Thank you Ken, for seeing my essay and telling me about your work.

Best,

Tejinder

Tejinder Pal Singh,

There are two types of time

#1. SOCIAL TIME: This is the time that we "measure" changes by clock or by rotation of earth. Where one rotation of earth is standardized as unit called one day. It is usual measuring methodology by comparing with a unit. This is society specific-time.

#2. PHYSICAL TIME: This time is "reason" of life-cycle changes whereby a system of matter undergoes structural changes. This time is object-specific and differ from object to object.

Which type of time you are using?

    Hi Tejinder,

    You are welcome,

    :) Good to see you again on fqxi also,

    All the best from Belgium

    Dear Shaikh,

    Thank you. Your definitions of time are strange and non-standard, I think.

    I have used time the same way that every physicist does. In Newtonian mechanics it is absolute time, which we measure using clocks. In special relativity it is the coordinate time associated with a specific inertial observer, which is part of a space-time line-element in Minkowski space-time. In general relativity, it is the time coordinate which is a part of the space-time manifold, subject to general coordinate transformations.

    Regards,

    Tejinder

    Dear Tejinder:

    I enjoyed reading your paper eloquently describing the incompleteness and shortcomings of QM irrespective of its successes in the technological applications. I agree with your conclusion - "......But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of standard quantum theory. ... And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond quantum theory, and modify it. When we go to that 'beyond', we find that there is a new world out there. ...Deep down, if we look very carefully, everything is everywhere all the time, in a manner of speaking."

    Such fundamental reality of the implicate world is described in my contest paper - FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE-A.Singh elaborated below. The paper describes the inner workings of QM resolving its paradoxes and incompleteness.

    FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of science are also devoid of consciousness or free will. While science, especially quantum mechanics, recognizes the spontaneous free-willed (without any cause) birth and decay of particles out of the Zero-point vacuum as a fundamental physical phenomenon, it refutes existence of free will via consciously labeling it as "Randomness" in nature. This vicious circle has failed science in two ways - first is its erroneous prediction of a purposeless universe and life in it making the science itself purposeless and meaningless from a deeper human perspective. Secondly, ignorance of consciousness or free will which is a fundamental dimension of the universe along with mass/energy/space/time leaves scientific theories incomplete leading to their current paradoxes and internal inconsistencies.

    Just like a dead mother cannot nurture and give birth to a living baby, a dead universe governed by inanimate laws cannot support any living systems within it. Universal consciousness is fundamental to the emergence and sustenance of any living system - quantum or biological. The mathematical laws must be living to give rise to living aims and intentions. If the fundamentality of the consciousness of the universe and laws is not understood, a scientific theory would be like a castle built on sand.

    FQXi forum is participated by brilliant and accomplished scientists representing in-depth knowledge and expertise in diverse fields. I would propose that the forum scientists take on a challenge to enhance and uplift science from its current status quo as an incomplete science of the inanimate (dead) matter to the wholesome science of the living and conscious universe. This would complete science and make it purposeful and meaningful adding to its current successes as a tool for enhancing material life alone. Science deserves its long-awaited recognition to address not only matter but mind as well and not only material but spiritual life as well. Considering the current political and economic threats to the basic survival of science and religious extremism/terrorism threatening the fundamental freedom (free will) of humanity, the role of a wholesome and genuine science has become even more vital to humanity.

    I have forwarded a humble and example proposal (see attached paper) detailing how a consciousness-integrated scientific model of the universe entailing matter-mind could be developed that resolves current paradoxes of science including QM, predicts the observed universe, and offers a testable theory via future empirical observations. This proposal and theory are documented in my contest.

    I would greatly appreciate your feedback as well as constructive criticism of the proposed approach to advance physics and cosmology.

    Best Regards

    Avtar Singh

      Dear Professor Singh,

      After reading your essay, I looked at the article by Steven Weinberg, to which you refer in the first paragraph of your essay. I realize that your essay and Weinberg's article are very different. He provides an informal overview, while you present a detailed and developed proposal for solving the difficulties which beset quantum theory. Nonetheless, I would be interested in learning more about how you might view your proposal in relation to the suggestion for a possible solution which Weinberg indicates toward the end of his article. He seems to favor trying to find some principles that would lead to an objective collapse of the wave function, as opposed to theories in which consciousness brings about the collapse and theories in which there is no collapse at all (i.e., many worlds and related interpretations). I notice that Weinberg favorably cites the work of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, whom you also mention. As best I can tell, you present a concrete proposal that fits into the very general framework which Weinberg endorses. More specifically, one of your original ideas is that the underlying (space-time) manifold should be non-commutative.

      This is how I would at present summarize my understanding. Thanks for a stimulating and challenging essay.

      Laurence Hitterdale

        Dear Avtar,

        Greetings, and thank you so much for reading my essay and commenting on it.

        I have not thought of the universe and of mathematical equations as `living' entities possessing a `consciousness'. I very much look forward to reading your essay, and to commenting on it, in case I have something useful to say.

