Graviphoton Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Riding the time waves (separate essay) Abstract This is an essay evolved from my spacetime theory, essay one. My premise, is that the information in the subliminal realm of consciousness, which I define as being the same thing as the proposed ‘’Imaginal Realm Model,’’ of quantum physics, have a velocity of v>c. Wiki, an on-line source of information states: ‘’ Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light.’’ wiki The velocity of a wave, can be defined many ways, and they are by theory found to be at different speeds. What I am interested in, is the speeds of the Echo Wave and the Offer Waves velocity, upon a measurement made in real time. (Such superluminal postulations even lead some to believe this is how to solve the spooky action at a distance, because information moves faster than light, or at least, certain information travels faster than light. You must not mistake however, wave velocities referring to something like a photon, except for under very special conditions… for instance, Hawking can make a photon move at superluminal speeds for a short time using the uncertainty principle. But I am not talking about radiation here. I am talking about totally ethereal information, phantom of waves of information that whiz past us faster than light, and we are non-the-wiser. We had [math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’))[/math] Where the absolute square created a reference between the internal and external world, and I described the internal world as having a reference to the internal world. But by treating t and t’ as conjugates that gave a real value, it opened the door of allowing an exchange of information: A wave undulating through the imaginal realm, that meets with its conjugate in real time. So the observations we make in everyday life might even be creating the world around us. Many take the idea seriously, such as Dr Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation. Dr Wolf has also promoted the use of the Delayed-Choice Experiment as evidence of backwards-through-time traveling waves. Using the TI, he explains that reality could be built up on superluminal waves traveling through time in a sinusoidal manner. First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector | S > that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state: [math]|O(t, 1) >[/math] Which then moves to the future: t >1 When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time [math]<E(t, 2)|[/math] The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude: [math]<E(t,1)|O(t,2)>[/math] The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows. This cannot be applied to a multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the Everett Interpretation and the Existential Interpretation, because there is no collapse of the wave function. These waves will move in a sinusoidal manner, it can be seen, to not only move forward in a smooth curve of probability in the positive time direction along an axis, let’s call axis y, and then find itself back at its original starting point, by moving back through the negative time direction. To complete a cycle, such as an Offer Wave moving into the future state, and then back again, the wave now have a displacement on angular frequency w to the magnitude of [math]2\pi,radians[/math]. You can also work out that you can express such a wave traveling in the form of, noting though that [math]A_{0}[/math] is the amplitude as the maximum function of the equation: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx -wt)[/math] To express this wave in the positive time negative direction, we can state: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx + wt)[/math] This should be a firm start to set off any notion of superluminal waves in the form of Echo and Offer Waves operating and undulating the spacetime fabric. In a sense, this is information to be able to move through space, requires to be somehow a part of the vacuum itself, and in reflection, this MUST mean that the vacuum does store and transfer information. The function [math]<E(t,1)|[/math] and [math]|(t,2)O>[/math], upon squaring [math]<E(t,1)|(t,2)O>[/math] is the same as the operation: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx -wt)[/math] x [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx + wt)[/math] But much more simpler, and the result is a real time event, between an observer, and the observed system. It seems that these waves are produced from a field of probability that surrounds the observer, and excites the ethereal wave to oscillate through time, and meet up with its conjugate partner. If the mind is time, as some theories suggest, then it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine a time wave being produced by the mind, undulating spacetime. Fingers crossed… Edited June 9, 2008 by Graviphoton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 All experimental evidence has shown that information cannot travel faster than c, to disagree with this you need experimental evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 I disagree. Not ALL experimental evidence has shown this. What about the transaction of information between two photons that occur instantaneously at a hypothetical 5 billion-light year distance? This is an incomplete problem, and common sense would require either hidden variables, or some kind of notion that not all information moves at v<c or v=c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 The key word in your post seems to be "hypothetical," which is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I disagree. Not ALL experimental evidence has shown this. What about the transaction of information between two photons that occur instantaneously at a hypothetical 5 billion-light year distance? This is an incomplete problem, and common sense would require either hidden variables, or some kind of notion that not all information moves at v<c or v=c. I think you're talking about entanglement? And it's a misunderstanding in popular media of the real science. Sorry. Oh and as iNow says, you say hypothetical, that's not experimental evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 Wrong. Evidence is some work that may contribute to a proof of a theory. Indeed, if it is proven, all the evidence is weighed up. Hypothetical is just a statement, saying it is an incomplete theory, which i have already stated. And it's not actually a misconception of science media. Dr Goswami, Penrose, Wolf among other scientists, take the notion of faster-than-light information seriously, and is even the cornerstone of time waves in the famous and highly regarded, 'Transactional Interpretation.