The Nature of Time

Robert, I though there was a problem with sorting the particles, that being prior to passing through the apparatus the particle needs to be able to be sorted in all 3 possible orientations of field, but has just two states it can be found to be in - up or down. That's why I thought conditioning by the field might be a solution. They aren't inherently up or down but become so. The particles retested with same orientation of field will give the same outcome, so the outcome is not random but something conserved as long as the sane conditions are met again. But maybe each new test and environment encountered produces a random and therefore 50 :50 split probability, sorted into up and down and the sorting once done retained at retest. But what about entangled pairs giving opposite outcomes, that would seem to indicate that the condition prior to testing isn't truly random. ??

Hi Georgina,

This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally based on quantum gates and the way they can transform quantum information. Ensuring the unitarity and thus reversibility of quantum gates that go unmeasured doesn't give any new information toward understanding how to interpret the wave function.

It does however link the evolution of entropy in the universe to a preferential time direction (2nd law of thermo). It also spreads some light on how the system behaves this way. The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way but the statement that observed time has preferential direction is not novel, but it is highly debated.

I have yet to hear a philosophical argument that there are two versions of time one that has preferential direction and one that does not. Not only making the argument, but applying it to reality was what I attempted to do here.

When the mathematics become developed to answer the measurement problem, the current "shut up and calculate" methods will be emergent out of the theory. Thanks,

Eric

Georgina,

"They aren't inherently up or down" Correct. "but become so." Incorrect. Only the observer's decision "became so."

"a random and therefore 50 :50 split probability, sorted into up and down and the sorting once done retained at retest." Exactly.

Imagine observing a bunch of balls, of various shades of gray, and being required to decide if they are either "closer to white" or closer to black"; it is likely that you will misidentify some of the balls, that are about halfway-in-between white and black. If you remeasure them in exactly the same way, you will make exactly the same bad decision.

The balls never change color. You just made some bad decisions, when the "signal" you are trying to measure, is very near the dividing-line of your decision variable.

"But what about entangled pairs giving opposite outcomes, that would seem to indicate that the condition prior to testing isn't truly random." Exactly. Polarized coins possess BOTH a random component and a non-random "polarized" component.

Rob McEachern

Eric,

"This post was simply to express why the illusion of time seems to progress directionally.."

The answer is obvious, if you disregard "conventional wisdom" and think about the following:

It is all about "seeming" rather than "being".

Imagine you have a machine with a "start" button. As soon as you press that button, time will run in reverse, throughout the entire cosmos, for exactly five seconds, and then resume running forward.

No observer ANYWHERE would EVER notice! It is ENTIRELY unobservable. Because the first thing that happens would be returning the cosmos to the state immediately before the button was pushed - and that includes removing/erasing all memory of the past "future" that was just reversed.

In other words, "time-reversing" is entirely unobservable, even in principle, even when it happens. That is why it has never been observed. We could all be repeatedly taking two-steps forward in time, followed by one-step back, and there is no way for us to ever observe that fact, because true time-reversing, erases all information about its very occurrence - by definition.

"The measurement problem could answer why it behaves this way..." Exactly. There is nothing left, no "forensic evidence" to ever be measured - the process of time-reversal always removes all detectable evidence of itself. It has nothing to do with quantum theory.

Only an observer "outside" of our cosmos and its reversals in time, could ever observe such reversals. But we are not such observers.

Rob McEachern

"Experimenteller Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung von Drehimpulsen im Magnetfeld" 1922 means, Otto Stern observed what he intended to see. Admittedly, it is difficult to imagine a 3 dimensional Drehimpulse. Looking for the meaning of spin, I found that in QM spin is something else than just the rotation of a particle.

Moreover, a lesson on Stern/Gerlach ignored that the their magnetic field was extremely inhomogenous. Allegedly, their magnet was so expensive in the time of inflation in Germany that Born and Einstein felt obliged to contribute with money. Yes, silver atoms are known to be neutral. However is this correct under all circumstances?

EB

Robert, I agree the particles are not becoming inherently up or down , that was my poor expression . I should have said they become identifiable as an up or down state. Becoming as the identification only applies to the context of the test. Like a coin state becomes identifiable as a head or tail when the flip method is carried out, not before.

Eric, I'm not sure how you can address (to paraphrase) the illusion of time progressing in a directional manner, when the quantum gates you mention can only be considered as a tally of mathematics performed. Is the seeming uni-directionality a illusion? Or is it assumed to be an illusion by accepting the mathematically sanctioned time reversibility of classical mechanics and relativity? If the background in which all processes are happening is the configuration of all that exists and the change in that configuration is foundational passage of time, time is not reversible and the dirrectionality not an illusion, but a metaphor. If instead one considers the sequence of products from measurement or observation occurring within the afore mentioned background, they too are not reversible. That providing the perceived "direction" of time.

I think there is a subtle difference in what could be happening. Adapting an analogy Alan Adams uses; Lets say there is a hyper-intelligent decision making monkey in a box rather then the magnetic field etc, The monkey sorts heads and tails coins (instead of colours, or up down spin) Question is, does he sort the coins that are already flat on the floor, in an easily identifiable state or sorting the coins from a column of semi set jelly, placing them on the floor thereby altering them by the process of sorting.

