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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

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

Paul Borrill: on 9/15/13 at 2:01am UTC, wrote Deomenico - thank you for your comment. I think there are many ways in...

Paul Borrill: on 9/15/13 at 1:44am UTC, wrote Vladimir - Thank you for your kind comments on my paper. I describe the...

Paul Borrill: on 8/21/13 at 2:29am UTC, wrote Steven - thank you for your complimentary comments on my essay. I’m glad...

Paul Borrill: on 8/21/13 at 1:57am UTC, wrote Hugh - thank you for your compliments on my essay. I did review your...

Paul Borrill: on 8/21/13 at 1:42am UTC, wrote The latest (Corrected) version of the essay is attached, along with a...

Paul Borrill: on 8/21/13 at 1:23am UTC, wrote David - thank you for your comments. I would not describe subtime as a...

Paul Borrill: on 8/21/13 at 1:17am UTC, wrote David - thank you for your comments. I would not describe subtime as a...

Paul Borrill: on 8/20/13 at 23:46pm UTC, wrote Please find attached, a "one page" summary of the essay, along with the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: An Insight into Information, Entanglement and Time by Paul L. Borrill [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Paul Borrill wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT
Essay Abstract

We combine elements of Boltzmann’s statistical account of thermodynamic processes in the second law, Shannon’s theory of communication, and a background-free conceptualization of time, where the arrival and departure of information carried by photons defines an ordering of events which are perpetually evolving and reversible (therefore perpetually re-ordering) inside isolated entangled systems. This becomes progressively irreversible as decoherence ebbs and flows with the environment. Our argument brings a new information-theoretic quality to the nature of an interaction. We use this concept in the context of a perpetual symmetric exchange of information between atoms by a photon, where the direction is (at the microscopic level) predictable, yet observation remains non-deterministic because we cannot know (in an individual measurement) how many times a reversal takes place without disturbing the system. The absurd idea is that reality is timeless inside entangled systems, i.e., it continually evolves and cycles through its recurrence, defined by the available number of states. This symmetry can however be broken at the macroscopic level by an observer preparing the system for measurement, triggering causality to select a direction for information and energy to flow. We introduce subtime (ts) as a reversible information interchange within an entangled system and re-examine the conclusion dismissed by Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen (EPR). We accept the principles of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light c (in ts), but question our ability to measure c with experiments that presume a classical (Tc) smooth, monotonic and irreversible background in time. We offer an alternative view in the spirit of Boltzmann indistinguishability: in addition to the indiscernability of individual particles with identical properties we recognize that states previously visited within a quantum system are indistinguishable from reversing subtime to that prior state.

Author Bio

Paul Borrill is President & Founder of REPLICUS Research and a Technical/Scientific Consultant to government and major enterprises on the foundations of storage, networking and security Infrastructures. Paul has been intrigued most of his adult career by the nature of computation, information and time; from their scientific foundations to their practical applications in engineering large scale disaster resilient IT infrastructures. Paul holds a B.Sc with Honors in Physics from the University of Manchester, a Ph.D. in Physics from University College London and is a graduate of the Stanford Executive Program.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:16 GMT
Paul,

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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:18 GMT
Jim - thank you for your message. The web site is now operational again, and I will try to download your essay. Best regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share


Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 01:42 GMT
The latest (Corrected) version of the essay is attached, along with a one-page summary for those who do not have time to read the full essay.

Kind regards, Paul

attachments: 2_TimeOneSummaryV1.1a.pdf, 5_Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1b.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Paul,

As of 7-6-13, 7:41 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:12 GMT
Paul,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:19 GMT
Manuel - thank you for your help. The Website is now operational again, and I have uploaded a corrected and revised version of the essay. Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 03:14 GMT
Sorry Paul,

I have received word that although it was unfortunate that there was a delay in conducting the ratings, no extensions to the final deadline will be made. I will keep this in mind when I get a chance to review your updated essay later this week.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Paul Borrill wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 19:22 GMT
The FQXI Web site has just been re-enabled. Please check back shortly for an corrected and updated version of the paper (later today). New Abstract here:

ABSTRACT: We combine elements of Boltzmann’s statistical account of thermodynamic processes in the second law, Poynting’s twist waves on a photon shaft and Shannon’s theory of communication within a background-free conceptualization of time; where the arrival and departure of information carried by photons bounds “elements of physical reality” as perpetually reversible photon links embedded in an entangled network. Entangled networks become progressively irreversible as decoherence ebbs and flows with the en- vironment. From this, we can begin to formulate a new and logically consistent view of the apparent non-locality revealed in violations of Bell’s inequality.

Bookmark and Share



Yutaka Shikano wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 23:13 GMT
Hi Paul,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. I do not understand the connection between entanglement and the space-time using the entanglement graoh. This seems to be skeptical on how to define the local Hilbert space to be connected with the space-time.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Yutaka - I am somewhat skeptical of how we use Hilbert Space, the essence of the paper is attempting to eliminate a background assumption for time, and much of the existing mathematical apparatus of Quantum Theory contains explicit, or implicit assumptions of a background such as Minkowski space.

For a good read, see Brian Swingle's Essay last year on The Illusion of Hilbert Space.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1559

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share


Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 00:06 GMT
Yutaka - allow me to be more specific:

Entanglement is the term normally given to the “non-classical” phenomenon where joint measurements show correlations stronger than what would be “classically explainable”. I recognize that using the term entanglement for this “photon hot potato” protocol might provoke reactions from mainstay quantum mechanic’s. Unless someone can find a hole in my argument, this protocol in combination with the concept of subtime, would appear to manifest exactly the same results as the purely probabilistic quantum formalism; but might now be considered “explainable” (I hesitate to say classically, because it isn’t that either).

The conventional formalism for entanglement says that two distantly separated quantum systems may be “coupled” via Hilbert space, such that measurement of one can suddenly change the state of the other. I have simply tried to describe an insight as to what form that “coupling” might take.

The difficulty with the entangled (pure state of vectors) in the Hilbert space, is that entanglement is seen as only one thing: the impossibility of writing a density matrix as a linear combination of tensor products. There are two basic issues with this. The first theoretical: it appears to be incomplete without including (at least) a backwards evolving quantum state [1]. The second is experimental: it appears to be a classic example of the independence fallacy [2].

This is the biggest reason the essay is completely devoid of mathematical formalism: I wanted to begin with a describable phenomenon, and not with an endless argument over the current formalisms before we can get to the real issues.

However, I am willing to be educated by those with more knowledge than me in this area. I am also willing to be tested by experiment: all of the Bell tests so far have outcomes that appear to be consistent with this new description, and I have proposed experiments which could lead to further insight.

[1] Lev Vaidman argues that the Two State Vector Formalism needs to consider backwards evolving quantum state because information provided by a “forwards only” state is not complete. Both past and future measurements are required for providing complete information about quantum systems. [ http://www.pirsa.org/08090067/]

[2] Ken Wharton “Reality, No Matter How You Slice It”.




Giacomo Alessiani wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:49 GMT
Hello Mr Paul Borrill,

I am Gaicomo Alessiani. Italians in this contest are not too much.

I kindly ask Your opinion about my essay. I simply post will be enough.

My Best Regards.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:31 GMT
Gaicomo - I have your essay printed out and will respond on your page.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Author Paul Borrill wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 02:57 GMT
Please review this corrected/updated version of the Essay. Paul Borrill (Author)

ABSTRACT: We combine elements of Boltzmann’s statistical account of thermodynamic processes in the second law, Poynting’s twist waves on a photon shaft and Shannon’s theory of communication within a background-free conceptualization of time; where the arrival and departure of information carried by...

view entire post


attachments: BorrillTimeOneV1.1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:39 GMT
Interesting approach and similar in some sense to the road I went with mine, although yours took a more technical perspective and mine somewhat more philosophical.

I tend to think in terms of two kinds of time -- something like "eternity" and something that we usually think of as time and which flows through greater time/eternity in worldlines. Worldlines are subject to relativity while the backdrop "eternity" (which entangled particles communicate within) is not. It's a very infantile mostly philosophical concept however, hence I did not get into it in any depth in my essay except to suggest that quanglement interacted in time differently than classical bits and thus represents a more primary form of "information" sharing than bits do.

I'd appreciate more in depth discussion of both your essay and mine if you find reading another essay on quanglement interesting :) At the moment I've only been able to skim yours since I am trying to digest a number of essays, but I will return and chat more if you would so enjoy.

Cheers!

Jenny Nielsen (PhD Student at KU Physics)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:36 GMT
Jenny - thank you for your comments. Two kinds of time indeed, and each of them has different notions of infinity Tc (+/- on the real line) is the classical way we use time in our equations, however, the "ts" insight creates a different kind of meaning for eternity - in this case an eternal recurrence that has no beginning or end. Of course, this is still independent of the movement of matter through space as entangled clumps living a separate eternal existence, and the "external" reality of bumping into other entangled clumps, and decohering, perhaps into a larger entangled clump, or splitting into yet more fragments of clumps.

I will make sure to read your paper in detail and learn what you mean by quantanglement.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share


Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 21:03 GMT
Jenny - I finally got to your paper early this morning and I must say, I really enjoyed it. My favorable review appears on your page.

I replied briefly to your question regarding eternity in my earlier response (above). I do appreciate you pointing me to Sir Roger Penrose’s concept of Quanglement [1, p 603]. This is one of my favorite books on my bookshelf and yet I never realized (or more more likely didn’t remember) his introduction of this concept.

I believe Sir Roger is clearly showing us the answer to the paradox of entanglement and non-locality in this concept; but even he doesn’t realize that he’s pointing his enormous intellectual gun to an answer -- hidden in plain sight.

If you check the various sections in his book that mentions quanglement [1. p 407, 578, 603-7] you will notice that he still maintains two principles: (a) that quantum behavior cannot be explained classically, and (b) that time, once having gone forwards, never goes backwards. This is manifested, for example, in the statement on p 603 “I am not trying to give support to the idea that ordinary information can be propagated backwards in time (nor can EPR effects be used to send classical information faster than light);”

However, he then plainly states further down the page that “quanglement links have the novel feature that the can zig-zag backwards and forwards in time.”.

