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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:21am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/31/10 at 14:14pm UTC, wrote Hi Jason, The religions, logically can help for a quiet between...

Jason Wolfe: on 7/31/10 at 2:47am UTC, wrote Yes, Steve. I know that many parts of the world are dangerous and...

Steve Dufourny: on 7/30/10 at 19:50pm UTC, wrote It's interesting Jason. But Really I beleive the wisdom sometimes is an...

John Merryman: on 7/30/10 at 17:34pm UTC, wrote Jason, I know what you mean about thinking something is revolutionary,...

Jason Wolfe: on 7/30/10 at 0:11am UTC, wrote John: "we do keep having to go around in circles and find the same things...

John Merryman: on 7/29/10 at 21:51pm UTC, wrote Jason, I don't know that we don't see it, possibly that we haven't fully...

Jason Wolfe: on 7/29/10 at 19:30pm UTC, wrote We're not dangerous! We're just enthusiastic.


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: "The acrobats central to the rotation of a platform, share the same type of..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Ian Durham: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


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 BLOGS
August 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Turing Machines, Quantum Effects and Time Travel [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 18, 2010 @ 18:26 GMT
Last time I talked about information causality. Today I want to call attention to two other interesting talks at the New Directions in the Foundations of Physics conference in Washington DC.

The first talk was Dan Browne’s “Computational Character of Quantum Mechanics.” What Dan did was to present the solution to the problem he originally presented at the second FQXi conference. For his problem, he considered linear classical devices in a black box and asked what kind of computational tasks can the black box achieve? Then he switched the classical linear devices with quantum mechanical linear devices and observed that the black box became a universal Turing machine. Whaw! Why?

The key to the answer lies in representing the GHZ equality in binary format, and noticing that it converts sums into products. And with products, via Taylor series, one can approximate any nonlinear output. In fact what happens under the hood is a transition from Presburger arithmetic to the much more powerful Peano arithmetic.

The second talk I want to present to you was Scott Aaronson’s about playing with computers and time machines. Scott was claiming that hard computational problems become simple problems if time travel is possible because time suddenly becomes a reusable resource.

Now time machines do fire the imagination under any circumstances, and the talk did not disappoint on that. But time travel is ripe with problems and it was impossible for Scott not to create controversy. The first (obvious) problem for Scott was the grandfather paradox. The solution was easy: in quantum mechanics the cat can be both dead and alive by quantum superposition, and Scott was following David Deutsch’s suggestion that a time machine naturally finds fixed points in a stochastic evolution equation.

Unfortunately there are serious objections to his claim, because time travel has also other problems. In fact, one can take known time travel no-go results, and translate them in this computational approach. I could think of two right away.

First, there is an old objection by Jacobson who pointed out that the quantum mechanics expectation values in the presence of time machines are ambiguous because a Lorentz transformation can tilt the “now” plane to intersect the acronal region. Several papers attempted to modify quantum mechanics by renormalizing appropriately the answer, but all suffered from one problem or another. So how would Jacobson objection translate into Scott’s result? Easy. Have two spatially separated operators enter a superposition state of quantum mechanics, add the inputs and let the time machine compute an answer. However, a fast moving observer would see something completely different: the first operator enters a part of the wave function and gets instantaneously an answer back, while a moment later the other operator gets his answer. But here is the catch. Adding the two answers do not equal the answer as seen by a stationary observer, because the answer is in general non-linear (http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3023).

Another objection would be from a result originally obtained by Hawking. The time traveler returning back would lose all his quantum coherence and would not bring any information back from the future. All lottery number information from the future would be wiped out. So what would be the equivalent problem in computation? The limiting cycle of the stationary point. If the quantum system evolves from state A to B, to C, to Z, and all the way back to A, what you get in fact is completely white noise, a state of maximum entropy which would take the same long computational amount of time to isolate the answer as it would take without the time machine. And since Scott asserts that all computational hard problems can be solved in no time, this counter-example shows that this hope is not realized.

