The Destiny of the Universe

Dave, you touched on many issues. I too believe that free will gets an explanation in QM mostly because the whole is bigger than the parts and there are additional degrees of freedom which allow for genuine choices to be made, in particular in the way a question can be asked in an experiment which "steers" the quantum system. However, the future influencing on the past is against free will. T'Hooft has some ideas along those lines.

One key point to realize in this time symmetric formulation of QM is that the system is described by 2 state vectors, and the future one does not influence the past one. Instead, the amplification effects are a result of the interplay between the 2 states in the weak measurement case.

Davies idea of using the time symmetric formulation and the known begin and end state to understand teleology and the increase of complexity is interesting, but I am afraid it will not hold under close mathematical scrutiny. The problem is that the final state of the universe is only an asymptotic state and the time symmetric QM formalism cannot be used to predict anything. Think of the difference between convergence and uniform convergence. The existence of infinities (infinite future in this case) can very easily play nasty tricks.

About the question: "How can something come from nothing?" the answer is trivial: because it can. QM and relativity are core physics theories, and their interplay generates field theory and particle creation. Absolute nothingness is unstable as predicted by QM because it violates the Heisenberg principle.

About the question: "Which existed first, the rational or the irrational?" I'll say this is an ill posed problem because it requires the concept of time which biases the answer towards the rational. I believe in a democracy of ontologies where on is not superior to another. For example, a virtual reality in a computer game is a viable ontology. The only valid question is the question of a creator/designer. Some ontologies cannot create themselves, and this does require a creator (in the example above the computer programmer, in other examples, the watchmaker). To prove that (our) God must exist (or not) is to prove that our universe cannot self-create (or not). In the end, you end up in an God-of-the-gaps type argument.

universe has no destiny, universe is a system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, no beginning no end, eternal,

we can only discuss about mankind destiny

if we will not wake up out of our minds into consciousness we will create bed destiny.........

yours amrit

Dear Amrit,

We both - and I hope many more - have the same approach about what we call "universe": No start and no end. The nature of the Nature is being exactly what it presents: Energized matter.

To say the truth, there is no such a thing like a "universe" of things, once it is infinite and so, not mensurable or countable. The most proper word to define is "cosmos" or "cosmic fabric" (my preferred).

If no start in time exists, no limits in space eighter. So, lets start thinking the Cartesian approach of reality is not applicable to the "universe".

Cheers,

Wilton

Is my "now" = to,

A: the future's past.

or is my "now" evolved from

B:the past's future?

If A, then observing moment from say 1 second to the next second, will reveal the moment being determined, pre-existence, having allready having a destiny, or pre-arranged path.

If B,then observing any moments, 1 second to the next 1 second will reveal a "stretched" or lapsed time signature?

From an observational POV my "now" has happened in both directions A B scenario's. The slight difference being time signatures are fixed for one moment, but is varied for another moment?

The experimentalists must FIRST determine which scenario they have created or not created ? which, by its very nature will have catastrophic consequence.

P.S cryptic variable intended ;)

Dear Alano, Dear Steve,

physical time is a stream of numerical order of change that runs in space.

Physical past and future exist only as a numerical order of material change.

yours amrit

STREAM OF TIME IS STREAM OF NUMERICAL ORDER OF MATERIAL CHANGE THAT RUN IN SPACE

time is not part of space, space is timeless in a sense that time is not 4th coordinate of space, space is 4D, X4 = ict where t is numerical order of material change we measure with clocksAttachment #1: Time_is_Numerical_Order_of_Material_Change.pdf

Dear Ray, dear Jack

tachions can travel in space only as physical time is a numerical order of their motion in space

yours amrit

Dear Amrit,

It's profound your ideas indeed.

I like your spirituality.We are indeed all linked.

I see the physical Universe with a kind of begining.

Thus I imagine like an ultim aim also eisting in the future.

I see this physical balance between cosmological spheres as a beautiful harmony between physical creations and their lifes and intelligences and consciousness.

At this point of Unification in the future, the time will be not necessary because the system shall be fusioned and thus the eternality between mass can arrive with this universal love.It's simply explained but I see like that.

