Hi Paul,

Thanks for a most interesting way to conceptualize QM. I won't call it absurd, as to me (a software architect) it seems quite natural! Your essay was a delight to read (and that's saying something... I have read over 80 of them now.).

You conclude:

> The photon is the carrier of time, and the Universe is a network automaton...

You might find your concept compatible with the picture in my essay Software Cosmos, which outlines the design of a software system to simulate the cosmos. I also describe and carry out a test to see if we curently reside in such a virtual world.

I think we could run my design on your virtual hardware... what do you think?

Hugh

    Sorry, I meant to say "Paul" I accidentally addressed this comment to the wrong name "David". Silly mistake on my part! I'm going to email FQXI to correct for it. So to get it right - superb job Paul!

    (Also, no offense to any Davids on this site :) )

    Hi Paul,

    Your essay is very insightful, creative, and all around superb (and I rated it very highly). I really like how you brought out the concept of subtime. I've thought about this too, and I especially like how you utilized subtime to explain entanglement. Both our essays navigate very similar topics (as your question on my page suggest) and it's awesome how our approaches complement one another. (For example, we both look at entanglement analysis as an alternative to Everett's 'parallel universes.') And Paul, I very much appreciate your suggestions for experiments. It's essential to bring out real experimental evidence, and to suggest ways of testing our ideas further (and thus providing falsifiability), and you did that. And that's a very interesting twist on: "What would we see if we varied the distance between the source and detector in units of wavelength of the quantum particle in a Bell experiment?" which I'm eager to see performed. I want to think more about your question from my page, but briefly - I think we both start with different concepts involving entanglement and end up converging on a similar idea regarding what you would call dark photons. It's fantastic how that happened, and thank you. This is a great essay project. I look forward to seeing more of your ideas and work,

    Sincerely,

    Steve Sax

      Dear Paul ,

      As I promised in my Essay page I have read your interesting Essay. Here are my comments/questions.

      1) Concerning your statements that "reversible computation occurs within an entangled system. 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", dont' you think that we could have information loss during the passage from reversibility to irreversibility?

      2) I think that your "principle of retroactive non-discernability" could have some implication also in the issue of my Essay, i.e. the black hole information loss paradox.

      3) Concerning Information and Entanglement I would like to bring to your attention another important behavior: in general the term entanglement means that the quantum state of a quantum system composed by two (or more) subsystems depends on the quantum state of each subsystem even if they are spatially separated. When one sums up the information in the two subsystems the result will be less than the information in the original system.The apparent information loss results hidden inside correlations between the subsystems. This should have some implication also for my comment 1).

      4) A recent paper by Pierre Fromholz, Eric Poisson and Clifford M. Will correctly stresses that Einstein's general relativity is built based on the principle of general covariance. This basic principle implies that coordinates are seen like simply labels of space-time events. Thus, one can assign coordinates completely arbitrarily. Therefore, the only quantities that have physical meaning, i.e. the measurables one, are those that are invariant under coordinate transformations. One such invariant is the number of ticks on an atomic clock giving the proper time between two events. Do you think that your idea of "background-free conceptualization of time" could be connected with such a proper time?

      In any case, I find your Essay very interesting and also bite provocative. I had fun in reading it. Then, I will give you a high rate.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

        Hi Paul,

        Thank you for your very nice comments on my site.

        I think that your concept of "subtime" is what I call "Universe time" and your "classic time" is what I call "world time". If you read the "coherent spacetime continuum" paragraph of my 3D Universe Theory, you will see what I mean.

        I look forward to some more feedback from you once you've read my theory.

        All the best.

        Cheers,

        Patrick

          Paul,

          It occurred to me that, "... the quantum stroboscope: 'brief flashes of reality with long periods of darkness in between' ..." like Kepler's orbits and time conservation, also has classical analogs:

          1. Per Bak's theory of self organized criticality*, the "avalanche model" which describes long periods of stasis in a system, punctuated by periods of rapid change. (Bak's mathematical model supports Gould's and Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium description of biological evolution.)

