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

Darryl Jay Leiter: on 11/7/09 at 15:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, Your question was: ...since you mention that many worlds...

Anonymous: on 11/6/09 at 14:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Darryl, Thank you for your answers to my two questions. I will take...

Jayakar Joseph: on 11/4/09 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Darryl Jay Leiter, In Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the Copenhagen...

Darryl Leiter: on 10/30/09 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kokosar, Thank you for your interest in my essay. You have asked...

Janko Kokosar: on 10/29/09 at 21:49pm UTC, wrote Some grammar corrections to the above post: You wrote that virtual...

Janko Kokosar: on 10/29/09 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Leiter Thank you for noticing my essay. You work on important...

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/28/09 at 23:47pm UTC, wrote Dear DJ Leiter, I just managed to read a tiny part of your essay and I...

Anonymous: on 10/27/09 at 7:27am UTC, wrote Dear Darryl Your mind is incredible! Be well.


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his original series is..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics Will Be Found Within An Observer-Participant Universe Where The Photon Carries The Arrow of Time by Darryl Jay Leiter [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 12:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

In confronting the challenge about what is ultimately possible in physics one must resolve three fundamental issues which occur at the interface between the microscopic and macroscopic levels of the universe: (1) the origin of the arrow of time in the universe; (2) the nature of macroscopic objective reality in the context quantum theory, and (3) an explanation for the emergence of macroscopic conscious minds in the universe. In response to this challenge we argue that the resolution of these three fundamental issues may be found within the paradigm of an observer-participant universe where the photon carries the arrow of time.

Author Bio

Dr. Darryl J. Leiter is a prolific research physicist, educator, and active member of the physics and astrophysics community. He is currently a professor in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program at the University of Virginia and is a Visiting Scientist at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia. He has published over 100 research papers in a number of fields, including elementary particle theory, gravitational theory, general relativity, quantum field theory, and X-ray astronomy. Currently he is collaborating with a research group at the Harvard Center For Astrophysics on a new approach to the physics of quasar structure.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 28, 2009 @ 19:43 GMT
Angular momentum is the absolute arrow of time. Consider a hollow steel cylinder with wide diameter (face) and small height (edge). Punch a hole through one face's center and weld on an external hollow pipe normal to that face's plane. Cut a hole in the edge and weld on an external pipe tangent to that edge. Fill with water.

Vigorously pump water into the center pipe and out the edge...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 03:43 GMT
IN AN OBSERVER-PARTICIPANT UNIVERSE THE PHOTON CARRIES THE ARROW OF TIME

In order to describe the quantum electrodynamic measurement process in

a relativistic observer-participant manner, an operator symmetry of “microscopic observer-participation” called Measurement Color (MC) was incorporated into the field theoretic structure of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) in the Heisenberg Picture. It was found that the resultant Measurement Color Quantum Electrodynamics (MC-QED) contained a microscopic quantum electrodynamic arrow of time that emerged dynamically, independent of any thermodynamic or cosmological assumptions. This occured because the Measurement Color symmetry within MC-QED implied that the photon carried the arrow of time. In this context the physical requirement of a stable vacuum state in MC-QED dynamically selected operator solutions containing a causal, retarded, quantum electrodynamic arrow of time, which caused a spontaneous symmetry breaking of both T and CPT to occur. In this manner the existence of the microscopic arrow of time in MC-QED offers a quantum electrodynamic explanation for the existence of irreversible phenomena which complements that supplied by the statistical arguments in phase space associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 05:07 GMT
Very interesting, i like your essay.

Concerning consciousness in the whole picture, i made an attempt to link quantum mechanics to it.

Feel free to check out my essay "To be or not to be strictly deterministic?" in the current essay contest.

Best

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 21:25 GMT
Darryl Jay Leiter,

Is this really addressing what is ultimately possible in physics? It appears to be pointing out a few current difficulties and gives a possible solution. I would be interested to know why out of all the ultimate possibilities for physics you chose this particular subject.Is it shoehorning in your particular topic of interest despite Anthony Agguire's request that this was not done? Or is it, in your opinion, the most profound stumbling block to the progress of physics and its ultimate achievements.

