[demalk (OP)]

Is 'time' fundamental? Does it actually exist at the most fundamental level of reality, or can't we seem to rhyme quantum with relativity, or figure out deterministically how quantum works because we are applying the concept of time to both ontological categories whereas in reality it only applies to one at most?

What if time actually only makes sense macroscopically, but when we look at the quantum level, what we see is distorted by that very time. Because the thing we are looking at is actually timeless. The electron is timeless. The photon is timeless. The entire fundamental universe is a static and timeless network of informational bits, but our mass is preventing us from interacting with the whole thing at once and limits us to a series of snapshots instead. We can never interact with the next snapshot, only with the current one. So it seems to us like the future doesn't exist yet. But a photon doesn't have this impairment, it does experience the whole universe in its static entirety, which is how it flawlessly incorporates information that will be created in the future into its behaviour 'now'. There is no future. All the data is already there, at the most fundamental level of our existence. We just think it is the future because we have no choice but to view the world through our temporally distorted goggles. We have to wait for the next snapshot to interact with it. So when we look at this static information itself, i.e. 'quantum', we do so through a temporal filter. So it doesn't make sense. It seems jittery. Uncertain. Dual in its existence even. In fact, what is jittery is our temporal perception of it. The thing we're looking at is as static and fixed as can be.

In other words: what if  'c' is just the margin of error by which time-prone matter experiences a fundamentally timeless, informational universe?

[Bogie_smiles]

Is 'time' fundamental? Does it actually exist at the most fundamental level of reality, or can't we seem to rhyme quantum with relativity, or figure out deterministically how quantum works because we are applying the concept of time to both ontological categories whereas in reality it only applies to one?

What if time actually only makes sense macroscopically, but when we look at the quantum level, what we see is distorted by that very time. Because the thing we are looking at is actually timeless. The electron is timeless. The photon is timeless. The entire fundamental universe is a static and timeless network of informational bits, but our mass is preventing us from interacting with the whole thing at once and limits us to a series of snapshots instead. We can never interact with the next snapshot, only with the current one. So it seems to us like the future doesn't exist yet. But a photon doesn't have this impairment, it does experience the whole universe in its static entirety, which is how it flawlessly incorporates information that will be created in the future into its behaviour 'now'. There is nu future. All the data is already there, at the most fundamental level of our existence. We just think it is the future because we have no choice but to view the world through our temporally distorted goggles. We have to wait for the next snapshot to interact with it. So when we look at this static information itself, i.e. 'quantum', we do so through a temporal filter. So it doesn't make sense. It seems jittery. Uncertain. Dual in its existence even. In fact, what is jittery is our temporal perception of it. The thing we're looking at is as static and fixed as can be.

In other words: what if  'c' is just the margin of error by which time-prone matter experiences a fundamentally timeless, informational universe?

To the question of time-prone matter in a timeless informational universe, it is a rich environment for though experiments. Getting right to the crux of the matter, it seems that if we can alter the future, the answer is no, “c” is an actual physical limit imposed by the natural laws of the universe.

Why do I equate the two? Your argument for timelessness fails if the future isn’t deterministic to the extent that the path of every photon is pre-established. If I can alter the path of one photon, timelessness as you imply it, is false.

How do we answer that question about whether or not we can force our will on the path of a photon? It begins to go to the mechanics of consciousness. Just because we think we can have an affect on the future, the philosophical question is, can we really have freewill, or not. We take sides on that issue, but we cannot establish a testable experiment that will lead to irrefutable proof that convinces both sides.



I am on the freeill side.

Once I have altered the path of a photon, the history of the new path is fixed in the historical profile of the wave-energy density of the universe. That means that the event is recorded as it happens, but not pre-recorded.

[demalk (OP)]

To the question of time-prone matter in a timeless informational universe, it is a rich environment for though experiments. Getting right to the crux of the matter, it seems that if we can alter the future, the answer is no, “c” is an actual physical limit imposed by the natural laws of the universe.

Of course, this implies a completely fundamentally deterministic universe. There is no free will in this model whatsoever. Every act of free will and every 'random' event is already present in the fabric of the universe. The illusion of free will is implied by the illusion of time.

