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.

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

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**NARSEP**: *on* 1/8/16 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Spacetime is a sytem that we suppose consists of one time dimension and...

**Frank DiMeglio**: *on* 11/12/15 at 0:05am UTC, wrote The emergence of reality fundamentally and necessarily involves our growth...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 3/23/15 at 18:26pm UTC, wrote Aye aye Captain.. Certainly fractals have much to teach us, about the...

**Blair Macdonald**: *on* 3/21/15 at 10:02am UTC, wrote Fractals I am convinced are the key to understanding QM and the geometry of...

**Blair Macdonald**: *on* 3/21/15 at 9:57am UTC, wrote Fractals I am convinced are the key to understanding QM and the geometry of...

**A Goldstein**: *on* 2/11/15 at 17:59pm UTC, wrote Emergence then, is the point(s) at which complex networks at the quantum...

**Nicholas Hosein**: *on* 1/24/15 at 17:42pm UTC, wrote A sciforums member wrote: when systems join to cross into/over....

**Nicholas Hosein**: *on* 1/24/15 at 15:16pm UTC, wrote Reality is reversed in time symmetry.

FQXi FORUM

August 25, 2019

In regard to the quote

"A barista walking backwards only to see the coffee flowing up from a cup into his pot; or an animal being unborn in a wildlife documentary; these things look inherently odd and impossible to us because they suggest that time is in fact reversed. However, microscopic processes are time symmetric—collisions between atoms or chemical reactions—can occur backwards or forwards."

I don't understand how events occurring in the reverse sequence from the sequence they previously occurred in means that time is going backwards? As was discussed in the posts about the new essay contest, it seems to me that time is still going forward, and it just happens that the physical events happen to be in the reverse order of some that occurred earlier. Is the author suggesting that a chemical reaction that goes in the reverse order is time reversal? I'm just an amateur (e.g. a crackpot as described by academics), but it seems like time is just a function of physical events occurring. Time can't go backwards because you can't reduce the number of events that have occurred already. Just changing the sign in an equation in a physicist's mind doesn't mean that time can actually go backwards outside the physicist's mind. If time really is a dimension somewhere similar to the 3 spatial dimensions, could someone pleas point it out to me? Until then, it seems to me to be more of a function of things happening in the 3 spatial dimensions. I mentioned this in the other topic on the new essay contest, but if someone could clear up my misunderstanding, I'd appreciate it. Thank you!

report post as inappropriate

"A barista walking backwards only to see the coffee flowing up from a cup into his pot; or an animal being unborn in a wildlife documentary; these things look inherently odd and impossible to us because they suggest that time is in fact reversed. However, microscopic processes are time symmetric—collisions between atoms or chemical reactions—can occur backwards or forwards."

I don't understand how events occurring in the reverse sequence from the sequence they previously occurred in means that time is going backwards? As was discussed in the posts about the new essay contest, it seems to me that time is still going forward, and it just happens that the physical events happen to be in the reverse order of some that occurred earlier. Is the author suggesting that a chemical reaction that goes in the reverse order is time reversal? I'm just an amateur (e.g. a crackpot as described by academics), but it seems like time is just a function of physical events occurring. Time can't go backwards because you can't reduce the number of events that have occurred already. Just changing the sign in an equation in a physicist's mind doesn't mean that time can actually go backwards outside the physicist's mind. If time really is a dimension somewhere similar to the 3 spatial dimensions, could someone pleas point it out to me? Until then, it seems to me to be more of a function of things happening in the 3 spatial dimensions. I mentioned this in the other topic on the new essay contest, but if someone could clear up my misunderstanding, I'd appreciate it. Thank you!

report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet, in reply to your question-

There is passage of time as you mention, things happening in space and then there is what is observed which, due to the non infinite speed of light contains a temporal dimension. Things closer to the observer are seen as they were more recently than distant objects, as it takes longer for the light to arrive at the observer from the latter. The reality the observer fabricates is from the sensory data recieved, so it has a time dimension incorporated.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

There is passage of time as you mention, things happening in space and then there is what is observed which, due to the non infinite speed of light contains a temporal dimension. Things closer to the observer are seen as they were more recently than distant objects, as it takes longer for the light to arrive at the observer from the latter. The reality the observer fabricates is from the sensory data recieved, so it has a time dimension incorporated.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the distance-finite light speed relationship causes more distant objects to be perceived later by an observer, but this still doesn't seem to be due to a separate dimension of time. The event, the movement of light through shorter or longer distances and the perception by the eyes and brain of the observer are all physical events happening. There still doesn't seem to be a separate time dimension. If there is, as mentioned before, could you please point it out?