I am not sure that realising that photons progress through time as does macroscopic matter is one of the breakthroughs that will enable physics ultimate potential to be released. Light must have the same "arrow of time" as the macroscopic world or it would not remain visible in that macroscopic world. It has seemed to me to be such a small part of the bigger picture. Perhaps I have been overlooking its significance.

I would be interested in your other ideas if they were more accessible to a non specialist. I could not really follow what you were saying and do not have the time to carefully analyse and decipher its meaning to see whether I agree.It is a pity the essay is so short. I would have preferred a longer essay that took the time to elaborate and give some background, that would assist non specialists in this particular field of enquiry, and would also help to explain the ideas more clearly. Though that is perhaps just my personal preference. Others may find the concise technical writing style to their liking.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. In intend to read your essay "To be or not to be strictly deterministic?" and see if our ideas about consciousness and quantum mechanics have any interesting connections.

Best,

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 01:51 GMT
Dear Georgina Perry,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. The essay does not represent a shoehorning a particular topic of interest into the subject of the essay contest. This fact was clearly appreciated by the Editorial board of the FQXi because they accepted the validity of my introductory statement that:

In considering the question about what is ultimately possible in physics one must confront three fundamental issues, which occur at the interface between the microscopic and macroscopic levels of the universe:

1) The problem of the asymmetry between the description of the microscopic and macroscopic “Arrows of Time” in the universe;

2) The problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics;

3) The problem of finding a physical explanation of how living, macroscopic conscious observers emerge from the microscopic laws of quantum physics.

My essay discusses how the resolution of these three fundamental questions, in context of the new paradigm of Measurement Color Quantum Electrodynamics

(MC-QED) will lead to new discoveries about what is ultimately possible in physics.

This is because MC-QED and its intrinsic arrow of time will be able to reveal the connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. In addition it this new paradigm has profound implications for Cosmology and Particle Physics since the Measurement Color paradigm upon which MC-QED is based can be extended into Measurement Color generalizations of the Standard Model and Grand Unified Theories.

Best wishes,

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 07:34 GMT
Darryl Jay Leiter,

Glad to hear it. I do not know how the editorial board has selected the essays. There appear to be quite a lot that do not actually fit the initial brief concerning what would be appropriate.If they were too selective there might not be enough eligible entries to make much of a competition.

I have now read the same thing 4 times.In your abstract, introduction. conclusion and repeated here. It does not provide any more information the 4th time than the first.( Yes I did actually read your essay, from beginning to end, returning to those part that were least comprehensible to me several times before finally giving up on it.)

So you are claiming that what is ultimately possible in physics is that we will learn more about what is ultimately possible. You make grand claims for your MC-QED but your writing style dissuades me from any further attempts to understand the content of your essay. It was not written for me though. There may be others that find it to their liking. If your new paradigm proves to be successful I will be able to read a friendly dummed down version in the New scientist one day soon, so no need to discuss it here. Good luck.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Georgina Perry,

I really appreciate your careful attempt to understand my essay so I want

to make sure that you understand the main point of the essay which is profound.

MC-QED and its photon which carries the arrow of time will open the door to finding the connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. This is ultimately what is possible in physics.

In this way we may be able to find a connection between our minds and the "mind of the universe".

What could be more incredible.

Thanks again for your interesting posts.

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Darryl,

Thank you for your interest in my work. I too have read your essay with interest, and it is nice to note that we agree on the need to understand properly the emergence of the macroscopic world from the microscopic world. I have two questions. While you discuss decoherence, would you also not need to invoke the many worlds interpretation? Secondly, can you please explain to me again how the photons carry an arrow of time?

Thanks,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Darryl Jay Leiter

Origin of arrow of time in the universe ?

Arrow of time has origin in the human mind.

In the universe there is not time, only motion.

With physical time that is run of clocks we measure motion in timeless universe.

Strange enough, but so are results of my research.

yours Amrit

attachments: 6_TIMELLESS_QUANTUM_SPACE.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 06:03 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thanks for your reply and your interesting essay. Here are the answers to your two questions:

Q1. While you discuss decoherence, would you also not need to invoke the many worlds interpretation?

