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 7:26am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Ray Munroe: on 8/17/11 at 19:47pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, We are on similar wavelengths. My first problem with Lisi's E8...

Peter van Gaalen: on 8/17/11 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Hi Ray, I suspect that my general quadratic metric, which has 16 elements,...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/16/11 at 11:45am UTC, wrote The two others are you and lawrence, we have the 8 persons.I am not crazzy...

Ray Munroe: on 8/15/11 at 21:41pm UTC, wrote Steve, How can I belong to an E8 team that does not exist? I am not...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/15/11 at 21:26pm UTC, wrote a big joke of copycat loving monney and vanity, return at school, really,...

Ray Munroe: on 8/15/11 at 19:15pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, Are you up to 24 dimensions? To me that sounds like a...

Peter van Gaalen: on 8/15/11 at 18:09pm UTC, wrote Because CP symmetry is the same as T symmetry, Feijnmann regarded that an...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

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

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Source Code? I've Seen It All Before... [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Matty Hoban wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 22:50 GMT
6am

"I Got You Babe" by Sonny & Cher plays on the radio, interrupted by a DJ.

D.J.: Okay, campers, rise and shine, and don't forget your booties 'cause it's cooooold out there today...

And another day begins, exactly the same as the last. This is not my typical weekday but the premise for Groundhog Day, one of the greatest movies of the 20th Century. In the movie, Phil Connors (played by Bill Murray) is doomed to repeat the same day over again. One of the beautiful aspects of this film is that the mechanism for this repetition is never explained. It is his fate and our fate, as the audience, to devote our attention to the transformation of his character.

Groundhog Day is a comedy and as a result does not need to subscribe to reality. Source Code is a science-fiction thriller. In many ways its plot is similar to Groundhog Day as Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) repeats the same eight minutes over and over in the lead-up to a bomb explosion on a train. But, like a lot of mainstream sci-fi, it is racked with guilt; it wants to be taken seriously and must explain every element of its plot and make it plausible. If only Source Code had the abandon of its comedic counterpart.

Stevens saw combat in Afghanistan and for reasons I will not disclose, is selected for this mission to find out the identity of the terrorist behind the bomb on the train. He is projected into the body of a passenger called Sean Fentress on that train a la Quantum Leap (google it if you cannot remember), eight minutes before the train explodes. If he does not succeed in finding the identity of the bomber he is has to redo the eight minutes. In between being sent back, he is inside a capsule where he can only communicate via a webcam to Captain Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) who is reluctant in giving him information. On top of this, he has to deal with Sean’s friend Christina Warren, played by Michelle Monaghan. Captain Stevens is torn between his actual life and the ties to his father whilst trying to inhabit Fentress’ life which becomes his new reality.

Source Code has been compared to Inception but where the latter did not begin to attempt to describe the machine enabling dream-sharing, the former aims to explain the mechanism by which Stevens can repeatedly enter into another person’s reality. Upon asking for an explanation of the technology, Stevens receives the (paraphrased reply), "It’s quantum physics, parallel calculus, you wouldn’t understand." As a quantum physicist (at UCL, where I work on quantum optics, entanglement and measurement-based quantum computing), I relaxed expecting never to hear my beloved subject abused again, at least for the rest of the movie. How naive I was as the scientist describing the so-called ‘source code’ began comparing a brain to a light bulb and memories as circuits whilst somehow projecting thoughts into a parallel reality. It felt like someone cut out every ‘buzz-word’ of Scientific American and just went crazy.