Roger

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the distance-finite light speed relationship causes more distant objects to be perceived later by an observer, but this still doesn't seem to be due to a separate dimension of time. The event, the movement of light through shorter or longer distances and the perception by the eyes and brain of the observer are all physical events happening. There still doesn't seem to be a separate time dimension. If there is, as mentioned before, could you please point it out?

Roger

report post as inappropriate

Roger, in reply to your request;

Yes perception from sensory data is an event and so is a part of pasage of time, change in configuration of the Object universe.

The output reality from observation has 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension for the reason explained. It is a space-time reality, the temporal component is fully*incorporated into* the reality. There is no distance separate from time. It is not *due to* a separate time dimension in Object reality but is an inseperable dimension of the output Image reality, the experienced reality.

report post as inappropriate

Yes perception from sensory data is an event and so is a part of pasage of time, change in configuration of the Object universe.

The output reality from observation has 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension for the reason explained. It is a space-time reality, the temporal component is fully

report post as inappropriate

Roger,

That is because to the physicist, time is a measure of duration and the mathematical models abstracted from such measures as distance and duration are the reality, while the actual processes being measured are assumed to only be reflections of this underlaying system. For example, both "the fabric of spacetime" and the Copenhagen Interpretation are based on the assumption the model...

view entire post

That is because to the physicist, time is a measure of duration and the mathematical models abstracted from such measures as distance and duration are the reality, while the actual processes being measured are assumed to only be reflections of this underlaying system. For example, both "the fabric of spacetime" and the Copenhagen Interpretation are based on the assumption the model...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I am thinking that an equilibrium state (quantum or classical) have not time evolution, so that a classical (or quantum) network has not time evolution if there is an equilibrium state, and the dynamic of the network is near the equilibrium. If there is dynamic, then there is entropy variation, and the entropy give an information of the proximity to the equilibrium. So that a system near the absolute zero freezes the time evolution.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The diagram looks like a fractal. If only one of the branches of a tree to the present dies or fails a test, The path in reverse is lost for the lost branch cannot be created.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The idea of palindromic time symmetric gates is perfect for impedance matching phazed arrays in experimenting with time domain electromagnetics. In this setup a series of quantum shepard tones pass through the overall length of the palindromic circuit of billions of nodes. Then an assymetric signal is introduced in just one place on one side of the circuit to be detected assymetrically in time on the other....The chiral quantum walk needs to be built with GaImAr and other materials using the advantageous tunelling effects of matter at small scales. Could this be done? I enjoyed the referenced article very much but do not see where the six degrees come to play a role, perhaps i missed something

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Quantum walks are a nice complement to the random walks of classical physics and this work shows how quantum walks have the arrow of time if there is a little extra chiral term in the Hamiltonian.

The six degrees to emergence of reality is related to quantum walks, but is really a separate topic altogether. Six degrees refers to human relational networks which are different beasts from random and quantum walk networks. The two issues are presented in a very confusing way.

There really is no magic to the arrow of time in this work since the assumption is that there is an arrow of time in the chiral gates imposed by the model. The issue is simply whether this particular chiral trick will be useful for quantum computing, thus the nature of the grant.

The article would have benefited from a better description of the quantum walk and what makes a quantum walk different from a random walk. For example, a beamsplitter divides a photon into a superposition of two paths and the exact path the photon takes is therefore unknowable. Given another set of beamsplitters, and then another, and so on to n, you now have an n node quantum walk. Although the single photon appears at only one detector, the path of the photon is a superposition of all possible paths and a single path is unknowable.

The six degrees connection alludes to a relational network that uses quantum rules to relate nodes to each other instead of just determinism. Quantum rules allow for phase as well as amplitude and therefore have interference effects. Classical relational networks do not show interference due to superposition of paths. The fact that six degrees connects most humans to other hummans does not seem to have much to do with quantum walks.

report post as inappropriate

The six degrees to emergence of reality is related to quantum walks, but is really a separate topic altogether. Six degrees refers to human relational networks which are different beasts from random and quantum walk networks. The two issues are presented in a very confusing way.

There really is no magic to the arrow of time in this work since the assumption is that there is an arrow of time in the chiral gates imposed by the model. The issue is simply whether this particular chiral trick will be useful for quantum computing, thus the nature of the grant.

The article would have benefited from a better description of the quantum walk and what makes a quantum walk different from a random walk. For example, a beamsplitter divides a photon into a superposition of two paths and the exact path the photon takes is therefore unknowable. Given another set of beamsplitters, and then another, and so on to n, you now have an n node quantum walk. Although the single photon appears at only one detector, the path of the photon is a superposition of all possible paths and a single path is unknowable.

The six degrees connection alludes to a relational network that uses quantum rules to relate nodes to each other instead of just determinism. Quantum rules allow for phase as well as amplitude and therefore have interference effects. Classical relational networks do not show interference due to superposition of paths. The fact that six degrees connects most humans to other hummans does not seem to have much to do with quantum walks.

report post as inappropriate

quanta move only in space (not in time) time is a mathematical parameter of quanta motion

http://link.springer.com/search?query=sorli+amrit+

report post as inappropriate

http://link.springer.com/search?query=sorli+amrit+

report post as inappropriate

Amrit,

Hi. This is very similar to what John and I were talking about in the above posts and what I've got at my website. Needless to say, I agree! Good luck.

Roger

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/ti

me1

report post as inappropriate

Hi. This is very similar to what John and I were talking about in the above posts and what I've got at my website. Needless to say, I agree! Good luck.

Roger

https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/ti

me1

report post as inappropriate

Thanks so much for the references. The paper *Time from quantum entanglement...* was very interesting, also quite technical, but I liked that inclusion of clocks. Any discussion of time that does not include clocks is not really a discussion about time.

The paper involves two time dimensions as rest and moving frame clocks and the corresponding Hamiltonians use optical rotation as a nice little clock. Since time is all about the two dimensions that clocks measure, it is ironic that the conclusion is that there is no time*dimension* for reality, only spatial dimensions.

I completely agree that it is the four-space of GR that keeps gravity and charge forces from unification, and it is very likely that spatial clocks can keep time without the extra dimension of time...but it is also true that clocks do not need space to tell time.

Clocks only need matter and action and so time can be two of the dimensions from which space emerges. Clocks necessarily have two dimensions; a period or tick rate and a decay of the period over time. The polarization clock ticks with the period of the light frequency, but that is somewhat lost in this paper. Moreover, the decay of the clock is set by the stability of the period over time, also a point that the paper does not cover, the Anderson deviation.

The paper does do a nice job with entanglement and the rest and moving clocks can therefore interfere with each other, but the key to unification is with the two dimensions of time and not with space at all. Note that you talk about time travel because you think of time like space. Since time is simply a way to know objects are separate from each other, time travel has no meaning without an*a priori* and implicit assumption of space.

A space that emerges from the action of objects in time means that there is no sense to the notion of a journey back in time and the decay of each clock's period points the direction of time. Time is primal, not space...

report post as inappropriate

The paper involves two time dimensions as rest and moving frame clocks and the corresponding Hamiltonians use optical rotation as a nice little clock. Since time is all about the two dimensions that clocks measure, it is ironic that the conclusion is that there is no time

I completely agree that it is the four-space of GR that keeps gravity and charge forces from unification, and it is very likely that spatial clocks can keep time without the extra dimension of time...but it is also true that clocks do not need space to tell time.

Clocks only need matter and action and so time can be two of the dimensions from which space emerges. Clocks necessarily have two dimensions; a period or tick rate and a decay of the period over time. The polarization clock ticks with the period of the light frequency, but that is somewhat lost in this paper. Moreover, the decay of the clock is set by the stability of the period over time, also a point that the paper does not cover, the Anderson deviation.

The paper does do a nice job with entanglement and the rest and moving clocks can therefore interfere with each other, but the key to unification is with the two dimensions of time and not with space at all. Note that you talk about time travel because you think of time like space. Since time is simply a way to know objects are separate from each other, time travel has no meaning without an

A space that emerges from the action of objects in time means that there is no sense to the notion of a journey back in time and the decay of each clock's period points the direction of time. Time is primal, not space...

report post as inappropriate

Quote from article:"If you have a million dollars, you are a million times more likely to get an extra dollar than someone who only has one dollar, according to this model." That is because when you have a network in which one node has many connections, if another node enters the network, it is highly likely that this new node will also connect to a highly connected node.

My response: Yes, that is correct.

report post as inappropriate

My response: Yes, that is correct.

report post as inappropriate

Another quote from the article: However, microscopic processes are time symmetric—collisions between atoms or chemical reactions—can occur backwards or forwards.

My response: Reality is time symmetric.

report post as inappropriate

My response: Reality is time symmetric.

report post as inappropriate

Is anybody else having trouble scrolling after expanding thread to view all comments? email won't link either.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

A misinformed sciforums.com member said:

The grandfather paradox is nonsense because time is a measure of local motion. It isn't something we move or travel through.

My response: Of course it is. How else can we get from one place to another? Time travel is demonstrated mathematically by the existence of closed time-like curves

report post as inappropriate

The grandfather paradox is nonsense because time is a measure of local motion. It isn't something we move or travel through.