        My best regards,

        Tejinder

        Dear Laurence,

        Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Yes, Weinberg seems to be interested in GRW type objective collapse, which I also think of as a promising solution for the measurement problem.

        However, in my opinion the biggest problem that quantum theory faces is its dependence on classical time. I think this is at the root of all the troubles of quantum mechanics. We have to be able to describe quantum theory without classical time, and when we do that, it also provides a way for a fundamental understanding of the GRW theory, and for resolving the non-locality puzzle. Also, I think the dichotomy between physical space and Hilbert space / configuration space is very peculiar, and out to be lifted, in my opinion.

        With best wishes,

        Tejinder

        Dear Prof. Singh,

        Your interesting essay focuses on flaws in the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics.

        I agree that quantum mechanics has been misunderstood, as I have addressed in previous FQXi essays.

        But I argue that quantum entanglement does not exist, and that time and space are defined by real quantum oscillations of electron waves. This is not merely a philosophical question; there are now billions of dollars being spent on developing practical quantum computing, which requires entanglement, so that these questions will be answered one way or the other in the next 10-20 years.

        I address these issues very briefly in the End Notes section of my essay this year, "No Ghost in the Machine", which links to other articles that address this in more detail.

        In the main body of this year's FQXi essay, I argue that recognition of self, other agents, and a causal narrative, are built into specific evolved brain structures, based on neural networks, which create a sense of consciousness as part of a dynamic model of the environment. The reason that this is such a difficult problem is that we are being misled by the subjective perceptions of our own minds.

        Alan Kadin

          Dear Tejinder

          The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

          I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

          thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

          Wilhelmus

          Dear Tejinder

          The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

          I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

          thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

          Wilhelmus

          PS I posted this comment also on the thread where you answered my comment, but this one is easier to find for you...

            Dear Tejinder,

            Thank you for your positive comment on my essay.

            In my "emergent phenomenon" called reality "time" is a restriction (like space).

            We are experiencing a "flow" of time through the limited consciousness that is creating (emerging) memory at each Eternal Now Moment.

            Looking at a Wave collapse we see that it is "happening" always in the past. The emerging particle after the "collapse" is also a past emergent phenomenon. The moment we are aware of the "particle like distribution" in the Young experiment, we are experiencing an image from the past, representing a past ENM (that is timeless (eternal) in Total Simultaneity).

            So you could say that the Flow that we experience as TIME is an emergent effect of the memory data we are aware of. Actually I am 71 yeras old,(and remeber the I that has the memories of that age. I cannot reach out to the past (nor to the future). The NOW moment includes the whole FLOW of my past life, so the emergent effect of "living". The whole emergent life as is also reality is compressed in an ENM. (one moment ?)

            I do believe that any way of thinking can be the base of an emergent reality.The MWI is a splitting up of realities. In my perception this split up is not a "material" one, it is only the "move" to another "availability" that can become reality in another emergent phenomenon.

            I am untill now unable to substantiate this view mathematically, but I am searching.

            best regards

            Wilhelmus

            Hi TP,

            Nice to see that you are an established veteran at FQXi. You are a member, and have received acclaim and prizes at previous essay competitions. I am new to this forum.

            I read your current essay twice, once just when it was posted, and then read again yesterday. You have turned out to be quite a story teller, writing has become very persuasive. Congrats on both counts!

            I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical arguments in fact map to in reality? That is, do you have physical insights for every step in the argument?

            From 'stochastic element responsible for randomness', can one infer that CSL is an indeterministic model? If so, then can one identify the source of stochastic behavior even if one cannot have a definitive formulation for the process?

            One thing I liked most is that in CSL the space-time emerges from collapse. But, I could not figure out how the collapse would choose the values for (t,x,y,z), I mean when to appear and where to appear. I am sure, you do not depend on probability field, do you? You have also given a fundamental constant rc=10^-5 cm; so there is a sense of relative distance and location within the span of emerged universe. Moreover, after the collapse if there is a measure of space and time, then why is it called 'illusion'?

            Since I do not understand the nitty gritties of CSL, and the math or physical insights, I would have many questions. But even if you answered, I may not understand. The collapse rate seems to be about a few times in the whole life time of the universe. "Between every two collapses, the wave function follows the usual Schrodinger evolution." So after a collapse, how does it regain its global configuration quality to be able to collapse again causing relocalization, or does it remain confined to the space? And why does a collection of N nucleons, or let me suppose M atoms function like unified object to acquire the amplification factor of N.lambda. Then can one consider some arbitrary distribution of N neucleon, not necessarily bound?

            In a lighter vein, so far the observations (experiments) shaped the path of conceptual and theoretical development. But then theoreticians are going to have the last laugh by producing theories in plenty such that each conforms to all observations yet widely different in their projection of reality. Daunting it is to think that the underlying mathematics is potent enough to support them all.