Sir Roger continues to commit the background of time fallacy in figure 23.7 on the previous page, describing quantum teleportation as “acausal propagation of quanglement”. And then having a single direction (upwards) for an irreversible, monotonically increasing classical concept of time (what I refer to as Tc in my essay). This is strongly reminiscent of Wheeler & Feynman’s Absorber Interaction paper [2] who also commit this fallacy.

I think we have a smoking gun! I will leave our readers to follow up with Sir Roger’s various other publications where he appears oblivious to having committed this fallacy.

I truly hope that (after reading my essay) that he or someone else will educate us by pointing out where we are wrong about the relationship between subtime and quanglement ;-)

[1] R. Penrose. “The Road to Reality. A complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”. 2004.

[2] J. A. Wheeler and R. P. Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as the mechanism of radiation”, Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 17, no. 2-3, pp. 157–181, Apr. 1945.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear Paul L Borril:

Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your discipline among the sciences, it is the one that make more use, of what everybody call’s “time” and it is being used, without knowing its definition and which is more important...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Héctor - thank you for your comments. I will read your paper and respond on your page.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 16:57 GMT
Regrettably Dr. Borrill,

You wrote under the heading Falsifiable: Many experiments can be conceived to prove the hypothesis incorrect. Below are a few of the unique aspects of this insight that may be tested experimentally.

As I have gone to exceptional great pains to point out in my essay BITTERS: One real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once. The word unique means once....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Joe - thank you for your message. I have your essay printed out and will review it later today.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 11:31 GMT
Dear Paul,

This seems to be an interesting account of the relation between entanglement and time, not forgetting information, and they are only two essays dealing explicitely about entanglement. I intend to study it in a week from now because I am too busy before.

Meanwhile, you may be interested with my own writings

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

where...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:25 GMT
Dear Paul,

I think that there is a basic failure in your essay. You are talking about an entangled system while you should talk about entangled states. At least in the standard meaning entanglement means (entangled) states shared by mutually commuting operators attached to measurement systems. Thus there is no time here.

There are no entangled systems but systems that possibly...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 23:09 GMT
Michel - thank you for your comment. I have read your essay (very nice), I will comment on that on your page.

Entanglement is the term normally given to the “non-classical” phenomenon where joint measurements show correlations stronger than what would be “classically explainable”. I recognize that using the term entanglement for this “photon hot potato protocol” would provoke reactions from conventional quantum mechanic’s. However unless someone can find a hole in my argument, this protocol in combination with the concept of subtime, would appear to manifest exactly the same results as the purely probabilistic quantum formalism; but now might be considered “explainable” (I hesitate to say classically, because it isn’t that either).

The problem with the entangled (pure state of vectors) in the Hilbert space, is that entanglement is seen as only one thing: the impossibility of writing a density matrix as a linear combination of tensor products.

The reason this essay is completely devoid of mathematical formalism, is because I wanted to begin with a describable phenomenon, and not with an argument over current formalisms. I plan to follow up this paper with a fully mathematical description, but I wanted people to read and understand this description first in order to pave the way to a new understanding.

There are two basic issues with the existing formalism. The first theoretical, that it appears to be incomplete without including a backwards evolving quantum state [1]. The second is experimental, that it appears to be a classic example of the independence fallacy [2].

I am also willing to be held accountable by experiment. At least all the Bell tests so far would appear to be consistent with this description. I am hoping to engage the scientific community in this debate, which I see not as theory vs experiment, but as a constructive interaction between the two.



Additional References:

[1] Lev Vaidman argues that the Two State Vector Formalism (TSVF) needs to consider backwards evolving quantum state because information provided by a “forwards only” state is not complete. Both past and future measurements are required for providing complete information about quantum systems. [Ref: http://www.pirsa.org/08090067/]

[2] Ken Wharton “Reality, No Matter How You Slice It” http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1846

Bookmark and Share


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Paul,

I just found your reply. Thank you . I should read your interesting essay another time. I like your quote about Lev Vaidman "Both past and future measurements. In the contextual approach, one does not distinguish past or future measurements; one looks at compatible measurements.

I hope that you will find my essay attractive and I will be available for your remarks.

Have a good WE.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 18:51 GMT
Hi Paul,

Nice essay but I have to read a second time to fully grasp your ideas. Meanwhile...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 23:15 GMT
Akinbo - thank you for your message. I think you will find the answers to your questions in my essay, and the essay by Ken Wharton on this site

Kind regards, Paul




WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT
Dear professor Christian Corda:

Thanks for your nice essay, well done, i enjoy reading it very much

"a new information-theoretic quality to the nature of an interaction. "

very impressive!

could you put it simple the essential of EPR?

Thanks for your nice essay, i rated it with high mark

and from a different point view, my essay may interest you

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1906

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Bookmark and Share
post approved


George Kirakosyan wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 08:36 GMT
Dear Paul,

You have offered impressively review/analytical work, written in honest polemical style. It is interesting to follow of your attractive judgements. However, let me see that for study and proper examination of such content good time is required, and a certain acquaintance also with the touched basic problems. I saw it is difficult to start serious discussion within possible time...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
George - thank you for your kind words and high rating. There is a large volume of papers in this contest, and I am hoping to get through all of them. I have your paper printed out and will hopefully get to it before the deadline on the contest and will respond on your page.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Paul,

I couldn't actually discern answers to my questions above from the essay being an amateur physicist. However, I discern that from the quantum physics perspective a good effort to provide answers to the contest's question.

As a professional physicist, kindly indulge me one last question for my clarification: Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:55 GMT
Akinbo - you can find excellent accounts of Mach's principle in the books by Lee Smolin [1] and Brian Greene [2]. I think you will find them both a fascinating read. Brian's book has a specific description of the bucket of spinning water which I believe directly addresses your question.

Kind regards, Paul

[1] Lee Smolin. "The Life of the Cosmos. Oxford University Press. 1997.

[2] Brian Greene. "The Fabric of the Cosmos. Space, Time and the Texture of Reality." Vintage Books 2004.

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Paul

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:57 GMT
Than - thank you for your comment.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Dear Paul,

World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep original analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas and conclusions.

Constructive ways to the truth may be different.

One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counter-revolution in mathematics": «The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 19:00 GMT
Vladimir - I will take a look at Alexander Zenkin's work after I have finished with my reviews of the fqxi essays.

I have your essay printed out and will review it shortly.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Paul,

Finally got to your paper - so many in such short amount of time. I like anything that contains EPR and your approach is original. I like how you have treated time and the description of photons as dark makes perfect sense! Also nice to see Turing mentioned.

I thought your essay was interesting and relevant. I'm not sure whether you'll like my different approach, but if you do get chance, please take a look.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 19:05 GMT
Antony - thank you for your comment. I'm pleased that you find it makes sense. I described only entangled photons as dark.

I have your essay printed out and will take a look at it shortly and comment on your fqxi page.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Cheers Paul,

I liked the idea. Yes entangled photons make more sense this way. Great thinking!

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 05:45 GMT
Dear Paul Borrill,

I came to your essay because of a comment you made on Daryl Janzen's essay. I also like your reference in a comment above to "Brian Swingle's Essay last year on The Illusion of Hilbert Space". I thought that was an exceptionally good essay, and said so last year.

Your essay is daring and provocative, and full of ideas, such as time not existing until change occurs: "when nothing changes, time stands still." [and] "it is impossible to 'count' the number of recurrences within [a] state [of reversible change.]"

Of particular interest is "even behaviors that have... happened, can (at least locally) unhappen...".

I like your figure 4 of the entanglement net. But I'm confused about the limits of this view. I can see that such may hold in a crystal, say, but if an atom in a star emits a photon, which 1 billion years later is absorbed by my eye, this clearly is not recurring. So where is the 'boundary' and what is the distribution law governing these occurrences? I agree that it was reasonable of you not to include math in this essay but do you have answers to this question?

By the way, I also liked "if time (change) happens, we remember: if it happens and then the information reverses its path, we don't."

In short, you have more fascinating ideas in your essay than most do. I need to reread it, perhaps several times, to try to absorb the complete scheme [and look for holes in it.] It is usually easy to dismiss far out schemes, but your Catch-22, that "we don't remember the (reversed) occurrences" is a tough one to counter, right off the bat. I'll need to think about it more.

I invite you to read and comment on my essay, which I hope will introduce you to some new and stimulating ideas. I don't [yet] buy your ideas, but I rate you highly on originality and presentation. You present an idea I would normally dismiss so well that I need to think more about it. Congratulations.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 04:48 GMT
Edwin - thank you for your comment. I’m glad you liked my essay. Of course, any serious scientist should be downright skeptical at reading such an absurd idea! But there again, I wouldn’t have published it if I could find something wrong with it. After more than a decade of having this in my head, and 5 years of intense Gedankens, I haven’t been able to refute it, so I let it loose for people like you to find holes in it.

I’m pleased you raised the issue about a distant star emitting a photon. Such an idea was suggested, for instance, by Tetrode (1922) and also by Lewis (1926):

“An atom never emits light except to another atom, and. . . it is as absurd to think of light emitted by one atom regardless of the existence of a receiving atom as it would be to think of an atom absorbing light without the existence of light to be absorbed. I propose to eliminate the idea of mere emission of light and substitute the idea of transmission, or a process of exchange of energy between two definite atoms or molecules. (Lewis, 1926, p. 24)"

This was a central theme of the Wheeler and Feynman Absorber paper quoted in my essay.

The point is, free photons seek out “entanglement” with other atoms. Some find targets nearby, which is why we have condensed matter and the double slit experiment. Intermediate ones create rare reflections in planetary or stellar distances (don’t forget entanglement swapping). Yet others fly off in the universe and go forever, perhaps exerting pressure on some distant galaxy to accelerate away from us. Where the boundary is is definitely a future mathematical exploration. Which is exactly what I would be doing if I were not running a company right now ...

I will definitely take a look at your essay.


Good luck in the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
post approved


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 15:30 GMT
Paul,

I am rather intrigued by your paper. I will confess that I think this perspective on time may apply to quantum gravity. I will have to read your paper again to firm up my understanding. The two competing ideas are string theory and loop quantum gravity. In LQG gravitation is background independent. However, this is based ultimately on a classical formalism of general relativity where time does not exist. String theory on the other hand has time, but it is not background independent. It also works best in a holographic perspective where one dimension is reduced near an event horizon. The string/M-theory approach is also best looked at in a dual gauge approach with Yangians, which has some overlap with braid constructions in LQG. So there may be some duality here that has some bearing on your idea about time and entanglement.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:10 GMT
LC - thank you very much for your thought provoking comment. I had hoped to gain the attention of those interested in quantum gravity (string or LQG). The lesson I would hope the string theorists would get is that a background assumption of time is a crutch they can do away with. The LQG folks already know this.