Correction: Allan Adams

Georgina,

"thereby altering them by the process of sorting." Exactly. Which is why EPR proposed an alternative experiment, in which that cannot possibly be relevant to the outcome: instead of attempting to measure each particle twice, measure two identical (entangled) particles once. Measuring two identical particles once, should give the same result as a Stern Gerlach experiment that sorts without altering, but with no possibility of the unmeasured coin having its state altered by a previous measurement. But when Bell produced his theorem proving that the outcomes SEEMED to imply that the unmeasured particle would be altered by the measurement of the other, it triggered 50 years of experiments to test if that was really the case. But the key word there is "seemed". Neither Bell's theorem nor any of the experiments correctly account for "bad calls", when your monkey is forced to call dirty, worn-down, blurry-looking, edge-on coins. My 2016 paper demonstrates that the monkey forced to sort those types of coins, will reproduce the observed correlations.

Rob McEachern

Eric,

The conundrum arises entirely from the false assumption that quantum theory describes a "unitarity of being" rather than merely a "unitarity of seeming".

Measurements are a reflection of reality. Absurd speculations regarding the supposed properties of hypothetical quantum wavefunctions, quantum bits and quantum gates are not; hence the adage, "Shut up and calculate."

"My solution to thinking about the debate is that both of these things exist independently of each other." Exactly. Reality exists independent of the quantum mythology and dogma that physics has created. The "wavefunction of the gaps" is no more measureable than the "god of the gaps".

Rob McEachern

MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2013.Lecture 1 superposition. Allan Adams. The various results are more difficult to understand if fixed properties are being thought about rather than if the states found with different kinds of boxes (i.e. field orientations) are not properties but temporary condition in response to the applied sorting context, (Meaning the environmental conditions exposed to does make a difference. ) Evidence in favour of environmental effect; Example experiments 3 and 4 in the lecture (cited above). In 3 two paths are joined into a single path and the outcome is unexpectedly 100% 'W"not 50:50 'B'/'W'. No. of electrons doesn't matter. When either path is blocked the 50:50 result is found. An electron is only ever detected on one path. It could be that the joined paths allow a flow not just of electrons but the medium that supports electric and magnetic fields. Blocking the path could prevent its flow and so the joining flow effect is lost. This proposition of an effect of the medium fits with similar explanation for the double slit experiment results.(happening even if there is an electron on one path only). I suggest the joining flow effect, tying in with only ever finding the electron on one path is more likely than the electron taking not one path or the other path or both or neither, as Allan Adams says must be the case. That conclusion does not take account of the environment experienced by the electron being different in the different experiments. The joining flows effect is then just another environmental context that applies in certain kinds of experimental set ups.

Eric, some reactions and processes can go in reverse with time progressing as usual not reversed. Is it necessary to propose time reversal happening at the unmeasured gates?. Isn't it enough that reversal could happen (though unlikely) without reversing time? I accept that the quantum physics thought to be happening unmeasured is not like our everyday experience. BTW You may see that I have made a suggestion that it might not be quite as strange as has been thought.(On this page Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 24, 2019 @ 02:42 GMT.

Experiments could be done varying the barrier thickness, material and integrity to find out under what conditions the barrier effect is lost and the flow effect restored.

Edwin,

Maybe, the answer is Max, Max, Max, and once again Max. Maxwell's aether worried the community. Max Abraham firmly believed in it. Max Planck and Max von Laue supported Einstein's utterly mistakable interpretation of the principle of relativity as Relativity. Max Born built a bridge via Stern/Gerlach to the also multi-paradoxical mechanical interpretation of quantum physics.

While I admit, my suspicion concerning the Stern/Gerlach experiment might be unfounded, I maintain: The fundamental logical inconsistency of Einstein's 1905 relative two-way velocity is definitely inacceptable to me.

I realized that even prominent opponents of Relativity overlooked or swallowed it.

You are attributing gamma to energy. This might be the most reasonable way out, no matter whether or not you are correct in all other details.

EB

The experiments could also be used to answer the question 'Is there a partial barrier effect/partial flow effect (when the barrier is only partially effective) or is it always all or nothing? If the ratios of different states are altered it provides further evidence that the environment is affecting the outcomes.

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for reading and grasping my paper 'Everything's relative...' and for your last remark above, to the effect that

"Attributing gamma to energy... might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

Yes. The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, and my details of such may or may not be correct, but the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is most significant, but the time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' belief in (faith in) SR.

While I appreciate your Max Max Max Max and other observations, I've become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and it is better to focus on the root false premise - Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of the false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass increases the inertia, upon which every clock is based, and this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

I strongly suggest that this be understood and applied to the dozens or even hundreds of instances where relativity is applied.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckhard has read and grasped my paper [link:vixra.org/abs/1812.0424]Everything's relative...[/link] and remarked above that

"Attributing gamma to energy... might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, so my details of such may or may not be correct, nevertheless the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is significant, but time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' faith in SR.

I have become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and that it is better to focus on the root false premise - Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of his false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each time dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass causes clock's inertia to increase, and since every real clock depends on inertia this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

My best to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

What if instead of a partially effective barrier in one arm of he apparatus there is a series of 'boxes' that reduce the beam input to the join on one side? Meaning at each 'box' half of the output is discarded. Is the effect the same or different, and if different why?. Does it matter what is discarded and what kept? Or does that make no difference? (as expected).

Has this experiment been done? What is the result?