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 *sighs* It has been shown in many experiments that no matter what trick you play you can't get information faster than light... it sucks, but it's the truth... And if you look at what I said, I explicitly asked for experimental evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 Yes, well that maybe because these superluminal time waves i speak of, are unique, when concerning non-local effects. Perhaps this is the only type of wave under such a mechanism allows it move so. There was, indirect experimental evidence, such as quantum entanglement at very massive distances found in mathematical solutions of spin-singlets. Sorry, my computer is slow tonight... anyway... what else would be proposed? As i believe, hidden variables are considered, very uncertain to be correct, so what are we implying? That no matter what the distance between the two photons, they are essentially the same? For that to be remotely true, distance can't exist... which is proposterous. Not only that, but the two obvious photons produced from a single source, would need to be in definition, really only one photon. And, if the resolution is made at spooky distance, then thissurely is evidence alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Quantum entanglement is not about information transfer, no information is moved when you measure one entangled particle. This is the common misconception in popSci that I'm talking about. Local hidden variables have been shown to be invalid (Bell's experiment), non-local the jury is still out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 Not about information transfer, that was, until the entanglement was discovered mathematically. Einstein actually used the premise of a local universe to explain non-superluminal information, did you know? Non-local the jury is still out? I recently have been speculating the universe could be both, local and non. This has allowed scientists to speculate these wave v>c, we call Echo and Offer State Vectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 non-local hidden variables I mean... There's no evidence for or against them really... It's an unanswered question. And no entanglement is not about information transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 (edited) Entanglement can be seen as an evidence of superluminal waves of information. It stands to reason as an evidence, since such concepts are used daily in physics. [quant-ph/0702208] A proposed superluminal S-field mediating ...A proposed superluminal S-field mediating quantum entanglement ... as we would expect for a field that would impart entanglement related information. ... arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702208 - 5k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] Proposed experiment on the continuity of quantum entanglementFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML (Holland [4], p. 476). On the other hand, there are many reports. arguing against superluminal information. transmission through quantum entanglement by ... arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405155v1.pdf - Similar pages And you can't say ''no information is moved.'' A peice of information could whiz right round the universe which has a radius of [math]10^{26}[/math], and still reach its destination, well before we (even if we could) measure any movement at all. Edited June 9, 2008 by Graviphoton multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 No information is moved in quantum entanglement. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/?35,51,16,15,09,2007 Enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Enjoy this then EntanglementThe essence of quantum entanglement (as exhibited in things like EPR ... it remains true that no superluminal transfer of information is implied. ... http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath174.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages ''Nevertheless, it remains true that no superluminal transfer of information is implied. This is actually one of the most interesting features of this analysis, because it shows that in some circumstances our classical understanding demands that superluminal communication "must have occurred" in order to give the observed results, even though in fact there is no *effective* transfer of information at all. See Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorem for a more detailed discussion of these issues.'' Which seems to be circular logic. Just because it is not implied, does not mean it cannot be implied. Bell's Theorem only holds true if the universe is non-local, and believe it or not, there is no |absolute| proof to suggest it is. So the theory stands. So by definition also, you are perhaps proposing the advanced mathematical Transactional interpretation is fundamentally wrong about its superluminal waves of information? Also, which comes to mind, is information tunelling. A real used premise in physics. If a photon can tunel through spacetime moving at superluminal speeds, then so must the notion of innformation tunneling processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Enjoy this then EntanglementThe essence of quantum entanglement (as exhibited in things like EPR ... it remains true that no superluminal transfer of information is implied. ... http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath174.