The idea I have proposed is very simple, simplistic even. My thoughts have gone beyond photon entanglement to considering its applicability to any bosonic particle. However, the resulting “massive asynchrony” under the hood is of the order of an Angstrom’s worth of time interval for atoms, and many Angstroms for molecules. For the Nucleus, the answer would be a Fermi’s worth of time interval ... It gets really interesting for gravitons.

If this first step is true, there is a lot more of this theory to be explored. I’m hoping someone will find a hole in my argument so I can get this out of my head and go back to my day job.

Good luck in the contest, I will be sure to read your paper.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



john stephan selye wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:19 GMT
Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 06:23 GMT
John - thank you for your comment.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have replied to you in our thread. Before we comment on your essay, we must clarify that we do not assume or consider anything or any theory as given. We examine everything from empirical perspective using precise definitions. Thus, our views are usually different from others. We are confused after reading your essay. Kindly spare some time to clarify it to us.

In the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 23:18 GMT
A post was made on this site by Basudeba Mishra when I woke up this morning. I prepared a response, but now find that the comment is missing. This posting is in response to Basudeba’s original comments from this morning.

Paragraph 1:

We have replied to you in our thread. Before we comment on your essay, we must clarify that we do not assume or consider anything or any theory as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 22:15 GMT
A post was made on this site by Basudeba Mishra when I woke up this morning. I prepared a response, but now find that the comment is missing. This posting is in response to Basudeba’s original comments from earlier today.

Paragraph 1:

We have replied to you in our thread. Before we comment on your essay, we must clarify that we do not assume or consider anything or any theory as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
post approved


Author Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 23:01 GMT
The reference list in the above post was not uploaded correctly. Here it is:

References:

[1] Gershenfeld, Neil. The Physics of Information Technology. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[2]  J. P. Torres, Gabriel Molina-Terriza, and Lluis Torner, “Twisted photons: new classical and quantum applications”, 2005, vol. 5958, SPIE Publications.

[3]  G. Molina-Terriza, Juan P. Torres, and Lluis Torner, “Twisted photons”, Nature Physics, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 305–310, May 2007.

[4]  J. P Torres and Lluis Torner, Twisted Photons: Applications of Light with Orbital Angular Momentum, Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2011.

[5]  A. Afanasev, Carl E. Carlson, and Asmita Mukherjee, “Excitation of an atom by twisted photons”, arXiv e-print quant-ph/1304.0115, George Washington University, Mar. 2013.

[6]  J. Bahrdt, K. Holldack, P. Kuske, R. Mller, M. Scheer, and P. Schmid, “First observation of photons carrying orbital angular momentum in undulator radiation”, Physical Review Letters, vol -, no. -, pp. –, Accepted for Publication June 2013.

[7] L. Maccone, “Quantum solution to the arrow-of- time dilemma”, Physical Review Letters, vol. 103, no. 8, 2009.

[8] M. Schlosshauer, Annals of Physics 321, 112 (2006).

.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


basudeba mishra wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have replied to you in our thread. Before we comment on your essay, we must clarify that we do not assume or consider anything or any theory as given. We examine everything from empirical perspective using precise definitions. Thus, our views are usually different from others. We are confused after reading your essay. Kindly spare some time to clarify it to us.

In the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:13 GMT
Please see my response to this in the posting above. I have nothing further to add.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 11:11 GMT
Dear Paul,

Quantum entanglement indicates the existence of discrete-time with physical phenomena and this sub-time is expressional with discrete systems also, whereas this sub-time is essentially to be external to a noumenon or a system to describe the dynamics involved in a noumenon or a system.

As the particles are considered as zero-dimensional nothing inside the particles to be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 02:01 GMT
Jayakar - thank you for your comment on my essay. The principle I describe is distinct from conventional concepts of “discrete-time”. I identify photon traversals from emitter to absorber with what I believe EPR intended by the term “elements of reality”.

They are not discrete (fixed sized) entities as in chronon’s, but finite (and variable) intervals of time/space traversed by a photon; bounded by the atoms on both ends. Not only do I eliminate the notion of a background concept of time, I eliminate the infinities also at both ends of the real line when talking about the concept of subtime (ts). Classical time (Tc) then becomes the vector sum of subtime through entangled systems as they grow from simple bipartite systems to an indefinite size all the way up to the macroscopic and beyond.

So, this is why I disagree with your statement that subtime is linear and infinite.

I have downloaded your essay on “Exclusiveness of Binary numeral system in Information

unit is causal for Information paradox” and will make sure to review it in the next day or so and respond on your fqxi web page.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:46 GMT
Paul,

I very much enjoyed reading your essay which I found facinating, original, well organised, well written and nicely argued.

I agree your quite new 'two types of time' but have discussed a different if analogous conception relating to kinetics and two types of speed, 'propagation' in a medium and observer rest frame, and "apparent" or arbitrary. Apparent time reversal is then, as you suggest, of course perfectly possible. Distant analogies with 'Proper' and 'co-ordinate' time also seem to exist.

I was made to think more deeply abpout my own foundational ideas, which was good.I must also follow up on Poynting's 'twist waves on a photon shaft' which I find an important conception relating to an EPR paradox resolution I describe. Do you have a good link?

I think you deserve a good score even for originality alone! I hope you'll also find time to read, like and score mine, where hidden likenesses and loose analogies exist, (but you may need to read the foundations in my previous essay to find them). I'll be interested in your views. Do ignore the dense abstract and see the blog posts for a review.

Well done, and very best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 01:24 GMT
Peter - thank you for your kind comments on my essay.

I have found I have to be careful when talking about the notion of proper time. It is convenient to say that proper time for a photon is zero, but that depends on which Lorentz frame you choose.

Besides the references to works on orbital angular momentum in my essay, you can find pointers for downloading Poynting’s early work on the following site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390789/

I have copies of all his papers from jstor, but I am uncertain about the copyright status and don’t want to run afoul of the terms of use for the fqxi contest by attaching them.

Thank you for your good score. I am hoping that there is more to this than just an original idea. If I am even remotely correct, there are many profound implications and follow-on ideas; but I wanted to try and get this one idea over first and see if it holds water after examination by my peers before exposing my other ideas.

I would be happy to take a look at your essay, I am just wading through a pile of other fqxi essays now, but will see if I can get to yours in the next day or so.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 10:43 GMT
Paul,

Both profound and paradigm shifting, if such is now possible.

Thanks for the links, and kind comments on my blog.

Do stay in touch.

Hold tight for the roller coaster ride to the finish!

Peter

PS, I think I have Proper and co-ordinate (arbitrary) time well defined, but if you have a chance please read my last two (both top 10 but passed over) essays for the foundations and give me your views. Or fuller range of papers here; Academia.edu Papers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT
Peter - thank you for your kind comments. If such a thing is possible, then it puts a whole new light (no pun intended) on some of the most vexing issues in physics today and a number of profound consequence follow.

I started reading your papers from Academia.edu, and yes, I do believe you have proper and co-ordinate time well defined ;-) In fact, I was really quite impressed, you have done some outstanding work here. I am surprised I have not come across your work before.

Would love to stay in touch.

In the meantime, good luck in the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 06:53 GMT
Dear Paul,

You write

"Two atoms exchanging a photon with each other in perpetuity comprises an entangled system (Figure1)."

It reminds me the idea I published some time ago

"Quantum Phase Locking, 1/f Noise and Entanglement",

although I am no longer convinced that entanglement relies on this concept.

You write

"From this insight, we can now begin to formulate a new and logically consistent information view of the apparent non-locality revealed in violations of Bell's inequality without sacri cing the principle of locality."

At the end you may be right. It may be that one forgot to introduce the right notion of time in the interpretation and that some kind of quantum phase-locking is at work. I would be delighted to see a following up of my 15 year quest

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0510044

and this could be checked with atomic clocks in the end.

Good luck,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
Michel - I hope that by now you have forgiven me for not using the concept of entanglement in an appropriate way ;-)

I intended to be provocative: if the concept of subtime and the mutual hot potato photon does indeed predict identical results in Bell experiments and yet it has explanatory power beyond the statistical-only Hilbert formalism, then we can begin a new conversation on the nature of entanglement, and perhaps even the measurement problem itself.

I looked at your paper on phase locked loops. This is an impressive piece of work. It reminds me of my first career in my teens and 20’s as an electronics and telecommunications engineer and the old familiar PLL concepts came flooding back. Very enjoyable, thank you.

The biggest distinction I see is that I have introduced a truly reversible local conceptualization of time. The principal argument is that subtime starts and stops with the emission and absorption of a photon, and is reversed in all ontological respects as the photon is returned in the hot-potato protocol. This is how I divorce myself from a background assumption of time, which is not (as far as I can tell) the situation in your otherwise excellent PLL paper.

One possible further thought - to begin to unify the multiplicative Fourier transform approach applied to the tensorial products in your paper is to consider the path traced out by the photon, not as “terminating” on the atoms, but as a continuous path through each atom, a half orbit (Pi) change of direction at each end. This provides both a mathematical “pole” in the imaginary plane as well as a potentially appealing physical ontology which can be explored in its compatibility with Maxwells equations and Euler’s identity.

I would love to stay in touch.

Kind regards, Paul

Paul at Borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thank you for your kind comments in my essay forum. I hope my vote gave your essay a deserved rating boost.

When the recent kerfuffle over "faster than light neutrinos" was percolating, I expressed doubt that any one-way measurement could ever suffice to demonstrate the case, because any particle that exceeds the speed of light also exceeds the speed of time and therefore (like the hypothetical tachyons) could never have been shown to exist in the first place. So I appreciate your promotion in these discussions of Lev Vaidman's model, where (phi|psi) past and future states are entangled and reversible.

We have a lot to talk about that is more complicated than I wish to engage in right now, because we are so close in our views. In the end, I would hope to convince both you and Lev Vaidman that if time is indeed identical to information, entanglement of wave functions is identical to classical orientation entanglement rather than quantum entanglement that entails superposition -- in any physical sense, I mean. My physical definition of time (ICCS 2006, 2007), "n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random, self avoiding walk," meets the classical criteria.

