Stochastic Time and Temporal Non-locality by Toru Ohira

Hello Toru,

Thanks for the wonderful paper!

I love some of the concepts you are getting at.

Indeed, the fourth dimension itself is nonlocal!

Consider a photon emitted from a source. Quantum mechanics describes the photon's propagation as a spherically-symmetric wavefront of probability expanding at c.

Relativity tells us that the photon does not age--it stays at the same place in the fourth dimension.

Ergo the fourth dimension is nonlocal--it is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Ergo the spherically-symmetric wavefront of probability expanding at c, which describes the photon's propagation, yet represents a locality in the fourth dimension.

This fits perfectly with Einstein's 1912 paper, where he wrote x4 = ict, or dx4/dt = ic. As you can see, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c.

Now, in light of this (no pun intended), is it no wonder that two intially-interacting photons remain entangled? For even though they propagate in opposite directions, they yet remain ageless, and in the same place in the fourth expanding dimension!

And too, the photons remain in the same place in time, although time is an emergent parameter, that we can measure on watches and clocks, that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, carrying matter in the fourth dimension at c, which manifests itself as photons. Hence you can see why E=mc^2--energy is but matter caught upon the fourth expanding dimension.

I expound on all this in my paper:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics by Elliot McGucken

Now the amazing thing about the fourth expanding dimension is that it actually distributes locality! Finally we have a *physical* model for nonlocality, which turns out to be the same physical model underlying all of relativity and entropy--underlying time and its arrows, while weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime, unfreezing time and liberating us from teh block universe! O happy day! Moving Dimensions Theory, which postulates that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimension at c, provides a most powerful *physical* model underlying relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, and time and all its arrows across all realms.

Note how nonlocal entanglement only occurs for two objects that where intially interacting. So it is that all nonlocality must have a local origin. And the expansion of the fourth dimension, which begins as a single point but then distributes locality in a spherically-symmetric manner in our 3D at the rate of c, accounts for this--think Huygens' Principle, which underlies quantum mechanical (Feynman's many paths) and classical wave behavior. And suddenly we see that MDT also offers a *physical* model behind the *why* of Huygens' principle, as well as entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries! And as nonlocality walks hand-in-hand with quantum mechanics' probability, we have a *physical* raison d'etre for qm's probabilistic nature!

Now you write a lot about the "Time axis" in your paper, but you need to keep in mind that the time axis is a human construct, and that we do not live in a block universe wherein time is frozen. the block universe is also a human construct, which Godel had problems with. Also, Einsetin never said that time is the fourth dimension in his 1912 paper, but rather he wrote x4=ict, and t and ict are very different things. It is amazing how many physicists have thrown away the ic in front of the t, and gotten tenure while conceiving of time machines they never build, and wormholes they never see, not to mention multiverses and parrallel universes and tiny little vibrating strings in their block universe wherdin funding is an established part of the future which has already happened, but you get the point. All the pop-sci books and texts always have those pictures of light cones, but what they forget is that photons do not travel in straight lines, but rather quantum mechanics tells us that photons travel as expanding spherical wavefronts of probality in our 3D. And in doing so, they maintain a locality in the fourth expanding dimension.

Those who argue with MDT's postulate that the fourth dimension ise expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions are actually arguing with the photon. And yet, the photons keep right on travleing at c--billions upon billions upon billions of them--every second, as they surf the fourth expanding dimension, while yet retaining a locality in time an dthe fourth expanding dimension. I would not be surprised if photons start protesting all the tenured elite who are trying to freeze them and emprison them in their block universe, wherein time and progress in theoretical physics must remain frozen.

Now of course we can forgive Einstein for not noting all this in his 1912 paper, as he never quite accepted quantum mechanics' reality, but for all those of us who passed undergrad and grad quantum, and for all of us who use computers which were built upon nonlocality's reality and wave/particle duality--it is time for all of us to admit that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, and that this fundamental universal invariant gives rise to the time we measure on our watches, which we we also enjoy designating as an axis in diagrams when writing coffee-table physics books that have frozen time so as to write chapter after chapter about time travel.

Well, thanks for the paper!

My heart lept when I saw the title: Stochastic Time and Temporal Non-locality, and I enjoyed reading it!

Would be curious to know your thoughts regarding MDT.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Hey Toru,

I'm curious how you intend your stochastic approach. Physicists most often take stochastic models to be derived from other models, which are regarded as more fundamental. Do you see your models this way, and how much difference do you think the form of an underlying model makes, if so?

