Hi Valentin,

Your essay is very interesting and one of my favorites.

You noticed that ...the world physics turned to all kinds of formal approaches, of "quantization", trying to substitute pure mathematics for a real understanding of the nature of things... I agree absolutely. And not only me. If I can't picture it, I can't understand it - that is the statement attributed to Einstein by J.A. Wheeler.

Your points c, g and k are especially interesting and I have a proposal to modify and combine them into a single one: let us assume that there is possible another kind of fundamental entity and still being literally single type - conformally flat spacetime being a fabric of all entities. All entities would be just the spacetime local deformations emerging of it. What do you think? Details you can find summarized briefly in my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609 or in my publications (listed in references).

If you agreed with me you would not need a wave-particle duality anymore because every particle would be a wave (a spacetime deformation in motion).

I propose you also to make your observation relativity principle to be based on an experiment. How is it possible?

Let us assume that your observation and information transfer is my wave packet (a spacetime deformation in motion). Obviously every such deformation is unlimited (to some extent, it deforms in Gaussian distribution the entire spacetime, due to its elastic and homeomorphism properties) and therefore all objects interact with each other. (By the way here you can have a clear view of quantum entanglement too)

Let us try out a simple thought experiment: we observe a small region in spacetime (the size of an elementary particle radius) deformed to the grade that the actually detected wave is not emitted nor reflected by the observed object but it comes back to us along the geodesic (the notion of a "straight line" in general relativity). In fact we observe only a strongly deformed spacetime region, "empty" inside and redirecting our wave but apparently... we perceive a particle. We perceive means that our measuring instruments and our language out of the force of habit say so.

A real experiment proposal connected to the though one and a prediction of its outcome you can find in my essay.

By the way ...my concept is that the spacetime is not a background for events. It is the fabric. We are not immersed in the spacetime but we are a part of it like everything else. And as yours it has nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

    Valentin

    "Einstein has shown that the information we rely on, our observations of events in time and space depend on our choice of reference frame, i.e. on rulers and clocks as measurement tools."

    Problem is, he was wrong. Because timing and spatial devices only 'tell' the time/distance, they are not the time/distance. That is a conceptual reference. Think about it, why do we synchronise timing devices, and produce rulers to a quality that resists 'interference' (for example heat).

    Existence is only in the present, there is only a present, ie realities which occurred at different times do not co-exist. We become aware of reality later. Time is the rate of turnover of these realities.

    Light is what enables sentient organisms with the function of sight to be aware of existence, its speed of travel is irrelevant to the physical circumstance, that just determines how much later is later.

    There are 3 dimensions of space because that is the minimum number which at the highest level of conceptualisation remains ontologically valid, in reality there are far more.

    Paul

      There can only be one real infinate dimension. Width, height and depth are humanly contrived abstract aspects of figuritive dimensions.

      Joe

      Not so

      When establishing what constitutes distance, space or dimension, the reference is a conceptual matrix of spatial positions, which is imposed on any given physical reality to 'divide' it up spatially. To 'locate' this matrix, it must be associated with any given constituent physically existent state of that physical reality. Consistency of reference must be maintained in order to ensure comparability of subsequent measurements.

      The dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint) of any constituent physically existent state is defined in terms of spatial positions 'occupied' on this matrix. 'Mapping' other existent states would reveal their comparability with each other. Distance is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could involve any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states, it could revolve around separation, or one within another.

      Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'. So, three is the minimum number of spatial dimensions that is ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation (ie up/down, back/forth, side/side). But that is not what is physically existent. At the existential level, the number of possible dimensions is half the number of possible directions that the substance with the smallest spatial footprint could travel from any single spatial point on the spatial matrix.

      Paul

      Joe, I agree, my essay can be very confusing, but it is because of the real complexity of the universe. In some way I also agree with the idea that the universe "occur" only "here and now". In my essay I actually postulate that all quanta (including the one that is our universe) "are here and now". Simply because it is the one and single one quantum.

      I disagree though that our views on the universe are "pure speculations". That's where the concept of the reference frame (measuring device) or subject appear. Our views on the universe are real but relative, they depend upon how exactly we look at the universe (and how we interact with it).

      Regarding the difference of snowflakes: it is the different, never duplicated combinations of identical quanta in snowflakes make them different. World is a kaleidoscopic fractal.