A1. No! In Measurement Color Quantum Electrodynamics (MC-QED) (arXiv:0902.4667) it is shown that an intrinsic time irreversibility occurs thru spontaneous symmetry...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear Dr. Leiter

I enjoy as well reading your essay although I have to confess that I did not grasp some of the parts there entirely. Nevertheless one of your starting points is to formulate one of the fundamental problems like this:

3) The problem of finding a physical explanation of how living, macroscopic conscious observers emerge from the microscopic laws of quantum physics.

In this approach it is implicitly assumed that:

1) The fundamental nature of consciousness processes (whatever it is) is or can be derived out of the microscopic laws ruling quantum physical processes.

2) The fundamental nature of the “ultimate elements” of consciousness (if any) are or can be derived from the fundamental nature of the constituents of matter (whatever they are).

In my opinion we have no right to assume such things in principle so that is why in my essay I try to set up the elements in order to elucidate if we are forced to admit a dualistic approach in which the ultimate nature of consciousness cannot be derived from the fundamental nature of matter and its governing laws or we have enough “proof” (plausible hypothesis in the worst case) to reject the dualistic position as a starting point.

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 19:04 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

You have stated earlier that:

"In principle we have no right to assume that the fundamental nature of the “ultimate elements” of consciousness can be derived from the fundamental nature of the constituents of matter. Until we have enough “proof” to reject the dualistic position as a starting point we require a dualistic approach in which the ultimate nature of consciousness cannot be derived from the fundamental nature of matter and its governing laws.

My reply is as follows:

The "proof" that is required to reject a dualistic approach exists in the form of the Measurement Color Quantum Electrodynamic formalism and its photon which carries the arrow of time. This is because it represents a nonlocal quantum field theory of quantum measurment which has the capability of being able to open the door to finding the connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. This is ultimately what is possible in physics.

In this way we may be able to find a connection between our minds and the "mind of the universe".

What could be more incredible!

Thanks again for your interesting posts. Further comments appreciated

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
Greetings Darryl,

Your intriguing essay was perhaps more interesting for me, because I will be presenting on a related topic next month at FFP10, Do Thermodynamic Entropy and Quantum Non-locality Have a Common Basis?. My contest essay also touches on this subject. And I found the work of H.Dieter Zeh helpful in both contexts, as well (I note its appearance in your references).

I like your premise and conclusions, but was not as happy with the explanation because it seemed as though you left some gaps in the logical sequence, in proving your core concept, and hastened to add the final connection with Quantum Brain Dynamics - with little justification. That piece seems more like an afterthought than the culmination of your earlier statements. Not quite ad hoc, but not compellingly connected. Without reading the QBD book and your earlier papers on MC-QED, it's hard to tell if there is a legitimate connection.

I don't like it when an author abdicates the responsibility to explain earlier work concisely, and instead says "As I proved in (4), there is an obvious connection..." You are a little better. You seem to move directly from the microscale to the macroscopic observer, however, without any attention to what is between, and according to decoherence theory that's where all the fun is! The whole transition from Quantum to Classical behavior merges because although decoherence is swift, it is not immediate. And DT asserts that the wavefunction does not simply collapse, but rather gets spread out through entangling interactions, and with the larger environment.

I like your basic conclusion, and find your research helpful, because it may assist me extending my work further into the microscale. As I pointed out elsewhere on these forums, it is energy that moves both the thermodynamic and quantum mechanical arrow of time forward, or at least points in the same direction. Thought you might say a bit more about the observer effect dictating that the observer is also participant. I've also researched the Quantum Brain connection, but hadn't heard of the Nambu-Goldstone bosons used in QBD before reading your essay and doing a little research. I do have a couple of other papers to offer (and references to recommend), which may be helpful filling in the gaps, if you are interested.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 00:37 GMT
Dear Jonathan Dickau,

You commented that: You seem to move directly from the microscale to the macroscopic observer, however, without any attention to what is between, and according to decoherence theory (DT) that's where all the fun is! The whole transition from Quantum to Classical behavior merges because although decoherence is swift, it is not immediate. And DT asserts that the wavefunction does not simply collapse, but rather gets spread out through entangling interactions, and with the larger environment.

My answer to your comment is as follows:

WHY MC-QED IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH INCLUDES A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.

It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an “environment” associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.

This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.

Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.

Thanks again for your interest.