A disclaimer: I am not a snob about science in film. I am a snob about narrative, character, cinematography and performance. Source Code is beautifully shot with sweeping aerial shots of Chicago and surrounding Illinois, contrasting with the enclosed space of the train Stevens is projected into and his capsule between missions. This contrast keeps the feel of the film claustrophobic for Stevens so that when he ventures out of either of these two environs, it feels ominous or uncomfortable with resolution only at the end. The use of close-up shots and webcams also add to the claustrophobic and often intense feel of the film. Each action sequence becomes more visceral in some way as to avoid the repetition of the plot.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays the war hero Stevens like you would imagine, and with few surprises. Gyllenhaal is thrown about, shot, contorted, decoded and taser-ed ceaselessly yet his character never really develops into anything other than an abused war hero. It is only really at the end, upon phoning his father, that he demonstrates his depth of character in a frankly emotional piece of dialogue. Vera Farmiga gives another great performance as the naval officer tasked with communicating with Stevens in between missions; she conveys the dilemma between duty as a human being to Stevens and as a soldier. Less satisfying as a character is her boss, Dr Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) as the scientist behind the ‘source code’ who delivers the aforementioned regurgitated popular science. Rutledge is portrayed as a self-interested and emotionally crippled scientist (he also has a crutch, the outward symbol of his lack of empathy). The writing of the war hero versus the oppressive military bureaucracy is not new nor particularly insightful and ultimately disappointing.

Bill Murray contemplates the quantum "explanations" of Source Code
Whilst enjoying the direction and performances, the screenplay seemed torn between explanation and emotive dialogue so that most attempts at either rang hollow. Groundhog Day almost exhaustively explored Bill Murray’s character until his final resolution felt like the right one, thus ending his cycle. Gyllenhaal’s Captain Stevens reaches his conclusion brusquely without a natural motivation.

One subject touched upon by Source Code is the Everettian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. (See the article, "The Many Lives of Hugh Everett III," for more.) In this interpretation, there exist parallel universes where each possibility of something happening exists in its own, parallel reality. Indeed, it is somehow implied that Stevens is made to live another parallel reality. I cannot help thinking that if the screenwriters has spent less time considering reality and more time with the philosophy of ‘Shut Up and Calculate,’ where reality is not so important, the movie would exploit its full potential.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 02:40 GMT
It comes down to closed timelike geodesics, and I doubt these exist. I have not seen this movie yet, though I heard about it. It sounds also as if it gets pretty crazy, and Bill Murry’s character goes pretty bonkers after the second time loop of Feb 2.

The best science fiction play is the ongoing real world! We are entering into a very strange sort of reality here, one which is becoming somewhat dystopian in a sci-fi way. The exponential growth in complexity and ubiquity of processor-communication devices is quickly leading to a world where we are constantly monitored, and before long this will become integrated closer to our senses and eventually our neurons or brains. Don’t worry about watching a science fiction movie, we are in one.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 05:32 GMT
Closed timelike geodesics are not absurd enough. Arthur Eddington gives a nice example of "sober science" (reciprocal length contraction, the famous consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate) the absurdity of which is unattainable by science-fiction:

http://www.amazon.com/Space-Time-Gravitation
-Relativity-Cambridge/dp/0521337097

Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Arthur S. Eddington

"It is the reciprocity of these appearances - that each party should think the other has contracted - that is so difficult to realise. Here is a paradox beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift: Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians - but no! that is too absurd for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of science."

If Eddington had illustrated the above text with the bug-rivet "paradox", his book "Space, Time and Gravitation" would have put an end to Einstein's relativity:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

For theoretical consistency, it seems that an infinite Big Bang implies infinite time and space, and an infinite Multiverse may be the only way to impose this constraint.

On the other hand, it seems that a finite Big Bang implies finite time and space, and closed timelike geodesics may be the only way to impose this constraint.

If we are to be theoretically consistent, we must choose our controversial poison. I choose the Multiverse, but I also respect the somewhat consistent logic (though it might conflict with Dark Energy and unbounded Universal Expansion) of closed timelike geodesics.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

"Einstein's false 1905 csl postulate"? Neo-Lorentzians may admit faster-than-light. However, I doubt that this is necessary. As shown by Van Flandern, the paradoxes of SR vanish with Lorentz relativity. Even some reasoning by Craig who believes in god is appealing. On the other side, we must not ignore compelling results with accelerators. Didn't you point me to Gift? Why not questioning the possibility of covariance in reality?

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:12 GMT
All the paradoxes from time travelling are caused by the fact that we relate these actions direct into our causal deterministic world, if you imagine that when going back in time you in fact are "spiralling" into another paralel universe, in this universe you can kill your father, it has no effect in your original universe, however in the paralel universe where you killed your father you will not be born but when staying there just die and be anither causal influence , going back to your original universe (if possible) you will remark that your father was not killed.