Thanks for a stimulating essay and all best in the competition!

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 20:36 GMT
Tom - thank you for your kind comments. I wasn’t looking at my rating until you mentioned it. I figured its going to be what its going to be.

My essay does not discuss exceeding the speed of light, it only questions our ability to accurately measure “time intervals” in spatially separated systems. By recognizing that our irreversible and monotonic assumptions regarding classical time (Tc) may be an illusion, and that what may be going on is the vector sum of subtime traversals in an entangled system, we can no longer think simplistically about past and future or a fixed ordering of events in the experimental record. Both Lev Vaidman and Lorenzo Maccone (referenced in the essay) appear to have a similar instincts; I have merely given it the simplest ontological explanation I can think of which is consistent will known results in physics today.

When I read the “faster than light neutrino’s” kerfuffle, I realized this might be a manifestation of exactly what I am describing here, not perhaps in the neutrinos reversing their path, but in the “quantum stroboscope” mistake we may have about how we sample reality. Remember, like Bell tests, these experiments were really two experiments in different places reconciled in a “record” at some third location. These measurements are (like all time of flight tests) done as averages. No one has yet been able to convincingly produce an emitter of single photons (or neutrinos) or for that matter, convincingly demonstrate a reliable absorption of a single photon (or neutrino). In the case of truly single-flight events, there is no common background of time, and anything that can happen, can unhappen, leaving traces of information in the Tc record that give the illusion of superluminal flight.

Remember: the quantum stroboscope: "brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between".

I will take a look at your ICCS 2006/7 work on random, self avoiding walk as soon as the contest is over.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share


Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 18:02 GMT
Thank you, Paul.

I said it badly -- what I meant to suggest, re the neutrino test, was that an average speed (velocity) of test particles if measured in one direction only tells us nothing about the instantaneous speed of a single body. As a classical analogy, Kepler's orbitals that sweep equal areas in equal times demand an acceleration curve that could not be measured as conservation of orbital angular momentum if the orbit were circular instead of elliptical -- a circular path of constant angle in curvilinear acceleration gives up no information on time conservation, because every point equidistant from the radius is in a state identical to every other, as if lying on a straight line.

The attempt to linearly measure the speed of any particle without a 2-part average ("coming" and "going") therefore not only fails to conserve time, it fails the test of rational science. Suppose we measure an arbitrary number of neutrinos going and measure less than that number coming back -- (this is a thought experiment, of course, not possible to do) -- can we conclude that A minus B number of neutrinos broke the time barrier? Impossible. For if some neutrinos accelerated past others and out of "the orbit" of our speed-limited world, we couldn't have had any information of how fast the neutrinos were traveling when we first measured the speed.

While this is a less technical explanation of the time = information argument than I (or you) am capable of giving, I think it adequately makes the point. One has about as much chance of falsifying special relativity, as falsifying the second law of thermodynamics.

All best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Paul,

It occurred to me that, "... the quantum stroboscope: 'brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between' ..." like Kepler's orbits and time conservation, also has classical analogs:

1. Per Bak's theory of self organized criticality*, the "avalanche model" which describes long periods of stasis in a system, punctuated by periods of rapid change. (Bak's mathematical model supports Gould's and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium description of biological evolution.)

2. Also, in complex systems science, Braha and Bar-Yam** showed that in communication networks, activity observed at short time intervals reveals often radical change in hub to node activity, while the system at comparatively longer time scales shows hardly any change at all.

All best,

Tom

* Bak, P. How Nature Works

** Braha, D. & Bar-Yam, Y. [2006]. "From Centrality to Temporary Fame: Dynamic Centrality in Complex Networks." Complexity vol 12, no 2, pp 59-63.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yutaka Shikano wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 21:19 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thank you so much for your essay. Your essay has the different viewpoint to my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1836 . However, my question is how to connect thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and the Shannon theory? Your theory seems to be based on this answer.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 04:30 GMT
Yutaka - thank you for your comment. I will now take a look at your paper.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Paul,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 05:19 GMT
Amazigh - thank you for your comment. I have your essay printed and will be sure to rate it before the end of the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Charles Raldo Card wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 03:49 GMT
Late-in-the-Day Thoughts about the Essays I’ve Read

I am sending to you the following thoughts because I found your essay particularly well stated, insightful, and helpful, even though in certain respects we may significantly diverge in our viewpoints. Thank you! Lumping and sorting is a dangerous adventure; let me apologize in advance if I have significantly misread or misrepresented...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 06:11 GMT
John - thank you so much for the outstanding summary your posted here. You epitomized my views on many of the excellent essays on this site.

However, you may be mistaken in one aspect: I am not (currently) in the “It from Bit” camp. My current position is it is either "Bit from It" or they are both sides of the same coin, neither being more fundamental in their ontology than the other.

Good luck in the contest, and thank you again for leaving a comment on my page.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Antoine Acke wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:22 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thank you for posting in my essay where I characterize "information" as the substance of fields, and consequently as a substantial element of nature.

I went through your essay and I rated it according to my first impressions: much appreciation for your interesting ideas and for the way you express them. I need more time to re-read it and will later formulate my in-depth comments.

Kind regards,

Antoine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:31 GMT
Antoine - you are welcome. I enjoyed reading your essay, and thank you for your comments. I will look forward to hearing more of your impressions when you have had chance to go through the paper in depth. Please make sure you download the corrected version (attached below).

Kind regards, Paul

attachments: Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Jennifer L Nielsen wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:11 GMT
Paul,

While we differ on how we view entanglement somewhat, I found your paper excellently argued and thoughtful. Your concept of "subtime" has great appeal, and I will be pondering this for some time;l I believe you are onto something deep. Cheers and best of luck in this contest! I greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Jennifer

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
Jennifer - thank you for your kind words. Make sure you read my follow-on reply to your earlier comments (above) discussing Penrose's quanglement.

I will look forward to further conversations after the contest closes.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Paul,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which has some intriguing ideas, in particular that of subtime ("Subtime is what happens when we are not looking."). Quantum mechanics seems to have a self-protection mechanism, which forbids us to see how quantum things happen, when looking at them. This makes so many distinct interpretations to be undistinguishable, from experimental viewpoint. It is good when a new interpretation comes with the possibility of being falsified.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:16 GMT
Christi - thank you for your kind words. Nature's self-protection mechanism has been extraordinarily resistant to penetration for the last 90 years.

My theory is that our inability to penetrate nature is language constrained; preventing us seeing something truly simple, but completely non-intuitive to us. Lera Boroditsky (was at Stanford, now at San Deigo) has examined the different cognitive and language processes that different cultures use for thinking about space time metaphors. Personally, I'd like to see her examine the literature on quantum theory and tell us what she sees in our biases.

If the subtime interpretation turns out to be even remotely true, it is easy to see how the instincts of other scientists can be subsumed. For example, Bohr's model reflects on the appearance of jumps during the flash of the quantum stroboscope. Everrett/Deutch's multiple worlds can now be seen as simply a multiplexing of the different universes "on the same hardware" (as I described in the essay). My next essay might be a table cross referencing all the interpretations and showing how they all relate to each other perspective.

Thanks again for your comments. I would love to stay in touch.

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share



Neil Bates wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 00:22 GMT
Paul, this is a very ambitious attempt to unify various theoretical aspects as well as being daring in trying to "get around" various conventional tropes. I also like that you propose some empirical implications of your concepts, something that not enough essayists are doing here! In your Figure 4 I interpret that you are trying to expand Feynman et al's concept of "many paths" taken, in the "literal" sense of movement, to a sort of informational metaphor. This is much food for thought and can't be put into a little catch phrase, the latter being a popular but inferior goal of many thinkers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:36 GMT
Neil - thank you for your comments. I didn’t start out trying to be ambitious I just wanted to solve a thorny issue in computer science, and found I couldn’t do that without taking a deeper look into the physics.

Figure 4 is an attempt to depict subtime in a 2D diagram. Feynman diagrams represent space on one axis and classical time (Tc) on the other axis (this is how Feynman depicts a positron as an electron going back in time - which is not at all what subtime does). Figure 4 is space on both axes (imagine a 2-D view of a large molecule), with the colored “paths” going through the nodes; sometimes going directly, and sometimes echoing back and forth on the same path (a mini-entanglement). It’s a bit crude, but I was trying to make it as simple as possible to understand.

One way to depict subtime with Feynman diagrams might be to fold the paper to show the difference between 1 traversal and n+1 traversals. Pulling it apart like an accordion to show the difference between Tc and ts. But that wouldn’t work for the general case, unless the reader was an expert in origami !

This is nub of the issue: Feynman totally led the way with the path integral, and with the insights into reversibility that educated several generations of physicists, but so far I have not seen anything where he takes the next logical step, and considers a reversible path traversal that can be summed as a vector, compressing an arbitrary amount of subtime into a finite amount of classical time that we observe in our measurements in Tc

I also discuss this issue of the background of time fallacy in the posting above with regard to Penrose’s quanglement in response to Jennifer Nielsen’s question (above).

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Author Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:35 GMT
Neil - thank you for your comments. I didn’t start out trying to be ambitious I just wanted to solve a thorny issue in computer science, and found I couldn’t do that without taking a deeper look into the physics.

Figure 4 is an attempt to depict subtime in a 2D diagram. Feynman diagrams represent space on one axis and classical time (Tc) on the other axis (this is how Feynman depicts a positron as an electron going back in time - which is not at all what subtime does). Figure 4 is space on both axes (imagine a 2-D view of a large molecule), with the colored “paths” going through the nodes; sometimes going directly, and sometimes echoing back and forth on the same path (a mini-entanglement). It’s a bit crude, but I was trying to make it as simple as possible to understand.

One way to depict subtime with Feynman diagrams might be to fold the paper to show the difference between 1 traversal and n+1 traversals. Pulling it apart like an accordion to show the difference between Tc and ts. But that wouldn’t work for the general case, unless the reader was an expert in origami !

This is nub of the issue: Feynman totally led the way with the path integral, and with the insights into reversibility that educated several generations of physicists, but so far I have not seen anything where he takes the next logical step, and considers a reversible path traversal that can be summed as a vector, compressing an arbitrary amount of subtime into a finite amount of classical time that we observe in our measurements in Tc

I also discuss this issue of the background of time fallacy in the posting above with regard to Penrose’s quanglement in response to Jennifer Nielsen’s question (above).