You imagine the future, WE WERE WE ARE WE SHALL BE.....

Thus Indeed I agree about your conclusion, indeed you understand the aim of the physical Universe.

Regards

Steve

What happened to this forum? It started with a nice article outlining a coherent theory of the causal influence of future events on the present, complete with experimental program -- followed by discussion of the known physics and scientific framework -- then dropped off into a neverland of philosophy and speculation.

The subject converges with other forums on this site, however, and I for one would be happy to engage, or re-engage, with the physics.

If anyone is interested in reviving the forum, I'm up for it.

Tom

A coherent theory like the l"ubth" system of falses extrapolations about the graviy.

Don't copy my theory please,

you want speak about all.

Let's go now.Let's peculate a little in total transparence and please.as English is my third language thus don't explain that in an other thread for your credibility.

Th you say so many stupidities, so many irony about our foundamentals, what is this irony, have you a specific job for this stupidity or is it a kind of vanity or perhaps it's all your works but you can't return in the good sense.

Your model TH ? your theory like the theories of some of your friends(I rest polite,I don't say the names) are a pure joke of business and that's all.

A kind of frustrated oif the system by lack of recognition.

If you prefer to be recognised by only the weakest part of the sciences community, it's your choice.

It's a pure joke of Ex and the team for the prizes...all is said GAME OVER.AHAHAH HUMOR FROM BELGIUM.....

Steve

Hi,

I'm really a lay-person but very curious about a related article Back From the Future from Discover Magazine article and I chanced upon this discussion, which seemed interesting.

I was wondering if anybody could comment on this excerpt:-

"

The free will issue is something that Tollaksen has been tackling mathematically with Popescu. The framework does not actually suggest that people could time-travel to the past, but it does allow a concrete test of whether it is possible to rewrite history. The Rochester experiments seem to demonstrate that actions carried out in the future--in the final, postselection step--ripple back in time to influence and amplify the results measured in the earlier, intermediate step. Does this mean that when the intermediate step is carried out, the future is set and the experimenter has no choice but to perform the later, postselection measurement? It seems not. Even in instances where the final step is abandoned, Tollaksen has found, the intermediate weak measurement remains amplified, though now with no future cause to explain its magnitude at all.

I put it to Tollaksen straight: This finding seems to make a mockery of everything we have discussed so far.

Tollaksen is smiling; this is clearly an argument he has been through many times. The result of that single experiment may be the same, he explains, but remember, the power of weak measurements lies in their repetition. No single measurement can ever be taken alone to convey any meaning about the state of reality. Their inherent error is too large. "Your pointer will still read an amplified result, but now you cannot interpret it as having been caused by anything other than noise or a blip in the apparatus," he says.

In other words, you can see the effects of the future on the past only after carrying out millions of repeat experiments and tallying up the results to produce a meaningful pattern. Focus on any single one of them and try to cheat it, and you are left with a very strange-looking result--an amplification with no cause--but its meaning vanishes. You simply have to put it down to a random error in your apparatus. You win back your free will in the sense that if you actually attempt to defy the future, you will find that it can never force you to carry out postselection experiments against your wishes. The math, Tollaksen says, backs him on this interpretation: The error range in single intermediate weak measurements that are not followed up by the required post足selection will always be just enough to dismiss the bizarre result as a mistake."

It's more than a convention. There is real physics here. See Roger Penrose's discussion of Ben Libet's "presponse" for example in The Emperor's New Mind and Dick Bierman's more recent replication experiments at the University in Amsterdam.

The issue is "signal nonlocality" that violates quantum physics. See papers by Antony Valentini online. The actual presponse experiments on living brains are direct evidence for signal nonlocality in my opinion. This means that quantum physics as formulated even by Yakir Aharonov with his additional post-selected destiny vector is only the dead matter limiting case of a more general theory in the same way that special relativity is the limit of general relativity when the curvature tensor vanishes in a region of spacetime.

The concept of backwards-in-time influence, could be a neat way of linking Cramers Transactional Interpretation with the MWI or bubble multiverse theory.

Any influences from the future back to the initial stages of the universe, may result in changes which would may give rise to alternative realities/origins, at both micro and macro levels.