So while the idea of time as a reusable resource is valid and under this assumption Scott’s results were valid, in reality do not try to build a time machine to speed up computations. Who knows, maybe all the answers coming back would be 42.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
The problem boils down to converting a nonlocal entanglement into a temporal connection. Suppose you can transform a spatial surface which defines a distance between two quantum entangled states into a timelike surface. This would mean that in this new frame there is some causal principle, such as a unitary transformation, which can evolve one of these states into the other, or communicate information between them. This violates the no signaling result of quantum mechanics. It might also mean that one could clone quantum states. If you could transform the spatial surface containing two entangled quantum states into a timelike surface then the information of one state could be communicated to the other. Then in the frame where the quantum states are spatially separated this might appear to be a cloning.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 03:26 GMT
Lawrence, you hit the nail on the head with cloning. In QM cloning is prohibited by superposition, but by simple returning to the past in a CTC curve one gets a cloning of the state, hence the evolution should be non-linear. Combining this with Jacobson's argument results in different Deutsch-type fixed point answers for observers with different velocities. Scott's answer to those criticisms was something like: time machines are unphysical, so what do you expect? His answer to the second criticism on the long limiting cycle was: this corresponds to a broken computer, but this is missing the point as the criticism is only a trivial counter example of his claim that ALL hard computational problems get speed up.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 22:51 GMT
Florin,

It might be that CTCs exist in quantum path integrals near the Planck scale of energy. Solving problems with CTCs is similar to the old science fiction story whereby a scientist receives information on how to build a time machine. This person builds it and the first thing they do is to send the instructions back in time to themselves. It is a funny way of solving a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 05:07 GMT
Lawrence,

Yes, CTC’s may exist at Plank scale, but they are also irrelevant as time is ill defined there anyway. For the P-NP problem, apparently there is an entire hierarchy of 100+ other intermediate types as Scott reported, and I think that his result is just too strong to stand up to closer scrutiny. To be fair, Hawking’s argument is not universally accepted either as he introduces a super-scattering operator to prove it and this is in the venue of his answer to information loss in black holes. However, there are other results pointing in the same direction.

Scott also mentioned another idea: at each step of computation reduce the computing step in half (by a hypothetical mechanism). This would surely solve all NP problems in P time. The catch? Computation generates heat (energy) and at some point all this energy would be large enough to create a black hole hiding the final answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 16:41 GMT
Nice, Florin!

I don't see any problem with all answers in quantum computing returning 42, when 42 is renormalized to 1.

In other words, any non-zero integer tells us that the answer to a polynomial time problem is yes, because NP-complete problems should return a probability in the interval [0,1] and NP-hard problems a zero.

That is, suppose we allow states of superposition a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Tom,

You said "I don't see any problem with all answers in quantum computing returning 42, when 42 is renormalized to 1."

What's wrong with the number 42? It reminds me of El Naschie's E-Infinity sequence, where he uses part of double the Fibonacci sequence: 4, 6, 10, 16, 26, 42, ... In fact, I can't look at those "26.2" (Marathon runner) bumper stickers without thinking of El Naschie's sequence.

LOL!

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
Well now, Ray, you know I wasn't assigning any particular significance to the number itself! :-)

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Tom,

I was just having some fun!

LOL!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 19:32 GMT
You know I have a big default, I like sincerely people, and I like you Tom,Be sure I prefer women, hihihihi it's like that but please focus on spherization hihihi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 00:10 GMT
There is a way that superluminal information transfer can occur without time ordering violations, violating energy conservation, or violating the weak energy T^{00} >= 0 requirement.

Ask...if you dare.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 03:52 GMT
I'll ask, but you are only erecting a strawman.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 05:06 GMT
Good of you to ask. Within the context of established physics, GR+QM, there is no FTL that we've overlooked. So it's reasonable to be confident. But let's look at it. I've stated that physics is implemented with photons (more accurately, with exp^(kx-wt) objects). I am surprised that nobody has said, "Hey Jason, maybe those objects are super-strings!" Be that as it may, such objects act/transmit causality at the speed of light, c.

