Hi Gordon, You have demonstrated that my descriptive and linguistic prowess needs improvement. You seem to have associated A,B,and C with Alice, Bob and Charlie whereas they are fixed points of a Michelson-Morley apparatus that Bob carries with him while departing from the stationary Alice and Charlie.
In that sense, this is most valuable feedback in so far that I now know how to restructure the essay and to give particular attention to naming conventions.
Gordon Watson replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
OK. In that case it would be very helpful to have one Figure showing the three key phases of your experiment:
(i) The initial position of the key equipment and personnel with their interrelationships.
(ii) An intermediate phase with Bob reflecting information to Charlie.
(iii) A later stage with Bob's shutter in place.
All the best; Gordon
report post as inappropriate
Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 15:03 GMT
Hello Anton,
Nice concise essay. I read over the paradox several times - not completely sure I understand it fully, but very nicely written. I really like thought experiments. I'm also intrigued by your comments about Black Holes and Hawking Radiation. This is the first time an essay has made me go back to read my
own again in a new context.
Best wishes,
Antony
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:23 GMT
Anton,
If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 07:07 GMT
Hello Anton,
An interesting essay with an interesting problem, and if I understand the scenario correctly, and I may not, then what you are saying is that Bob has ingeniously found a way to secretly sequester part of the message directed at Charlie. For instance, if Alice is saying "Hello Charlie, how you doing today?" and Bob steals the "g today" so that Charlie receives the message "Hello Charlie, how you doin?", and Charlie replies "Hello Alice, I'm doin just fine baby.", does that mean that Alice and Charlie have experiences a non local interaction faster than the speed of light, and this due to a previous entanglement, or what? And if that's not correct, then please explain in more detail the nature of the information encoded on the communication frequency and the actual difference between what Charlie gets and what Bob gets. For your information, I have assumed that the shutter is an ideal mirror also, and that is has been shut just the once.
Zoran.
report post as inappropriate
Author Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 11:59 GMT
Zoran, thanks for your comment. Your understanding or interpretation is not a physical possibility as all the information that Bob receives, Charlie receives also receives. Thus, the only other interpretation is that there is a fault in the analysis presented in the appendix. I can assure you that mathematical reduction of the formulas is correct, thus there can only be a mistake with mathematical expression of the special relativistic corrections for the MM experiment or the formulation for phenomena of Doppler shift. These in turn you can confirm in every physics textbook thus follows that either the contemporary formulation of special relativity or the formulation of the Doppler shifts in frequency is incorrect.
Steve Coleman wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Anton,
While it is not clear to me from your experimental description exactly how your shutter is implemented (its not in any diagram I can see), it sounds to me like what you are describing is a version of a delayed choice experiment (keyword phrase: “instantaneously activated”), only while adding Bobs relativistic motion into the mix.
Any delayed choice should paradox should be excluded by special relativity given the photons own frame of reference and its time of flight within that reference (please see my paper
Precognitive Quantum State: What Can We Know? if this does not make sense to you, or contact me off line and I will be happy to explain why a delayed choice is not permitted by special relativity).
Experiment after experiment have all consistently shown that delayed choice does not work (in complete agreement with my papers argument, taken directly from SR), so attempting to show that it does work mathematically is simply non-nonsensical. Something is wrong, but it will take me time to examine your experiment to find it. Every photon emitted in your experiment will wind up somewhere and thus there will be no formation loss overall, only perhaps data not yet collected due to redshift differences in relativistic motion, time dilation, or simply discarded. Photons don't just disappear (ref: first law of thermodynamics) The question then is why the difference in these two viewpoints (math vs first law of thermodynamics/numerous experiments).
If I have misunderstood something significant in my interpretation of your apparatus setup please feel free to correct me.
report post as inappropriate
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 07:18 GMT
Dear Anton,
It’s a nice essay in that, ‘Information in a physical sense is that what causes the state of a physical entity to change. Viewed in this way, information is fundamental and it is a preserved quantity’, is much applicable and implies that the causality of information is the transfer of matter with energy in Hamiltonian. As the nature of
information is continuum, a string-matter continuum scenario is discussed to evolve a quantum information unit in matrix to resolve the information paradoxes.
With best wishes
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Anton,
I truly enjoyed your insight and exploration of the question if information is preserved in space-time. Although you have a different approach than I do, I find your analytical findings inspiring and most worthy of merit.
I hope that others will also find merit in your essay and rate it accordingly.
Regards,
Manuel
report post as inappropriate
Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
Anton
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...
view entire post
Anton
Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech
(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)
said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”
I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.
The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .
Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.
Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.
I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!
Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.
Good luck and good cheers!
Than Tin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 12:28 GMT
Dear Sir,
This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.
Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....
view entire post
Dear Sir,
This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.
Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic – “complex, even inexplicable behavior”. Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of “the deer population in Northern Michigan”, is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.
Infinities are like one – without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others – every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.
Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,…n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use “a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers”, you do just that through “comparison and exchange instructions”. You develop these by “inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by ‘mating’ parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated” and repeat it “thousands upon thousands of time” till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought “evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible”. After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.
Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area – the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.
The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.
However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally ‘illuminates’ the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.
Regards,
mbasudeba@gmail.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Anton,
Just to share your sentiments that with the CMB Anisotropy you mentioned it is time to move on. If you have the time you may wish to see possible roads that we may consider following here. And following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, perhaps you will like to view the judgement as well, in the case of
Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Anton Lorenz Vrba:
I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,
But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.
...
view entire post
Dear Anton Lorenz Vrba:
I am an old physician and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,
But maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called “time”.
I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.
I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).
Hawking in “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.
I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.
With my best whishes
Héctor
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Anton,
Review and scoring time. I'd hoped you may respond to my positive message on your essay above and give me your views on my derivation of a resolution of the EPR paradox. This is consistent with your views and uses the additional information contained in particle orbital angular momentum.
The more fundamental precursor essays of the last two years will help if you're interested in the SR aspects.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Anton,
I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.
I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.
You can find the latest version of my essay here:
http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf
(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).
May the best essays win!
Kind regards,
Paul Borrill
paul at borrill dot com
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.