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 03:13 GMT
Hello again,

Thanks for taking time to answer. I should say 'Oh shucks!" because you said "It has been shown" and are still making me read your longer paper rather than clearly explaining your core concept in the essay or the forum.

I have downloaded arXiv:0902.4667. I will look deeper, but I haven't found yet where it explains conceptually what Measurement Color actually is. Ergo; perhaps I understand your logic better than I do the set-up.

Please explain why an Abelian operator gauge symmetry should be called Measurement Color. How does this relate to microscopic operator observer-participation? It seems obvious that, at the microscale, other particles act as measuring probes assuming a role as both observer and participant, but much of your meaning remains obscure.

What does Measurement Color signify, as this relates to what is being measured? Is MC a means to include the energetic component of the observer wrt the object? Are you simply requiring that the object-observer/participant relationships be assumed symmetric? If so, what makes it colorful?

Perhaps I am having semantic difficulty as the term Color is a fanciful one, in this context. If I read your entire arXiv paper and you haven't explained it, I may may take issue. Perhaps you should have called it evasive Black Box theory instead (written with tongue in cheek).

But I am trying to understand what you are actually saying.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 08:14 GMT
Dear Dr. Leiter,

I enjoyed reading your essay too, and I also took a look at your arxiv paper. My daily job prevented me to give you a more rapid answer. Your idea to use retarded potentials to provide a time arrow for the photon is interesting, and you use it to derive interesting connections. Something strange happened: your comment on my thread was removed without a trace. Any idea?

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 23:07 GMT
Hello Again,

I think I might have figured it out, or answered one of my own questions. Please tell me, Dr. Leiter, if this is what you are talking about.

When you are talking about Measurement Color, this is an an attempt to quantify the fact that the process of making a Measurement will Color what we measure, because the observer is also acting as a participant. This statement is true even if both the observer and observed are sub-atomic particles. Therefore you are apparently asserting that it is possible to accomplish quantifying measurement's effect by imposing an Abelian gauge symmetry, associated with this observer-participant aspect of measurements, upon the structure of QED. Is this correct?

That is; by figuring in how each measurement will color what is measured, and applying this rule to every microscale interaction, you are able to alter or expand QED. And you have extended QED in such a way that by adding in the coloration of measurement, you derive a theory that is explicitly causal, or reveals the directionality of time.

Am I getting closer to understanding what you are talking about?

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

(JONATHAN QUESTION) When you are talking about Measurement Color, this is an an attempt to quantify the fact that the process of making a Measurement will Color what we measure, because the observer is also acting as a participant. This statement is true even if both the observer and observed are sub-atomic particles. Therefore you are apparently asserting that it is possible to accomplish quantifying measurement's effect by imposing an Abelian gauge symmetry, associated with this observer-participant aspect of measurements, upon the structure of QED. Is this correct?

(DJL ANSWER) Congratulation! You have got the idea exactly right!

(JONATHAN QUESTION) That is; by figuring in how each measurement will color what is measured, and applying this rule to every microscale interaction, you are able to alter or expand QED.

(DJL ANSWER: Yes this is correct! In MC-QED I have mathematically used the word "Measurement Color" in as an extension of the concept of color is used in the Standard Model to denote the different kinds of quantum particle forces. I am extending the QED formalism by using an additonal Abelian microscopic quantum particle field operator has an integer name which I call its MEASUREMENT COLOR to impose and operator type of "observer-participation" onto the field theoretic formalism. In the Standard Model the Abelian observer-participant symmetry of Measurement Color can be used in addition to the non-Abelian SU3 x SU2 x U1 symmetries.

(JONATHAN QUESTION): And you have extended QED in such a way that by adding in the coloration of measurement, you derive a theory that is explicitly causal, or reveals the directionality of time.Am I getting closer to understanding what you are talking about?

(DJL ANSWER): Yes! The impostion of the observer-participant Measurement Color operator symmetry, onto both the electron-positron and the photon operator fields in QED, leads to the MC-QED formalism which has the form of a non-local quantum field theory is C, P, and CP invatiant but spontaneosly violates the T symmetry. The resulant violation of the CPT theorem implias that the photon carries the causal arrow of time. This observer-particpant formulation of quantum electrodynamics has the potential to open the door to finding the connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. In this way we may be able to find a connection between our minds and the "mind of the universe".