      Hi Jacek,

      thank you for your interest in my essay. In my concept space-time is the fabric, not the background for events. Actual events (or quanta) form this fabric, they are the space-time out of universal change process that we call time. If one can see, this process of time is also self-interacting (self-acting), which is reflected by our "selecting" one of the possible objects and making it a measuring device (material reference frame) or subject. This "selection" is not arbitrary at all, it is the result of actual historic process of natural selection, resulted in us as human beings and our experimental devices. Nature is self-acting on itself through us now - but before that it has self-acted through other increasingly more and more primitive subjects up to the very Big Bang.

      Paul,

      I agree, measuring devices are not "time and space" that's why I said about "our observations of events in time and space". Observation is not time or space.

      And yes, "we become aware of reality later", that is why I suggest the space to represent past time (anti-time).

      Further, the speed of light is considered equal to the fundamental speed, a barrier (horizon) between space and time. The fact of this equality can as well be coincidental, but it is not discussed in the essay.

      Jacek,

      you asked me to suggest some experiment to test the observation relativity principle. The best way to do this, I think, is to demonstrate experimental time travel, for example, to send some primitive atom clock back in time. According to the theory, presented in my essay (see references there) it is very much possible when one use reference frames based on BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate).

      Also, regarding Penrose's triad "It-Reality-Bit": from my point of view, mathematical (platonic) world is not the separate world, it is one of the objects in material world which is used as our tool. This tool is somewhat closer to us (our consciousness) than our material experimental devices and therefore it may taken as a part of our subject. But as one can see from the essay, even the difference between subject and object is also relative, depends upon the circumstances.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #11

      Valentin,

      thank you for such unusual essay.

      QM paradoxes had led to Multiverse hypotheses. How does your picture fit this hypotheses? Could only one universe be enough for you?

        • [deleted]

        • Post #12

        Charles,

        yes, in my picture all the multiverse is in one single universe: each and every quantum in it IS the same universe, seen from different "point of view", observed in a unique reference frame based on this particular quantum. One may say that each quantum here resembles a drop of water in which the whole universe is reflected in a unique way. The other way of seeing it is that each quantum is the kind of black hole, or wormhole that goes not to some other universe, but to the same (our) single universe, just to some distant point in it (that is how coordinates appear in this picture, by the way).

        This picture is totally defined by the "links" between "drops", i.e. defined by the particular way how one "drop" is "reflected" in other. These "links", as you can imagine, can be quite unstable and observable picture can change abruptly exactly like the picture changes each time we turn the tube of the kaleidoscope.

        If you take in consideration all these event horizons appearing between the "drops" (quanta) and preventing the flow of information, you'll get the picture almost identical to what we have in multiverse - but "embedded" into the single universe.

        Charles, the previous anonymous post was actually mine. Sorry for inconvenience :-)

        Dear Valentin,

        In Penrose's and also my view the Platonic world is not quite separate but in a sense partly overlapping with the other two. But from the very definition Platonic is immaterial. And it is not my idea but just a definition taken by Penrose and his predecessors.

        Regarding the time travel my question is how do you want to send the primitive atom clock back in time? That is interesting but I cannot imagine technical possibility.

        Jacek,

        I agree that by Plato's definition his world is immaterial, but my own view on the mathematics reality is different from his and Penrose. Physical and mathematical laws are on the one hand a reflection of real material tendencies and on the other hand those very tendencies themselves.

        Now, about direct time travel experiment. As you can see according to the essay, time travel is an essential feature of this world. Each quantum is a loop in time. To conduct such an experiment all that one should do is to make such micro quantum feature become macro feature. Natural way is to use BEC that behaves almost like a single macro quantum, i.e. like a macro loop in time. Then you need to create simple clock out of the particles that this particular BEC is made of. If done accurately, this measuring clock will not destroy BEC, but will become some kind of BEC disturbance, embedded in it, entangled with it - so the clock will move back and forth with BEC itself. I agree, this may be tricky, but it is possible, well within our current experimental skills.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #16

        Some researches are inclined to recognize the appearance of abnormal correlations or order structures in time-space continuum at low statistics ("macro fluctuations"). Could your theory say something in connection with the possibility of such effects?

          Thank you Ann for such an interesting question.

          The answer is positive due to the obvious symmetry between micro and macro in this theory (the whole universe is one quantum). This fact makes us rethink the very concept of statistics though - and this is the one really exciting field to research on. Probabilities become relative. Macro fluctuations will occur despite their low probability (or even low statistics) calculated in a standard way "from the bottom up".

          I mean that some even almost improbable events here may still occur, like well known example of mathematical dot (size=0) dropped onto the surface. Probability of hitting any preselected dot on the surface is precisely zero, still the event occurs each time we try it.

          Valentin,

          One of the most fascinating essays I've seen in any of the FQXi contests.