To get FTL, with respect to c, there have to be physics implementing objects (super-strings?) that are still velocity bounded, but at a higher velocity. In other words, I'm going for the coexisting space-time with speed of light c' >> c. Now remember, FTL does not necessarily imply tachyons, which have no velocity limit.

So the real question is: why don't I see naturally occurring hyperspace objects floating by? I have an answer. Typical photons are emitted and absorbed at the speed of light, c, regardless of other considerations. Let's look at the phase velocity. What if electric charges are obligated to maintain the group velocity ratio,



If hyper-space charges are obliged to uphold a different ratio between frequency and momentum vector, then the photons that work for these charges would go unnoticed by our electromagnetic forces. That's why we don't trip over hyperspace rocks.

A second coexisting space-time, with a faster speed of light, will make FTL motion available.

There is no danger of time-travel because photons transmit causality. If time travel were possible, then an infinite number of universes would have to exist simultaneously, and somehow go unnoticed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 13:06 GMT
We have been around the block on the idea of a second spacetime. It matters none if this second spacetime is another universe or if it is the Schwarzschild throat of a wormhole, or “fill in the blank,” the problem persists. Information propagated from x to y in our universe faster than light by any means leads to the same problem.

As for phase and group velocities, the phase velocity refers to the velocity v = p/m with p = ∂S/∂q, for S the action, and this defines the place of constant action where the degrees of freedom or information about the system are defined. For a wave system one can use the Hamilton-Jacobi equation to show this is v = ω/k. This is in contrast to the group velocity v_g = ∂ω/∂k, which is a velocity corresponding to the dispersion of Fourier components. This does not propagate information, as does the phase velocity.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 14:38 GMT
I think what hangs us up about the grandfather paradox -- actually, what creates a paradox where none need exist -- are the assumptions that the "me" who travels from present to past is the same "me" who appears in his grandfather's present, and that the grandfather exists on a continuous line from "my" present to "his" present. IOW, we assume two fixed points continuous on one real...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 15:26 GMT
Tom,

All that exists is the present. The past is just a collection of information about previous interactions and relationships. The present is where we get to enact our decisions. The past has no existence other than the accumulated information. The future also does not exist until we get there.

Scrap you time machine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 15:10 GMT
Lawrence,

I was referring to the phase velocity only, not the group velocity; somehow a "g" got past my editing.

If you've ever picked up a handful of rocks and tossed it into a lake, you will get many circular outgoing rings, one for each rock. You can try that experiment at home. I visualize space-time to be very similar to this effect where a virtual photon is expanding outwards everywhere throughout space-time. This mechanism describes how information is transmitted at the speed of light. There is no time travel here. If something moves faster than the speed of light, that spaceship or whatever will arrive at it's destination ahead of any causality carrying photons. It would have to take advantage of a second non-interacting coexisting space-time with a faster speed of light.

We have been around this issue two or more times because you haven't given me sufficient reason to abandon the idea. I am telling you that it is these virtual photons that are implementing space-time. It is these virtual photons that are characterized by the Einstein Equations, etc. You keep referring to time-ordered problems and calling it time-travel. I keep saying that it's not a problem.

Is it a problem that the speed of sound falls behind the sonic boom of a Mach 5 jet? No, it's no problem at all. Same concept.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 19:33 GMT
Jason, It really does not work this way. The problem is that it appears impossible to disabuse you of these notions. No matter how you try to slice it, if information is commuicated between two points (x and y) faster than light there is always a frame where you have x causally preceding y and another frame where y precedes x. You also mix timelike and spacelike hypersurfaces.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Lawrence,

I can see the problem. We have disagreement about what is causing space-time to work. I believe that space-time works because there are virtual photons that are tranmitting the information and causality. You believe that the mathematics itself is implementing the physics.