Why do I equate the two? Your argument for timelessness fails if the future isn’t deterministic to the extent that the path of every photon is pre-established. If I can alter the path of one photon, timelessness as you imply it, is false.

You aren't altering anything. Your action is already present in the universe before you do it. No free will. No alteration. All the data is already there.

we cannot establish a testable experiment that will lead to irrefutable proof that convinces both sides.

We already have testable proof, and the best part is that we still have no conclusive explanation for the phenomenon that proves this, only a very good description. The photon already knows if we will store the which path information in the future, even if we leave that decision up to a completely 'random' process IN THE FUTURE. The photon guesses it right every single time. This clearly implies that to it, there is nothing random about the process. Clearly to it, there is nothing random or even 'future' about our 'random', 'future' 'choice'. What more proof could you wish for? It is our direct insight into the static nature of fundamental reality. Certainly QM doesn't provide an explanation of this retrospective behaviour, only a description which leads to accurate predictions, but no explanation about how it came to be that way. This is an explanation. A very logical one it seems to me. If Einstein calculates that a photon doesn't experience time, and we perceive with our own data that indeed, it doesn't seem to be bothered by time at all, then maybe we should stop seeing that idea as a theoretical quirk, and consider the possibility that the photon is right, and we are wrong. All you need to do to marry the ideas of QM and relativity, is to assume that the photon is what experiences and responds to the quantum world in the 'real' way. The 'instant' way. And that we are 'weird', our 'view' is distorted. Weird jittery time creatures.

Then it is required that 'c' isn't actually the speed of light. It cannot have any velocity, it is timeless. It is static. We are the ones experiencing time and because of that we must perceive light as if it were travelling too. Then it follows that 'c' can only be the rate of our illusion. The rate with which we perceive light, not the rate with which it travels.

I am on the freewill side.

I am most certainly not

[Bogie_smiles]

Nice to meet you.

[Bogie_smiles]

We already have testable proof, and the best part is that we still have no conclusive explanation for the phenomenon that proves this, only a very good description. The photon already knows if we will store the which path information in the future, even if we leave that decision up to a completely 'random' process IN THE FUTURE. The photon guesses it right every single time.

I have an explanation, but your testable proof, and my explanation, will not change either of our minds, probably. “Irrefutable” seems to be the key word. I can refute your explanation, which I will do, and you may not be convinced.

This clearly implies that to it, there is nothing random about the process. Clearly to it, there is nothing random or even 'future' about our 'random', 'future' 'choice'. What more proof could you wish for?

I believe in random, but that too falls under the subjectiveness of refutability; am I right?

Here is a diagram of the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus setup. It is designed for single particles to be sent through; one at a time. Even with only one photon sent through at at time, the interference pattern eventually takes shape on the screen.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_26_07_17_4_04_21.png




Is that the experiment you are referring to?

Because I have some things to point out, if it is.

[demalk (OP)]

Nice to meet you.

Likewise

[demalk (OP)]

I have an explanation, but your testable proof, and my explanation, will not change either of our minds, probably. “Irrefutable” seems to be the key word. I can refute your explanation, which I will do, and you may not be convinced.

Fair point, but we can at least try If your argumentation makes sense to me, I will change my mind. I have no idealistic connection to determinism, it just seems to make the most sense to me right now, based on this timeless universe model.

Here is a diagram of the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus setup. It is designed for single particles to be sent through; one at a time. Even with only one photon sent through at at time, the interference pattern eventually takes shape on the screen.

Is that the experiment you are referring to?

Because I have some things to point out, if it is.

Yes, this seems to be one version of the type of setup I am referring to but your summary, though I'm sure intentionally brief, seems to emit the one vital thing that differentiates this experiment from the standard double slit version, and vital to my point: namely the fact that the 'random' decision whether or not to store the which path information, is made in the future, i.e. after the photon has already hit the screen and therefore 'already completed' its path. Apparently the photon experiences a deterministic universe because we consistently observe it to perfectly incorporate our 'random 'future' decision into its present or past behaviour. It never gets it wrong. So evidently, to it, the world is as deterministic as can be. To it, there is no random event, or even a future event, the event is already there and the photon interacts with it just like everything else does at quantum: instantly.

