I'm opening up this thread, following requests from users, as a place to discuss general questions and ideas about the nature of time.

Enjoy!

Eric,

"Does this quantum computing system not apply to the universe?" It does not, because the entire concept of a "quantum bit" is a figment of the imagination. The observed seemingly "weird" quantum behavior is that of a single, classical bit, AS DEFINED BY SHANNON, not the physics community, which has never understood Shannon.

"Reality seems merely a series of measurement gates..." That is correct. Once you understand what Shannon's capacity theorem is actually all about, it becomes clear that quantum theory is not a theory about "matter" at all, it is a theory about the "measurement of matter" only. The ancient Greek philosophers made a distinction between "being" (things as they are - Reality as it is) and "seeming" (things as they appear - Reality as it seems). Physicists have always simply assumed that quantum theory is a theory of "being", but from the perspective of Shannon, it is a theory of "seeming", a theory about the interactions (such as measurements) between things, rather then about the things per se.

Consider this

Rob McEachern

I'd like this to be an open discussion about ideas. I'm posting my thoughts here because this has to do with the nature of time. These thoughts don't seem to answer any questions. They have helped me come to grips with the tough topics and maybe could generate some fun discourse (maybe not).

Understanding the Irreversibility of Time Using Gates.

I'm a graduate student attempting to make sense of a complicated situation. Unfortunately, there may not be a lot of highly novel ideas with this post, yet I consider the following argument to be the clearest idea I've had about perceiving reality with a preferentially directed time.

In my Quantum Mechanics course this semester an emphasis is being placed on quantum computing. This has required an extended introduction to the world of quantum circuits. I have spent almost a year understanding Feynman Diagrams with the help of my advisor, so the circuit approach to quantum computing is certainly enjoyable to see.

This past Monday (2/11/2019) Professor Tzu-Chieh Wei from Stony Brook University gave a colloquium giving a practical theoretical approach to quantum computing. During the talk I asked him about the physical restriction of time ordering gates, given the necessity to have discretized time for processing time-dependent Hamiltonians. He admitted that is posed a minor problem, but that optimization was already a priority.

I concluded that this idea of discretized time was a form of time that existed without the need of measurement. Where does that leave measurement? The necessity to define time as a measurable process has left. Instead we get two forms of time. One that belongs to the system (e.g. a quantum circuit that has no measurement) and one that belongs to a quantum system that closes with a measurement.

This is important for two reasons. Firstly, the quantum gates are required to be reversable processes. This is to say that any devised quantum gate used for quantum computation must be reversible in time. Also, if there exists any form of entanglement, there must be this notion of discretized time, since a bit of information cannot pass through multiple quantum gates at once (this is concluded from my questions and professor Wei's remarks). Secondly, measurement gates are a portal from quantum into classical and are no longer required to be reversable.

Precariously, there is nothing stopping the information leaving the measurement gate to slip right back into a reversable quantum circuit (I would argue in many cases this is done on purpose). Does this quantum computing system not apply to the universe?

Reality seems merely a series of measurement gates one after the other in this perceived direction of time. If any process takes place that is not reversible, would that not give a preferential direction to the following measurement gates? It is certainly believed there are non-reversible classical measurements in the form of collapsed wave functions. With all these remarks there is still no indication that information between measurements cannot behave with the reversible quantum motion (maybe infinitely passing through gates between each measurement).

This leads me to conclude that there are two versions of time one restricted to reversible processes and one that is not restricted. We have mathematics to understand both separately. This imagery is the first thought I have combining the two concepts into a coherent process. I am open to this idea being flat out incorrect and I am under no obligation to believe this is reality. Perhaps, this is nothing more than a trivial situation poorly connected to a complicated system. I am open to any thoughts.

Thanks for reading,

Eric

    We are inclined to assume that time exists, as the result of being immersed in the Earth`s rotational motion. The Earth`s rotational motion`s surface speed at the Equator is roughly 1,000 miles per hour. Endlessly flying along at 1,000 miles per hour, along with everything around us, inclines us to assume, that time exists as some kind of force or thing.

    We are within the Earth`s rotational motion. Rotational motion itself is perfectly matched to our time measurement system, since our time measurement system is based on the period of the Earth`s rotation. We use the Earth`s period of rotation as the baseline measurement to measure time passing. Our clocks do not actually measure time passing, our clocks measure duration elapsing.