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages ''Nevertheless, it remains true that no superluminal transfer of information is implied. This is actually one of the most interesting features of this analysis, because it shows that in some circumstances our classical understanding demands that superluminal communication "must have occurred" in order to give the observed results, even though in fact there is no *effective* transfer of information at all. See Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorem for a more detailed discussion of these issues.'' Which seems to be circular logic. Just because it is not implied, does not mean it cannot be implied. Bell's Theorem only holds true if the universe is non-local, and believe it or not, there is no |absolute| proof to suggest it is. So the theory stands. You're going against the thoughts of most of the worlds physicists here... So by definition also, you are perhaps proposing the advanced mathematical Transactional interpretation is fundamentally wrong about its superluminal waves of information? Also, which comes to mind, is information tunelling. A real used premise in physics. If a photon can tunel through spacetime moving at superluminal speeds, then so must the notion of innformation tunneling processes. Can you cite this last claim? It's not something I'm familiar with off the top of my head, and neither is the QM text book, which is one of my fav physics books sat next to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Cites, sure Aharonov, Y., D.Z. Albert, and S.S. D'Amato. 1985. Multiple-time properties of quantum-mechanical systems. In Physical Review D 32:1975-1984. Aharonov, Y., D. Albert, A. Casher, and L. Vaidman. 1987. Surprising Quantum Effects. In Phys. Lett. A. 124:199-203. Aharonov, Y. and. L. Vaidman. 1990. Properties of a quantum system during the time interval between two measurements. In Physical Review A 41:11-20. Bergenheim, M., H. Johansson, B. Granlund, and J. Pedersen. 1996. Experimental Evidence for a Synchronization of sensory Information to Conscious Experience. In Toward a Scientific Basis for Consciousness. S. R. Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak. and A. C. Scott. (Eds.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 303-310. Cramer, J. G. 1983. Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. In Physical Review D 22:362-376. Cramer, J. G. 1986. Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Reviews of Modern Physics 58:647-687. Libet, B., E. W. Wright, B. Feinstein, and D. K. PearlK. 1979. Subjective Referral of the Timing for a Conscious Sensory Experience. In Brain 102:193-224. Penrose, R. 1994. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 387. Oh the tunelling? You will find reference to that in: ''Parallel Universes, 1985'' Fred Wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Bleh after falling through the universities library system I get to 1995 - present for phy lett A, will look for the others tomorrow... Well I just grabbed... Aharonov, Y. and. L. Vaidman. 1990. Properties of a quantum system during the time interval between two measurements. In Physical Review A 41:11-20. I'll see what it says Well it actually says "it seems to be superluminal" and then goes on to show how this is not infact the case when you take into account the face the eigenvalues of the spin is limited by N (the number of things in the ensemble). The other paradox it discusses is also solved.. So again we're back to the drawing board on superluminal stuff... Would you like me to try and find the other references? Although after that not sure I cba.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Agreed, finally. The superluminal phase of velocities and signals, of certain types, cannot be concluded evidently to move at superluminal speeds or not, as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Urmmm what I said it says in no way states I was wrong... you know that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Yes, in much the same sense it states i am not necesserily wrong either. In fact, i consider this: Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAs with the Alcubierre drive, travelers moving through the wormhole would not locally move faster than light which travels through the wormhole alongside ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light_travel - 100k - Cached - Similar pages Take a leap into hyperspace - fundamentals - 05 January 2006 - New ...5 Jan 2006 ... New Scientist Space uncovers the curious tale of the rocket driven ... the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. ... space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages Faster than the speed of light - 01 April 1995 - New ScientistSo if light can travel faster than light, shouldn't it be possible to send .... The angles of incidence for both photon tracks are arranged to be the same, ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619714.200-faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html - 64k - Cached - Similar pages As a proof that quantum information moves superluminal. If a photon by terminology is also a unit of information, then these sources state a proof that certain information DOES TRAVEL FASTER THAN C, showing Einstein to be wrong again, this time not only about entanglement, but also the fact information can and does. Remember also, entanglement is not proof information cannot, because it relies on the notion that the universe in non-local, and there is no theory suggesting it can't be non-local as well as local. It also depends on the new physics, providingnew answers, which would make Bell's theorem antiquated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 *sigh* yeah just because something's incomplete it must be wrong... None of the references I read from your first lot supported you at all though. Science requires evidence, without it things are meaningless. ALL experiments to date have shown that information does not travel faster than c. Can you get the specific peer reviewed references that the relevant bits of the wp page and newsci articles are based on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Well i disagree, and i think we should leave it it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Good good, disagree all you like, doesn't stop you being wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Overconfidence can be a weakness. I hold that you are wrong, but i am still open to the possibility you could be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Yup. Troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now