My response: Of course it is. How else can we get from one place to another? Time travel is demonstrated mathematically by the existence of closed time-like curves

report post as inappropriate

A sciforums member wrote:

when systems join to cross into/over. there's a " drift " of energy moving with the entity from one system to another, for a brief moment. the signature.

as you know[hopefully], temp is nothing but an energy level. for a moment as crossing into another system, there's an energy buildup [disturbance that creates the moment of equilibrium][like a chemical reaction,stress on the system moves the energy to a less stressful moment,equilibrium.].. the signature.

that's all this time symmetry is, nothing more.

as for replacing the former, i have no clue what you mean.

I responded with:

Reality is an energy system transferring from one moment to another? Also, are you saying time is not real?

report post as inappropriate

when systems join to cross into/over. there's a " drift " of energy moving with the entity from one system to another, for a brief moment. the signature.

as you know[hopefully], temp is nothing but an energy level. for a moment as crossing into another system, there's an energy buildup [disturbance that creates the moment of equilibrium][like a chemical reaction,stress on the system moves the energy to a less stressful moment,equilibrium.].. the signature.

that's all this time symmetry is, nothing more.

as for replacing the former, i have no clue what you mean.

I responded with:

Reality is an energy system transferring from one moment to another? Also, are you saying time is not real?

report post as inappropriate

Emergence then, is the point(s) at which complex networks at the quantum level transition to macro systems identifiable as part of the classical, macro world. As network complexity increases, we arrive at the level we call reality where probabilistic quantum events in toto, appear deterministic and measurable, i.e. real.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Fractals I am convinced are the key to understanding QM and the geometry of the universe, not to mention our reality.

I am an economist and was drawn to fractals for their behaviour being similar to economic system models. This has lead me to QM. An isolated fractal behaves (as I have shown in my blog) as QM is described.It shows wave particle duality; am more.

I have inverted the fractal to show what would be observed if measured/ observation. I am convinced from this experimentthe universe is a fractal : it grows at an accelerating rate, and demonstrates Hubble's Law.

I am an amateur and am currently writing up my insights from from the fractal which I first shared on my blog. There are many. I would very much like to discuss my findings.

report post as inappropriate

I am an economist and was drawn to fractals for their behaviour being similar to economic system models. This has lead me to QM. An isolated fractal behaves (as I have shown in my blog) as QM is described.It shows wave particle duality; am more.

I have inverted the fractal to show what would be observed if measured/ observation. I am convinced from this experimentthe universe is a fractal : it grows at an accelerating rate, and demonstrates Hubble's Law.

I am an amateur and am currently writing up my insights from from the fractal which I first shared on my blog. There are many. I would very much like to discuss my findings.

report post as inappropriate

Fractals I am convinced are the key to understanding QM and the geometry of the universe, not to mention our reality.

I am an economist and was drawn to fractals for their behaviour being similar to economic system models. This has lead me to QM. An isolated fractal behaves (as I have shown in my blog) as QM is described.It shows wave particle duality; am more.

I have inverted the fractal to show what would be observed if measured/ observation. I am convinced from this experimentthe universe is a fractal : it grows at an accelerating rate, and demonstrates Hubble's Law.

I am an amateur and am currently writing up my insights from from the fractal which I first shared on my blog. There are many. I would very much like to discuss my findings.

report post as inappropriate

I am an economist and was drawn to fractals for their behaviour being similar to economic system models. This has lead me to QM. An isolated fractal behaves (as I have shown in my blog) as QM is described.It shows wave particle duality; am more.

I have inverted the fractal to show what would be observed if measured/ observation. I am convinced from this experimentthe universe is a fractal : it grows at an accelerating rate, and demonstrates Hubble's Law.

I am an amateur and am currently writing up my insights from from the fractal which I first shared on my blog. There are many. I would very much like to discuss my findings.

report post as inappropriate

Aye aye Captain..

Certainly fractals have much to teach us, about the nature of the universe and natural law. I bookmarked your blog for later reference.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Certainly fractals have much to teach us, about the nature of the universe and natural law. I bookmarked your blog for later reference.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

The emergence of reality fundamentally and necessarily involves our growth and becoming other than we are.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Spacetime is a sytem that we suppose consists of one time dimension and three space dimensions. I wonder whether space dimensions are pure space dimensions (they do not incorporate time as well). In other words by Universe's expansion (and hence space expansion) time may HAS to follow the direction it follows.

For example: 1. if T=t and S=t+s, where T,S are the real time and space and t,s are the measured time and space then 2. t=S-s always positive if S>s (SPACE MEASURED IS SMALLER THAN THE REAL SPACE). Is it?

report post as inappropriate

For example: 1. if T=t and S=t+s, where T,S are the real time and space and t,s are the measured time and space then 2. t=S-s always positive if S>s (SPACE MEASURED IS SMALLER THAN THE REAL SPACE). Is it?

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.