    There is no such thing or force as time. What we do have is motion in our timeless Universe. What we do have is duration elapsing. There is no co-existing past(s) or future(s) somewhere else. There is only the present, the now, the state of duration elapsing.

    There is no possible time travel, since there are no other times to travel to.

    Motion itself does not create time. The Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion about the nature of time.

      Hi Eric,

      Thanks for this. I have deleted the copy of your message from the "Alternative Models" thread, so that it can continue here.

      Hi Rob,

      Having deleted Eric message from the other thread, I also just moved your reply to Eric from the "Alternative Models" thread over to here (and deleted the post you put here pointing to that reply), so that the discussion can move here.

      I hope that nothing has been lost in the process.

      IMHO time is a complex value. Our mechanical clocks and our sense of time passing are purely real axis phenomena. I would agree the only quality of time relevant to mathematics is differential time. We can only know or sense now, but this does not speak to time's existence. It must be accounted for in our mathematical physics dimensionally as degrees of freedom on an equal basis with spatial dimensions within the enveloping algebra.

      Rob McE,

      In order to avoid ambiguity you might in future address not Eric but Eric Aspling or Eric Reiter. The latter claimed in 2012 having made flawless experiments.

      Incidentally, if the physics community never understood Shannon, it might be a pity that Einstein after listening to a lesson by Shannon asked for a men's room instead.

      I wonder how "a figment of the imagination" will soon provide a genuine quantum computer that is superior to all classical ones.

      EB

      Why are physicists happy with the paradoxes (logical inconsistencies) of special relativity? I believe that it is primarily due to the numerous experimental results that show 'time dilation'. Einstein built multiple times into his inertial frames; automatically destroying the intuitive understanding of absolute time as universal simultaneity and replacing it with "the relativity of simultaneity". Many physicists were/are unhappy with this, but how else can one make sense of time dilation - the difference in time found when clocks move at different velocities? If Einstein's theory of space-time symmetry is the only option, time-dilation seems to prove the theory.

      An energy-time theory, however, offers a different interpretation. Einstein imagined 'perfect' clocks, positioned at every point in an inertial frame. His clocks are weightless, possessing no mass. Just as a piezo-electric crystal converts torque into voltage, Einstein imagined a weightless transducer that somehow converts time into some measurable physical quantity.

      In reality all clocks are physical and have mass, and are based on counting oscillations. The oscillations are always based on a restoring force, F=ma, and the gain in relativistic mass with velocity will increase the inertia of the system and the increased inertia will resist the acceleration, slowing down the oscillations and thus making the clock run slower. All of this occurs in one inertial frame in which universal time prevails.

      So 'slower clocks' yield 'time dilation', but this is an energy-time phenomenon, not a space-time. I have analyzed these issues in the paper

      [link:vixra.org/abs/1812.0424]Everything's Relative, or is it?[/link]

      As I believe 'time dilation' is the key issue with respect to the nature of time, I hope those interested in this question will look at the paper [vixra.org/abs/1812.0424] for an alternative explanation of special relativity experiments, an explanation that does not lead to the logical inconsistencies of special relativity, but does preserve relativistic particle physics.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-akILbzjhc

        SR was accepted long before 1971 or even the Myon speculation. Why? Perhaps the 100 Autoren were ignored in 1932 for propaganda reasons.

        I consider Einstein's intentional nonsensical "synchronization" the central root of time dilution and all that.

        EB

        One more paradox from

        http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm ?

        "they use time dilation from one direction and length contraction from the other! It's hard to say whether the presenters are aware of their inconsistent logic or if they are just reciting it with a straight face."

        Pre-Relativistic Doppler effects on apparent length and apparent time depend on the sign of v.

        With 1971 I referred to an experiment that might have overlooked the Sagnac effect.

        Where are the many experimental confirmations of SR?

        EB

        Eric you ask "Does this quantum computing system not apply to the universe? " From what I have seen ( the preceding explanations of quantum gates and their use in circuits) this looks very much like a 'map', a representation. Maps can be very good at conveying some particular information while in other regards being highly inaccurate, not precisely modelling the external reality. I have written about the Harry Beck London 'tube map' as an analogy. It accurately depicts the order of stations and connections but does not accurately portray the locations and relations of the tube lines in space or have accurately scaled distances between stations. By being geographically inaccurate the map is simplified and therefore comprehension and ease of use is improved.

        What do you mean when you use the term 'universe?

