Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Can quantum frustration "force" states uncommon in nature?

Re: Can quantum frustration "force" states uncommon in natur

Postby Farsight » Mon May 23, 2011 1:42 pm

Good Elf wrote:...would be "seen" as an imperfect blurring of the holographic information which could not be seamlessly removed from the data.
It’s a dynamical universe, everything is always moving. Say for example that an electron is a self-trapped photon going round and round at c. Then you work up from there all the way up to clocks and detectors and recording devices. And photons are waves in the volume of space, they don’t have any edges or boundaries. There are no sharp lines to get blurred, just pressure gradients.

Good Elf wrote:The other problem is a real photographic hologram is a monochromatic view based on illumination by a single frequency of coherent light provided by an artificial source. Our "real" universe does not use such "probes". The "ideal" model would not record this imperfect blurring nor would it deal with only one frequency of light as being originated from a single optical coherent source - but all frequencies and every source in the universe becomes the "natural" illumination. Selective tuning of the position along some arbitrary timeline (this device's most important function here) as well as the position and velocity of the viewing screen and frequency in which the information was viewed would be selectable.
Surely there are no frequencies in the snapshot, just pressure gradients of differing intensities? The world is made of light, that light is always moving, and you can envisage a snapshot at “the time called now”. But any device that records this is gedanken because a device is made of electrons etc, electrons are made of photons, and photons are waves which are moving pressure pulses.

Good Elf wrote:The generated quantum simulator data could be compared and corrected with holographic movies made at the respective periods in time to see if they match this "official record".
I’m not enthusing with this. The quantum simulator uses light to... simulate light? It isn’t a simulation in the usual sense, its going through the motions. It’s like I ask you how long it will take you to dig a hole, and your quantum simulator is a guy with a shovel.

Good Elf wrote:Naturally... momentum and energy (and "relativistic mass") "recorded" in this "snapshot" depend on the state of motion of an observer relative to all other points within the observer lightcone...
I rather think it’s more absolute than that. The observer’s motion might make him assert that there’s more energy there, but in truth he’s just a part of the snapshot too.

Good Elf wrote:...and also remove or insert the relativistic distortions through a process of affine maneuvers within a Relativistic Conformal Field Theory.
OK, they’re just distortions. The way the observer sees things is affected by his motion.
Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:17 am


Re: Can quantum frustration "force" states uncommon in natur

Postby Farsight » Mon May 23, 2011 1:50 pm

Good Elf wrote:It is important to understand that these affine conformal maneuvers in both directions along the advancing timeline...
What timeline? It isn’t in the snapshot, it’s another abstract thing.

Good Elf wrote:...form a basis for a theory of time itself capable of panning in space and time to any relative coordinate and displaying the interesting part of the universe in relative magnified detail.
I wonder if there’s something circular going on with your reasoning here? Nevermind.

Good Elf wrote:Now the "snapshot" indicates where everything was at an instant in time relative to any observer we may care to choose... notice this simulation records relative motion not as a simple three dimensional blurring in the image but displays only the relative optical position of all objects and their energy relative to the observer (including relativistic distortions due to relative motion).
This feels wrong John. The snapshot says where everything is, including observers. Think of yourself as a single electron. If you’re moving, your photon configuration is helical rather than circular, and you have a distorted view of everything else.

Good Elf wrote:"Movement in time" is not a sequence of "3D snapshots" played in sequence like a filmstrip but the sequence of quantum events executed in sequence within the "eventscape" by the "program" on the sinks and sources and allowing the systems to obtain a dynamic equilibrium.
Fair enough that the motion/change/events happen. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be an time. It would be a static universe.

Good Elf wrote:One issue is time cannot be presumed to be something uniform at the sub-atomic level as it certainly is not at the cosmic level - but this time we are using is actually a "rate". It is assumed that due to "internal motion" a sub-atomic particle's "internal observer" experiences as separately advancing internal time due to relativity.
That “internal observer” has a clock that clocks up motion. It always comes back to motion. Or change or events, whichever you prefer. Just motion/change/events, not advancing time.

