[sciborg2]

 Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

Of course, without experimental verification, Page and Wootter’s ideas are little more than a philosophical curiosity. And since it is never possible to have an observer outside the universe, there seemed little chance of ever testing the idea.

Until now.

My notes:

If the universe is static from the outside, then it's like an object frozen? Like if someone is in another universe and could see ours? They'd see a giant (infinite?) black sphere?

Why is there a comprehensible past going into the present and then future if everything that happened already happened the instant the universe was made?

=-=-=

Next Up: Non-Locality? WTF?

[The Great Scald]

How does the article deal with the emergence of living organisms (which would "cause" time to emerge, according to them) on the planet? I'm pretty sure the universe wasn't in a constant stasis before the earliest forms of life came around. (And how would they evolve, in an universe where time stands still and nothing happens?)

Interesting article, though. Reminds me of Ray Brassier (author of "Nihil Unbound") who argues that entropy is the ultimate fate of everything, and that time as we know it doesn't "really" exist at a quantum level, so in reality everything is dead already.

[sciborg2]

Interesting article, though. Reminds me of Ray Brassier (author of "Nihil Unbound") who argues that entropy is the ultimate fate of everything, and that time as we know it doesn't "really" exist at a quantum level, so in reality everything is dead already.

That doesn't really make sense AFAIK. Did he talk to physicists before making that claim?

Seems to me that the universe being timeless is not the same thing as saying the universe has already experienced Heat Death. That feels forced to me.

[Kellais]

I like those kind of mind-games. On the other hand, they are also very frustrating... lol . As we can never hope to prove that an outside observer would see a static universe.
On the other hand, isn't it possible that it just "moves" so slowly for someone outside, that it seems static? I mean, and i know it is a very dumb example, flies see time much slower than we do...that is why you almost never get them Maybe it is kind of that way...a subjective perception that has nothing to do with what is going on in reality (or at least not as much as those guys would like and i do know that reality is also kind of a problematic term...at least on a Bakker-Geek-Forum like this  ).

Anyway...i guess i should have taken theoretical physics as my side-subject instead of geography...so many mindboggling topics.

[sciborg2]

How does the article deal with the emergence of living organisms (which would "cause" time to emerge, according to them) on the planet? I'm pretty sure the universe wasn't in a constant stasis before the earliest forms of life came around. (And how would they evolve, in an universe where time stands still and nothing happens?)

This is the thing that bothers me. It just seems weird that life is so dependent on the past influencing present relationship.

If time is illusory to the outside observer, then it's like the universe came into being all at once. But why would such a 4-D(+?) universe have 3-D slices which follow each other coherently?

It's like a 2-D universe, with each moment of time stacked on the last to get a 3-D object. But if a 3-D block appears all at once, why would anyone expect horizontal slices to create cohesive a 2-D animation?

[Cüréthañ]

An outside observer is really a bit of a oxymoron.  If you note the experiment, the observer has only access to photons related to the other system.  It is not actually able to perceive the system itself.  So they are doing this via second order logic.  The observer cannot, therefore, actually observe time within the system.  Basically, it can only infer a the universe as existing in a quantum system.  The photons provide the vector, I think.

I suggest you have a bit of a look at self organising systems, sci.

Auriga, I would suggest you look at some of the associated research I mentioned in the other thread.
The implication on 'life' (from associated theoretical research) is that it is merely one form of consciousness, which, in itself, is a requisite quantum function of collapsing probability fields in order to produce time.  For example; without an observer, Schrodinger's cat will never resolve as live or dead.

[Callan S.]

Why is there a comprehensible past going into the present and then future if everything that happened already happened the instant the universe was made?

I consider such notions BS for the time being. With A that make B happen that makes C happen, you cannot render B or C until you have rendered A. You can't figure out the latter part of an equation before you have figured the first part.

Therefore there is the the very edge of rendering in the universe where B was derived from A, then C derived from B. All one at a time, one after each other - the very fundiment of time.

Maybe such a rendering could happen for the outside observer at a far faster rate than it appears to us. But it still took time. Sequential events.

Otherwise how do you work out C before you've worked out B?

[Callan S.]

How does the article deal with the emergence of living organisms (which would "cause" time to emerge, according to them) on the planet? I'm pretty sure the universe wasn't in a constant stasis before the earliest forms of life came around. (And how would they evolve, in an universe where time stands still and nothing happens?)

You know cartoon flip books. How on each page the character is static, yet when you flip through them it moves?

That's how a universe can both move and be still at the same time.

You might be looking at the top most layers of the flip book, but the bottom ones remain static and still. Or vise versa, the bottom moves and the top remaining still until flipped.

Organisms don't cause time to emerge - it's just that the later pages are deterministically related to the former pages.

[Cüréthañ]

Otherwise how do you work out C before you've worked out B?

That is second order logic.  If A>B and B>C then A>C.

[sciborg2]

You know cartoon flip books. How on each page the character is static, yet when you flip through them it moves?

That's how a universe can both move and be still at the same time.

But the thing is that flip book has to exist all at once as 3-D block, where the 2-D pages are really slices. Why would [you] expect to find a flip book in the block?

I don't think there's an easy way to get around the weirdness of static vs non-static being dependent on external or internal observation.

[Callan S.]

Otherwise how do you work out C before you've worked out B?

That is second order logic.  If A>B and B>C then A>C.

I don't understand? That's not giving a result, as I read it, it's just saying A is somewhere above C - it could be 0.00001 above or 100000 above. Things seem a bit more rendered than that in this universe?

[Callan S.]

You know cartoon flip books. How on each page the character is static, yet when you flip through them it moves?

That's how a universe can both move and be still at the same time.

But the thing is that flip book has to exist all at once as 3-D block, where the 2-D pages are really slices. Why would [you] expect to find a flip book in the block?

I kept up with you up to the thin slices (though I disagree - no, those pages are 3D objects. Universes parked next to each other). I don't understand the flip book IN the block part - you seem to have put the flip book inside the concept, instead of being the encompassing concept? Does blocks parked next to each other help answer your question (atleast answer it as in making clear what the idea behind my speculation is)?

[Cüréthañ]

You can read the '>' signs anyway you like Callan, they serve only to indicate that there is a relationship between the variables.  The variables themselves don't need values to have a logical relationship.  You should delve further into formal logic, it is very handy for programming.

[Callan S.]

Barring the use of random number generators, programming is all about logical relationships.

Understanding the general spectrum of inputs or outputs you might get is part of it - but if they've called that 'formal' logic, they are flattering themselves (or when they say formal they don't mean as formal as I'm hearing - they didn't say emperic logic, after all, I guess). More like kludge logic.

[Cüréthañ]

I've not heard of emperic logic, but I think I kind of get your gripe.  Like I said, I think it's a pretty bad analogy.
You can probably blame Aristotle for formal logic though.