        The tube map by showing the ordering of the stations and connections gives the limitations and possibilities of journeys that can be undertaken, while not giving an accurate spatial portrayal of the system it represents. Perhaps the quantum circuits can be thought about in a similar way. The ordering of the gates and other components represent what can be done with a test particle and the possible sequences; but is not depicting the universe in which the various 'transformation' processes are happening.

        Hi Georgina,

        Quantum Circuits though they resemble maps visually, they are actually pictorial representations of equations. The gates that you see in those lessons could be considered (loosely) as quantum transformations that take one state of particle(s) to another. The tube map analogy leaves many undesirable considerations. Such as the limitations of paths available for the test particle to travel. We know certainly that the test particle will take all paths (infinitely many) until it becomes "measured". Thank you for your thoughts,

        Eric

        Eric,

        "We know certainly that the test particle will take all paths (infinitely many) until it becomes "measured"." We know no such thing. The equations of quantum theory are exactly equivalent, to completely ignoring all paths taken, and only describing the behavior of a shifting detector as described by Feynman

        Rob McEachern

        Eric, what is the purpose of the quantum circuit? Is it to keep tally of the mathematics performed and its order or is it representing the experimental methods used to affect a test particle? I'm thinking the order in which the various procedures mathematical or experimental are done must be relevant to the measurement outcome, theoretical or actual. Isn't that what 'time ordering' you mentioned was about? Or is it just depicting everything that could happen prior to an outcome? How does that give time ordering? I'm also unclear on why the unmeasured time of the actual processes happening must be reversible. You wrote,"We know certainly that the test particle will take all paths (infinitely many) until it becomes "measured"." I'd say "We know theoretically that...." What the particle is actually doing unobserved can not be known.

        Re. undesirable considerations "Such as the limitations of paths available for the test particle to travel."EA. Even so there is a similarity in that the actually journey that must be undertaken to reach a particular destination is not specified by the map. There could be many different journeys using different lines, connections and directions of travel. Presumably not knowing how a passenger has arrived all ways ought to be considered -some (the more direct) having a greater probability than others. I am interested in other "undesirable considerations" EA.; dissimilarities with quantum circuits. The 'tube' map is an example of very useful stylized representation of a system. Its usefulness enhanced by it being unrealistic.

        Hello Georgina,

        Quantum circuits purpose is to tally the mathematics used on a state. They will have a natural time ordering due to the sole fact that you cannot apply more than one gate to a state at a time. This will force a discretized form of time within the system. This discretized form of time from the system will not be attainable by experiment since the nature of measuring the system collapses the wave function.

        Take for example the Stern-Gerlach experiment. One can imagine a quantum computer that consists of a series of Stern-Gerlach like experiments (namely gates that orient a particles spin and angular momentum). We do not need to specify the number of gates to use and we do not specify the order of which they are used. The Stern-Gerlach gate or more appropriately the operator associated with it, is reversible in nature. So, we send our test particle through and measure the outcome. But since we can only deduce a probabilistic idea about what happened inside the computer given the data output, we say that the measurement gate is not reversable.

        So here we have a system that has a discretized time inside of the system that is unattainable to us, and we also have the normal observable time that we are used to seeing in everyday life.

        Now imagine that we send many states through the same computer, but we only measure a few states at a time and keep the computer running indefinitely. All the measurements will seem as snapshots in a preferred order. Whereas inside the system there is a discretized time that we have no control over and no inkling of how it is behaving. But we do know its is discretized.

        Eric

        Stern-Gerlach experiments do not "orient a particles spin". They make a single-bit decision about the orientation of the spin.

        Imagine having one set of coins that are lying on a table, with about half Heads-up and the other half Tails-up. Then ask someone to slide them around, in order to separate them into two sets; one that is entirely heads-up and the other entirely tails-up. That is the first step in the experiment. Now ask the same person to reexamine the two sets, to see if anything has changed. Nothing has; there are still two sets, one all heads and the other all tails. Now ask another person, who has never seen the coins before, to get down on his or her knees and examine the two sets from ONLY a perfectly edge-on angle, and try to "call each coin" - they are likely to incorrectly call each set as approximately 50% heads and 50% tails, since they cannot actually see what they are at all, and are consequently likely to, in effect, simply guess that they are randomly oriented. That is all that is happening in Stern-Gerlach experiments. The seeming change of state, has nothing to do with the actual coins changing state.

        Quantization exists because all single-bit decisions are discrete, by definition. It has nothing to do with space, time or matter being discrete, or wave-function collapse.

        Rob McEachern