Jack Sarfatti has himself mentioned the Transactional Interpretation in relation to this, his theory is along very similar lines, so perhaps his reasoning would agree with mine here?

Hi Jack,

Glad I checked in here. Try this link: my site

I agree. I was being conservative (for the Boeotians?:-) ) in saying "convention." Point is, whether we use classical time reversibility or quantum information with feedback, we get a quasi-classical time reversal in a partially-ordered instant of measurement.

Looking forward to dialogue. How are things going for you these days?

Tom

YLW,

Ah, yes -- thanks. I said something similar in my preprint "On breaking the time barrier", linked at "my site" above:

"2.5 We conjecture that just as we 3-dimensional creatures with 4-dimensional brain-minds arrive at such statistical results as central limit and regression to the mean by sampling large numbers of time-dependent events, Nature arrives at order by sampling large numbers of hyperspatial events that we interpret as the flow of time. Consider proton decay, which the extended Standard Model of particle physics predicts at something on the order of 10^35 years. Statistically, one expects to observe one proton of a group of 10^35 protons decay in one year. In other words -- what one measures in an interval of time, whether a year or a second, is independent of the metric of time or the orientation of that metric on the manifold of measurement. The information that one records is dependent on the chosen interval.

Our sense of time cannot be identical to the way in which nature orders time. Hyperspatial extensionality -- as Einstein and Minkowski, et al -- recognized, is not part of our experience. It is also true, however, that analytical time, appended as a field characteristic in a continuum of the Euclidean space of a tensor field model (Minkowski space-time) is not part of our experience, either. Einstein knew that because general relativity could not accommodate a physically real beginning of time (due to the Planck limit), it could not be mathematically complete. General relativity doesn't accommodate quantum gravity."

We probably should have more efficient ways of measuring proton decay. Experience and common sense once again prove to be the worst gauges of objective reality.

Tom

In this post I will discussed how the same boundary condition that is being used to mathematically derive a background independent quantum gravity (by causal dynamical triangulation theorists) might, in the context of the time symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics (TSQM) of Drs. Yakir Aharonov and Jeffery Tollaksen, be used to introduce a form of "teleology" into the time evolution of creation while preserving "free will" within a deterministic matrix of preexistent contingency.

Please consider that in quantum mechanics, the initial quantum state of any system evolves over time into a probability distribution of all possible states consistent with the initial boundary condition. If an initial state is assumed in which all possible states and spacetime geometries are subsumed, a probability distribution of possible states, including all observable states, will necessarily arise. Applying time symmetry, this probability distribution will simultaneously appear as the set of all futures and the set all histories which can arise from and lead to this common point of origination. As this point of origination constitutes both the system's beginning and ending boundary condition, all actualizations must occur within this contextuality.

If the big bang is then understood to have occurred as an actualization event within this preexistent contextuality, it would constitute the initial boundary condition for our universe and, inter alia, embody all of the laws of physics pursuant to which our universe could thereafter evolve. All subsequent actualizations would then be strongly bounded by this and the set of all immediately preceding actualizations; but would also be subtly influenced by a future unity toward which all of our possible futures would necessarily converge.

This model introduces a kind of "determinism" into the time-evolution of Creation. The beauty of the Model is that "determinism" comprised of contingency preserves "Free Will" within that contingency. In other words, human choice exists within a set of potentials consistent with the applicable boundary conditions. From the frame of reference of the scientist, it is an entirely "natural phenomena" and, from the frame of reference of the theologian, the centripetal convergence toward unity may be thought to be "of God".

There are two key assumptions that require further explanation.

The first assumption relates to the systems' initial state. For the purposes of this conjecture, I have assumed that the initial state is a superposition of all possible states, to include all possible space time geometries. As noted in Wikipedia, "Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all possible states that an object can have. The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two...."

Additionally, my assumption that the initial state is a superposition of all possible states is equivalent to that made by a promising quantum gravity theory called "Causal Dynamical Triangulation".

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509010

As you will note from the cited resources, Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) also assumes an equivalent superposition of all possible spacetime geometries. You will also see that Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) is the third leading quantum gravity theory behind string theory and loop quantum gravity. Although CDT is way too nascent for any predictions about its ultimate success to be made, CDT appears to be emergent, with both string and Loop Quantum Gravity theorists taking a harder look at it in the last few years.

