Closed-Timelike-Curves

Now... let's albe intelligent about this. I have a few questions to see if any has understood me properly.

1. Do you understand by my linking of quantum cosmology and timelike-curves?

2. Has anyone understood where i am going with retrocausality?

3. Does anyone see how this interpretation could go against the Multiple Universe Theory, and why?
 
You can argue with Dr. Wolf, but you can't argue with the fact that the observer effect is:

1/ The collapse of something which is ghostly in appearance to something with a definate worldline.
 
Which is more real? Something in a superpositioned state, or something collapsed with a definate value of 1.
 
Which is more real? Something in a superpositioned state, or something collapsed with a definate value of 1. Things that are found with values with 50/50 are not exactly real. Therego, things reduced to a value of 1, is more real. This is acheived through observation on a physical system.
 
Reiku I'm not arguing about wave-function collapse, I'm arguing about your definition of observer. And in the three posts above, you're skirting the issue.

If your definition of observer is not important, i.e. you don't use the fact that you need conscious observers in the future, then why not say so and we can move on.
 
How difficult then is it to understand, an observer that is capable to collapse the wave function? Dr Hawking even reminds us that before the first observer, the universe is found to be in a terribly mixed state.

The definition is, as found is very important. It is a system, capable of analysing a matter to reduce it to a single value - the leading and contending theory right now, is that only observers aware of what they are observing can do such a thing. Does this help?
 
Yes. This is called decoherence Ben. What is your point? Because physicists all around the world knew that decoherence couldn't answer for everything solid.
 
I guess I should have read past the first paragraph of your second long post.

Something more can be seen in this though. The human mind, according to my theory, and understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation would not allow us to know that the plate had reassembled on the table. Why? Because one must assume that even ‘’secret knowledge,’’ or personal knowledge is also dragged along with the matter…

See this thread.

JamesR said:
5. Threads which are blatantly unscientific, which push ideas which are unfalsifiable (at least in principle), will be immediately moved to the Psuedoscience forum. Ideas which have been widely rebutted elsewhere, such as "pyramid power", alien visitations and so on, will be moved, as will discussions which are primarily religious in nature.

Reiku---

I'm going to bed now, but it looks to me like this thread should be moved.
 
Take this for an example.

In the beginning of cosmological theories, we started the universe around the size of a blood cell. This turned out to be, even though as small as it was, was still far too big to reconcile the background temperatures, in its homogenous nature.

Thergo we started it off smaller, about the radius of a proton. However, we now know that some starting conditions wouldn't be wiped out completely... so we reverted to multiple universe theory... saying that the wave function of possibilities was in fact real probabilities acted out in a different universe.
 
Yes. This is called decoherence Ben. What is your point? Because physicists all around the world knew that decoherence couldn't answer for everything solid.

The point is that it doesn't require an intelligent observer...
 
If you move it, i'll report you. I know this is all scientifically accurate. Even someone without a degree could tell that obvious fact. I still have three other papers to submit, so your not exactly giving me a chance at all.

Go to bed please. Wake up in a better mood to.
 
The point is that it doesn't require an intelligent observer...

You're right. Not each and every collapse requires an observer. This is well known. But on large scales, we are required. I'll post a comment on this BY DR. WOLF.
 
Last edited:
A dog cannot collapse an atom to a single state - we can - hence the intelligent part. Now stop this B. You are trolling all of this hard work.
 
How difficult then is it to understand, an observer that is capable to collapse the wave function? Dr Hawking even reminds us that before the first observer, the universe is found to be in a terribly mixed state.
If the universe was in such a terribly mixed state, where did the first observer come from?
The definition is, as found is very important. It is a system, capable of analysing a matter to reduce it to a single value - the leading and contending theory right now, is that only observers aware of what they are observing can do such a thing. Does this help?
No, the definition is arbitrary and antropocentric. Matter exists in the same states all over the universe even where there are no intelligent observers.
 
(2INQIUS) - I'll answer your question very soon.

Cause and Effect, or the Effect Causes the Cause

In this section, I want to explore the foundation of how macroscopic objects capable of knowing their surrounding (us) is not an intrinsic direction at all. In fact, the very rise of macroscopic intelligence does indeed come around through tiny objects that defy a directionality in compared with what we call ‘’forward time flow.’’
The retrocausality is best described as what can inexorably happen in the future affects what we call the present, and what we call the present can indeed affect the past…

Such affects don’t defy the rules of physics… in fact, they SHOULD be intrinsic properties happening all the time, as I have explained so far. What we call the past, might be a loop in time, or a ‘’time loop,’’ which confines everything within its own existence. The past can therefore be the future, as much as the future can be the past; that intrical Gordian’s knot I spoke of.

It actually allows ‘’things’’ – whether that be of an energetic or even a corporeal nature can move back through time… but for this to be possible, we need to make sure the mass is imaginary…
Such matter is called tachyonic in nature, but as I have shown, tachyonic doesn’t necessarily mean a particle traveling constant at v>c… instead, it can mean for a very short period, that a particle can travel at superluminal speeds… such as a photon. If the universe can be seen as a single particle, then we might assume it has affects and a velocity which can travel at faster-than-light speeds… And if this is true, and this is purely speculation at my own accord, might the accelerated universe be a product of an eventual time-curve? Just a thought…

According to Dr. Cramer and his Transactional Interpretation, such backwards through time-travel is very possible. In his theory, there is two types of time waves. A time wave that moves forward in time, called an ‘’Offer Wave,’’ and an ‘’Echo Wave’’ which moves back in time.
Every time an observation is made in the present, he predicts that these two waves, one coming from the past, and another moving back from the future meet up in the present… the original wave, the Echo Wave, meets up with its complex-conjugate, and they multiply. The creation is said to be a collapse in the wave function… when a superpositional system is reduced to a single value which equals exactly 1.

What are these waves?
According to this very smart physicist, they are in fact time waves. They move at superluminal speeds, and because of this, they can travel freely throughout the time dimension, spending very little time in real time.
These waves create everything solid and defined. They are the result of everything we call ‘’tangible,’’ and they might even give rise to consciousness itself, according to Dr. Wolf and many other psychophysicists.

Retrocausality can now play a new part in all of this… According to one specific interpretation of relativity, ‘’All Time’’ or all that is past, present and future, in fact all happens in one go…!! Why?
This is because time is not fixed. The psychological arrow shows us that we have a definite position during the present, and creates the true illusion that we are living in only one present time. In other words, the past and the future are happening right now! This is very difficult to imagine, but it has been found to best analyzed by saying that the human consciousness creates this defined existence here and now, and without it, time as we know it would all happen in one swift go!

Again… hence… time is only relative to the observer… Without the observer, the past and future, including the present, are all present. This is what allows time travel and superluminal speeds to exist… but this might not be true for macroscopic systems, even though they are themselves made up by systems that seem to defy the normal macroscopic constant of cause and effect. Instead, what we call normal procedure of cause and effect, is an effect, of an effect before the cause.
 
If the universe was in such a terribly mixed state, where did the first observer come from?

No, the definition is arbitrary and antropocentric. Matter exists in the same states all over the universe even where there are no intelligent observers.


1. Your first quest.

The first observer is the first homosapian, or intelligent creature that arose from the depths of evolution.

2. Your second quest.

Not actually true at all. Matter is found to be affected by the observations we make today. This is the truth of the Transactional Interpretation. If you argue this, i cannot help you. It would be nothing more than a dogmatic view.
 
There is in short, nothing of an anthropecentric vision in all of this, other than what we do today, defines exact qualities such as, the radius of the early universe. I have definate proof this is what is expected from modern physics.
 
I now have two more papers to submit. If you deny the work i show, you simply deny basic physics... I'll leave you all to have the wisdom that friggin begs the question of a restrocausal universe.
 
Back
Top