If mathematics is truly what implements the physics, then how does that work? I've never heard of anybody taking a measurement and finding an integral or a plus sign.

If virtual photons are implementing space-time, and are merely behaving mathematically, then here is what happens. A spaceship that somehow has warp drive capability, it will appear to vanish from space-time. Mysteriously and without warning, it will reappear somewhere else in space-time. The virtual photons, as well as any eye-witnesses, they will merely tell us that the space-ship vanished.

What happens to the mass and gravitational pull of the spaceship? The mass and gravity pull of the spaceship would be considered an energy/mass transfer to a second space-time.

You will ask: how does this not violate conservation of energy?

Answer: that energy has to be conserved at the point where the spaceship re-enters space-time, or the spaceship can't re-enter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 00:12 GMT
Lawrence,

Let's suppose I want to transmit information from point x to point y. Point X is about 30 light seconds away from point Y. Generally, we would use an electromagnetic field, perhaps a radio. Radio waves (microwaves, visible light, etc.) move at speed c. You would click on the transmit button and say, "Hello point Y, are you there?"

As you are speaking the radio equipment is modulating your voice into the photons that are travelling at speed c to point y.

Now, let's imagine that we have a Subspace Radio system. Instead of it using photons that travel at speed c, it uses hyper-photons that transmit at speed c' = 30c.

While you are communicating with point y at velocity c, I get on the subspace radio. I say, "Wake up! Lawrence is calling. Be ready for the call." Because my hyper-photons (a theoretical construct) travel at 30c, point y hears my communication within one second.

Where is the time ordered event calamity?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 15:51 GMT
Where do you see the words "time machine" in my article?

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:31 GMT
OK, I will take back my ""time machines" comment. I was testing you. Next time I am going to drop a "E=mc2.5" to see if anyone notices.

Can you explain what you meant by "All that's missing, IMO, is a model of deterministic self organization of random structures in the Hilbert space. That would imply a causal role for time itself."

It almost sounds like you're suggesting that Causality is a necessary characteristic of space-time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:37 GMT
Spacetime _is_ causal (physically real) in general relativity. The mathematical basis for time causality independent of space, i.e., the idea that time structures space, is in my ICCS 2006 paper. The physical basis is in my "time barrier" preprint.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
HURRAY!!!! So we agree that causality exists in space-time. That's why we can't travel back in time. Now comes the important question:

Does a causality based space-time model fundamentally restrict faster-than-light travel from ever being discovered? Obviously we can't do it now. But does your model fundamentally close the door to faster-than-light travel because it violates cauality?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 11:51 GMT
Jason,

You asked: "But does your model fundamentally close the door to faster-than-light travel because it violates cauality?" I am not sure who is "your" form your question, but I do have an answer: faster than light as well as trevel to the past IS possible as long as you don't violate causality. I'll write another post on this shortly as soon as I have the time, but for now I don't want to spoil the surprise.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 12:51 GMT
Florin,

At or near the Hagedorn temperature CTCs may exist. In this extreme limit spacetime event horizons become utterly perturbed by quantum fluctuations so that it is highly uncertain whether a measured event is in a timelike or spacelike region. Classically, a spacetime with CTC’s violates the weak energy condition, and the gravity field is a sort of anti-gravity. Gravity ordinarily focuses geodesics, but with this violation the field defocuses geodesics. The defocused geodesics are a manifestation of the hyperbolic (saddle shaped) geometry of this spacetime. As a result of this CTCs are measure epsilon elements in the set or space of possible geodesics (orbit space). A black hole with a small number of Planck masses, ~ 10^2 or so, the event horizon quantum fluctuates in a way so there is an uncertainty in its mass-energy. These fluctuations may superpose the black hole between black hole and wormhole or white hole states. So for an observer watching fields near the horizon observes an uncertainty in whether they are measuring states external or internal to the black hole.