What could be more incredible!

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 17:14 GMT
Thanks Dr. Leiter,

Glad I got past the verbal stumbling block, and have made sense of things. It's not the color of the measurement, but how the measurement is colored by the act of measuring. Great how you have married that with QED.

A worthwhile idea indeed. Incredible it is, but quite credible at the same time. And worthy of the extra time taken to understand it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Uncle Al, Stephan, Georgina, Tejinder, Cristi, Amrit, and Anonymous,

I would like to draw your attention to the summary of comments between myself and Jonathan in regard to the observer-participant MC-QED formalism", which are presented below. Since many of you have been skeptical about the ideas

present in my essay it would be helpful to me if we could we have critical group...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 19:24 GMT
Hello again,

Since Dr. Leiter has seen fit to use my questions and comments as examples, I am taking a moment to highlight facts I feel are essential to understanding his work. As it turns out, MC-QED relates strongly to the ideas I'll be presenting at FFP10, which I will summarize to facilitate this discussion. I am presenting a common basis for thermodynamic entropy and quantum non-locality (abstract attached).

Energy in all its forms is motive, by nature. It moves, acts, propagates, oscillates, expands, or disperses. If energy is concentrated in a locality, it tends to spread and be shared. The energy in molecules of a gas (for example) is shared or spread among the various microstates which are individual positional and energetic states a given molecule might occupy. While it is matter, every particle, atom, or molecule is also still energy and on the microscale wave-particle duality/equivalence plays a major role in its behavior. Remember that waves are spread out, by nature, while particles are localized.

Decoherence theory asserts that the wavefunction associated with particle doesn't simply collapse, but is instead spread out into (or transferred to) the environment or shared by interactions with other particles. In the latter scenario, each interaction results in entanglement between the individual entities which have interacted - forming a web of entanglement out of which classical behavior emerges. It would seem that it's this piece MC-QED more effectively models, by regarding each measurement though interaction as an observer-participant relationship.

If we follow where the energy goes, in any system, we can accurately determine both the thermodynamic and quantum mechanical arrow of time. In Dr. Leiter's work, he shows it is the photon which carries the arrow of time. And this comes out directly from adding terms to quantify how measurement is colored by the relationship of the observer to the object, when each particle, atom, or molecule is viewed as a probe which 'measures' other quantum entities through interactions.

Hopefully this little side trip sheds some light on his topic.

All the Best,

Jonathan

attachments: Dickau1.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 22:56 GMT
Hello dear Dr Darryl Jay Leiter,

Nice to know you .

It's very very very relevant .I liked a lot .

You say

"In this way we may be able to find a connection between our minds and the "mind of the universe".

We see the whole in all ,and the hope in this line time ....

What could be more incredible! indeed the light becomes mass in time evolution ,what more beautiful than our future Universal sphere .we wera at the begining ,we are at this moment and we shall be ....fortunaly .We are catalyzers of this uniqueness .The light becomes mass ,it's the creation ....

Thanks for your essay so spiritual ,and so deep ,and pragmatic about our limits .A pleasure to read .

Best regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 00:44 GMT
Dear Darryl Jay Leiter,

I have responded to your post on my essay.

I also noticed above that Uncle Al states:

"Elegantly derived physics fails to ab initio predict weak interactions' empirical parity violations."

Uncle Al, the theory outlined in my essay DOES predict chiral asymmetry.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

You stated that:

"Decoherence theory asserts that the wavefunction associated with particle doesn't simply collapse, but is instead spread out into (or transferred to) the environment or shared by interactions with other particles. In the latter scenario, each interaction results in entanglement between the individual entities which have interacted - forming a web of entanglement out of which classical behavior emerges. It would seem that it's this piece MC-QED more effectively models, by regarding each measurement though interaction as an observer-participant relationship".

I want to clarify your comment futher by pointing out that:

MC-QED DIFFERS FROM QED IN THAT IT IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH IMPLIES THE EFFECTS OF A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.

It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an “environment” associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.

This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.

Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.