The second critical assumption involves time symmetry. In this regard, please note that virtually all of the laws of physics are time symmetric. I wish the consideration of time symmetry in the context of a final boundary condition were entirely original to me. It is not. For example, Roger Penrose, in the article titled "The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy, wrote:

"Normally, one thinks in terms of systems evolving into the future, from data specified in the past, where the particular evolution takes place is determined by differential equations. ... One does not, on the other hand, tend to think of evolving these same equations into the past, despite the fact that the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics are symmetrical under a reversal of the direction of time! As far as the mathematics is concerned, one can just as well specify final conditions, at some remote future time, and evolve backward in time. Mathematically, final conditions are just as good as initial ones for determining the evolution of a system." (Quoted from Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Universe, Chapter 27, "The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy", p. 687)

Additionally, in a paper titled "New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics" (See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1232 Jun 2007) Yakir Aharonov and Jeffrey Tollaksen have written as follows:

"Up until now we have limited ourselves to the possibility of 2 boundary conditions which obtain their assignment due to selections made before and after a measurement. It is feasible and even suggestive to consider an extension of QM to include both a wavefunction arriving from the past and a second "destiny" wavefunction coming from the future, which are determined by 2 boundary conditions, rather than a measurement and selection. This proposal could solve the issue of the "collapse" of the wavefunction in a new and more natural way: every time a measurement takes place and the possible measurement outcomes decohere, then the future boundary condition simply selects one out of many possible outcomes [35, 32]. It also implies a kind of "teleology" which might prove fruitful in addressing the anthropic and fine-tuning issues [77]. The possibility of a final boundary condition on the universe could be probed experimentally by searching for "quantum miracles" on a cosmological scale. While a "classical miracle" is a rare event that can be explained by a very unusual initial boundary-condition, "Quantum Miracles" are those events which cannot naturally be explained through any special initial boundary-condition, only through initial-and-final boundary-conditions."

Although some prior posts have referenced experiments, I believe it it should be emphasized that several recent studies have quantitatively confirmed predicted outcomes which were unique to the TSQM formulation of quantum mechanics. As these outcomes cannot be explained by the traditional formulations of quantum mechanics, it appears that paradigm shifting "proofs" of TSQM are both beginning to be reported by independent research groups and to be recognized in the popular media. See Discovery Magazine http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

/article_view?b_start%3Aint=0&C

As noted in prior posts in this chain, these and numerous other experimental verifications of TSQM are occurring in the context of "weak measurement" theory and research that itself involves both intriguing explanatory and ontological implications. As examples, please consider the following:

"Experimental joint weak measurement on a photon pair as a probe of Hardy's Paradox" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.4229

"Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.1625

"Quantum interference experiments, modular variables and weak measurements" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4227

"Postselected weak measurement beyond the weak value" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2206

"Complete characterization of post-selected quantum statistics using weak measurement tomography" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.0533

... and dozens more

Jon,

Thanks. Might you agree to narrow the discussion to the Aharonov-Tollaksen ArXiv paper alone? That keeps to the original content of the forum message, and hopefully will keep the science discussion from branching into another philosophical morass. I think there's enough real substance here to keep us all busy, and enough philosophy in TQSM (e.g., counterfactuals, measurement problem) to satisfy the philosophically inclined as well.

Tom

Dear Tom:

Since you started this discussion, I defer to the directions you would like the discussion to take.

Please note, however, that in the context of the quotation you included in your initial post: "1.3.8 Consider some arbitrarily chosen future state space as the initial condition -- consider the present state as chaotic. We would find that this model is dual to the second law of thermodynamics -- energy flow toward disorder -- because what we perceive as movement toward a future state is exactly the same as the future state movement toward the present. We already know that we choose the present state only by convention; what would be the difference, though, if we reversed the convention?"

1. I would suggest that Causal Dynamical Triangulation provides a candidate "arbitrarily chosen future state space" as "the initial condition".