However, nature probably demands that this observer is unable to observe external and internal states (states on timelike and spacelike surfaces) at the same time. A measurement outcome must reduce one way or the other. If this is violated it amounts to a type of cloning. So the no-cloning theorem, or equivalently the no-signalling by nonlocality seems to be associated in gravitation with a measure epsilon (zero) CTC’s in an orbit space.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 13:29 GMT
Jason,

Faster than light travel is already incorporated into relativity as a symmetry principle. The hypothetical tachyons, which are born at the speed of light in the vacuum and cannot go slower, are symmetric to photons born at the speed of light in the vacuum and which do go slower according to conditions external to the vacuum. You've been touting the causality of photons all along,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 10:14 GMT
Tom,

"You've been touting the causality of photons all along, but photons cannot be causal, i.e., physically real, because they are influenced by physical conditions." If they are influenced by physical conditions, that means they can interact with the physical universe. That is what makes them real.

Let me defend my statement that "photons are carriers of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 11:16 GMT
Physically real means not being affected by physical conditions. Photons are affected by physical conditions. Or as Erich Segal wrote, love means never having to say you're sorry.

There is no time parameter in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Information is spread over the entire universe. Therefore, there is no contradiction between local realism in which time plays a role -- assuming scale invariance and self organization -- and nonlocal correspondence to time dependent events.

None of this begs a time machine. Time travel, OTOH, is exactly what we do when we accurately predict and retrodict events within the physical constraints of a four dimensional universe.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 11:38 GMT
Tom,

"Physically real means not being affected by physical conditions. " Is this a definition you came up with? Or can you cite a source? Gravity is a physical condition; but gravity effects everything. Especially real things.

"There is no time parameter in non-relativistic quantum mechanics." I am only aware of the evolution in time of all wave functions, exp^iwt.

"Time travel, OTOH, is exactly what we do when we accurately predict and retrodict events within the physical constraints of a four dimensional universe." That's false advertising. Time travel is when we travel back in time to visit our grandparents and kill them, just to see if we cease to exist. If I had a time machine, I would jump forward, get next week's power ball lottery numbers, come back, play and win 50 million bucks. That's what time travel really means.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 11:53 GMT
If you have FTL travel, then one can boost to another frame and see this traveler reach the destination before they leave. With wormholes and other multiply connected topologies you can transform the connected openings so that a spacelike separation between them is timelike. This is an inescapable aspect of relativity.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 12:10 GMT
Jason,

The definition is from Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, and I have cited it many times before. It is not obscure, esoteric or controversial.

Your understanding of wave functions is classical. In quantum effects, time drops out of the equations.

Your idea of what time travel really means is different from mine.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 17:23 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

"If you have FTL travel, then one can boost to another frame and see this traveler reach the destination before they leave. "

You have been telling me this as a mathematical dogma for a year now. Truthfully, nobody has ever observed FTL travel anyway.

You are telling me what a Lorentz transform says is true for FTL travel. But Lorentz transforms don't work if you introduce a second space-time with a faster speed of light.

I am telling you what MUST be true if FTL capability is to be possible.

Dogmatic believe just doesn't hold my interest. Hard cold logic makes more sense to me. Sorry.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

If I have been rude to you in our discussions, then I apologize. I hoped that someone would get annoyed and tell me what they really thought of my theory and/or reasoning techniques.

When I was a teenager, I was notorious for debating politics, religion and science. My debating style is to be completely up front about my reasons and reasoning. Politics and religion are personal preferences. But physics is supposed to be built upon mathematics. Mathematics is supposed to be built upon logic.

Physics is also supposed to reflect common sense experience. I personally think it does. The fact that other people don't see this makes me think that one of there assumptions or preferences is false.

I think it is the unwillingness of physicists to trust that the universe is created from wave-like objects that are non-local and can move at the speed of light.