          2. Also, in complex systems science, Braha and Bar-Yam** showed that in communication networks, activity observed at short time intervals reveals often radical change in hub to node activity, while the system at comparatively longer time scales shows hardly any change at all.

          All best,

          Tom

          * Bak, P. How Nature Works

          ** Braha, D. & Bar-Yam, Y. [2006]. "From Centrality to Temporary Fame: Dynamic Centrality in Complex Networks." Complexity vol 12, no 2, pp 59-63.

          Dear Paul,

          thank you for this impressive essay.

          I fully agree with your background-free conceptualization of time. Barbour did something similar on a classical level in deriving time from celestial motion. I would even go a step further pleading for a background free concept of space-time. In my view space-time is only an abstract mathematical parameter space that is used to represent relations between objects. Therefore, I cannot see any physical reason to consider space-time as an independent entity.

          You can certainly base time on the exchange of photons between two atoms. (Atomic clocks use the exchange of photons between two energy levels of an atom.) For me it is interesting that you relate this exchange to entanglement, which, if I understand correctly, is your description of interaction. In two recent papers of mine I have described the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions as a consequence of momentum entanglement, which in turn is a consequence of irreducibility of the state space of isolated systems. So we obviously share a similar view.

          I hope, in pursuing your concept, you will be able to cast your ideas into a mathematical form. This will help to make your ideas more understandable for the physical community.

          Good luck and kind regards,

          Walter

            Dear Paul

            Thank you for a very interesting and well-written essay.

            I like your idea of using photons to generate a background-free concept of time. I myself have something similar in my essay and papers, expect given the fact that gravity can deflect photons (along with the fact that they have an inherent frequency and its not clear why that particular mediator should be singled out aside from the fact that it is massless), I have reasoned that it is something else altogether. I simply call the effect influence, and work to show that one can indeed develop an emergent spacetime from this as well as various particle properties.

            I am a little fuzzy on subtime, since I don't really know what it means for someone to be looking. I would imagine that each photon reversal would result in an event that basically constitutes a change in time, which certainly affects the entangled particles. I will have to give the paper a closer look since I may have missed something.

            Thank you again for an excellent essay with different ideas.

            I gave you a high score, but the average at this resolution didn't change.

              Hello,

              You just posted a supportive comment on my essay, thank you very much!

              I was wondering if you wouldn't mind rating my essay, as I think one or two big ratings will hopefully allow my essay to reach the finals like yours.

              Thanks

              http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

                Cheers Paul,

                I liked the idea. Yes entangled photons make more sense this way. Great thinking!

                Antony

                Christian - its fascinating how similarly we think.

                In response to your comments/questions:

                I will respond by paragraph number:

                Paragraph 1:

                P1: Concerning your statements that "reversible computation occurs within an entangled system. 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", don't you think that we could have information loss during the passage from reversibility to irreversibility?

                A1: This is how I "currently" think: information is trapped in entanglement, but does indeed escape during decoherence. The question is, where does it escape to? As I suggested in an earlier post, free photons seek out "entanglement" with other atoms. Some find targets nearby, which is why we have condensed matter and the double slit experiment. Intermediate ones create rare reflections in planetary or stellar distances (don't forget entanglement swapping). Yet others fly off in the universe and go forever, perhaps exerting pressure on some distant galaxy to accelerate them away from us.

                Paragraph 2:

                P2: I think that your "principle of retroactive non-discernability" could have some implication also in the issue of my Essay, i.e. the black hole information loss paradox.

                A2: This was what attracted me most to your essay. I hope we will have time after the contest to go into this more deeply.

                Paragraph 3:

                P3: Concerning Information and Entanglement I would like to bring to your attention another important behavior: in general the term entanglement means that the quantum state of a quantum system composed by two (or more) subsystems depends on the quantum state of each subsystem even if they are spatially separated. When one sums up the information in the two subsystems the result will be less than the information in the original system.The apparent information loss results hidden inside correlations between the subsystems. This should have some implication also for my comment 1).

