Indefinite Causality

Tom,

Whether you call it relativistic or subjective doesn't make information permanent. Consider a rainbow; It exists because light traveling through the edge of a cloud is bent. If it were permanent, than the light would have to freeze, yet if the light stopped, there would be no rainbow. Given that the reality we experience is such energy in motion, it follows that without motion, nothing would exist, but with motion, nothing exists forever. Now you say it exists somewhere in that blocktime geometry and has been proven, yet nothing of the sort has been proven, other than the paths of light and mass curve relative to the presence of other masses. There is no physical geometric record, because the energy to manifest it in the first place is also the very same energy that alters it. No time travel, no wormholes etc. have ever been discovered. All we can really observe about black holes is that they do radiate prodigious amounts of energy, likely as much as they consume.

It's not about consciousness. A radio tuned to a particular signal will receive a far more clear and nuanced amount of information than one simply responding to all frequencies and amplitudes. Similarly a camera set at a particular aperture and speed will take a far more clear and detailed picture than one with a fully open aperture and long speed. There is no theoretical method, other than an all-knowing god and spacetime geometry, to record all past and future information. It quickly goes to white noise.

Consider just the camera speed; The interval it is left open is the time vector and the longer it's open, the more the motion of what is being recorded blurs, because information requires energy to manifest and energy is dynamic, while information is static, so it gets disrupted and over-written by the recording mechanism. So how does this time vector store information?

A good example, consciousness based, is this conversation. Each of us is coming at the question of the nature of reality from different perspectives and we are effectively speaking different languages. As I see it, your criteria is what is accepted by the established physics community, while mine is simply a coherent understanding of the reality I inhabit. So you see me as having a personal bias, while I see you as having an institutional bias. To the extent we meet on this forum, I suppose I have a bottom up view, while you have a top down view. You see me as having a very limited field of knowledge, while I see you as being completely dependent on a structure where the plaster and paint are covering more cracks than anyone within cares to admit. I'm certainly willing to admit I do have a very limited amount of information to go on, though I don't see that as a complete weakness, since "too much information" does create chaos and the aforementioned white noise. Are you willing to admit the current physics establishment should consider a deep examination of its foundations, as the recent contest proposes?

Eckard : Your "well defined space-time in which we live" is also the past, the pre-existing time in our memories.

The most little time scale is untill now the "Planck-time", that is the indication of the frequency of our reality.

This frequency is not percepible to our senses, so we are aware of a smooth time (in our memories).

Wilhelmus

John,

I'm afraid that what you mean by "existence" and "permanent" have no physical meanings. Physical information is real -- that's why it's called physical information. It exists " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions." If one doesn't understand what that means, one has not stepped on, much less crossed, the threshold of physical science. "Permanent" is also not a concern of physics, unless one denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And your statements regarding curved spacetime and black holes completely misunderstand and contradict the known physics. I can't see any profit in continuing the dialogue.

Tom

Wilhelmus,

Fig. 1 of my essay illustrates why I am questioning "well defined space-time in which we live" and "pre-existing" (prior to the very moment in advance existing up to positive eternity) time.

Why did you mention Planck time, etc.? Do you consider me someone who has something to learn?

Eckard

Tom,

We have reached the usual impasse.

"Physical information is real -- that's why it's called physical information. It exists " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions."

This does step off the edge for me. To me, information is an effect of physical conditions. If there are no physical conditions, there is no information. The existence of information requires physical manifestation, so the term "physical information" is redundant. There is no platonic realm. Principles arise with the actions and effects they describe. If some effect is repetitive, it isn't because there is some law governing it, but because the underlaying process has been repeated.

Possibly you are referring to something similar to Ellis' top down effects. The reality there is that top down and bottom up are complimentary. To the extent you have one, the other exists as well, like opposite sides of the same coin. Energy manifests information. Information defines energy.

The "known physics" is currently exploring multiverses.

Hello thinkers,

The second law, I love it! The thermodynamics and heat are so essential with the finite groups!!!

John and Tom, a little beer from Belgium and hop you are friends...

Ps the information is physical and this information is bosonic or fermionic, it is so the energy, so the light.The entropy is relevant in its general fractalization. You can ask to Kelvin and Planck ;) they agree.

Regards

Hello Eckard,Wilhelmus,

You know Eckard, we learn all days :) how is it possible to understand and to discover all the entire secrets of our Universal Sphere, it seems so far of us this immensity. This 3D sphere. The quantum scale also is in the same logic. The singularities are far of us.

The universal sphere is fascinating in fact.

Regards

Quote:"One of the biggest obstacles has been that general relativity and quantum mechanics treat time very differently. In the former theory, time is another dimension alongside space and can bend and stretch, speed up and slow down, in different circumstances. Quantum theories, however, usually assume that time is set apart from space and ticks at a set rate. Theories of indefinite causality tackle this mismatch head-on, by questioning what time is at a fundamental level." From the article 'cheating the Causal Game'.

This is nux of various problems. Understanding -Why that difference- in how time must be treated, is helpful in seeing the direction from which a solution to a number of problems must come.There are two different things going on simultaneously. Atoms are interacting and giving a causal order of events in the material Object reality and EM potential sensory data is being generated with the potential to give a different apparent order of events in time because of data transmission and processing delays.