Peter.

Hello Dr. E:

Thank you for your comments and interests in my work. I have

just downloaded your paper and started reading it. There are

many points you point out that I should think about. Particularly,

I should really consider "complex" delay: ictau and see what happens

according to your view points. We come across complex delay when

we fiddle around delay differential equation, but often disregard

them as non-physical. Your suggestion have made me think twice

before doing so. I am curious how you would view from your theory

time-energy uncertainty principle; or there may be equivalent

expressions starting from ict.

Thank you again for your insightful comments. I will write as I digest more

of your paper content. (please forgive me of my broken English.)

Sincerely,

Toru

Hello Peter:

Thank you for your interest and comment. For now I have not

made much thought on the underlying mechanism of

the "noise". I am aware that some consider, as you say, use

of projection operators to project out noise term as in the

derivation of generalized langevin equations. Or maybe more

simple mindedly we can think of mechanism of Brownian motion.

Thanks to your comments, it occurred to me that it may be interesting to think of interacting particles of different scales and

make one of them causal or non-causal and see what happens.

I have downloaded your paper and would like to see if your

random field point of view give me some lights, on the issues

such as breaking of causality with stochastic time etc.

Sincerely,

Toru

I asked my question, Toru, to see whether you intended your approach as non-causally as I intend mine. I consider my random field formalism to be essentially non-causal, but I felt that there was room for yours to be seen as causal. I think my random field approach will not help you with causal modeling, because in a random field model there is essentially only a representation of correlations, much as is the case in the QFT formalism that my random field formalism derives from (I would say that microcausality, a constraint on algebraic relationships between *observables* in QFT, which represent idealized experimental apparatuses that are outside of space-time, is arguably not about the intrinsic causality of the field). From an empirical point of view, correlations are perhaps all that can be measured, in which case causality can only be inferred (this is a very long-standing problem in Philosophy, by the way, which I have just seen characterized, rather interestingly, as an inverse problem on the resonaances blog, via Uncertain Principles).

We can and do construct causal models anyway, because causal models are often more satisfactory as explanations. I consider it to be a much larger task to construct causal models than to construct models of observable correlations, however, and that it's best to hold off causal modeling until we have a better idea of how to think about our non-causal models. I will nonetheless be interested to see how you approach causal modeling from your stochastic perspective.

Best wishes, Peter.

Edit of my previous post: The link to the "Skulls in the Stars" blog is correct; "resonaances" was the blog I thought I'd seen the post on until I checked my reference. Sorry!

Dear Toru,

it is nice to see that you consider stochastic approach to work out 'time' out of noise! may i say that silence contains noise but not the other way around. Similarly order contains randomness but not the other way around. To me, time is connected with the start of the Universe and space and time are inseparable in any discussion on a physical phenomenon. The problem comes when we invoke the query how it all began.Philosophically, we need to invoke 'consciousness', a non-physical entity into our picture. Because without awareness, we can not sense anything. The purest consciousness can be the cosmic consciousness that have always existed, is all-powerful and is able to manifest physical objects without any significant loss of its power ! The vibration modulated part of the consciousness is physical and vibration-free is non-physical.

My essay posted 'Mysteries of the Universe - a perspective' is based on some holistic considerations. You may care to comment, as we have some apparent connection that may not appear apparently!

Dear Peter:

Thank you for your comments again. The relation between

notion of causality and correlation is intriguing indeed.

In probability theory, as you know that there is also a

concept of independence, which is stronger than correlation. Based on which kinds of notion to be applied,

it makes a difference. My own model has a bit more

complication as it has a writing over of the past record

built in. The connection to these notions are thus not

as transparent. Thank you for giving me another thinking

points

Dear Narendra

Thank you for your interest. I have downloaded your work

as well. I have been working with stick balancing experiment by human and time in our minds are one of my motivations behind my work. I take a point of view that past, current, and future in our mind is not as clear cut or ordered but mingled around. I do not know how to express this, but have been thinking about it. Thank you for your inputs.

Dear Toru,

i expect to hear your comments/queries after you go through my essay, as well as two other manuscripts i posted immediately after the essay got posted on the site. Let me say that i totally agree with you that human mind does not separate past, present and future, as the outside world does! It is clear experienced that humans are able to forsee somethings that are yet to happen. Intuition and inspirational thoughts are also time independent, as one can not seek the same as per our own wish. These may come when we may least expect them. Such mysteries open up human beings to perfom even well beyond the expectations. i believe this happens because of the way individual consciousness is able to have overlap interaction with the cosmic consciousness!

