Jim - thank you for your message. The web site is now operational again, and I will try to download your essay. Best regards, Paul

Manuel - thank you for your help. The Website is now operational again, and I have uploaded a corrected and revised version of the essay. Kind regards, Paul

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

            5 days later

            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

            Michel - thank you for your comment. I have read your essay (very nice), I will comment on that on your page.

            Entanglement is the term normally given to the "non-classical" phenomenon where joint measurements show correlations stronger than what would be "classically explainable". I recognize that using the term entanglement for this "photon hot potato protocol" would provoke reactions from conventional quantum mechanic's. However unless someone can find a hole in my argument, this protocol in combination with the concept of subtime, would appear to manifest exactly the same results as the purely probabilistic quantum formalism; but now might be considered "explainable" (I hesitate to say classically, because it isn't that either).

            The problem with the entangled (pure state of vectors) in the Hilbert space, is that entanglement is seen as only one thing: the impossibility of writing a density matrix as a linear combination of tensor products.

            The reason this essay is completely devoid of mathematical formalism, is because I wanted to begin with a describable phenomenon, and not with an argument over current formalisms. I plan to follow up this paper with a fully mathematical description, but I wanted people to read and understand this description first in order to pave the way to a new understanding.

            There are two basic issues with the existing formalism. The first theoretical, that it appears to be incomplete without including a backwards evolving quantum state [1]. The second is experimental, that it appears to be a classic example of the independence fallacy [2].

            I am also willing to be held accountable by experiment. At least all the Bell tests so far would appear to be consistent with this description. I am hoping to engage the scientific community in this debate, which I see not as theory vs experiment, but as a constructive interaction between the two.

            Additional References:

            [1] Lev Vaidman argues that the Two State Vector Formalism (TSVF) needs to consider backwards evolving quantum state because information provided by a "forwards only" state is not complete. Both past and future measurements are required for providing complete information about quantum systems. [Ref: http://www.pirsa.org/08090067/]

            [2] Ken Wharton "Reality, No Matter How You Slice It" http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1846

            Akinbo - thank you for your message. I think you will find the answers to your questions in my essay, and the essay by Ken Wharton on this site [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1846]

            Kind regards, Paul

            Yutaka - allow me to be more specific:

            Entanglement is the term normally given to the "non-classical" phenomenon where joint measurements show correlations stronger than what would be "classically explainable". I recognize that using the term entanglement for this "photon hot potato" protocol might provoke reactions from mainstay quantum mechanic's. Unless someone can find a hole in my argument, this protocol in combination with the concept of subtime, would appear to manifest exactly the same results as the purely probabilistic quantum formalism; but might now be considered "explainable" (I hesitate to say classically, because it isn't that either).

            The conventional formalism for entanglement says that two distantly separated quantum systems may be "coupled" via Hilbert space, such that measurement of one can suddenly change the state of the other. I have simply tried to describe an insight as to what form that "coupling" might take.

            The difficulty with the entangled (pure state of vectors) in the Hilbert space, is that entanglement is seen as only one thing: the impossibility of writing a density matrix as a linear combination of tensor products. There are two basic issues with this. The first theoretical: it appears to be incomplete without including (at least) a backwards evolving quantum state [1]. The second is experimental: it appears to be a classic example of the independence fallacy [2].

            This is the biggest reason the essay is completely devoid of mathematical formalism: I wanted to begin with a describable phenomenon, and not with an endless argument over the current formalisms before we can get to the real issues.

            However, I am willing to be educated by those with more knowledge than me in this area. I am also willing to be tested by experiment: all of the Bell tests so far have outcomes that appear to be consistent with this new description, and I have proposed experiments which could lead to further insight.

            [1] Lev Vaidman argues that the Two State Vector Formalism needs to consider backwards evolving quantum state because information provided by a "forwards only" state is not complete. Both past and future measurements are required for providing complete information about quantum systems. [ http://www.pirsa.org/08090067/]

            [2] Ken Wharton "Reality, No Matter How You Slice It". [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1846]

            Dear Paul,

            You have offered impressively review/analytical work, written in honest polemical style. It is interesting to follow of your attractive judgements. However, let me see that for study and proper examination of such content good time is required, and a certain acquaintance also with the touched basic problems. I saw it is difficult to start serious discussion within possible time frame and in the actual situation. Thus, let me just say that your work seems to me as deserving to a ,,high,, rating - that I do. Please you find short time to read my work Es text . It is written as per possible in readable form, in my view. (The confirmations and quantitatively reasons/argumentations are possible to find from references, after of this battle, of course!) I hope you will find some communication of it with the you're examined questions. I hope you will visit my forum!

            Regards,

            George

              Dear Paul,

              I couldn't actually discern answers to my questions above from the essay being an amateur physicist. However, I discern that from the quantum physics perspective a good effort to provide answers to the contest's question.

              As a professional physicist, kindly indulge me one last question for my clarification: Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

              You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

              Accept my best regards,

              Akinbo

                George - thank you for your kind words and high rating. There is a large volume of papers in this contest, and I am hoping to get through all of them. I have your paper printed out and will hopefully get to it before the deadline on the contest and will respond on your page.

                Kind regards, Paul

                Jenny - thank you for your comments. Two kinds of time indeed, and each of them has different notions of infinity Tc (+/- on the real line) is the classical way we use time in our equations, however, the "ts" insight creates a different kind of meaning for eternity - in this case an eternal recurrence that has no beginning or end. Of course, this is still independent of the movement of matter through space as entangled clumps living a separate eternal existence, and the "external" reality of bumping into other entangled clumps, and decohering, perhaps into a larger entangled clump, or splitting into yet more fragments of clumps.

                I will make sure to read your paper in detail and learn what you mean by quantanglement.

                Kind regards, Paul

                Dear Paul

                Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

                (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

                said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

                I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

                The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

                Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

                Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

                I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

                Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

                Good luck and good cheers!

                Than Tin

                  Dear Paul,

                  I just found your reply. Thank you . I should read your interesting essay another time. I like your quote about Lev Vaidman "Both past and future measurements. In the contextual approach, one does not distinguish past or future measurements; one looks at compatible measurements.

                  I hope that you will find my essay attractive and I will be available for your remarks.

                  Have a good WE.

                  Best wishes,

                  Michel

                  Dear Paul,

                  World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep original analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas and conclusions.

                  Constructive ways to the truth may be different.

                  One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counter-revolution in mathematics": «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

                  Http :/ / www.ccas. ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

                  Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

                  I give the highest rating for a very original and radical ideas.

                  Please look also my essay.

                  I wish you success,

                  Vladimir