Thanks for your interest and good luck in FFP10

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear Darryll,

Thanks for bringing my attention to your discussions. One thing that bothers me is the absence of any reference to the many worlds interpretation [MWI]. Decoherence, without many worlds, cannot explain quantum measurement, because while decoherence destroys interference, it preserves superpositions, since it works within the framework of standard linear quantum theory. MWI, by virtue of branching of the Universe, allows us to be in only one of those superpositions. Thus decoherence and MWI must work together. If MWI is not invoked, then one is compelled to consider a radical modification of quantum mechanics.

I would request your opinion on the above. Thanks,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 03:47 GMT
Thanks Dr. Leiter,

I appreciate the clarification. Nice how the forward motion of time just falls out of the theory. Thinking I know the answer to Tejinder's question, I'm curious to see how you'll answer.

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 12:25 GMT
Darryl

I found your essay very interesting and there is much merit in what you are developing. With such a radical proposal you may be encountering some unnecessary and artificial limits because of deficiencies in conventional logic and mathematics - which is the theme of my essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 14:13 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

YOU ASKED:

"Thanks for bringing my attention to your discussions. One thing that bothers me is the absence of any reference to the many worlds interpretation [MWI]. Decoherence, without many worlds, cannot explain quantum measurement, because while decoherence destroys interference, it preserves superpositions, since it works within the framework of standard linear quantum theory. MWI, by virtue of branching of the Universe, allows us to be in only one of those superpositions. Thus decoherence and MWI must work together. If MWI is not invoked, then one is compelled to consider a radical modification of quantum mechanics".

MY ANSWER:

MC-QED DIFFERS FROM QED IN THAT IT IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH IMPLIES THE EFFECTS OF A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.

It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an “environment” associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.

This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.

Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.

I hope that this answers your question.

Best wishes,

Darryl

Bookmark and Share



Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

The answer to Tejinder's question is:

MC-QED DIFFERS FROM QED IN THAT IT IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH IMPLIES THE EFFECTS OF A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.

It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an “environment” associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.

This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.

Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.

Darryl

Bookmark and Share



Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 14:04 GMT
Hello Everyone,

I am re-posting the comments of Edwin Eugene Klingman reply to my essay here

sine they were so interesting and thought provoking.

Further discussion of these points are welcome.

Darryl Leiter

------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

Dear Darryl Jay Leiter,

Thanks for reading my essay and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 09:42 GMT
Dear Daryll Jay Leiter,

i read your re-posting of the comment made by Eugene Klingman.

I can only agree to the points, Eugene made here.

For example the concept of randomness in QM. If QM is fundamental, then randomness in ultimate reality is also fundamental. But what could this mean? It would mean nothing, i guess. An absolutely random reality also has it's rules, namely that it can't have any conditions. Besides the fact that in an infinite random universe (multiverse) everything happens, - not only once but infinitely many times, it's absurd for me to believe that pure randomness should be the source of ultimate reality. One could ask where that randomness came from and this last question can't be answered by the statement "it popped up into reality randomly". So there has to be a deeper, more meaningfull ground at the bottom of ultimate reality. Also there has to be a condition that limits the possibilities of this ultimate reality. I think the only condition could be, that ultimate reality can't destroy itself and cannot *not exist*. In this sense ultimate reality is the one-and-only stuff from which all reality flows and i can't imagine another "stuff" that suits more for this than consciousness/awareness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Stefan

Universe is a whole. Universe is a permanent flow of energy. Nothing is above and not below. Nothing is primary and not secondary. Physical world and observer are belonging to the same universe. Mind see all in parts, but universe is one, better to say, universe is oneness.

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 17:35 GMT
Darryl

I do love QBD. Nice essay. I didn't understand your low public score at all so have added a better one! It occurs to me you may not have read the Peter Jackson one 'Perfect Symmetry', in which one strata is a practical experiment on developing brain dynamics, but the real content hiding in plain sight, is of a real answer, also hiding in plain sight! which seems even more in your line. There seem to be very few with hidden depths here, which I think yours also has.

best wishes

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 07:27 GMT
Dear Darryl

Your mind is incredible!

Be well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 23:47 GMT
Dear DJ Leiter,

I just managed to read a tiny part of your essay and I would like to confirm that you very understandably explained John Wheeler's variant of the old idea that measurement acts back on the measured process. Unfortunately, I did not manage to see the text again after I copied a 74k *pdf file which was not readable to my eXPERT PDF tools. I tried to copy it again and failed to do so. An Adobe Reader told me: file does not begin with %pdf.