            Rajiv

              Dear Tejinder,

              I enjoyed your essay in which you focus on the emergence of space-time and quantum mechanics form a supposed underlying theory (trace dynamics). Myself, I discuss emergence on a different scale (goal-oriented macroscopic dynamics from underlying microscopic dynamics, no matter whether the latter is deterministic or stochastic, classical or quantum). But back to your interesting essay. You write: "A serious limitation of the CSL model is that it is non-relativistic, and dedicated efforts to make a relativistic version face serious difficulties." You may be interested in the work of Roderich Tumulka, who introduced a relativistic version of GRW:

              R. Tumulka A Relativistic Version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Model J. Statist. Phys. 125 (2006) 821-840, arXiv:quant-ph/0406094.

              R. Tumulka Collapse and Relativity p. 340-352 in A. Bassi, D. Duerr, T. Weber and N. Zanghi (eds), Quantum Mechanics: Are there Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, AIP Conference Proceedings 844, American Institute of Physics (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0602208.

              Cheers, Stefan

                5 days later

                Dear Alan,

                Greetings. It is good to meet you again here. Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay. And my apologies for this delay in replying to your comment.

                I remember your viewpoint from our discussion during an earlier contest. I will read your essay before the rating deadline end of next week.

                My best regards,

                Tejinder

                Dear Tejinder Singh,

                Thank you for an excellently written and self-consistent essay focusing, at time quite rigorously, on the nuances of quantum theory to look for how goals originate in the classical regime. In fact, I paused to contemplate where you say "Classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Yet, in order to arrive at the canonical quantum theory, one must first know the classical theory." I agree that from our historial vantage point, replete with the chauvinisms of science that we have acquired over time, this is how "canonical quantum theory" has evolved. A perspective we may have to shed in order to make meaningful progress in this regard.

                You essay has given me a lot to think about and I wanted to let you know I have in the meantime rated it too.

                Regards,

                Robert

                  Dear Rajiv,

                  It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.

                  >I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical arguments in fact map to in reality? That is, do you have physical insights for every step in the argument?

                  At the level of the underlying non-commutative special relativity, it is difficult for me to form a visual picture. But I think physical insight is there: our conceptions are being prejudiced by thinking of quantum mechanics on an ordinary space-time background. We have trouble understanding what the wave function represents. But the wave function makes a lot of sense on a non-commutative background.

                  >From 'stochastic element responsible for randomness', can one infer that CSL is an indeterministic model If so, then can one identify the source of stochastic behavior even if one cannot have a definitive formulation for the process?

                  CSL is a phenomenological model which assumes a stochastic process to exist, without specifying where that process is coming from. It might come from gravity, or from Trace Dynamics (statistical fluctuations about equilibrium) - we have ideas, but we do not know for sure.

                  > One thing I liked most is that in CSL the space-time emerges from collapse. But, I could not figure out how the collapse would choose the values for (t,x,y,z), I mean when to appear and where to appear. I am sure, you do not depend on probability field, do you? You have also given a fundamental constant rc=10^-5 cm; so there is a sense of relative distance and location within the span of emerged universe. Moreover, after the collapse if there is a measure of space and time, then why is it called 'illusion'?

                  When to appear and where to appear: it is random indeed. By illusion I meant that if you examine microscopically you realise there is no such thing as space ad time.

                  >The collapse rate seems to be about a few times in the whole life time of the universe. "Between every two collapses, the wave function follows the usual Schrodinger evolution." So after a collapse, how does it regain its global configuration quality to be able to collapse again causing relocalization, or does it remain confined to the space? And why does a collection of N nucleons, or let me suppose M atoms function like unified object to acquire the amplification factor of N.lambda. Then can one consider some arbitrary distribution of N neucleon, not necessarily bound?

                  The collapse rate is of the order of the age of the universe for a nucleon. It increases linearly with mass [the rate] becoming very very rapid for macroscopic objects. After a collapse, a particle does not remain confined - it expands again, because of ordinary Schrodinger evolution. So it is a repetitive cycle of collapses and expansions. But for a macroscopic object collapses happen so very rapidly that it appears confined at one place.

                  Amplification: Consider two particles A and B, with A in a superposition of two position states A_1 and A_2, and B in a superposition of two position states B_1 and B_2. If they are bound, then their states are entangled:

                  (A_1 B_1 A_2 B_2)

                  If they are not bound, they are in a product state: (A_1 A_2) * (B_1 B_2)

                  If they are bound, the collapse of EITHER A or B causes the state of both to collapse: say to A_1 B_1.

                  So any one of them collapsing causes both to collapse. Hence the amplification.

                  But if they are not bound, collapse of one does not cause the other to collapse: say if A collapses, the state goes to A_1 * (B_1 B_2). B is unaffected..no amplification.

                  My best wishes to you in this contest,

                  TP

                  Dear Stefan,

                  Greetings. Thanks so much for reading my essay. I look forward to reading yours.

                  Thanks also for telling me about Tumulka's work, which actually I am acquainted with. We discuss it briefly in our review article arXiv:1204.4325 (Section II). It is promising undoubtedly; I think the challenge is to include interactions.

                  My best wishes,

                  Tejinder