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
post approved


David M Reid wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Hi, Paul,

Your essay was excellent (and I gave it top rating). Hawking also proposed adding a second time axis, but he did not, to my knowledge, follow this up. It deserves to be. In your first footnote you state that you present the theory without much formalism, because the existing formalism does not allow it. I would say that the mathematics to do so exists; what runs contrary to it is simply the lack of this extra time axis as you propose it in existing physical theories (to my knowledge; more research would be necessary to check this). In an answer to a comment you write a more valid reason for presenting the theory without much formalism, saying that you wished to get the intuitive idea across. Added to that is that the essay was restricted in length, and was meant for the general reader. It would have taken a much longer essay to include the necessary mathematics. But, I repeat, the mathematical formalism which could serve as a framework for a development of the theory exists. Indeed, before the theory could proceed further, it would need to be formalized and undergo the usual tests: (a) internal (mathematical) consistency, (b) falsifiability, (c) external (testing against data and compatibility with theory deemed indispensible) consistency,(d) predictive power, (e) comparison with other theories that match it (a)-(d) via Okham's razor and elegance. But you have presented the first step, and I would encourage you to formalize it and launch it on its journey of these tests.

I would have enjoyed discussing further points, but the contest is drawing to a close, and I will not have time to do so before the deadline. So it just remains for me to say: Bravo!, and hope that the judges recognize the merits in your essay, but more so, for the academic community, that you extend this essay and publish elsewhere. If you do, I would appreciate the appropriate source (preferably via an Internet link). If you would be so kind to do that, my email is reidnomad@gmail.com.(since the possibility of communicating via this forum will, as I understand it, expire in a few hours).

Best regards, David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 01:17 GMT
David - thank you for your comments. I would not describe subtime as a second time axis. If anything, it is a “no time axis” solution: setting aside Minkowski’s global background of time with a purely local “element of physical reality” between emitter and absorber. Unlike Minkowski space, time doesn’t exist beyond both ends of each photon path.

I have thought about how to describe subtime mathematically. it seems obvious that Hilbert spaces have very little to say regarding time in their inner-products/conservation/unitary evolution. Its just a set of rules that gives us the right answer for statistical experiments. I think this is what David Mermin (Boojums all the way through) was getting at when he said that explicit “denial” is built into the mathematical formalisms of QT.

At the basic level, subtime doesn't seem to need any more than Euler's equation and the triangle identity (see attached summary) to describe it. As Feynman discovered, half the exp(-iwt) wave plus half the exp(+wt) advanced wave gets the right answer.  However, I think Feynman missed it because he built QED on top of Minkowski space, giving rise to statements like “electrons going back in time”.

In my view, nothing goes back in time. From the perspective of the emitter, it is time itself that is going backwards in the retarded wave along the photon path. To the absorber, time is going forwards as it receives what it sees as an advanced wave. The sign of “time” in this context specifies the direction of information transfer, it has nothing at all to do with what we call forwards or backwards, past or future; we need’s Born’s modulus applied to subtime to yield observable evolution in classical time (Tc). This is nothing more than the triangle identity.

You are right, the mathematics is there. But it’s so simple it seems hardly necessary. I do plan to publish the paper, but I need to follow the rules of the fqxi contest first.

I would enjoy an extended conversation with you on this, and will take up your offer to contact you directly by email. However, we can also continue to interact on this web site; only the community voting was shut down the day you left your comment.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 01:23 GMT
David - thank you for your comments. I would not describe subtime as a second time axis. If anything, it is a “no time axis” solution: setting aside Minkowski’s global background of time with a purely local “element of physical reality” between emitter and absorber. Unlike Minkowski space, time doesn’t exist beyond both ends of each photon path.

I have thought about how to describe subtime mathematically. it seems obvious that Hilbert spaces have very little to say regarding time in their inner-products/conservation/unitary evolution. Its just a set of rules that gives us the right answer for statistical experiments. I think this is what David Mermin (Boojums all the way through) was getting at when he said that explicit “denial” is built into the mathematical formalisms of QT.

At the basic level, subtime doesn't seem to need any more than Euler's equation and the triangle identity (see attached summary) to describe it. As Feynman discovered, half the exp(-iwt) wave plus half the exp(+wt) advanced wave gets the right answer.  However, I think Feynman missed it because he built QED on top of Minkowski space, giving rise to statements like “electrons going back in time”.

In my view, nothing goes back in time. From the perspective of the emitter, it is time itself that is going backwards in the retarded wave along the photon path. To the absorber, time is going forwards as it receives what it sees as an advanced wave. The sign of “time” in this context specifies the direction of information transfer, it has nothing at all to do with what we call forwards or backwards, past or future; we need’s Born’s modulus applied to subtime to yield observable evolution in classical time (Tc). This is nothing more than the triangle identity.

You are right, the mathematics is there. But it’s so simple it seems hardly necessary. I do plan to publish the paper, but I need to follow the rules of the fqxi contest first.

I would enjoy an extended conversation with you on this, and will take up your offer to contact you directly by email. However, we can also continue to interact on this web site; only the community voting was shut down the day you left your comment.

Kind regards, Paul

attachments: 1_TimeOneSummaryV1.1a.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Steven P Sax wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:03 GMT
Hi David,

Your essay is very insightful, creative, and all around superb (and I rated it very highly). I really like how you brought out the concept of subtime. I've thought about this too, and I especially like how you utilized subtime to explain entanglement. Both our essays navigate very similar topics (as your question on my page suggest) and it's awesome how our approaches complement one another. (For example, we both look at entanglement analysis as an alternative to Everett's 'parallel universes.') And David, I very much appreciate your suggestions for experiments. It's essential to bring out real experimental evidence, and to suggest ways of testing our ideas further (and thus providing falsifiability), and you did that. And that's a very interesting twist on: "What would we see if we varied the distance between the source and detector in units of wavelength of the quantum particle in a Bell experiment?" which I'm eager to see performed. I want to think more about your question from my page, but briefly - I think we both start with different concepts involving entanglement and end up converging on a similar idea regarding what you would call dark photons. It's fantastic how that happened, and thank you. This is a great essay project. I look forward to seeing more of your ideas and work,

Sincerely,

Steve Sax

Bookmark and Share
post approved

Steven P Sax replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:26 GMT
Sorry, I meant to say "Paul" I accidentally addressed this comment to the wrong name "David". Silly mistake on my part! I'm going to email FQXI to correct for it. So to get it right - superb job Paul!

(Also, no offense to any Davids on this site :) )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 06:24 GMT
Hi Paul,

Thanks for a most interesting way to conceptualize QM. I won't call it absurd, as to me (a software architect) it seems quite natural! Your essay was a delight to read (and that's saying something... I have read over 80 of them now.).

You conclude:

> The photon is the carrier of time, and the Universe is a network automaton...

You might find your concept compatible with the picture in my essay Software Cosmos, which outlines the design of a software system to simulate the cosmos. I also describe and carry out a test to see if we curently reside in such a virtual world.

I think we could run my design on your virtual hardware... what do you think?

Hugh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 01:57 GMT
Hugh - thank you for your compliments on my essay. I did review your software cosmos description and found it interesting. Yes, it does bear a similarity to my “demon” manipulating virtual machines.

In response to the section in your paper on “Detecting a Simulation”.

As I mentioned in my description, a program cannot distinguish itself from running in a virtual machine or on real hardware. Detecting whether or not you are in a simulation is thus not possible within a single measurement. However, with multiple (I hesitate to say simultaneous) experiments between different entangled systems (read different hardware) will we start to notice that most systems are asleep most of the time. The speed of light is the key, but our experiments must find a way to measure it relative to subtime, not what we imagine it to be on a classical background of time.

I like the cross-disciplinary dialog between computer science and physics.

Both computer scientists and physicists do not understand time. But at least some physicists will admit it.

Take a look at the new one-page summary I just uploaded to the site.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Steven P Sax wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi Paul,

Your essay is very insightful, creative, and all around superb (and I rated it very highly). I really like how you brought out the concept of subtime. I've thought about this too, and I especially like how you utilized subtime to explain entanglement. Both our essays navigate very similar topics (as your question on my page suggest) and it's awesome how our approaches complement one another. (For example, we both look at entanglement analysis as an alternative to Everett's 'parallel universes.') And Paul, I very much appreciate your suggestions for experiments. It's essential to bring out real experimental evidence, and to suggest ways of testing our ideas further (and thus providing falsifiability), and you did that. And that's a very interesting twist on: "What would we see if we varied the distance between the source and detector in units of wavelength of the quantum particle in a Bell experiment?" which I'm eager to see performed. I want to think more about your question from my page, but briefly - I think we both start with different concepts involving entanglement and end up converging on a similar idea regarding what you would call dark photons. It's fantastic how that happened, and thank you. This is a great essay project. I look forward to seeing more of your ideas and work,

Sincerely,

Steve Sax

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 02:29 GMT
Steven - thank you for your complimentary comments on my essay. I’m glad you liked it. You might also enjoy the one-page summary I just uploaded.

When I first came across Everett’s parallel universes I thought it was absurd. But then I saw the interpretation described more fully in Lee Smolin’s early books, and David Deutsch’s fabric of reality, I realized there must be something to it. Lee Smolin doesn’t believe it but he is very good at describing why it is at least as good as any other interpretation.

However, I started wondering about what David Deutsch was trying to get at and read more of his papers. It then occurred to me that this is not unlike a computer program trying to find out if it is running on its own hardware, or is “sharing” the resources of a single set of hardware. I finally came to the conclusion that the universe might have just one set of hardware, but Deutsch’s multiple universes can still co-exist, just like virtual machines in computer science coexisting on the same hardware. It didn’t take me long to realize that if this is true, it might throw a wrench into the whole area of quantum computing, or at least give us another perspective on which to view it.

In the previous post, I described the need for experimenters to find a way to measure time of flight experiments relative to subtime, not to what we imagine it to be on a classical background of time. It is not difficult to conceive of many experiments to falsify the theory.


