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

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

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

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

Dear Paul,

Finally got to your paper - so many in such short amount of time. I like anything that contains EPR and your approach is original. I like how you have treated time and the description of photons as dark makes perfect sense! Also nice to see Turing mentioned.

I thought your essay was interesting and relevant. I'm not sure whether you'll like my different approach, but if you do get chance, please take a look.

Well done & best wishes,

Antony

Dear Paul Borrill,

I came to your essay because of a comment you made on Daryl Janzen's essay. I also like your reference in a comment above to "Brian Swingle's Essay last year on The Illusion of Hilbert Space". I thought that was an exceptionally good essay, and said so last year.

Your essay is daring and provocative, and full of ideas, such as time not existing until change occurs: "when nothing changes, time stands still." [and] "it is impossible to 'count' the number of recurrences within [a] state [of reversible change.]"

Of particular interest is "even behaviors that have... happened, can (at least locally) unhappen...".

I like your figure 4 of the entanglement net. But I'm confused about the limits of this view. I can see that such may hold in a crystal, say, but if an atom in a star emits a photon, which 1 billion years later is absorbed by my eye, this clearly is not recurring. So where is the 'boundary' and what is the distribution law governing these occurrences? I agree that it was reasonable of you not to include math in this essay but do you have answers to this question?

By the way, I also liked "if time (change) happens, we remember: if it happens and then the information reverses its path, we don't."

In short, you have more fascinating ideas in your essay than most do. I need to reread it, perhaps several times, to try to absorb the complete scheme [and look for holes in it.] It is usually easy to dismiss far out schemes, but your Catch-22, that "we don't remember the (reversed) occurrences" is a tough one to counter, right off the bat. I'll need to think about it more.

I invite you to read and comment on my essay, which I hope will introduce you to some new and stimulating ideas. I don't [yet] buy your ideas, but I rate you highly on originality and presentation. You present an idea I would normally dismiss so well that I need to think more about it. Congratulations.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sir,

We have replied to you in our thread. Before we comment on your essay, we must clarify that we do not assume or consider anything or any theory as given. We examine everything from empirical perspective using precise definitions. Thus, our views are usually different from others. We are confused after reading your essay. Kindly spare some time to clarify it to us.

In the statistical method, observation remains non-deterministic because it is not related to individual measurements, but only to the minimal and maximal boundary conditions like the position of an electron in orbit around nucleus. You cannot apply this idea to "reality is timeless inside entangled systems, i.e., it continually evolves and cycles through its recurrence, defined by the available number of states", because your description shows sequence, which is used to perceive time. Unlike mass, space and time have no physical existence. We designate the interval between objects as time and that of events as time. Since they do not have physical reality, we designate them through alternative symbolism of objects and events, which are different from space and time or spacetime. Thus, the concept of sub-time is absurd, though reversible information exchange is frequently used. The velocity of photon is neither smooth, nor monotonic or irreversible background in time.

How do you assume "information is associated with the propagation of a photon?" Information is not data that is transmitted. Information is specific data reporting the state of something based on observation (measurements), organized and summarized for a purpose within a context that gives it meaning and relevance and can lead to either an increase in understanding or decrease in uncertainty. Perception is the processing of the result of measurements of different but related fields of something with some stored data to convey a combined form "it is like that", where "it" refers to an object (constituted of bits) and "that" refers to a concept signified by the object (self-contained representation).

Similarly, how do you "postulate sub-time is inextricably intertwined with space along the one-dimensional path defined by the photon traversal between emitter and absorber atoms?" Transverse waves are always characterized by particle motion being perpendicular to the wave motion. This implies the existence of a three dimensional medium through which the two dimensional reference wave travels and with respect to which the transverse wave travels in a perpendicular direction. In the absence of the reference wave, which is a longitudinal wave, the transverse wave can not be characterized as such. All transverse waves are background invariant by its very definition. All motions take place in space and time. Thus, how do you "dispense entirely with the notion that a background of time exists, along with any sense of future or past, between isolated entangled systems?" After all, the two waves are entangled.

Photon exchange indicates the change in direction of the application of energy. Consider an example: A B → C D. Here a force makes A interact with B to produce C and D. The same force doesn't act on C and D as they don't exist at that stage. If we change the direction of the force, B acts on A. Here only the direction of force and not the interval between the states before and after application of force (time) will change and the equation will be: B A → C D and not B A ← C D. Hence it does not affect causality. There can be no negative direction for time or cause and effect. You also subscribe to this view later in your essay while talking about entanglement. Only there you start a reverse cycle with C and D in place of A and B. Then how do you claim "Only when the entangled system decoheres into the environment of other entangled systems (through the exchange of photons) does time emerge as progressively irreversible, providing persistent evolution of information at the macroscopic scale"?

The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t', t'', etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Hence there is an uncertainty inherent in it, which Shannon calls entropy. Indiscernibility such as the difference of time in the observation of an object, its description through a language and the perception of the object as described by that language can sometimes be designated as a superposition of states. Entanglement of quantum states of composite systems of two or more atoms cannot be a consequence of the principle of superposition. Contrary to the descriptions of EPR, entanglement does not physically last over long distances. Entanglement always indicates confinement, which means they are in a well defined boundary or state. Hence it cannot be a superposition. Further, since they are continuously changing their states ('a state of reversible change' - as you put it), which are 'events', it happens in the background of time (interval between events).

Can you show us something that does not change at all? Everything is made up of elementary particles and fundamental energies, which always change their state. How can time stand still? Time may stand still only outside the Universes, which cannot be perceived at all. We measure analog time by observing some fairly repetitive (cyclic) and easily intelligible events and taking it as the scaling constant (unit). Generally we use the duration of the day or year, which are natural units and subdivide it to get the duration of second. Even atomic clocks, which define a second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom, retain the natural duration by averaging many readings of the cesium clocks in GPS, as they are individually not accurate. While the analog time is smooth and monotonous, the digitized time, when used to measure the intervals of events, is not so.

(Further). We are also surprised to see these deleted. However, we are publishing it again. The following was posted to our thread:

"Thank you for your comments. We apologize for our clumsy presentation, because we do not subscribe to reductionism. We start from the creation event and come down to explain everything from a common source unlike others, who do the opposite. Thus, to others, our paper may seem like jumbled up. Space constraint also forced us to squeeze. We did not give any reference because there is no scientific paper in our knowledge, which talks about these issues from the same perspective. For example, several persons have questioned time dilation. But our views are distinctly different from others. It contained in a book written by us on 30-06-2005. But it is much more clumsy.

After your post we read the paper of Dr. Bakhoum, E. G. He says: 'the process of "observing" a photon necessarily means its destruction, and hence the "observation" of the event will be carried out in the moving frame S' only'. In our essay, we do not accept that the process of observation affects reality. In fact, in one of the threads here, we had quoted from a ninth century book to refute it. In some other threads we have explained the GPS result as due to changing refractive index of the Earth's atmosphere and the outer space. Regarding photon, we have explained in our essay that it is the motion of the intersection of the electric field and the magnetic field. Thus, it is ever changing. In open space, it must have the maximum velocity.

Similarly, Dr. Bakhoum, E. G. says: "muons traveling with a velocity v ≈ c are observed to survive longer than muons that travel with velocities that are much less than c". We explain it by pointing out to the cause of such slower motion. It must be the changing refractive index due to differential density of the medium. This would generate higher friction, so that the muon dies down early. "

Regarding your latest post, this is our view:

A.2. Before talking about sub-time or classical time, you must define time and justify its divisions into sub-time or classical time. We have defined time precisely and hold that there cannot be anything like sub-time or classical time.

A.3. Photon propagation is the mechanism for transmission of signals. It has to be received, stored and interpreted to be information. Information is the cognitive content and not mechanical process.

A.4. We are pointing out the defects in your postulate, which makes it self-contradictory. We have said earlier that we do not accept anything or any view of any one unless we verify it empirically. Hence kindly modify your reply to answer to the issues raised by us.

A.5. We have questioned your statement by giving the example that entanglement does not decohere into the environment of other entangled systems, and time and causality are irreversible. The n-p chain is another example of our statement.

A.6. & A.7. The fact that you are alive and communicating shows that there is background time. Can you say it is non-existent? Can you show that sub-time or classical time are the only reality? Till that time, your premise is wrong and your conclusions are obviously wrong.

A.8. We had read your essay fully; otherwise we could not have made the comment. We do not believe in name dropping or references as we examine everything independently through empirical evidence before accepting or rejecting or reserving our opinion. Hence we ask questions.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Paul,

Quantum entanglement indicates the existence of discrete-time with physical phenomena and this sub-time is expressional with discrete systems also, whereas this sub-time is essentially to be external to a noumenon or a system to describe the dynamics involved in a noumenon or a system.

As the particles are considered as zero-dimensional nothing inside the particles to be described in reference with spin period of time; whereas in eigen-rotational string, configuration space of tetrahedral-brane describes loculated vacuum fluctuation.

This indicates that noumenon within noumenon or system within a system, is essential to demonstrate discrete sub-time and thus holarchy of nature to be defined to measure sub-time, whereas the emergence of time is external to each noumenon or system.

In particle scenario, time and sub-time are linear and infinite, whereas in string-matter continuum scenario, time emerges as cyclic in reference with holarchial cyclic-times, while each cycle of time is finite and emerges external to the eigen-rotational cycle of string-segment and thus a linear flow of time with discrete cyclic-time is expressional.

With best wishes,

Jayakar