I am curious about your comments though. Thus far I have only found QM to be descriptive and predictive about this 'delayed choice' phenomenon, but by no means explanatory. The fundamentally static, informational universe, whether one would agree with it or not, is an explanation where the predictions of relativity seem internally consistent with the quantum results. If you assume that time is real at quantum scale, there is no way, or at least none has been found yet as far as I know, to marry the two.

[Bogie_smiles]

I have an explanation, but your testable proof, and my explanation, will not change either of our minds, probably. “Irrefutable” seems to be the key word. I can refute your explanation, which I will do, and you may not be convinced.

Fair point, but we can at least try If your argumentation makes sense to me, I will change my mind. I have no idealistic connection to determinism, it just seems to make the most sense to me right now, based on this timeless universe model.

Here is a diagram of the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus setup. It is designed for single particles to be sent through; one at a time. Even with only one photon sent through at at time, the interference pattern eventually takes shape on the screen.

Is that the experiment you are referring to?

Because I have some things to point out, if it is.

Yes, this seems to be one version of the type of setup I am referring to but your summary, though I'm sure intentionally brief, seems to emit the one vital thing that differentiates this experiment from the standard double slit version, and vital to my point: namely the fact that the 'random' decision whether or not to store the which path information, is made in the future, i.e. after the photon has already hit the screen and therefore 'already completed' its path. Apparently the photon experiences a deterministic universe because we consistently observe it to perfectly incorporate our 'random 'future' decision into its present or past behaviour. It never gets it wrong. So evidently, to it, the world is as deterministic as can be. To it, there is no random event, or even a future event, the event is already there and the photon interacts with it just like everything else does at quantum: instantly.

I am curious about your comments though. Thus far I have only found QM to be descriptive and predictive about this 'delayed choice' phenomenon, but by no means explanatory. The fundamentally static, informational universe, whether one would agree with it or not, is an explanation where the predictions of relativity seem internally consistent with the quantum results. If you assume that time is real at quantum scale, there is no way, or at least none has been found yet as far as I know, to marry the two.

You are correct, there is an erasure feature, but the experiment, after the erasure, gives results, where the interference pattern appears on screens D-1, and D-2, but not on D-3 and D-4, if I am seeing it right. Does that agree with the results that you are familiar with?

There are a couple of things that make this experiment controversial, and one is what you pointed out …
“The photon already knows if we will store the which path information in the future, even if we leave that decision up to a completely 'random' process IN THE FUTURE. The photon guesses it right every single time.”

I interpret that to mean that because you see the universe as timeless, that there is nothing new under the sun, if you get my drift. The universe knows, because there is only one grand “now” and it is all stored in the information that “is the universe”.

My “freewill” and “randomness” influenced reply is that neither the photon, nor the universe, knows anything in advance. The future unfolds as time passes.

The second thing that makes the experiment controversial is the nature of a particle. Wave-particle duality is a growing consensus, but even so, the nature of particle that can display the duality, i.e., both the particle nature and the wave nature at the same time, as in this experiment, isn’t a consensus. If a photon wave-particle can go through both slits, one in its particle state, and the other in its wave state, there is an explanation for the interference pattern.

Notice in the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus, the paths to each coincidence counter (detection screen) is marked with either the color red, or blue, or both. Note that screens D-0, D-1, and D-2 have both a red path and a blue path, while D-3 and D-4 have only one color (in the case of D-3 it is blue, and in the case of D-4, it is red.

If you see that, and agree with my observations of the diagram and the color of the paths, then I will try to make my point.

[demalk (OP)]

You are correct, there is an erasure feature, but the experiment, after the erasure, gives results, where the interference pattern appears on screens D-1, and D-2, but not on D-3 and D-4, if I am seeing it right. Does that agree with the results that you are familiar with?

The photon is split into 2 entangled photons so one of them can hit the screen 'undisturbed' as we manipulate the other. The left one (let's call it left) is the one that ends up on screen D0. This is the photon creating one pattern or the other. Its entangled partner is passed through the whole randomising system on the right, randomly ending up at D1 through D4. 2 of these D's allow us to know the which path information, 2 of them don't. If after the experiment we have D0 only display the photons of which we cannot know the which path information because its entangled partner's path was randomised, you see an interference pattern. If however we only display the photons of which the entangled partner's path wasn't randomised, i.e. we can know the which path info, then you get the particle pattern. So each and every photon already incorporated the exact outcome of our future randomising event with 100% accuracy before the event of randomisation was even completed. There is nothing random or future about this to the photon, apparently. I utterly fail to see a way around that.

I interpret that to mean that because you see the universe as timeless, that there is nothing new under the sun, if you get my drift. The universe knows, because there is only one grand “now” and it is all stored in the information that “is the universe”.

Yes! That is a great way to put it. Just to be clear: by speaking of a 'knowing universe' in this context, we aren't referring to anything spiritual or religious. It isn't a conscious 'knowing' like that of a God. It is just that every bit of information about our reality, past present and future is already there.

My “freewill” and “randomness” influenced reply is that neither the photon, nor the universe, knows anything in advance. The future unfolds as time passes.

That statement to me seems to violate both special relativity and delayed choice. Relativity says the photon experiences everything at once. And delayed choice shows us that this is actually the case. How does your statement support these observations?

The second thing that makes the experiment controversial is the nature of a particle. Wave-particle duality is a growing consensus, but even so, the nature of particle that can display the duality, i.e., both the particle nature and the wave nature at the same time, as in this experiment, isn’t a consensus. If a photon wave-particle can go through both slits, one in its particle state, and the other in its wave state, there is an explanation for the interference pattern.

How do you feel about the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave model? According to it, the photon actually travels as a particle with definite position all the way through one slit to the screen, but it interacts with its own pilot wave and thereby creates a wave that passes through the other slit. So it seems to us that it went through both slits, but one slit just had the wave, the other actually had the particle (and the wave). Since there are still 2 waves interacting on the other side of the slits, you still get an interference pattern even though all photons actually only went through one slit.

Notice in the delayed choice quantum eraser apparatus, the paths to each coincidence counter (detection screen) is marked with either the color red, or blue, or both. Note that screens D-0, D-1, and D-2 have both a red path and a blue path, while D-3 and D-4 have only one color (in the case of D-3 it is blue, and in the case of D-4, it is red.

If you see that, and agree with my observations of the diagram and the color of the paths, then I will try to make my point.

It has been seen, let us have your point!

[jeffreyH]

You really need to understand what the problem of time actually means.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

[evan_au]

What if time actually only makes sense macroscopically, but when we look at the quantum level, what we see is distorted by that very time.

Quantum interactions involving just 2 particles (eg a photon and a free electron) can be run forward and backwards, with no hints about which direction time is flowing.

However, you can see the effects of time's arrow in single quantum-level events like beta decay:
Carbon 14 breaks down to Nitrogen + electron + neutrino
¹⁴C → ¹⁴N + e⁻ + ν_e

As soon as you have 3 or more particles in an interaction, you can identify the direction of time with high probability.
Because the probability that 3 (or more) particles would happen to be in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time, with exactly the right energy and momentum is effectively nil.

This is a thermodynamic/entropy argument about time, but extended to the quantum level.

time is an emergent phenomenon for internal observers but absent for external observers of the universe

I am wondering where they found the observers from outside the universe? 

[jeffreyH]

Quantum time is the proper time in general relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference we can devise a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames. This is separate from coordinate time but can be derived from it. These transforms then make time relative in quantum mechanics for all particle interactions. It sounds easy but is far from it.

[Bogie_smiles]

Yes! That is a great way to put it. Just to be clear: by speaking of a 'knowing universe' in this context, we aren't referring to anything spiritual or religious. It isn't a conscious 'knowing' like that of a God. It is just that every bit of information about our reality, past present and future is already there.

It makes sense to derive that position from a strict deterministic universe. Not “God did it”, but instead, anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don’t yet understand. One way to understand it is the way you describe.

That statement to me seems to violate both special relativity and delayed choice. Relativity says the photon experiences everything at once. And delayed choice shows us that this is actually the case. How does your statement support these observations?

It might very well violate both, darn me.

I know you wanted me to get to it, so this is an executive level summary of the explanation:

In regard to special relativity, time dilation and length contraction are deemed to be physical changes to objects in time and space as a result of relative motion, as I understand it. I don’t invoke those effects in my own model (I have a model that I discuss out in “New Theories”), but instead, I invoke the idea that when an object is accelerated, relative to a rest position, the moving object experiences an elevated energy density environment.

Objects are made up of “wave-particles”, and wave-particles function slower, relative to a rest position, when accelerated. That is why I mentioned the wave energy density profile of space earlier. That concept is a speculation that at all points in space, there is wave energy (gravitational and electromagnetic), coming and going in all directions at the speed of light. So when you move, you are moving into an onslaught of wave energy in the direction of motion, while the rest object is not experiencing that motion. Hence the moving object faces higher wave energy density in the direction of motion than the rest object. Therefore the particles in the moving object function slower (a moving astronaut will age slower).

You may or may not want me cluttering up your thread with the description of the wave-particle, and the photon as a wave-particle with mass, but it is part of my explanation about what is going on in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment. Wave-particles are both a wave and a particle at the same time, and at all times, until they are observed, and then they are one or the other, depending on the nature of the observation. (I will have to give you some details of the mechanics of how that works, but you may wave all this off before that becomes necessary).

As a result of the wave-particle duality of states (not talking superposition of states), they can display both states, when sent one by one, through the apparatus. The particle state is registered as a hit on a detector; the wave state is registered as an interference that affects the path of the particle.

How do you feel about the DeBroglie-Bohm pilot wave model? According to it, the photon actually travels as a particle with definite position all the way through one slit to the screen, but it interacts with its own pilot wave and thereby creates a wave that passes through the other slit. So it seems to us that it went through both slits, but one slit just had the wave, the other actually had the particle (and the wave). Since there are still 2 waves interacting on the other side of the slits, you still get an interference pattern even though all photons actually only went through one slit.

I will address the details of my view on de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics in a separate post later, if you like, but suffice it to say that I don’t invoke the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM.

It has been seen, let us have your point .

The point is that you do not get interference unless there is a path to the detector from both slits, i.e., you need a red line and a blue line in order to get the interference pattern. The reason is, that in the single particle experiment, in order to get interference, the wave state of the particle goes through both slits, while the particle state goes through only one or the other. The interference that alters the path of the particle state must be allowed to form, and in order to form, the wave must go through both slits. (If we get to the discussion of my alternative interpretation of QM, I’ll be able to explain, but I am on thin ice in regard to hijacking your thread, and that is not my intention.)


Let me know when to stop (it may be too late, lol).

[demalk (OP)]

You may or may not want me cluttering up your thread with the description of the wave-particle, and the photon as a wave-particle with mass, but it is part of my explanation about what is going on in the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment. Wave-particles are both a wave and a particle at the same time, and at all times, until they are observed, and then they are one or the other, depending on the nature of the observation. (I will have to give you some details of the mechanics of how that works, but you may wave all this off before that becomes necessary).

Nope, not in the business of waving anything off On the contrary, I would be very interested in more details on the observation mechanics and their nature. Please do share. What I don't see in the above idea (yet), is any explanation of the apparent violation of time/causality. It addresses the 'mechanism' of particle-wave duality, but how would this idea in itself address the observation that the photon flawlessly determines what the outcome of our 'random' 'future' event will be?

As a result of the wave-particle duality of states (not talking superposition of states), they can display both states, when sent one by one, through the apparatus. The particle state is registered as a hit on a detector; the wave state is registered as an interference that affects the path of the particle.

Makes sense.

I will address the details of my view on de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics in a separate post later, if you like, but suffice it to say that I don’t invoke the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM.

I would love to get your thoughts on that.

The point is that you do not get interference unless there is a path to the detector from both slits, i.e., you need a red line and a blue line in order to get the interference pattern. The reason is, that in the single particle experiment, in order to get interference, the wave state of the particle goes through both slits, while the particle state goes through only one or the other. The interference that alters the path of the particle state must be allowed to form, and in order to form, the wave must go through both slits.

I get that line of reasoning (I think). But still, this is addressing only the particle-wave duality issue. Not the causality defying one. Unless I'm missing something.

If we get to the discussion of my alternative interpretation of QM, I’ll be able to explain, but I am on thin ice in regard to hijacking your thread, and that is not my intention.

Not at all, lets discuss it. But since the thread is about the fundamental existence of time, lets try to stick to that. So please, tell me, how does your model explain the apparent causality violation of the photon?

[demalk (OP)]

Quantum time is the proper time in general relativity. Since the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference we can devise a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames. This is separate from coordinate time but can be derived from it. These transforms then make time relative in quantum mechanics for all particle interactions. It sounds easy but is far from it.

Hahaha it doesn't sound easy at all, trust me  Please elaborate more. What do you mean by 'a transform for quantum interactions in remote frames'?

[demalk (OP)]

As soon as you have 3 or more particles in an interaction, you can identify the direction of time with high probability.
Because the probability that 3 (or more) particles would happen to be in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time, with exactly the right energy and momentum is effectively nil.

That makes sense, but it also sounds like a relatively straightforward thing, why do physicists claim that at the quantum level time could flow in any direction? Have they not thought to add a third particle? Or are they just ignoring this to make popular statements about the quantum world?

[Bill S]

Over the past few days a small “rash” of threads seems to have arrived between which there is considerable crossover.  As I have neither time nor inclination to become involved in repetitive, multi-thread posting, but want to have a say in some of these threads, I’ll give it some thought, decide which thread is most appropriate for any response, and cross-reference where appropriate. 

I hope that will work.

[demalk (OP)]

Over the past few days a small “rash” of threads seems to have arrived between which there is considerable crossover.  As I have neither time nor inclination to become involved in repetitive, multi-thread posting, but want to have a say in some of these threads, I’ll give it some thought, decide which thread is most appropriate for any response, and cross-reference where appropriate. 

I hope that will work.

Yeah, since our discussion had drifted a bit from information to time, I figured I should probably just start a new thread about time. But of course information comes in in this discussion as well so in the end perhaps it was pointless

[Bogie_smiles]

Nope, not in the business of waving anything off On the contrary, I would be very interested in more details on the observation mechanics and their nature. Please do share. What I don't see in the above idea (yet), is any explanation of the apparent violation of time/causality. It addresses the 'mechanism' of particle-wave duality, but how would this idea in itself address the observation that the photon flawlessly determines what the outcome of our 'random' 'future' event will be?

Ok, coming up …

I would love to get your thoughts on that.

I look forward to it …

I get that line of reasoning (I think). But still, this is addressing only the particle-wave duality issue. Not the causality defying one. Unless I'm missing something.

The “line” thing is meant to highlight the fact that the mechanics of the wave-particle is responsible for what might otherwise appear as a spooky knowledge on the part of the photon.

Not at all, lets discuss it. But since the thread is about the fundamental existence of time, lets try to stick to that. So please, tell me, how does your model explain the apparent causality violation of the photon?

Maybe I should try to address that first.

It goes back to …

That statement to me seems to violate both special relativity and delayed choice. Relativity says the photon experiences everything at once. And delayed choice shows us that this is actually the case. How does your statement support these observations?

In regard to the above quote, I went on to explain the difference between special relativity, in regard to time dilation and length contraction, and my explanation that the wave energy density of space is responsible for the slowing in the rate that particles function when accelerated; two different sets of cause and effect.

The part that I didn’t address is time/causality, where you are interpreting the delayed choice experiment results as evidence that “the photon flawlessly determines what the outcome of our 'random' 'future' event will be”. You refer to that as an example of time/causality, if I understand correctly.

I argue that the photon doesn't display such timelessness, and there is no causality violation, because the future isn’t already embedded in the information record; the future is not the result of determinism. The photon doesn’t already know the future, and so I don’t interpret it as a violation of time causality.

[demalk (OP)]

Ok, so let us assume that you are right. That there isn't any violation of time going on, and it has nothing to do with a static universe. You would agree I assume that it seems as though the future random activity in the experimental setup affects the photon in retrospect, correct? So, how does this work? Why does it seem that way in your view?