All these paralel Universes are probabilities, possibillities and not as we like to imagine them as REAL space and time taking entities, therefore we

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:24 GMT
sorry but I spiralled a litlle moment to another universe so I proceed :

therefore we enter in the what I will call the TOTAL SIMULTANEITY, not to confuse with the absolute simultaneity of EINSTEIN , (he was talking about events in our causal 4D relativistic world where you can count from 1 to 10),but it is as a matter of fact comparable to the 8 dimensional phase space from Lee Smolin, only I place the whole shebang in only ONE extra dimension, a sort of quintesence. IN this extra dimension however everything EXISTS as a probability, these probabillities become realities when our consciousness "contacts" them, this in the way that two entangled probabilities are observed and collapse in a "reality" for the observer.

(see my essay : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913)

So time travel is possible, HOW is still the question, but in our minds we can imagine it.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter van Gaalen replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Because CP symmetry is the same as T symmetry, Feijnmann regarded that an antiparticle is the same as the same particle moving backwards in time. So I think that creation and annihilation of an electron-positron pair, can be seen as a single electron that is circling in spacetime. for 'ever'. or in this sense 'ever' has a different meaning.

If a human travels backwards in time, he has memmories of his past life. Is the moment backward in time than the same? Has that moment happened before? I think that considering 'moving backwards in time' translated to the classical level, has it's problems.

By the way, Lee Smolins 8 dimensional phase space is half the dimensional space of my 16 dimensional space. My 16 diemsnional space also combines spacetime with energymomentum. But my octionic model of gravity has 8 more dimensions. It includes two more scalar quantities: mass and gravitomagnetic flux, and it includes two more vector quantities. So Lee Smolin is half way.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 19:15 GMT
Hi Peter,

Are you up to 24 dimensions? To me that sounds like a close-packing of octonion-like imaginary (space-like) 7-spheres into an E8 Gosset lattice of Fermions and its dual real (time-like) E8 Gosset lattice of Bosons (8+8-D) AND close-packing of quaternion-like imaginary (space-like) 3-spheres into an F4 24-cell lattice of Fermions and its dual real (time-like) F4 24-cell of Bosons (4+4-D) for 24-dimensions.

However, I also have close packing of complex-like 1-spheres (2-D circles) into a G2 hexagonal graphene-like lattice of Fermions and its dual G2 hexagonal graphene-like lattice of Bosons (2+2-D) AND close-packing of real-like 0-spheres (points) into globaly invariant U(1) algebras (that probably also occur in pairs - consider that the photon and graviton are both expected to be massless based on their inverse-distance-squared field behavior).

At face value, this might look like 30-D, but some of these structures are cloned at other Scales - thus leading to more dimensions (I think 52-D - consider the Lorentzian metric 'TOE':

0^2 + 1^2 + 2^2 +...+ 24^2 = 70^2 for real and imaginary axis).

In conclusion, I agree that 8-D are not sufficient for a TOE. Garrett Lisi's E8 'TOE' requires a minimum of 8-D, but he never should have included bosons and fermions in the same lattice without appealing to Supersymmetry (which doubles everything anyway).

Compatibility of a TOE with CP violation requires complex representations. Because E8 has strictly real roots, any TOE requires a strictly real E8 and a strictly imaginary dual E8 such that SO(32)~E8 x i E8*. Now we have 8 strictly real coordinates that appear space-like, and 8 strictly imaginary coordinates that appear time-like (in the sense that the overall phase looks something like ict).

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
The fundamental interactivity of observer, observed, sensory experience, and thought/the theoretical is at the heart of unification in physics.

In keeping with this:

1) Invisible and visible space must be fundamentally balanced.

2) Inertia and gravity must be fundamentally equivalent/balanced in conjunction with fundamentally balanced attraction and repulsion.

3) Space must be equally expanded and contracted in conjunction with combining and including opposites.

4) And there is more.....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:26 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.