It was interesting to read about this promising research. I don't know exactly what they are doing from such a brief article but I wonder if considering the mismatch of causality at the quantum level and apparent causality at the macroscopic level will give the gravity solution. I will outline why I think it may not.

In GR the observer is assumed to be static. That is just a subjective view. It is built into the curved space-time hypothesis and model. However the observations with which curved space-time fit, seemingly verifying the model, might instead be due to curvature of light paths resulting from disturbance of the Object reality environment, through which they pass, by motion of the body within it and through it. The description of that motion within the 3n+1 space-time construct is bizarre, not because the motion is bizarre, but that the observer-subjective construct has not been constructed in such a way that it allows illustration of what is happening. I.e. As the observer is assumed to be static, when it is not, the necessary motion can not occur within the subjective observed space but occurs instead along the time dimension. Each new observation is conducted from within a new objective space from which data is received and from which the image of the universe is constructed.

A stationary observer on the Earth is not static at all but moving with all of the Earth's movements, over many scales of possible consideration. With the galaxy, with the solar system around the sun, around its axis and with geological movements. A change in the movement of the Earth over those different scales could give a change in the apparent expansion of the Image universe if it gives a increase in the rate of movement away from the origin source of the sensory data from which the universe Image is constructed. Such changes could occur as a result of the changing motion of the material solar system or Earth due to altering, rather than permanently fixed, relationships and that will alter the 'selection' of the potential sensory data received, giving not just the affect of expansion due to the motion but increasing expansion if change in the motion is also occurring.

At the smallest scales of consideration the vibration of the particles becomes significant. The affect of that upon the environment will mask any minute gravitational interaction that might otherwise possibly be detected; and the larger scale (Object) universal movement is not included in consideration. Though subatomic particles too must be moving with the motion of the laboratory on the Earth's surface and so along with the Earth's total Object universal motion. The subatomic scale of matter is not separate from the macroscopic scale of matter but contained within it and it all moves together. That's what unites gravity over different scales IMHO.

SciAm publishes an article by David Tong,based on his FQXi contest entry, from the digital vs. analog contest and it doesn't get a mention, let alone an article or blog post????

John, the article was already published in november 2011, I also gave (then) a post on the thread. Indeed it is strange that even george Musser could not get mre attention, but a reason might be that at the moment the essays are coming in everybody is sticked to his own trick on FQXi, which is logical.

Wilhelmus

Thanks Zeeya. Should be interesting.

Hi

My reaction to this new research about reordering causality went something like this: "Oh No! Here is another group of talented imaginative young physicists who have found another aspect of probability to play with - are we in for another half century of multiverse-type thinking, this time around featuring micro-scrambled-time universes?" Doubtless clever mathematics can twist 'reality' around and make the outcome appear to follow experimental results. This may even lead to interesting computational methods, but does QM and general relativity need more bells and whistles to 'explain' their results?.

Should not effort be now rather directed to develop revisionist ideas that say probability itself is emergent, and can result from an ordered, linear, causal universal lattice, such as the one I described in my Beautiful Universe Theory ? Or Eric Reiter's experimental results showing that Einstein's photon is not the point quantum he thought it was - in my opinion that is the root mistake that created the particle-wave duality and made the probabilistic interpretation necessary. By the way it was sad that Eric's name for his theory 'Unquntum' was used in the title of David Tong's Scientific American article without any justification, or reference to the original source: Eric Reiter's home-page unquntum.net

Best to all,

Vladimir

oops sorry - here is the correct link to Eric Reiter's unquantum.net

Effect without Cause in Einstein's Relativity

Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one."

This is a lie of course (taught by 99% of the Einsteinians) - general relativity does not predict that the ticking rate of clocks varies with the strength of the gravitational field. Rather, it predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field. This means that two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other. That is, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause.

"Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein's schizophrenic world and yet the cleverest Einsteinians feel uncomfortable from time to time:

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

The following argument is valid (although Einsteinians are unable to prove its validity):

Premise: Einstein's 1911 gravitational-time-dilation assumption is correct.

Conclusion: The acceleration of light falling to the Earth is negative, -2g (that is, the speed of falling photons DECREASES).

Clearly the Conclusion is absurd so the Premise is false (gravitational time dilation does not exist).

Here are references showing that Einstein's relativity does indeed predict that the speed of falling light decreases (the acceleration is -2g):

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

Fold the Brukner_causality (jpg) illustration in half vertically and you might be a little closer (only a little since it's Binary, apply it to super-symmetry and you get closer still.). Just consider the laboratories are in fact the same laboratory, however they are seen as different due to a paradox. In this instance Alice and Bob are actually two different outcomes in regards to development from their parents interaction (The entropy within reproduction and what gender they developed into etc.)

Pentcho,

Having looked into Relativity 2, I recommend it to those who are interested in and able for unveiling of its basic mistake. Have fun.

++++

Hello, Dear Sir,

The problem of forming the new effects on the higher matter levels starting from the initial realm of the quantum effects is a big philosophical and physical problem of today. And it should remain the same for thousands years. But, what is interesting that you really came closer the the real problems posing and solutions. Please, also consider our paper in your profound research: "new ontology ..." by Pavel Polyian.

Pavel Polyian,

Seberian Federal University,

Kind Regards...