Dear Carl,
You write: Everything we know in physics is fundamentally time-symmetrical...
It is not so, please search 'CPT symmetry' as there is only CPT symmetry invariance.
Quantum mechanics and the flow of time by carl sebastian andersson
Yes it's technically "CPT symmetric".
I kept my text simple to cater to a wider audience.
6 days later
Dear Carl Sebastian Andersson,
You pose very important questions to which fundamental science today has no answer. Basic science is undergoing a crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation, "loss of certainty" (Morris Kline, "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty,") and "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin, "Trouble with Physics"). By the way, the second book of Professor Morris Kline in Russian is called "Mathematics. Search for Truth "(in English В«Mathematics and the Search for KnowledgeВ»). Notice the difference in names ...
Carlo Rovelli wrote a good article in 2018: Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics The same can be said with respect to Mathematics: "Mathematics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Mathematics." The problem of the "foundations of mathematics" (justification of mathematics) is more than a hundred years old. I call this problem the problem of the ontological basification of mathematics, which means knowledge in general.
Mathematician L. Faddeev in an interview The equation of the evil spirit for the journal В«ExpertВ» (2007) claimed, "that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics."... How can mathematics "close physics" if the problem of justification of mathematics (ontological basification) is not solved. For some reason, mathematicians are currently facing the age-old problem of the justification of mathematics, "language of Nature", "swept under the rug." Just look at the "Millennium Problems" of the Clay Mathematics Institute. The "Millennium Problems" are being solved, but the unsolved problem в„-1 for cognition as a whole remains - the problem of justification of mathematics (ontological basification).
В Quantum theory and General relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalistic) theories without an ontological basification. Quantum theory will not give an answer to the nature of consciousness. It is necessary to "dig" into the ontology to the most remote meaning-distinguishable depths. But new breakthrough ontological ideas are also needed. Ontology should go towards mathematics and physics, and mathematics and physics should go towards ontology. Here, dialectics in the spirit of Plato, Cusa and Whitehead will be a good helper.
I began the search for truth thirty years ago through "digging" with the philosophy of consciousness, with the introduction of the concept-attractor "Vector of consciousness" ... The try to draw a "curve of consciousness" for three million years from the first tool (chopper) to the modern point. As the doctor of physical and mathematical sciences Alexander Zenkin (1937-2006) said in SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS : "the truth should be drawn ... ". I completely agree with this conclusion.
To overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, one must first understand, as Carlo Rovelli notes: "What is space?", and only then answer the question - "What is time?" To understand is to "grasp structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). What structure? The ontological structure of the primordial process, common to the existence of Nature and thought - the eternal holistic process of generation of meanings and structures (material-idal). Here it is good to recall the philosophical testament of Paul Florensky: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding".
Please look at my щтещдщпшсфд ideas and give, if possible, your critical comments.
With kind regards,
Vladimir
5 days later
Nice essay! It's possible that time is fundamentally discrete somehow, and that it only 'looks' continuous to us, like you say. It's hard to imagine how to test a claim like this, though.
You may already know, but in the Everettian ('many worlds') interpretation, the universe evolves in a time-symmetric way because wave functions don't collapse. Instead, the wave function of the universe evolves smoothly in time according to the Schrodinger equation, whose dynamics are time reversible (in a certain technical sense). We only perceive wave function collapse. Of course, who knows if the Everettian interpretation is right?
Lots of big questions...do you think we will ever find answers?
5 days later
I think we will figure it out eventually.
There are multiple ways to explain quantum entanglement
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wormholes-quantum-entanglement-link/
My only objection to the wormhole explanation is that it seems unnecessary since quantum entanglement doesn't allow for faster than light communication and that there are other explanations.
Carl:
A new era dawns.聽 Old questions become quaint and historical.聽 Is the whole community ready?聽 Or is physical reality too dangerous for our collective understanding at this time?聽
Dear Carl,
Real randomness does not exist. Shnoll experiments have shown that absolutely all processes are affected by gravity. Including random numbers generated by the computer. More in: Gravity Interaction With Forcefields http://viXra.org/abs/2004.0564
No cosmological constant or dark energy is required. Accelerated expansion of the Universe is caused by the gravity of the Universe. Gravity has a dual action: the mutual attraction of masses and the accelerated expansion of empty space. More in: Universe Self Inflation without Dark Energy. http://viXra.org/abs/1806.0262.
About Time.
Time itself does not exist. There are only motions. The time is handy way to compare motions. Universal time (expansion rate of Universe) is irreversible. Local movements can be reversible, i.e., the local time can be reversible. More in: About Arrow of Time. http://viXra.org/abs/1902.0495.
About quantum entanglement.
The action at a distance is apparent. Entangled particles are close together in common force field (electric, magnetic space) and in the same time they may be far away in gravity field (gravity space). More in: Quantum Entanglement and Multispace Conception. http://viXra.org/abs/1810.0387.
Best regards
Ilgaitis
Dear Carl,
I think you hit the key points bang on, so short is then very sweet. I also agree fundamental 'time' in discrete 'periods', indeed suggest a single rotation of the smallest 'quanta', maybe even at Wolframs 10^-93.
On randomness; Do you think if we travel the universe we'll meet bodies equally rotating clockwise () and anti..(-)? I've found maybe even that isn't random! But for 'uncertainty' what if you find and 'measure' one precisely at it's equator and have to decide or -? OR; have to decide 'left/right?' when touching at a pole? (I find those questions important in both uncertainty and so called 'wave function collapse').
I think you ask all the right questions, and despite our focus on JUST interactions that the NATURE of reality is knowable and will advance understanding.
Very well done, and wholly undervalued so far. I won't make that mistake.
I hope you get to mine and give considered comment.
Very Best
Peter
PS; I just done trips inc. a a circumnav with an atomic oscillator, which has confirmed a hypothesis about 'time'. Do YOU have any ideas why accelerating one East has the opposite effect to heading West!? I now have!
Carl, PPS,
You asked of QM; "Surely someone some(where) will have guessed what the correct interpretation is.". I suggest a logically consistent mechanistic sequence allows that, and identify one. Do comment on it.
Peter
Dear Carl Sebastian Andersson!
I read your essay with interest, because my essay also talks about time.
You correctly posed the dilemma of unpredictability and randomness. But one remark must be added. In our opinion, the essence of the issue is more complicated. Еven the events of the past retain their uncertainty - according to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. That is, not only the FUTURE is uncertain, but even the PAST (at least for microparticles).
Perhaps you are right: the collapse of the wave function in some way determines the direction of time. You are probably right.)))
As for dark matter ... I think this is a field of hypothetical search. I wrote a book about DM. book: "The Death of Dark Matter: Philosophical Principles in Physical Cognition." I write there that non-baryonic dark matter is the "idol of the scientific subconscious" (You can download the file at Internet)
Since I found a similarity between our approaches, I decided to give you a positively rating. I hope that you will also read my essay.
New ontology: algorithmic laws and the flow of time by Pavel Vadimovich Poluian
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3509
I wish you the realization of your bold ideas and projects.
Yours sincerely -
Paul Poluian,
Siberian Federal University
The wolfram physics idea(s) falls into the superdeterminism category and if any of t their (deterministic) theories turns out to be right that would falsify my idea.