2. In the context of the conjecture, the present state is "chaotic" relative to the posited initial (and ending) state.

3. The actualization event constituting the "Big Bang" would also provide a thermodynamically low entropy state relative to the present state.

4. "Your statement that "what we perceive as movement toward a future state is exactly the same as the future state movement toward the present" becomes a literal truth in the "contingency" of my conjecture.

5. The conjecture affirms your assertion that "in a complex system model, that positive feedback informs the future state".

6. Your predicted "feedback" from the "future state" would, both positively and negatively, influence how quantum events in the present are actualized.

7. The conjecture seems to address many of the questions and speculations that appear in Paul Davies' writings and books (http://cosmos.asu.edu/research/current.htm)

8. Solutions to some of the thorny problems of physics and philosophy seem to be apprehendable in the context of the conjecture.

THE QUANTUM BOX EXPERIMENT:

In 2007, I had the good fortune of attending the "Quantum Paradox" class that was taught by Drs. Aharonov or Tollaksen at George Mason University. The "Quantum Box Experiment" was related at a class I attended. Although the experiment provides one "proof" that TSQM is "real", the findings have not, to the best of my knowledge, been published. Accordingly, the following reflect my notes, recollection and handout from the class lecture.

Before I go on, you may wish to review an early description of the experiment. (See: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310091v1)

Now, please visualize a set of six boxes arranged in a three by three matrix with the columns labeled from left to right: Box A, B, and C; and rows labeled from bottom to top: time t, t1 and t2. A particle entering the system at the bottom (e.g. at time t) is understood to have a one-third probability of being in Box A, B, or C at all levels, t, t1 and t2. It was my understanding that these probabilities were confirmed through ideal, or von Neumann, measurements taken at each level. However, these confirming measurements were not part of the experiment that I am about to describe.

In the experiment, a very large ensemble of particles was introduced into the experiment and, although ideal measurements were taken at time t2 for Boxes A, B, and C, only the experimental data for those particles found Box A (the post-selection sub-ensemble) were retained for further consideration. The theory behind the experiment is, to my understanding, that the ideal measurement of the sub-ensemble of particles found in Box A at t2 constitutes a boundary condition, which through the propagation of a time-reversed wave, constrains the potential locations and states of the particle to that subset of positions and states that remain possible given both the t (starting) boundary condition and t2 (ending) boundary condition. Mathematically, the theory generates for the selected sub-ensemble a probability of "1" that the particle at time t+1 will be found in Box A and also generates a probability of "1" that the particle at time t1 will be found Box B. This means that if an ideal measurements had been conducted at time t1 and Box A or Box B were, metaphorically speaking, opened, the particle would always be found inside the selected Box with absolute certainty. While this verification cannot be actually performed using ideal measurements, the prediction can be experimentally confirmed using weak measurements where the selected sub-ensemble includes a large number of particles. (See: Non-statistical Weak Measurements http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607208; Weak measurements, weak values, and entanglement http://link.aip.org/link/?PSISDG/6573/65730Z/1; Pre-and post-selection, weak values and contextuality http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18922792; and Robust Weak Measurements on Finite Samples http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703038.) The resulting interference pattern that Dr. Tollaksen presented arose from these weak measurements and was proffered as "proof" that TSQM is not just a mathematical model (with explanatory value) but also reflects an underlying reality (that I hope to further explore in future communications).

Noting that the probability of finding the particle in Box A and Box B at t+1 were both "1", you may be wondering about Box C. Here, the mathematics predicts something that seemed astounding (which is probably why the reported findings do not appear to have been published.) Where the subject particles are electrons, TSQM predicts a particle with all of the attributes of a positron - but with a fundamental difference. The particle predicted for Box C must have a negative mass. (Although not discussed by Drs. Aharonov or Tollaksen, it appears that this finding would be necessary under a reasonable extension of the conservation of lepton law.) In any event, this outcome was mathematically demonstrated by Dr. Tollaksen. It was also implicitly confirmed in the Physics Applications class I subsequently attended at George Mason University; where it was shown that the time-reversed evolution of a matter wave was impossible for any particle with a positive mass. Additionally, Dr. Tollaksen indicated that experimental verifications of these negative mass particles had been obtained.