Is there anybody out there who is not comfortable with this idea?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 18:03 GMT
Tom,

"Physically real means not being affected by physical conditions." I've Googled both "physically real" and "Einstein physically real". I can't find anything to support what you're saying. It also doesn't make any sense. If nobody else has called you on it, then I will. It's as if you don't understand the physical universe. You can do the mathematics I assume, but you don't understand what's happening. Perhaps you're just not articulating clearly. But is I am wrong, and I will scrutinize what you saying looking for evidence of that, then I will be pleased to learn something new.

"Your idea of what time travel really means is different from mine."

Check out the definition of time travel at http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-travel.

It says, "Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner analogous to moving between different points in space, either sending objects (or in some cases just information) backwards in time to some moment before the present, or sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate)."

So if you can time travel over to the store, get me some Power Ball Lottery numbers, then, go back to the past and play them for me so I win and be rich, then you can gloat that you can time travel. But in truth, your theory doesn't say this at all. Your use of "time-travel" is just eye-candy. It's false advertising. You will mislead many.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 21:35 GMT
Whatever, Jason. I am not on the same track with your pop science. Sorry.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 22:03 GMT
Tom,

I am not asking impossible questions. Just show me a website, wikipedia or something that shows that "physically real" is defined as "not being affected by physical conditions." This doesn't make sense. You are even free to retract the statement. If you do, I won't bother you about that again.

As for your use of the words, "time-travel", I will assume that you don't mean it the way most people would understand it.

When I talk about warp drives and tractor beam physics, I am referring to the accepted definitions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 22:41 GMT
I gave you the exact BOOK reference, Jason. Einstein, 1956, The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton 5th Edition. Page 55 in my paperback copy.

We really don't have anything to talk about. You're carrying on a monologue.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Jason,

1) is the pair (the second spacetime, greater speed of light = C) to the pair (relativistic spacetime, c) in the same relation in which (relativistic spacetime, c) is to (a solid medium, the speed of sound)?

2) if the answer is yes, then the true transformations are replaced by something like Lorentz transformations, but depending on C instead of c?

3) if you say that causality is "carried by photons", then would the FTL particles with speed between c and C violate causality?

4) what is the purpose of this FTL theory?

Regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Cristi,

1. The relationship between coexisting space-times rests upon the building block of the photon. Brick houses are, of course, made out of bricks. There are many kinds of bricks; two kinds of bricks are Calcium Silicate Bricks and mud bricks. Photons are that which manifest the characteristic relationships of the fine structure constant. Every time a virtual photon pops into existence, expands out at the speed of light, and then vanishes (or is absorbed), it contributes its contribution of the fine structure to our space-time universe and its laws of physics. Just as different kinds of bricks have different characteristics, so do different kinds of photons have different values for there constants. Different kinds of photons manifest different kinds of space-times which, typically speaking, do not interact, at least not under ordinary circumstances. If they did, someone would have noticed it.

2. Yes. Different space-time means a different value of c is plugged into the Lorentz equation. Observers of space-time c do not, under standard circumstances, observe events in a different space-time C.

3. There would be no detrimental causality violations. You can't create grandfather paradoxes, you can't get lottery numbers from the future, you can't change past events. You might be able to observe a past event. It is possible to observe choppiness in the sense that space-ships are allowed to vanish or appear out of nowhere. In the TV show/movie Star Trek, they had subspace radio transmissions. It would be possible to send and receive combat intelligence information for battles that are light years away, in "real-time". That is what FTL photons do for you.

4. The purpose of FTL theory is to make several technologies available including:

a. hyper-drive,

b. long range real time communication,

c. carry more energy at a lower inertial mass cost/burden,

d. take advantage of extremely strong materials,

e. create extremely low mass/energy computers/machines with incredibly high complexity and functionality.

Thank you for asking.

Best wishes,

Jason Mark Wolfe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 22:20 GMT
Dear Jason,

I see no reason why such a FTL theory you proposed would be false. I mean, we can imagine a universe in which it is true, in such a manner that what we already know from our experiments is not contradicted flagrantly. Of course, it may contradict what we believe, even some of our cherished theories, but important is not to contradict reality. That is, in order not to be false.

