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

Thank you Dear Borrill, for your kindly post!

I have read and rating your nice work on high score much early (see my post above)

And how you have done with mine - it is unclear for me.

However, it is not big dealt.

Good luck in contest!

Georg

Paul,

Thanks for checking out my essay. Did you get a chance to evaluate it, knowing that I'm not an academic in physics?

Your ideas seem to be out of the box. There is much to digest, prompting many question:

Does subtime apply to entanglement or is it relevant, considering that entangled systems are Dark? If the photon is a carrier of time, does it still travel at the speed of light or does it cover fabrics of space with different times? There is a correlation between the results of measurements on entangled pairs even if separated by arbitrarily large distances? Who determines whether there are large distances?

Jim

Dear Paul

I partially agree with your ideas, and I also think before about such idea.

One important "postulate" of physics for me is Ockham razor. Such additional sub-time is against Ockham.

But, all model of physics are allowed, which are mathematically correct, because they better visualize physics. So also your model does.

Time inside quantum coherence is really symmetric.

It is interesting that quantum computer can be much faster than classical computer or faster than stochastic one. Can you explain this with your model?

You deserve and will get good score. I will read it again.

P.S you have good editors. Are you on university, that they find time for you.

Hi Paul,

I was reading the comments on Sreenath B N comments section when I ran across your comment. You say "sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that"

Well, the instructions for putting URL's in your post are in the instructions for "Add a New Post". Here is what is says;

"HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page."

I used the instructions on the Javapage to create the link for "link help page". You can do this also. Now to read your submission.

Jim Akerlund

Dear Paul,

I just saw your post on my essay thread stating that you had read all 180 essays, and invited me, in true academic spirit, to review you essay and leave my comments. Paul, I had previously made a cursory review of your essay, but because I am not a physicist and was unfamiliar with some of more technical references, I felt rather unqualified to assess yours, and I did not wish to be intellectually dishonest or allow my mind's ignorance to be exceeded by my ego's arrogance. However, because you went to the trouble to read all of the essays, including mine, I spent the last hour reading and re-reading your essay, and I do now feel as though I can offer some honest feedback and a genuine assessment.

I found your essay to be exceptionally well-written, particularly considering the highly technical aspects of both the subject and your assertions. You stated, "Time is change. When nothing changes, time stands still, when something changes, and then changes back, it is indistinguishable from time standing still, at least locally." I don't know if you're the first to say this, but I agree completely; it is a profound observation.

You also pointed out, "We rarely hear the logically equivalent that there is no time without space which is equally concludeable from Einstein's original postulates and argument . . ." and, "There is no common meaning to time separately from motion. They are inextricably tied together." Again, I find myself in complete agreement with those statements.

I found your hypothesis fascinating. While I have absolutely no basis other than my own intuition (which has served me wrong on more occasions that I care to admit), it has always seemed to me that our ability to measure the time frame(s) are too large (if that is the proper way of stating it) to notice the photon's speed 'back and forth' and as such, we draw incorrect conclusions based upon inaccurate data/measurements.

At any rate, I fear if I go on, I shall reveal even greater depths of my ignorance, so I will conclude by telling you that I found your essay to be of exceptionally high quality and rated it accordingly. Best to you, Paul, and were it not for your post, I would not have taken the time or had the courage to evaluate and rate yours.

Sincerely,

Ralph

Greetings Paul,

I appreciate the kind remarks left on my essay page. I'll make every effort to read your essay and rate it before midnight, but your comments may have to wait until tomorrow - unless they are urgent and short.

Regards.

Jonathan

Hey,

I've often thought of ticks on a clock and wondered how much time really happens, or what the interval actually is. The ticks may occur at the same rate, or be taken as that which motion, or events macroscopically take place, like say the rate of ticks corresponds with the motion of the container, and it has such a time interval over all. But the possibility of something happening in between the one interval which is different from the next, something that would not change the motion of a body in trajectory much, is divinely intriguing. So is it correct to say that the amount of "time" in between ticks differs depending on the oscillations of photons that don't interact with or click with detection screen?

I've also never thought this idea could be applied or taken anywhere besides time, like was done with entanglement in this essay. Maybe this was what Einstein was thinking. I know scientist don't wish, because they doubt it changes the future, but I would that Einstein was around for an interview.

Best of luck with this here contest,

Amos.

Hi Paul,

OK, I just read your submission and you have done a good job. I liked reading about the proposed experiments to prove t_s. I myself have thought along those same lines but I couldn't conceive of any experiments. Anyway, the point in your submission where you say; "Many different configurations are explored in subtime and only those well suited to their environment would (with higher probability) persist as (what would appear to be) irreversible change in T_c." Should actually say, many differnent configurations are explored in subtime and the only one realized is the one that follows the "principle of least time". Feynman did may wonderful things with the concept of "least time". Which as I just looked up is actually called Fermat's principle of least time. It basically says that the path a photon will take between two events will be the one that involves the least time between the two events.

On other things. A U of Washington physics researcher by the name of John Cramer has also written a paper that you may be interested in reading.

Cramer J. G. (1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647-688.

and An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation anyway, Cramer's ideas seem to be inspired by your reference # 13 to the Wheeler/Feynman paper.

In the next FQXi contest I hope to see a paper of one of your proposed experiments realized. Good luck in the contest.

Jim Akerlund

Hello Paul,

Reading essay now.

Will rate if I finish in time. Only a few pages in.

Jonathan