Good Elf wrote:A typical experimental effect of this internal motion in the real world is illustrated here...
Car batteries powered by relativity
While always suspected it was ignored by science for decades. Accelerations at the quantum level of the electrons and their interactions with heavy nuclei affect internal time there and this relativistic time lag leads to macroscopic unbalanced forces that need to be accounted for with "new chemistry". What would we do without batteries? It is guaranteed there are other ignored holographic phenomena will affect the way the world works at the macroscopic scale. Our attempts at total deconstructionism have led us into serious errors we have yet to fully address (that would be for another time to discuss).
I read it, but it gave my browser a problem when I tried to copy a bit out highlighting the importance of light.

Good Elf wrote:A particular time defined as a "point" on a timeline is characterized by all the events that have happened since the "Big Bang"
Again this timeline is abstract. I don't think it helpds to define time using abstractions, they get in the way of seeing what's there. IMHO those events all come down to the motion of light, and 13.7 billion years is a measure of how much moving it’s done as compared to the motion of the earth around the sun.

Good Elf wrote:...and "apparently remains unaffected" (except by certain entanglement processes and their frustrated paths) by events subsequent to the point under this careful scrutiny. I have mentioned some curious issues above that affect this POV. This process we generally call causality.
Fair enough.

Good Elf wrote:It is one reason why we mistakenly "see" antiparticles as something quite different from the originating particle. We are not recording the "internal time".
There isn’t any. Just motion.

Good Elf wrote:So practical time is "holographic" meaning it encompasses everything and cannot be completely "deconstructive"... meaning breaking time into smaller and smaller segments and applying them to smaller and smaller locations does not give us necessarily better data... this is what we usually call the quantum effect (Uncertainty Principle ∆E∆T ≥ h). The same distributive process can be seen applied elsewhere but corrected in transmission line theory where distant "radiative sources" affect the transfer of energy to "loads" dependent on the nature of the "line". I believe this to be the way entanglement works - through a co-resonance executed with infinite speed in connection. Generalizing this concept we see the universe and all of it's environs as well as all radiative and absorptive processes as being special cases of an "all-wave" transmission theory involving complex number theory and "open waveguides" having generalized boundary conditions leading seamlessly to modern electronics and even quantum optics such as Feynman's QED. Feynman said it all.
I’m happy with waves, and with “bursting balloons” which are not limited to the speed at which balloons float along.

Good Elf wrote:Time is also an "accountancy of the events" and their associated "resonances" (particle interactions and decays) as Feynman suggested that take us from one place in time to another.
There are no places in time John. Just in space. Waves move in space, that’s all.

Good Elf wrote:Calculus may be employed to derive rates in time and space from point data if required but this is not the way Physics has evolved, we have cast our theories into the mold of rates and it is not easy to notice that there is a frame in which to observe the events around us without this "rate" (the quantum state is without rate as is time when viewed as an eventscape).
Yes, there is no time per se when it comes to subatomic events. Electrons just change orbital, they don’t do it gradually.

Good Elf wrote:it is a frame of events that place into the past all events that have already occurred and might have been observed and into the future any events which are yet to occur (or complete) and this places the observer "time" squarely at a single point along the timeline (effectively between two most immediate events still in the future and in "past tense" the past anywhere in the universe). That defines time as a point along a line segment of progressing time and at a place that is observing it.
The line segment of progressing time isn’t anything real. Events occur in this universe, and we’re part of it.

Good Elf wrote:Unfortunately (or fortunately) this does not provide a direct connection with "clock time"... nature has not provided a universal beat of a clock. Clocks do not actually define this time because clocks apply only where they exist as measurement devices in their respective inertial frames.
They’re like event counters. In some locations events/change/motion occurs at a reduced rate, and we say the clock runs slow.

Good Elf wrote:There are other events happening in the universe other than those generated from the most accurate clocks we can make where time varies unseen. These events happen almost everywhere but the position and identification of this "eventscape" and their associated "particles" define the unique time as well as setting the backdrop of energy that will result in the next events to come (or complete) and the subsequent history of the universe.
Sounds reasonable.

Good Elf wrote:In this way there has been an idea that we can change this eventscape in the universe locally in such a way that it is reversed back to any point in time we choose as a kind of time travel
It’s not time travel, it’s just moving things back to the way they were.

Good Elf wrote:this is not true because the universe always moves on externally from the past
It just moves.