                A3: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was aware that the conventional formalism for entanglement provides for two distantly separated quantum systems to be "coupled" via Hilbert space, such that measurement of one can suddenly change the state of the other. Until your paper, I was not aware that there was an apparent information loss hidden inside the correlations between subsystems. This appears to lend credence to the subtime insight as to what form that "coupling" might take.

                Paragraph 4:

                P4: A recent paper by Pierre Fromholz, Eric Poisson and Clifford M. Will correctly stresses that Einstein's general relativity is built based on the principle of general covariance. This basic principle implies that coordinates are seen like simply labels of space-time events. Thus, one can assign coordinates completely arbitrarily. Therefore, the only quantities that have physical meaning, i.e. the measurables one, are those that are invariant under coordinate transformations. One such invariant is the number of ticks on an atomic clock giving the proper time between two events. Do you think that your idea of "background-free conceptualization of time" could be connected with such a proper time?

                A4: I have the paper downloaded and it is on my list to read next. That Schwarzschild geometry can be described in infinitely many coordinate systems appears to be consistent with the background-free conceptualization of time I would like to achieve. In a nutshell, I believe that coordinate systems and labels of space-time events are a figment of our imagination. The reason for the invariance in the number of ticks on an atomic clock providing a "proper time" between them is nothing more than the speed of light being invariant. This does not mean that there is any temporal relationship whatsoever between one atomic clock and another.

                I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this with you and look forward to further discussions down the road.

                Best of luck in the contest.

                Kind regards, Paul

                Paul,

                I have read your essay with great interests and rated highly. Instead of universe-multiplex scheme, if I am correct, subtime multiplex seems to do the same tricks and it seems to be intuitive. The experiments you proposed should give more clarification. Hope you get a good review from the board and get your essay published formally.

                Brian

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #94

                  Dear Paul: Dear Paul: his essay technically correct, is primarily focused on the role of entangled states and clearly related to the exchange of information, and therefore its quantification. This sentence of his essay deductions would summarize nicely: "The photon is the carrier of time, and the Universe is a network automaton"

                  Indeed, the photon is the king of the time, and to a certain limit, the universe is an automated network, except for the interaction of observers who know this part of the operation of automated network (algorithms, equations, inputs, outputs information); and trigger responses in some cases, totally predictable and others only a probabilistic knowledge.

                  You analyzes key elements of quantum theory, still unresolved. 1) After an interesting proposal: exchange of information as entangled states, and where the reversibility is fully permitted (logically) in undisturbed entangled states, unobserved, what you call: the dark informational statements.

                  In my essay I demonstrate how they have to be imaginary mass states, and precisely these unobservable states, as they are vibrations fabric of space-time, at speeds exceeding that of light, are responsible for the apparent instantaneity of exchange of information; EPR experiments.

                  There is no contradiction with the theory of special relativity, because since the observers point of reference for in four dimensions, these states have a higher speed, compared to a macroscopic universe 4d, for the simple reason that move to higher dimensions four classic.

                  You know perfectly well that a path from one point to another may take more or less time, depending on the curvature of the road, ie the spacetime curvature of the extra dimensions that determines this higher speed.

                  2) Also you are questioned, rightly, of the relationship between the irreversibility or call thermodynamic arrow of time, and the growing number of states, which progressively irreversibility makes this impossible.

                  I totally agree, that there should be a minimum limit, a numerical constant times the Planck mass, from which are not possible entangled states, ie: the boundary between quantum and classical behavior.

                  I liked the interconnection graph of entangled states and flow visualization back and forward information.

                  This reminds me of the waves that go back and forth. Mathematically reminds me of the changes in trigonometric functions, or the bubbling of the unified system, space-time-mass

                  To summarize: the essay is enhanced by the sharp rigorously necessary and required for the analysis of these crucial issues of quantum mechanics.

                  A very good essay, that being of academic level, it is perfectly understandable by anyone who is not a specialist.

                  Thank you very much for having read my humble essay.

                  Best wishes in the contest (sure you will be among the finalists, no doubt)

                  Greetings.

                  Angel Garces Doz

                    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