          There is too much to comment on at once so I will ask three questions:

          1. You begin by implying that observable local effects of gravity can be nullified. The only real observable local effect of gravity (as distinguished from acceleration) is the tidal force. How do you nullify this?

          2. You say your theory explains exactly why elementary particles of the same type are absolutely identical. But why in a theory of 'one particle' executing time loops is there more than one type of particle?

          3. Is the time travel experiment you discuss with Jacek a condition of the BEC that you simply *interpret* as time travel, or do you propose that some event should occur a measurable time before it is triggered in the lab (in the 'future')?

          Once again, a fascinating essay.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Thank you, Edwin for your interest in my essay,

            1. Actually I postulate possible nullifying of observable effects not of the gravity only, but of all objective changes, i.e. all "natural forces", etc. It is a pretty bold (crazy enough?) statement, of course. The very possibility of that is based on this vague concept of "subject" , that can actually be any part of the universe, even be identical to the universe at the extreme. In such an absolute case it is easy to see that if "you" change the subject to reverse the changes ("back in time" ) it becomes possible. More practical particular cases are much more difficult to imagine, of course.

            In case of gravity I was appealing more to Einstein's example of "reversing", i.e. nullifying of the local acceleration (local "gravity force"). Tidal gravity forces, of course could not be nullified this way, because they are of the "second order of locality", pardon my French. Though more deep thoughts on that particular case are definitely needed, may be this is exactly where back in time changes have to be applied.

            2. This one is a kind of question that goes very, very deep. You see, the universal change caused by time (self-interaction) is not just some abstract change. First of all it is a change that we are used to term as "ordering" of events; next come some other, more particular changes. The whole process resembles the process of living cell differentiation, if you know what I mean. New physical interactions ("forces") appear with the development, differentiation of the "cell"-universe. There is more on that in my Philica.com article (see the link in References, check the Cached link).

            3. No, I meant the very real time travel, influence on events through time. Any such experiment will cause measurable changes not only to the clock that we send back in time, but to the whole world that will be obviously changed by this experiment. Such changes, according to all that was said in the essay, would precisely fit the "energy" interpretation, so familiar to every one of us. I mean that such an experiment will release a certain amount of energy (but may be less that we wasted on it to conduct).

            Also Edwin,

            if you are the author of this book on consciousness (sorry, did not read it yet), you may be interested in the concept of consciousness as a loop (thought-memory-thought) in subjective space-time developed in my other article (unfortunately they are currently experiencing problems with LaTex engine, I apologize for them):

            http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=226

            The theory and equations there actually follow closely the "Times Rest in Spaces" ideology.

            As you know, founding fathers of modern physics always thought that the future theory would include consciousness. So here we have one more point to test if this theory is crazy enough.

            Valentin,

            Thanks for your answers. I'm glad you agree gravitational tidal forces cannot be nullified, and that you propose a real test of time travel not a simple labeling of a BEC state. I did not quite understand your answer about the particle types but I'll try to read the links you provide.

            I have written about consciousness and have an FQXi essay, Fundamental Physics of Consciousness that you may find interesting. My other FQXi essays expand on the non-consciousness aspects of the theory. You may also find Marcel LeBel's essay on logic and time interesting. Whereas I fully agree that the nature of the universe is self-interacting, I tend posit gravity as the root substance from which all (self-)evolves. I plan to submit an essay that I hope you will find interesting.

            Good luck in the contest,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            thank you for interesting links; I see now that we are seeking for answers to the same questions.

            At least I understand why you consider gravity on the one side and consciousness on the other as most fundamental interactions. They both share true universality, but what would add to this that gravity in on the objective side and consciousness - on the subjective side. Still subjective forces (subjective space-time interaction) are the powerful ones, as in the case of humanity, for example.

            As for different types of particles, they differ obviously because of their involvement into different interactions (other than time interaction). So to get to these types we need to get some theoretical way of description of the time self-interaction as generating "force" of different physical features: space-time dimensions, numbers and fields (local dynamic symmetries). In the references to my essay you may find the first theoretical mechanism used for that: self-acting symmetry (operators) in finite groups representation. Later I developed two other, more powerful approaches: 1. new abstract numbers calculus (Y-numbers) which include unary algebraic operations considered as self-acting numbers; 2. new constructed formal logical recursive language with grammar rules serving the role of mathematical operations.

            All three ways lead us to the fractal world with multiple dimensions generated one by one with time flow; each group of dimensions interpreted differently as physical gauge fields other than gravity or time interaction.

            Actually if your are interested in further discussion allow me to email you more info and references to all that.