Be careful not to read too much into the (simplistic) description of the second experiment in my essay. Although the helical behavior of photons can manifest as eigenvalues marking off wavelengths. Their phases will align with those atoms whose reflectivity and absorption matches in the detection plane normal to the experiment (with of course an intensity proportional to the square of the amplitude). But this is important: this matching occurs at any random (or chosen) orientation. So experimenters will need to get creative to see the n-lambda effects.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:38 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:42 GMT
Dear Paul ,

As I promised in my Essay page I have read your interesting Essay. Here are my comments/questions.

1) Concerning your statements that "reversible computation occurs within an entangled system. Only when the entangled system decoheres into the environment of other entangled systems (through the exchange of photons) does time emerge as progressively irreversible, providing persistent evolution of information at the macroscopic scale", dont' you think that we could have information loss during the passage from reversibility to irreversibility?

2) I think that your "principle of retroactive non-discernability" could have some implication also in the issue of my Essay, i.e. the black hole information loss paradox.

3) Concerning Information and Entanglement I would like to bring to your attention another important behavior: in general the term entanglement means that the quantum state of a quantum system composed by two (or more) subsystems depends on the quantum state of each subsystem even if they are spatially separated. When one sums up the information in the two subsystems the result will be less than the information in the original system.The apparent information loss results hidden inside correlations between the subsystems. This should have some implication also for my comment 1).

4) A recent paper by Pierre Fromholz, Eric Poisson and Clifford M. Will correctly stresses that Einstein's general relativity is built based on the principle of general covariance. This basic principle implies that coordinates are seen like simply labels of space-time events. Thus, one can assign coordinates completely arbitrarily. Therefore, the only quantities that have physical meaning, i.e. the measurables one, are those that are invariant under coordinate transformations. One such invariant is the number of ticks on an atomic clock giving the proper time between two events. Do you think that your idea of "background-free conceptualization of time" could be connected with such a proper time?

In any case, I find your Essay very interesting and also bite provocative. I had fun in reading it. Then, I will give you a high rate.

Cheers,

Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:34 GMT
Christian - its fascinating how similarly we think.

In response to your comments/questions:

I will respond by paragraph number:

Paragraph 1:

P1: Concerning your statements that "reversible computation occurs within an entangled system. Only when the entangled system decoheres into the environment of other entangled systems (through the exchange of photons) does time emerge as progressively irreversible, providing persistent evolution of information at the macroscopic scale", don’t you think that we could have information loss during the passage from reversibility to irreversibility?

A1: This is how I “currently” think: information is trapped in entanglement, but does indeed escape during decoherence. The question is, where does it escape to? As I suggested in an earlier post, free photons seek out “entanglement” with other atoms. Some find targets nearby, which is why we have condensed matter and the double slit experiment. Intermediate ones create rare reflections in planetary or stellar distances (don’t forget entanglement swapping). Yet others fly off in the universe and go forever, perhaps exerting pressure on some distant galaxy to accelerate them away from us.

Paragraph 2:

P2: I think that your "principle of retroactive non-discernability" could have some implication also in the issue of my Essay, i.e. the black hole information loss paradox.

A2: This was what attracted me most to your essay. I hope we will have time after the contest to go into this more deeply.

Paragraph 3:

P3: Concerning Information and Entanglement I would like to bring to your attention another important behavior: in general the term entanglement means that the quantum state of a quantum system composed by two (or more) subsystems depends on the quantum state of each subsystem even if they are spatially separated. When one sums up the information in the two subsystems the result will be less than the information in the original system.The apparent information loss results hidden inside correlations between the subsystems. This should have some implication also for my comment 1).

A3: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was aware that the conventional formalism for entanglement provides for two distantly separated quantum systems to be “coupled” via Hilbert space, such that measurement of one can suddenly change the state of the other. Until your paper, I was not aware that there was an apparent information loss hidden inside the correlations between subsystems. This appears to lend credence to the subtime insight as to what form that “coupling” might take.

Paragraph 4:

P4: A recent paper by Pierre Fromholz, Eric Poisson and Clifford M. Will correctly stresses that Einstein's general relativity is built based on the principle of general covariance. This basic principle implies that coordinates are seen like simply labels of space-time events. Thus, one can assign coordinates completely arbitrarily. Therefore, the only quantities that have physical meaning, i.e. the measurables one, are those that are invariant under coordinate transformations. One such invariant is the number of ticks on an atomic clock giving the proper time between two events. Do you think that your idea of "background-free conceptualization of time" could be connected with such a proper time?

A4: I have the paper downloaded and it is on my list to read next. That Schwarzschild geometry can be described in infinitely many coordinate systems appears to be consistent with the background-free conceptualization of time I would like to achieve. In a nutshell, I believe that coordinate systems and labels of space-time events are a figment of our imagination. The reason for the invariance in the number of ticks on an atomic clock providing a “proper time” between them is nothing more than the speed of light being invariant. This does not mean that there is any temporal relationship whatsoever between one atomic clock and another.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this with you and look forward to further discussions down the road.

Best of luck in the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 09:47 GMT
Hi Paul,

Thank you for your very nice comments on my site.

I think that your concept of "subtime" is what I call "Universe time" and your "classic time" is what I call "world time". If you read the "coherent spacetime continuum" paragraph of my 3D Universe Theory, you will see what I mean.

I look forward to some more feedback from you once you've read my theory.

All the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:21 GMT
Patrick - thank you for your comment. There seems to be a great deal of interesting information on your 3D Universe site, so I will take a look at that after I have recovered from reviewing over 180 essays on this site.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Walter Smilga wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:01 GMT
Dear Paul,

thank you for this impressive essay.

I fully agree with your background-free conceptualization of time. Barbour did something similar on a classical level in deriving time from celestial motion. I would even go a step further pleading for a background free concept of space-time. In my view space-time is only an abstract mathematical parameter space that is used to represent relations between objects. Therefore, I cannot see any physical reason to consider space-time as an independent entity.

You can certainly base time on the exchange of photons between two atoms. (Atomic clocks use the exchange of photons between two energy levels of an atom.) For me it is interesting that you relate this exchange to entanglement, which, if I understand correctly, is your description of interaction. In two recent papers of mine I have described the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions as a consequence of momentum entanglement, which in turn is a consequence of irreducibility of the state space of isolated systems. So we obviously share a similar view.

I hope, in pursuing your concept, you will be able to cast your ideas into a mathematical form. This will help to make your ideas more understandable for the physical community.

Good luck and kind regards,

Walter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:44 GMT
Walter, thank you very much for your kind comments. Julian Barbour is one of the key influencers in my work.

We appear to agree strongly. I argued that Minkowski spacetime was superfluous at best and harmful at worst because it implies change can occur along the time axis independently of change on the spatial axes. Instead, I identified “subtime” with information transfer as a photon traverses the one-dimensional path from one atom to another, and is reversed in all ontological respects when the photon traverses back to the originating atom (can be generalized to any fermion/boson interaction).

Quantum particles are deaf dumb and blind. They are “surprised” in a Shannon sense when new energy/information arrives (or particles bump into each other in the night). This corresponds to Bohr’s intuition of quantum jumps: they appear instantaneous (like sudden change between flashes of a stroboscope). The classical time that we see (measure) is the vector sum of subtime in an entangled system (which grows to any size).

It is important to realize (and this is a simplistic description) that there can still be “motion” in the sense of atoms moving around in space (the void?). They can still bump into each other, but there is no manifestation coordinates, in space or time that we can see or measure. It is only when we interact with something (via photons) that our quantum states mix and we “share” information with what we are measuring. Information accumulates only when the scaffolding of entanglement binds matter together. The accumulation of this information up the scales from the microscopic to the macroscopic leads to what we as humans perceive as time.

I concur that space-time is an abstract mathematical fiction. The recent paper by Fromholz, Poisson and Will [1] (provided to me by Christian Corda) essentially argues your case for a background-free concept of space-time in their recognition that a Schwarzschild geometry can be described in infinitely many coordinate systems.

Please send me the references to the two recent papers you referred to regarding momentum entanglement, I would be delighted to read them and continue our conversation.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the reason this essay is completely devoid of mathematical formalism is because I wanted to begin with a describable phenomenon, and not with an argument over deficiencies in current formalisms. I plan to follow up this paper with a fully mathematical description, but I wanted people to read and understand this description first in order to pave the way to a new understanding.

The mathematics to describe subtime is very straightforward, almost any college graduate who understands the Euler equation and vector algebra can derive it as a homework exercise. How it evolves up the chain to the macroscopic world however, is a more challenging mathematical task, which might require a different form of mathematics [2].

In my view, before adding further “weight” to the mathematical frame we view nature through, it would be better to step back and explore the unexamined beliefs in the hidden assumptions behind current mathematical formalisms, and our inadequate interpretations of their meaning that is hindering our understanding of nature.

Kind regards, Paul

[1] Fromholz, Pierre, Eric Poisson, and Clifford M. Will. The Schwarzschild Metric: It’s the Coordinates, Stupid! ArXiv e-print, August 1, 2013. http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0394.

[2] P. Borrill, L. Tesfatsion. “Agent-Based Modeling: The Right Mathematics for the Social Sciences?” http://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/working-papers/p11674

Bookmark and Share



Member Kevin H Knuth wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Paul

Thank you for a very interesting and well-written essay.

I like your idea of using photons to generate a background-free concept of time. I myself have something similar in my essay and papers, expect given the fact that gravity can deflect photons (along with the fact that they have an inherent frequency and its not clear why that particular mediator should be singled out aside from the fact that it is massless), I have reasoned that it is something else altogether. I simply call the effect influence, and work to show that one can indeed develop an emergent spacetime from this as well as various particle properties.

I am a little fuzzy on subtime, since I don't really know what it means for someone to be looking. I would imagine that each photon reversal would result in an event that basically constitutes a change in time, which certainly affects the entangled particles. I will have to give the paper a closer look since I may have missed something.

Thank you again for an excellent essay with different ideas.

I gave you a high score, but the average at this resolution didn't change.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:45 GMT
Kevin - thank you for your kind remarks.

I focused on photons and atoms only to get the idea across. The principle (a reversible vector of combined time/information) should be generalizable to any boson/fermion interaction. Since photons are the fastest things we know of in the universe, they set the maximum rate of evolution that we see in our classical world.

I’m not at all sure how gravity comes into the picture. Gravitons (and gravity waves) are predicted by Einstein’s General Theory, but they have not yet been observed. It might be more suitable to call it something like “influence” until we have a better handle on it. There are many others on this site who are far more qualified than I am to discuss this.