But, and I am sure you know this, not being manifestly false does not make it true. This is because there are many, many possible theories which don't contradict manifestly what we know about the world. So I won't claim that I know what makes a theory true.

I have some subjective criteria by which I choose what theory I find more likely to be true. The main criterion is to explain things. Explaining things means answering the question "why the things are this way rather than the other way?". I consider that a progress is made anytime when the explanation is reduced to fewer elements, or the experimental area covered by the explanation grows larger. The motto is "Larger coverage with simpler foundations". I accept a new hypothesis only if it replaces at least other two, explaining the same experimental data, or it replaces one hypothesis and simultaneously expands the covered experimental data. My subjective criteria lead me so far to support general relativity, quantum theory and the standard model. I believe that there is something better than them to be found, but they will still be recognizable in the better theories.

I acknowledge that this is my subjective view, and I do not in fact know how the world is.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
Hi Cristi,

Thank you for your feedback. I am delighted that it was positive feedback. Of course negative feedback is alway interesting as well, to see what was missed or overlooked.

When you speak of an assumption that provides more coverage or removes other assumptions, you speak of Occam's razor. An Occam's razor explanation has been the target all along. I also assumed that GR and QM are basically correct.

As it stands now, I want to make one assumption.

Assumption 1: Photons are responsible for everything and have the following properties: absolute velocity c; etc...

I can fit E&M and strong force into this mold. Gravity, which is the equivalent of red/blue-shift is mathematically plausible, but there is Doppler-gravity experiment that must be performed. Even particle-anit-particle annihilation yields photons, as gamma rays.

The weak force is a bit more stubborn. It is the only hold out. Trying to explain why a down quark would change to an up quark is hard to link to the photon.

I'll post more ideas if I figure this out.

Thanks,

Jason Mark Wolfe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Florin,

I can't wait to read your post on CTCs, considering that I had the impression that you reject the possibility of their existence.

Regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Yesterday I finilized the first draft, and in a few days I'll submit it to FQXi. My position has not changed, but this is really mind boggling and you will not be dissapointed. So in a way you can have the cake and eat it too...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 15:56 GMT
Oops... Finalized not finilized.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 18:34 GMT
Photons are the carriers of causality, more reasons why.

Three out of four forces are directly linked to virtual photons. All four forces can be tied to virtual photons.

1. E&M has virtual photons as its mediating particles.

2. Strong force is mediated by gluons acting on quarks. Gluons and quarks are just combinations of fraction charges. Charges, whether fractional or whole, are interconnected with electromagnetism, thus, with virtual photons.

3. Weak force, intermediated by W and Z bosons, transmutes one quark into another. W bosons are charged + or -; thus, they are electromagnetically intertwined and subject to virtual photons.

4. The Equivalence Principle suggests that gravity is equivalent to red-shift and blue-shift of photon frequency.

5. Particle-antiparticle creation/annihilation converts particles to/from gamma rays; gamma rays are ... photons.

Carriers of causality, the objects that make things happen, occur through the four forces + particle creation/annihilation. Photons are intimately involved in all aspects of these 4 forces + particle creation/annihilation. Therefore, the photon is the carrier of causality, the building blocks of space-time, and a fundamental entity in quantum mechanics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 18:42 GMT
Dear Jason,

Gluons are the primary 'carriers of causality' for point #2, although you could make a case for infrared virtual photons in all of the above examples.

Have you read my book? Gluons, photons, W's, Z's, and gravitons are all different quantum states of the Grand-Unified-Mediating (GUM) Boson. So the Universe is held together with GUM and string...

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Ray,

I probably should pick up you're book. From what I've seen of your papers, your ability to clearly show what the deeper mathematics is about is very insightful.