Good Elf wrote:thus reversing certain local events (while possible and experimentally verifiable in recent experiments) does not reverse the universal linking of these events with the whole universe... the full holographic perspective. No - that form of time travel is impossible because it is a purely local influence and misses the point about global phenomena.

Good Elf wrote:as in particle and anti-particle reactions... according to Feynman... the internal time of particles may be reversible while the external time of the universe 'ticks on". A universal time cannot be defined as a single reading on a clock, a finite number of clocks could not define the time either, the only reasonable way to define time is through the "setting" of events that led to the present and also to some events that even come from the future.
Eevents don’t come from the future John.

Good Elf wrote:Obvious examples are the Aharanov-Bohm Effect
There’s no mystery to that. It’s just electron optics, as per Ehrenberg and Siday.

Good Elf wrote:and also the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment in which the more distant aspects of the universe can affect the observations non-locally
It’s just that photons aren’t points.

Good Elf wrote:and through Feynman's QED even across time... even into the past.
Sorry, I can’t empathize with this at all.

Good Elf wrote:One way of accounting for this is through Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory another way to view this same phenomenon is an emitter-absorber theory (emission from a source to a sink) in which "electromagnetic entanglement" occurs - a easily understood transmission line theory of resonance. Light's Most Exotic Trick Yet: So Fast it Goes ... Backwards?In these "simple experiments" waveguide theory can be shown to support the experimental results that the wave can begin to exit the waveguide before the initiating wave has begun to enter it. Naturally the source and the sink are matched complex source and sinks and no information actually travels faster than light through the waveguide. For this to happen a theory which involves waveguides is invoked that may be interpreted through the alternative concept of entanglement. The speed of entanglement is infinite and this makes the superluminal connection more easy to understand.
I dislike Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, there is no time direction. I’m happy with what you’re saying about entanglement in that speed does not apply to the evanescent wave.

Good Elf wrote:The emission of the photon for instance cannot occur unless there is a co-resonance with the sink "ahead of time". This aspect can be verified as a Bell Violation (when we use entangled photons - but this phenomenon must also occur with mutually unentangled photons... but remains unobserved since there is nothing special about entangled photons as opposed to unentangled photons... still they are all photons overall) and it occurs in all photon emissions (real and virtual) and at all times regardless of the fact that it is recorded or not and "broker" electromagnetic "transactions" between these sources and sinks. Bell violations (entangled and unentangled) are fundamental and not secondary to the way our universe works. Attempts at a total deconstructionism will ultimately fail to answer the basic nature of this process which is both instantaneous and global(separating the source from the remote sinks and unbalancing the "load" results in an impedance mismatch and the photons become entirely "virtual" or evanescent and returned the "near-do-well" photons to the source from whence they came). This global nature of the process means that time is linked to the first processes that have ever occurred as light from the Big Bang arrives on the earth today ... that photon in the big bang came from a primeval source that "launched" that photon towards a sink that would not exist in the correct time, place and configuration till the instant it was received... Bell violations and "entanglement" from the beginning of the universe till now. This also runs both ways and these "unrequited" sinks are currently interacting with sources in the big bang retro-causally (from a particular point of view) in similar ways that Bell Violations affect the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment and allow events happening "now" to affect events that have happened in the past.. this is the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory in action and verified through the results of current experiments.
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
Sorry no, Good Elf. This is going way too far!

I'll look at the rest of what you said later.
Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:17 am

Re: Can quantum frustration "force" states uncommon in natur

Postby Farsight » Tue May 24, 2011 5:06 am

[quote="Good Elf"]So a lot of events are going on "incompleted"... the emission of a photon in the Big Bang is not an event until it is absorbed in a negotiated sink. Only then is the event complete .... these two entities the sink and the source are then dynamically "joined" in a null geodesic in which the photon has expended no time and has crossed no space as an internal time event. In that intervening 13 Billion years of "external time" and so many light years of intervening space our measurements record only the absorption as an "event". In truth there is just one event where energy is exchanged as a "packet" from source to sink "instantly" in it's own internal frame common to both the sink and the source. These two entities have been in intimate communication since the "Big Bang" through entanglement (a Bell Violation). So in some respect every event that has ever occurred in the realm of Quantum Electrodynamics which is almost everything of interest to humans except gravity.... exist in timelike looped entities whose properties may be considered as being entirely "affine". Even the disintegration of atoms may be reversed affinely provided that the observers and their experiments are all equally timelike affine connected. We do not see "perfect" time symmetry but this is because we may be entirely affinely linked to the events.
This is way too much of a speculative stretch, Good Elf. A photon is emitted into space, thirteen billion light years later it is absorbed. Asserting that there’s a timeless connection between these two events such that they’re one event is taking you away from hard science into science fiction.