While I prefer the quite different approach of restriction of reality to the past, I do not exclude that your approach is as equivalent to mine as are FT and CT to each other. Do not declare me stupid or crazy. If there is not yet any future, then the notions symmetry and asymmetry lost their meaning.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Dr. Leiter

Thank you for noticing my essay. You work on important topic. I think that QM should be explained without macro-world, in a opposite case QM is not complete.

I please you, that you explain your equations with help of Feynman's »QED: the strange theory of matter and light«.

When you are in CED, can you repeat, I think that there it is not any difference between CED in MC-CED?

You wrote that virtual photons from the electron do not act on itself. Is it not theory of Wheeler and other? But they propose such theory.

Do you know Cramer's interpretation of QM? Where the differences are?

My assumptions were that time only flows is standstill matter and that unsymmetry of weak force is a consequence that W and Z particles have standstill mass, but electron do not have standstill mass. But, who know, as first I should better understand your formulae.

Regards

p.s.

I read your reference but formulas are not numerated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 21:49 GMT
Some grammar corrections to the above post:

You wrote that virtual photons from the electron do not act on itself. Is it not theory of Wheeler and some attempts of Feynman? Why their theories were not accepted.

Do you know Cramer's interpretation of QM? Where the differences are with your theory?

My assumptions were that time only flows is standstill matter and that asymmetry of weak force is a consequence that W and Z particles have standstill mass, but PHOTONS do not have standstill mass. But, who know, as first I should better understand your formulae.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Dr. Kokosar,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

You have asked two importatnt key questions, namely:

(1) How is MC-QED different from Wheeler-Feynman Theory and

(2) How does MC-QED relate to Cramer's Tranactional Interpretation of QM

The answers to these questions are as follows:

ANSWER TO QUESTION (1) Even though "self-measurement" is operationally prohibited by the Measurement Color symmetry when it is applied to both the

electron-positron operator fields and the electromagnetic operator fields in MC-QED, the resultant theory is not equivalent to the Wheeler-Feynman theory since the electromagnetic field operators are still dynamic variables and have not been eliminated from the formalism.

ANSWER TO QUESTION (2) Since Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM involves a generalization of the Wheeler-Feynman formalism it is not equivalent to MC-QED by virtue of the answe to question (1). However since

MC-QED is a non-local quantum field theory there may be some nonlocal-in-time phenomena predicted by MC-QED which are similar in nature to those predicted by Cramer's version of QM theory.

Finaly note that a generalization of MC-QED into the a Measurement Color version of the Standard Model is possible. In this more general spontaneous CPT violating formalism, the arrow of time would be carried by a) the massless photon, b) all of the massive vector bosons, and c) the Higgs particle, since they would all have a negative parity under Wigner Time Reversal in this formalism.

Dr. Darryl Leiter

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear Darryl Jay Leiter,

In Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the Copenhagen Interpretation on Bohr model has constrains to describe flow of time that has no beginning of origin and thereby we may have to think of a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model in that universe is a cosmic-matrix in fluidity. In this model if we ascribe observer-participant universe, the events of objects with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Darryl,

Thank you for your answers to my two questions. I will take some time to think over your answers and then respond. In the meanwhile ...since you mention that many worlds is not needed in your approach ...can one see how the Born probability rule is being obtained in your study?

Thanks,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Your question was:

...since you mention that many worlds is not needed in your approach ...can one see how the Born probability rule is being obtained in your study?

The answer is:

In the MC-QED formalism the fact that the photon carries the arrow of time causes the Schrodinger equation for the state vector to contain

nonlocal-in-time retarded operator contributions which cause the time evolution of the state vector to take the form of a retarded differential-delay equation.

In the context of this formalism an S-matrix approximation can be found that leads to the Born probablity rule which predicts the "quantum potentia" of the probable events which may occur. In Von Neumann's language this would called the Type 2 evolution of the state vector.

In addition the formalism contains a quantum measurement interaction term which causes the quantum potentia of probable events to become the "quantum actua" of actual events. In Von Neumann's language this would called the

Type 1 evolution of the state vector.

Thanks for your interest. Further comments or questions would be appreciated.

Darryl

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.