Let's discuss quarks and color charge. Color charges are the process of splitting whole electric charges into fractional charges. It takes three color charges to create either a + 1 for a proton, a 0 for a neutron or a -1 for an anti-proton.

I agree that gluons are the mediators of the strong force. But are they the carriers of causality in the hadron? Well, in a competition between virtual photons and gluons, if gluons go on strike (go away, stop working, vanish), the strong force won't work. However, if photons go on strike (stop working, vanish,...), electromagnetism stops working. If electromagnetism stops working, color charges stop working because charges require electromagnetism and virtual photons to interact with each other.

I could suggest that photons (virtual/real) are the fundamental carriers of causality. But the weak force is really the changing of one quark into another. It is not clear that the photon is responsible for that phenomena. On the other hand, if I argue that photons carry a very subtle defect of some kind that results in the manifestation of the weak force. If I argue this, there really isn't any way to fundamentally disprove this idea.

In fact I do think that the photon fundamentally carries within its nature all of the laws of physics and is, in one way or another, responsible for all of the law of physics, including gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 08:39 GMT
all discussions about time travel are pointless,as physical time is flow of numerical order of material change that run in space. we can travel in space only and not in time

yours amrit

attachments: Time_Travel_is_Out_of_Question.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 08:51 GMT
Indeed time travel is impossible. The only time that exists is the present.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 09:02 GMT
Jason we could say: flow of physical time is flow of numerical order of material change that run in space that is timeless in a sense that flow physical time (flow of numerical order of material change) is not part of space, space is 4D

X4 = i x c x t where t is numerical order of change obtained with clocks

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 10:49 GMT
we can travel in space only and not in time....indeed,indeed it's the real relativity.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 18:37 GMT
Hi Steve,

You said, "Perhaps we are too young to discover others planets,..."

How does one decide if we are too you or old enough to explore other worlds?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 18:54 GMT
Hi Jason,

At the Universal scale of course, we are too youngs in a general vue.

In fact I spoke about our young age of evolution,indeed us,the humans are youngs.

Thus we are perhaps a danger for others civilizations....it's logic in fact when we see the states of our Earth.

The Universe is in building,it exists as an ultim aim if I can say,

and when the catlyzers become a chaotic factor of evolution, the equilibriums aren't respected.

that implies a necessity to have limits of evolution, because the optimization is an evidence, simply.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 19:30 GMT
We're not dangerous! We're just enthusiastic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 19:50 GMT
It's interesting Jason.

But Really I beleive the wisdom sometimes is an essential parameter no, a time for all in fact.

You are perhaps not a danger, you Jason, but on Earth it exists people without faith and law,it's there it's dangerous.

Sscience without consciousness is ruin of soul simply, it's an important parameter of harmonious evolution.

I am persuaded you understand this evidence about the human nature.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 02:47 GMT
Yes, Steve. I know that many parts of the world are dangerous and miserable places to live. Worse than the tyrannies of the Middle East and Asia, there are politically corrupt and evil governments in Africa and South America. There are countries with broken governments and violent anarchy that spills out bloodshed and misery like an arterial wound. But what does it take to bring some semblance of peace and order to these places?

Steve: "...but on Earth it exists people without faith and law,it's there it's dangerous." I think that the Word of God has done more to help and sustain humanity then the empty and selfish words of all atheists, cynics, and skeptics combined, historically.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 14:14 GMT
Hi Jason,

The religions, logically can help for a quiet between humans.It's the aim of religions...

But unfortunally it's not our reality.

Just because it's not a problem of faith.A faith people acts in the road of the good, the well.

The problem is the monney Jason, the power, the weapons, the differences....where the monney is ....some stupidities are of course.

Some people utilizes tools , not for the humanity and the universality.But for their own system.It's sad and bizare.

But where is the universal commission....some stupidities are really dedicated to disappear in time space evolution.The time will tell us....

You know Jason, It exists so beautiful things on Earth, the humans have a so important potential...thus why ? It's complex and so simple in the same time.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:21 GMT
KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

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.