Dear Narendra:

Thank you for your posts again. Definition of consciousness, either by human or others, vary in the context we use as well as their relations. I will post to your paper as I go through your works. Thank you for your inputs

Why bother too much about defining things precisely, especially when the parameter is non-physical in nature. Consciousness is a wider word for human awareness through the body sense organs. There are levels/degrees of 'consciousness' that too will differ from one to the other individual. One needs to be much than a scientist in order to appreciate the role of it. It comes better through the Humanity aspect of an individual. After all we are not scientists but humans first!

i look forward to your post on my essay where time is implicit and not explicitly involved!

Dear Narendra:

Thank you for your post again. I have posted on your essay about

my question regarding consciousness. At lease we agree that our notion

of time may not be as structured as the physical one. Even without being precise, I think we need to know that we are talking about the similar notions

for discussions. Sincerely, Toru

But Einstein's theory is still connected with music, not only with light. Music is Algebra, a language that gives Plenitude.

French Philosopher and Scientist R. Descartes wrote a 'String Theory' (XVIIth century) which was a musical one. And the Quanta Physics has its roots in the Probability theory born at this period.

Dear Dr. Le Roux

Thank you for your post. I have not connected my work with music except that there appears rythmic behavior thorough

fluctuations and non-locality. I did not know about Descartes on music,which I will look into. Sincerely, Toru Ohira

"Stochastic Time and Temporal Non-locality" introduces very interestingly the concept of time fluctuations.

Such view drives to a perturbative theory on the top of a time based framework, indeed the fluctuations are added as random shifts along a time axis.

Such discussion should lead to semiclassical quantitative results, probably capable to predict some deviations from mechanics at sufficiently short times.

Unfortunately the Nature of time problem is about the ontology of such "time axis", in other words one should define a framework where time axis it is not defined still, and something behaving at the macroscopic level (because of the need of a clock in its definition) behave as such parameter time axis.

This fact is clear in the paper of Rovelli, Kiefer and myself, even if they differ for what concers the requirements and the description of the clock.

About the discussion in this section, I have to remind that it is not possible to talk about time at a fundamental level by using words as "propagation" and "speed of light", since they are defined on the ground of time concept itself (see the posts of Dr. E).

There is a big gap in the posting of E. Prati and your last response. i did not see the comments on 'consciousness' that you promised to post on my essay site. Let me provide my own ideas more explicitly in this regard. There are three well-known states of wakefulness, dream and deep sleep. To this may i add the 4th state of Meditation, where one is restful like in sleep but is awake, with eyes open/closed! In this state the degree of consciousness is higher than in the three states connected with body's senses.The time sense in these four states is different on a closer scrutiny. The clock time/physical time is felt only in the wakeful state only. There is possibility of time running into the past or future too when one touches the higher levels of consciousness. The highest level is one in which pure, vibration free consciousness exists permanently, ever existing and non-destructible. The manifested consciousness of an individual(s)also derives itself from the pure consciousness. Even the cosmic consciousness of the Universe may be derived from the pure, in case we allow several independent universes to exist simultaneously. The latter have been postulated and may well exist beyond our limits of identification! Such is truly the Mystery of the Creation of the Universe which can perhaps be conceptualized.

Time thus becomes a definable parameter only for the physical outside world and its meaning for the inner world of a human being depends quite a bit on the state of awareness/consciousness that one happens to be in. Thus Time becomes a mysterious concept in the wider world view , beyond the physical world. Who knows it may have different scales within our Universe that now supposedly exists for the past 13.7 billion years, specially the early universe of first billion years of turbulence. The latter Physics may well be different from the Physics we have evolved in the far far later period of its life! This point has been illustrated in my essay through non-constancy of the physical constants and Strengths of the Force-fields!

Dear Dr. Prati:

Thank you for your posting and interest. If I have taken your points correctly, you are mentioning to define or think about the time axis itself before thinking about the

fluctuation on it. I agree that one can approach from

that direction about time. My position is rather backwards,

by thinking about some concepts such as fluctuations or

non-locality and its relation to time, as "classically"

taken, we may encounter some more insights or problems

which may require to modify what time should be or have.

Though I have not gone into the level of identifying them,

I can imagine of an iterative process between this

type of approach and think about the time axis itself.

Sincerely, Toru

Dear Dr. Nath;

Thank you for your post. I did post on yourforum on Nov. 6

with my questions and you kindly answered.

Sincerely, Toru