What it means for “someone to be looking” was a paraphrase of Einstein’s remark to Abraham Pais when Einstein asked him whether he really believed that the moon exists only when he looked at it. Each photon reversal is a reversal of time also (remember this is the unique subtime between bipartite systems, there is no universal background of time).

Let me know if you have any further questions after you have had a closer look at the paper.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Michael Helland wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:56 GMT
Hello,

You just posted a supportive comment on my essay, thank you very much!

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind rating my essay, as I think one or two big ratings will hopefully allow my essay to reach the finals like yours.

Thanks

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:46 GMT
Michael - thank you for your comment. I have reviewed and rated all 180+ essays on this contest. I did not have time to leave detailed comments on all of them.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Brian L Ji wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Paul,

I have read your essay with great interests and rated highly. Instead of universe-multiplex scheme, if I am correct, subtime multiplex seems to do the same tricks and it seems to be intuitive. The experiments you proposed should give more clarification. Hope you get a good review from the board and get your essay published formally.

Brian

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:48 GMT
Brian - thank you for your kind comments. After working in the dark depths of concurrency issues in computer science for most of my life, it seemed obvious to me that nature could just as easily "multiplex" its multiple universes on the same physical "hardware" of entangled matter in one universe.

Thank you for your hopes for a good review. I plan to publish the essay formally.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT
Dear Paul: Dear Paul: his essay technically correct, is primarily focused on the role of entangled states and clearly related to the exchange of information, and therefore its quantification. This sentence of his essay deductions would summarize nicely: "The photon is the carrier of time, and the Universe is a network automaton"

Indeed, the photon is the king of the time, and to a certain...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Angel Garces Doz - thank you for your comments. You clearly understand the implications of my subtime postulate: “The photon is the carrier of time, and the Universe is a network automaton".

I found your essay interesting, and set it on the special pile to be read again in depth. Although I did have a hard time wrapping my head around “imaginary mass states” and “vibrations in the fabric of space-time, at speeds exceeding that of light”.

I do not subscribe to the idea of “information content independent of the observer”. I prefer the view that observers are part of the same network, as described in the excellent essay by Kevin Knuth in this contest.

My view is that causality is symmetric. There is no privileged role or direction for the observer-observee relationship. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Just as effects must have causes for them to exist, causes must also have effects for them to exist. Measurements of information will thus be different (and opposite in sign) for each observer from their vantage point.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:26 GMT
Thank you Dear Borrill, for your kindly post!

I have read and rating your nice work on high score much early (see my post above)

And how you have done with mine - it is unclear for me.

However, it is not big dealt.

Good luck in contest!

Georg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
Georg - thank you for your comment. I have reviewed and rated all 180+ essays in this contest.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 22:19 GMT
Paul,

Thanks for checking out my essay. Did you get a chance to evaluate it, knowing that I'm not an academic in physics?

Your ideas seem to be out of the box. There is much to digest, prompting many question:

Does subtime apply to entanglement or is it relevant, considering that entangled systems are Dark? If the photon is a carrier of time, does it still travel at the speed of light or does it cover fabrics of space with different times? There is a correlation between the results of measurements on entangled pairs even if separated by arbitrarily large distances? Who determines whether there are large distances?

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 21:55 GMT
Jim - you are welcome. I reviewed and rated all 180+ essays in this contest.

Yes this idea is out of the box; this is why I described it as absurd. I spent years trying to find a hole in my argument, and decided it would be easier to publish it and get shot down in flames if I am wrong.

Subtime is the vector of energy/information that travels with the photon. I describe entanglement as the constant passing back and forth of this energy/information, resulting in no net change for an even number of traversals, and a net change of 1 being indiscernible from n+1 traversals.

This is “dark” because this photon energy/information is “trapped” until something else (a 3rd party) breaks entanglement by making a measurement on one of the atoms taking energy out of the system.

All photons travel at the speed of light, whether or not they are entangled. The difficulty lies in our ability to measure time intervals against a background of time, because such a background does not exist, and therefore cannot be measured. As far as results of measurements are concerned, the following paragraph from my essay pretty much sums up why we appear to see evidence of superluminal propagation in the experimental record:

Since time does not move forward until the arrival of a photon, entanglement can occur over arbitrarily large distances. There is no limit. The only constraint is in our imagination: it is difficult for us to imagine that as humans at the macroscopic scale, that we are living like the flashes of the quantum stroboscope are smoothly joined together. They are not. there are brief flashes of reality during decoherence events with long periods of darkness in between.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Janko Kokosar wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Paul

I partially agree with your ideas, and I also think before about such idea.

One important "postulate" of physics for me is Ockham razor. Such additional sub-time is against Ockham.

But, all model of physics are allowed, which are mathematically correct, because they better visualize physics. So also your model does.

Time inside quantum coherence is really symmetric.

It is interesting that quantum computer can be much faster than classical computer or faster than stochastic one. Can you explain this with your model?

You deserve and will get good score. I will read it again.

P.S you have good editors. Are you on university, that they find time for you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 22:05 GMT
Janko - thank you for your comment.

Occam’s razor is the most important principle I live by. It seems to me that subtime is far simpler than any other interpretation so far, so I don’t understand your comment. Maybe you mean “for Occam” instead of “against” ?

If anything, subtime is too simple, simplistic even. However, I wanted to get the basic idea on the table for debate first before discussing “optimizations”.

Time is indeed symmetric inside coherent (bipartite) entanglements.

Thank you for the complimentary comment on my editing. I am not at a University, I do not get any form of compensation for this work. I have only myself as an editor, although my assistant has been know to find mistakes in my spelling and grammar.

I look forward to more comments when you have read it again.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



james r. akerlund wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:05 GMT
Hi Paul,

I was reading the comments on Sreenath B N comments section when I ran across your comment. You say "sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that"

Well, the instructions for putting URL's in your post are in the instructions for "Add a New Post". Here is what is says;

"HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 22:06 GMT
Jim - thank you for your message. I followed the instructions on the help page. However, after a fair number of attempts, I was unable to create a link that worked properly when I clicked on it. This why I revered to text url’s in my postings.

I didn’t have time to go into this any further, so I reported the problem to the fqxi administrators. I am waiting for them to get back to me...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Paul,

I just saw your post on my essay thread stating that you had read all 180 essays, and invited me, in true academic spirit, to review you essay and leave my comments. Paul, I had previously made a cursory review of your essay, but because I am not a physicist and was unfamiliar with some of more technical references, I felt rather unqualified to assess yours, and I did not wish...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 22:07 GMT
Ralph - thank you for your comment. I tried to write the paper in a style that could be accessible to those who are not professional physicists. I am interested in comments from everyone. You don’t have to be a specialist in the field in order to have interesting questions.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:21 GMT
Greetings Paul,

I appreciate the kind remarks left on my essay page. I'll make every effort to read your essay and rate it before midnight, but your comments may have to wait until tomorrow - unless they are urgent and short.

Regards.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT
Jonathan - you are welcome. Thank you.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



William Amos Carine wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 23:25 GMT
Hey,

I've often thought of ticks on a clock and wondered how much time really happens, or what the interval actually is. The ticks may occur at the same rate, or be taken as that which motion, or events macroscopically take place, like say the rate of ticks corresponds with the motion of the container, and it has such a time interval over all. But the possibility of something happening in between the one interval which is different from the next, something that would not change the motion of a body in trajectory much, is divinely intriguing. So is it correct to say that the amount of "time" in between ticks differs depending on the oscillations of photons that don't interact with or click with detection screen?

I've also never thought this idea could be applied or taken anywhere besides time, like was done with entanglement in this essay. Maybe this was what Einstein was thinking. I know scientist don't wish, because they doubt it changes the future, but I would that Einstein was around for an interview.

Best of luck with this here contest,

Amos.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 22:10 GMT
Amos - thank you for your kind comments. I’m glad you found the idea divinely intriguing.

There are deep issues in the fundamentals of physics regarding what a clock really is. Even Einstein’s photon clock considered time only within the boundaries of the clock. The concept of subtime exists only along the photon path between the atoms, not in the empty space beyond both ends. The rate of the ticks is arbitrary, depending only on the distance we choose between the atoms. Of course, nature may choose its own minimum distances according to the Pauli principle, which is what makes an atomic clock such an interesting device.

To answer your question: the amount of subtime (ts) oscillates in sympathy with the bouncing back and forth of photons. Classical time (Tc) appears the same (frozen) to an outside observer. This is indistinguishable from being “dark”, i.e., not observable. In this interpretation of entanglement, photons do interact with the screen, but instead of being absorbed (detected) they are reflected back to the source an arbitrary number of times.

I also have a suspicion that this is what Einstein was thinking. However, he was waylaid by Minkowski who insisted that time is built into the fabric of space in his famous 4D-spacetime interpretation of SR. I think this was a huge error.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



james r. akerlund wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 00:14 GMT
Hi Paul,

OK, I just read your submission and you have done a good job. I liked reading about the proposed experiments to prove t_s. I myself have thought along those same lines but I couldn't conceive of any experiments. Anyway, the point in your submission where you say; "Many di fferent con figurations are explored in subtime and only those well suited to their environment would (with higher probability) persist as (what would appear to be) irreversible change in T_c." Should actually say, many differnent configurations are explored in subtime and the only one realized is the one that follows the "principle of least time". Feynman did may wonderful things with the concept of "least time". Which as I just looked up is actually called Fermat's principle of least time. It basically says that the path a photon will take between two events will be the one that involves the least time between the two events.

On other things. A U of Washington physics researcher by the name of John Cramer has also written a paper that you may be interested in reading.

Cramer J. G. (1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647-688.

and An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation anyway, Cramer's ideas seem to be inspired by your reference # 13 to the Wheeler/Feynman paper.

In the next FQXi contest I hope to see a paper of one of your proposed experiments realized. Good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:27 GMT
Jim - thank you for your kind comments and wishes for good luck. I read Cramer’s original 1986 paper a long time ago. The overview you provided in the above link is a great. Thank you.

Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation (TI) uses both a retarded and an advanced wave together as an outgoing “offer wave”, and then another (180 phase shifted) retarded plus advanced wave as a “confirmation wave”. Cramer’s concept of an interaction is a “transaction” a one-off completion of a “contract” between an emitter and absorber which localizes only one of a “pair” of conjugate variables from the offer wave. The offer wave and confirmation wave are sequentially ordered on a classic background of time (Tc). Cramer talks about past and future and issues of “retrocausality”: committing essentially the same “background of time” fallacy discussed above with respect to Feynman and Penrose.

Cramer stresses the point that the interpretation of a mathematical formalism cannot be tested experimentally and must be judged on other grounds. TI does not therefore have any experimentally verifiable distinctions to other interpretations. Subtime, on the other hand, does have distinctions that can be tested experimentally.

The subtime interpretation (SI) identifies forward and backward photons (not waves) as “time incrementing” and “time decrementing” tokens of information depending on the perspective of the sender or receiver. Unlike Cramer’s interpretation, there is no external background of time on which to express these events in sequential order. Retrocausality is a non-issue for SI because it fully incorporates the reversal of time in bipartite interactions. This is why we can account for violations in Bell inequalities (in the “time averaged” experimental record) without sacrificing locality.

In SI the wave nature of a photon is expressed through the helicity of its traversal (clockwise when viewed from the sender, anticlockwise when viewed from the receiver). These helicities are reversed as the roles of sender and receiver are perpetually reversed in the hot potato of entanglement.

In a nutshell: the photon travels one way, then travels back, removing all evidence that it ever traveled there in the first place. The wave nature is expressed in the helical path of the photon (Poynting’s rotating shaft) without having to assume a “wave function” that pervades all of space.

Subtime entanglement conserves energy and information in a perpetually alternating “hot potato” protocol. This manifests as an indefinitely “frozen moment" in classical time (Tc). The reality that we assume and perceive in Tc is really a quantum stroboscope: brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 03:51 GMT
Hello Paul,

Reading essay now.

Will rate if I finish in time. Only a few pages in.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
Best of luck in the finals Paul.

I'm not sure if my rating was counted, so near the final bell, but you made it into the finals either way.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:29 GMT
Jonathan - thank you. I would still love to hear your comments after reviewing the paper.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Paul

I am very sorry - I really did unexpected when be ignored of the comments to your essay, while had rated it - it is probably due to an error click.

Your essay analyzes a very specific and detailed - it demonstrates the high level of expertise and extensive knowledge of you.

But perhaps you are too focused on the concept of time - still a vague concept and has not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 15:18 GMT
Hoang - thank you for your comment.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 09:44 GMT
Dear Paul

Thank you for visiting my page. I enjoyed reading your well-thought-out, written, and illustrated paper on the it-bit conundrum. That the photon is the carrier of information per se goes to the heart of the question. I see you teetering on accepting that the Universe can be represented as of one State that goes one tick at a time - i.e that there is no time dimension, but then you draw back and create an ingenious system to have your cake and eat it too: as Einstein conceived it, and as latter-day Mach might have it - all the elements of the Universe interacting simultaneously (if I understood your network concept).

I could not say I completely followed the logic of your Tc and ts completely and am baffled by the infinitely ricocheting photon between two atoms. What happens in a vacuum where no atoms exist? Anyway From the degree of confidence in your essay I feel that you have found yet another ingenious way to formulate what happens in Reality, and wish you all the luck in proving it and finding acceptance for it.

My approach however, is very different and seeks simplicity. Perhaps you can cast a look on my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory also found here in which the Universe is a timeless lattice of ordered nodes transmitting angular momentum locally, causally and linearly. I have demonstrated how probability emerges from that exquisite order. I do not accept Einstein's point photon concept and was very happy when I discovered that Eric Reiter has independently proven that experimentally. Eric Reiter's website is unquntum.net . I think that is a very imortant finding that deserves much more discussion than it is garnering.

With all best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 01:44 GMT
Vladimir - Thank you for your kind comments on my paper. I describe the photon as the carrier of time, not just of information. I would not describe myself as a subscriber to the idea that the universe can be represented of one state that goes one tick at a time. Indeed, I believe that our current scientific results point to a total and absolute asynchrony between different entangled systems, and that when “new” information erases old information that it shows up as a dissipation of energy (and a corresponding increment or decrement of time). Mutual synchrony shows up only in entangled systems, and specifically between bipartite pairs of particles mediated by massless force carriers.

What happens in a vacuum? Nothing! Except (as Feynman believed) the traversal of particles with some probability of colliding. Yes, even photons may have a non-zero cross section for interaction with other photons. This is reminiscent of the Aharonov–Bohm effect, which suggest that local ‘potentials’ may be more fundamental than the ‘field’ (which they originally suggested may be derived or emergent from potentials).

Regarding your Beautiful Universe Theory, I have now put many hours over several days into reading and and trying to make sense of your and Eric Reiter’s documents. Your documentation is impressive and I can see you have put a lot of work into it. However, we do differ in a number of respects. I find it hard to subscribe to ‘ether theories’ simply from a minimalist perspective. I also have a hard time subscribing to a single (cubic) packing scheme when there are so many sphere packing schemes in the mathematics (e.g. kissing number problem,http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePacking.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_packing or http://www.3doro.de/e-kp.htm) which appear to correspond much more realistically to modern atomic and molecular results.

Eric’s Reiter’s proposition (and experimental yes/no question) rests on the presumption that (a) we don’t have any other way of explaining waves and (b) that we can reliably measure traversals throughout an apparatus, and “coincidence” in the arrival of photons at a detector. Both of these issues are dealt with in my essay. The latest version of which can be found here: TimeOne

Along with a one-page summary: One Page Summary

Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 22:16 GMT
In response to your post; sorry for the delay, a bit busy.

I am glad that you read my essay, and I am even more happy that you rated it low.

I read, and rated, all the essays some weeks ago, and If I remember well I rated high (not 10) your essay: I can say now, because there is not problem now.

I am thinking, like you and other authors, that the information is transmitted by photons, that transport the information of a system: for me, the information is a measure using photons (or other gauge bosons).

I am thinking that is right, that the decoherence is obtained from interaction between entangled bosons and other entangled bosons (or gravitational ripples, as I read somewhere).

It is interesting the use of the single photon to measure entropy change, but I have problem with macroscopic object: if I use a source of photons to read the macroscopic state of a system (for example an image of a picture), then have the system of optics and picture a constant entropy? If I understand well, there are entangled photons for each optics system, that are decoherenced instantly.

My old idea is that the time change because of the radioactive decay (irreversible process), or spontaneous emission (but my mind is devoid of prejudice).

I am thinking, like you, that the time does not exist without curvature (in the past or future), or equivalently if there are not bosons, or there are not motions.

A good essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 02:01 GMT
Deomenico - thank you for your comment.

I think there are many ways in which ‘information’ can be transmitted (and received) in interactions between fundamental particles. From the thinking I have done so far on this topic, I am comfortable believing that ‘time’ can be locally incremented and locally decremented in the exchange of massless (gauge) bosons. For me, photons and gluons clearly play a similar role and are likely to represent the “elements of reality” that combine to create the time that we observe. This is because massless particles have only two degrees of freedom in their lowest angular momentum state, which matches the advanced and retarded traversals along a single dimension between a transmitter and a receiver entity.

Yes, a system decoheres rapidly if you shine light on it and try to measure its properties.

Thank you again for your comments. Take a look at the one page summary that I added to my post above.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



ioannis hadjidakis (narsep) wrote on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Paul,

Congratulations mainly for the splendid essay. I am sorry I did not manage to rate it in time. You may have a look to: http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0226v2.pdf

Good luck to expert's rating as well,

IH

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear IH

Thank you for your comment. I have the paper you referenced printed and will read it this weekend.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 15:16 GMT
Paul,

Thank you kindly for directing my attention to your essay; I only wish you would've done so prior to the rating deadline. I found the idea(s) expressed in your paper rather novel and interesting although I did not find them absurd. While reading your paper I couldn't help but think of Louis Kauffman's Virtual Logic where virtual is defined as "exists in essence but not in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul Borrill replied on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 20:40 GMT
Wes - Thank you for your comments. I enjoyed reading Peter Jackson’s essay and commented as such on his page.

I very much enjoyed the virtual logic paper you referenced by Kauffman. The unity in multiplicity is at the heart of many paradoxes. “It is ONE for the global observer and MANY for the local observer.”

Our mathematical formalisms in QM and GR tend to all be global “God’s eye views” (GEV’s) which mislead us as to what we can know and predict about the universe. The “Local observer view” (LOV) however can have many unities.

For example, Maxwell’s equations have time symmetric solutions: the retarded exp(-iwt) and advanced exp(+iwt) waves. Wheeler & Feynman explored this in their 1945 absorber paper referenced in my essay. Despite their mathematics coming out correctly by using half-retarded (from the past) and half-advanced (from the future) as the field generated by each charge, they still used a GEV 4-vector (Minkowski) background of time.

The theory of virtual particles that came out of Feynman’s work was intended to eliminate the notion of a field. He laid the groundwork for what we now see as an obvious next step: ditch the idea of a monotonic and irreversible GEV background and replace it with a LOV perspective where photon traversals represent local increments and decrements in time. To relate the “LOV” subtime to what “we” view as “GEV” classical time: simply use the triangle inequality to sum all the “absolute” values of each photon traversal, and voila, we can now see the obvious relationship to the mathematics of quantum theory and entanglement.

Within the subtime context we associate the departure of a photon from the transmitter atom with exp(-iwt) and the arrival of that same photon at the receiver atom as exp(+iwt). If entanglement does indeed turn out to be a photon hot-potato protocol as I postulated, then of course the net result is zero: energy and information are conserved in the entangled pair.

I will take a closer look at the Mach-Zender results, and examine if the concept of subtime provides as much insight there as it does for entanglement.

I will also look at the other references you described. I’m not sure I am qualified to discuss autopoiesis or conciousness. It seems too far up the mesoscopic & macroscopic chain for a simple /direct analysis relative to subtime.

I feel even less qualified to post an opinion on the fundamental nature of the four standard model forces. It might be that subtime can be thought about in a similar way in all boson/fermion interactions.

Thank you.

Kind regards, Paul

Bookmark and Share



Author Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 23:46 GMT
Please find attached, a "one page" summary of the essay, along with the latest (corrected) version of the essay.

Kind regards, Paul

attachments: TimeOneSummaryV1.1a.pdf, 4_Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1b.pdf

Bookmark and Share



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.