An Insight into Information, Entanglement and Time by Paul L. Borrill

Paul,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Paul,

As of 7-6-13, 7:41 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Paul,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Hi Paul,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. I do not understand the connection between entanglement and the space-time using the entanglement graoh. This seems to be skeptical on how to define the local Hilbert space to be connected with the space-time.

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Hello Mr Paul Borrill,

I am Gaicomo Alessiani. Italians in this contest are not too much.

I kindly ask Your opinion about my essay. I simply post will be enough.

My Best Regards.

Sorry Paul,

I have received word that although it was unfortunate that there was a delay in conducting the ratings, no extensions to the final deadline will be made. I will keep this in mind when I get a chance to review your updated essay later this week.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Interesting approach and similar in some sense to the road I went with mine, although yours took a more technical perspective and mine somewhat more philosophical.

I tend to think in terms of two kinds of time -- something like "eternity" and something that we usually think of as time and which flows through greater time/eternity in worldlines. Worldlines are subject to relativity while the backdrop "eternity" (which entangled particles communicate within) is not. It's a very infantile mostly philosophical concept however, hence I did not get into it in any depth in my essay except to suggest that quanglement interacted in time differently than classical bits and thus represents a more primary form of "information" sharing than bits do.

I'd appreciate more in depth discussion of both your essay and mine if you find reading another essay on quanglement interesting :) At the moment I've only been able to skim yours since I am trying to digest a number of essays, but I will return and chat more if you would so enjoy.

Cheers!

Jenny Nielsen (PhD Student at KU Physics)

Dear Paul L Borril:

Why I writing you? Why I sent my essay to the contest?. I am an old physician, I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. But your discipline among the sciences, it is the one that make more use, of what everybody call's "time" and it is being used, without knowing its definition and which is more important the experimental meaning, by the way is just a remnant word without physical existence.

You start your intreoduction with:Church's thesis and the Turing machine are rooted in the concept of doing one thing at a time. But we do not really know what doing is - or time - without a complete picture of quantum mechanics and the relationship between the still mysterious wave-function and macroscopic observation."

So I sending you a summary of my essay because I am convince you would be interested in reading it."The deep nature of reality" ( nobody understand it and is not just because of my bad English) "Hawking, A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Regrettably Dr. Borrill,

You wrote under the heading Falsifiable: Many experiments can be conceived to prove the hypothesis incorrect. Below are a few of the unique aspects of this insight that may be tested experimentally.

As I have gone to exceptional great pains to point out in my essay BITTERS: One real unique Universe is eternally occurring, once. The word unique means once.

Unique can only have one aspect, once. Each experiment is unique, once. Each concept is unique, once. Each insight is unique, once.

Let us Wheeler the question:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique simple? Yes.

Is quantum theory simple? No.

Joe

Dear Paul,

This seems to be an interesting account of the relation between entanglement and time, not forgetting information, and they are only two essays dealing explicitely about entanglement. I intend to study it in a week from now because I am too busy before.

Meanwhile, you may be interested with my own writings

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

where non-locality and contextuality are given a graph theoretical and algebraic interpretation.

Best regards,

Michel

Hi Paul,

Nice essay but I have to read a second time to fully grasp your ideas. Meanwhile...

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Dear professor Christian Corda:

Thanks for your nice essay, well done, i enjoy reading it very much

"a new information-theoretic quality to the nature of an interaction. "

very impressive!

could you put it simple the essential of EPR?

Thanks for your nice essay, i rated it with high mark

and from a different point view, my essay may interest you

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1906

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Dear Paul,

I think that there is a basic failure in your essay. You are talking about an entangled system while you should talk about entangled states. At least in the standard meaning entanglement means (entangled) states shared by mutually commuting operators attached to measurement systems. Thus there is no time here.

There are no entangled systems but systems that possibly manifest entanglement in the sharing of their states. Not all shared states are entangled. If you look at my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

there are several examples of mutually commuting operators sharing states without entanglement. They correspond to the lines of the displayed finite geometries (as the Mermin's square in Fig. 3).

Entanglement is not central in my essay and is not a necessary condition for for Bell's inequality and contextuality.

It does not mean that your concept of subtime is not interesting but I think that you don't use the the concept of entanglement in an appropriate way.

Best regards,

Michel