[quote="Good Elf"]What we may understand is if time is reversible then it reverses the events seamlessly everywhere. This erasing of our backtracking of our footsteps in the sands of time will not of itself erase the footsteps that all other entities are making throughout the cosmos all the time. On the other hand an "invisible" background process that allows time to be "rewound" necessarily places the time at a point on that conceptual timeline before the present in a way that not only the events that led back to that former time are erased.... but all events everywhere in the universe are erased to the same state universally that formerly existed.
It isn’t reversible. Things just move in space, there is no forward direction to time, so you can’t “reverse it”. Think about those electron models, and about proton/antiproton annihilation to gamma photons, then think about a hydrogen atom absorbing a photon. In fundamental terms this hydrogen atom is just two photons; when it absorbs an incoming photon the configuration is altered. That’s all that’s happening at the lowest level, the source and the sink are just photons too.

[quote="Good Elf"]The observer and the experiment would be living in that former time... not to mention the rest of the universe as well. A partial process that erased events from an observers timeline would erase our memory of all the "undone events" placing us where we previously were and no wiser for the "look forward" granted into the future. Unfortunately it has not placed everything else where they previously were.
We live now, in this universe of in motion. Even if we could put everything back where it was we’d still be living now in this universe, not on some timeline that is merely conceptual.

[quote="Good Elf"]What we would wish is a process that wound back our events in a way that also automatically wound back all other events seamlessly throughout our universe. This "windback" .... similar to (but conceptually nowhere the same as) winding back a film... would not be noticeable by any observer in the universe since the process of time is not linked through the rate anymore but through the causal connection of events. A comparison would philosophically made to the present state and the observations made everywhere not only on earth but right up to the very boundary of spacetime itself. If "externally observed" what would be noticed is a exact duplication of the position, momentum and energy of all particles and processes in the entire universe matching the state that formerly existed at that point on the timeline in the past (conceptually only).
Yes it would, but this is now science fiction.

[quote="Good Elf"]On the other hand such a process could not be noticed by causally driven beings since the causes subsequent effects would be seamlessly erased and the previous circumstances even in the minds of those observers restored to the former state without any exceptions or additions (but with some important exceptions). It is like stepping a computer back through the steps it had formerly executed and restoring the state to all the previous values and then allowing the "program" to continue execution in the forward direction one step at a time altering nothing from the first run through of these steps. Since "we the observers" are part of this "program" we are unable to record any events to leave any permanent record that would be available as we progress back to the beginning of the experiment's event loop. Not only would the markings in our lab books be erased but also the pencil indentations and even our memory of ever having made them. We could go around this timeloop resetting the eventscape endlessly without ever cottoning on to what is happening and happening and happening ... over and over and over again. The data is available only at the end of the loop and is erased at the beginning of the loop. This is the same story for every event in the universe that has ever happened and will ever happen - at least for conventional timelike loops. “Nature speaks for herself only through the data she willingly gives up.”
You’ve taken a wisp of scientific evidence from the delayed choice quantum eraser and built it up into something that’s very speculative. I can’t empathise with it I’m afraid.

[quote="Good Elf"]A electron in a mirror is not a positron, you have changed charge and parity but not time.
True. You have to change the direction of the arrowheads.

[quote="Good Elf"]The positron is an event in which time is reversed relative to the external universe but that positron is not reversing external time for the universe it is reversing internal time only for the positronThere is no internal time. Light moves, it doesn’t experience any time, and whether it moves rotationally with a compound spin in one chirality or the other, it doesn’t matter.

[quote="Good Elf"]In that sense the positron is time traveling since it's internal clock is being reset ... it is younger... but the universe has continued on... it is older.Younger and older are aspects of a time usually measured on a clock. If you measure your age with a clock going backwards you don’t get younger, and nor does the clock.

[quote="Good Elf"]This phenomenon is well understood as the Quantum Zeno Effect... reading data (with the appropriate quantum phase in time) of an executing quantum event resets the event internally.. in this way the decaying quantum state may be forestalled from decay/decoherence.It’s just an ongoing interaction. Keep interacting with a spinning plate and it doesn’t fall off its stick.

[quote="Good Elf"]As in relativity we can see the rate and directions of time may be changed but leads to no universal phenomena of time travel.It’s just a rate of motion or change. There’s no rate of time per se, and no direction to it, and definitely no time travel.

[quote="Good Elf"]Still the idea is highly instructive ... that is Feynman-Stueckelberg Time Travel of the electron while the external universe still is progressing forward along a separate relative timeline... it is just the "electron's time" that is temporarily reversed direction (as a positron) and forming a loop in time. As you see "sub-atomic time" is clearly not the same as the external time. In experiments we assume this "sub-atomic time" is the same as external time with corrections to it due to Relativity... it is clearly more complicated than that.I’m a Feynman fan, Good Elf, but this aspect of his work is wrong.

[quote="Good Elf"]I am happy you are happy with this concept. You have mentioned elsewhere before that time is like another dimension in space...It’s very different, I say time is an emergent phenomena, resulting from motion through space. You can’t travel through it, either forwards or backwards.

[quote="Good Elf"]without becoming too hopeful about this approach consider all time and space being a covariant matrix with respect to Relativity such that a step along the direction of a time axis involves a number of events whose reversibility is usually considered impossible. My suggestion is a step "back" along the time line....I’m sorry John, but this is science fiction. Things move, **** happens, there is no stepping back and forth along a timeline that isn’t actually there.

[quote="Good Elf"]Relativity "allows" the elapsed time for both parties to not be "matched" and externally "observed" if the velocity is sufficiently great so the effects of Relativity are seen on the forward direction of the light cone as time dilation and length contraction (rotations on the lightcone wall).In similar vein there is no forward direction to a light cone. It’s another abstract thing, and underneath it all is light moving through space. We can allow for photons becoming entangled and for internal events to occur instantly, but when they don’t there’s still no forward or backward direction.

[quote="Good Elf"]This "loop" takes the traveler into the past but erases the travelers memory of HIS past to enable the traveler to experience all the events in his/her immediate future all over again "anew". In a similar way in that "rewound past" the observer making observations has to redo them over again when the loop is once again advancing in time. I propose a somewhat new process based on these concepts of closed timelike loops within events which does not involve non-covariant processes and the process becomes entirely invisible to all observers while retaining Feynman's Path Integral Methods (which is truly time symmetric). What this means is the paths like vectors +A and -B and also +C become the same path (or just one path). I also suggest to make this occur all other paths in the universe "do the same" to preserve the affine state of this transformation. Time would be just like the extra dimensions of space where a process of moving between events becomes completely affinely connected paying no recognizance to time but only allowing a remembrance and a record of time afforded by the local "eventscape" observed by the wandering process. This reduces to one form of time travel to a completely affine process of sequences of unrecordable events on the backward loop and with recorded events only on the forward loops. The only evidence of this is through observance of the other processes we have discovered in our Physics which agree with this interpretation. This is in accord with Special Relativity and also allows for moving both forward and back along timelines.

[quote="Good Elf"]Sorry about this... it is very long... take as long as you like thinking about it. Once over this "conceptual hurdle" the rest will "fall into place". There are other less natural "time travel" scenarios. Some of these involve "QED Frustration".It is too long, Good Elf. And I’m going to spit this out: you’ve built a tower of speculation out of a wisp of scientific evidence and a conceptual misunderstanding of time here. Sorry.
Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:17 am

Re: Can quantum frustration "force" states uncommon in natur

Postby Good Elf » Wed May 25, 2011 3:39 pm

Hi Farsight,

Farsight wrote:It is too long, Good Elf. And I’m going to spit this out: you’ve built a tower of speculation out of a wisp of scientific evidence and a conceptual misunderstanding of time here. Sorry.
Naturally I disagree but my post was too long and rambling. I will also discontinue.

Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle
User avatar
Good Elf
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Return to Quantum Mechanics and Particles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests