PART ONE
IN A MORE verbal approach, these axioms lead to resonably acceptable models of how informaton in a black hole that, instead of mangling the information past the event horizon and then tunnelling the information through the black holes barrier and back into the spacetime we are usually aquainted with, i see my model as one far more simplistic but certainly not as elegant.
I stated:
1. Information between universes with local QD's are the most probable universes for information exchange.
This means that information can be retained within a black holes (and maybe beyond into parallel unuierses) without any tunnelling effect occuring in a lame opportunity to replace this valuable information, the fact of the matter is, is that the probabilities retaining and sustaining this world act in accordance to these rules which we call conservation. It also plays a most pivotal part in where there is another universe, so identical to ours, that an exact equivalent of this energy is finding its way into our ground state universe in accordance to balancing the information, in an attemt not to cause any contradictory, oxymoronic paradoxes.
I also said:
3. Shared information is a synonymous process between two parallel universes to keep a net-balance.
This means in short that the most probable universes to share energy equally are not only both in their ground state, but also one which is consistently shared by informaton by informaton. (Informatons here are simply beng used as a visual blueprint to which is desired to be mentally-percepted. They could be seen as physical conduits for information ''itself'', but more intuitively, it seems more appropriate to think that all particles contain the same ability to share information, such as a photon energy, being shared between two atoms possessing angular momentum. Exchange of energy does not occur otherwise).
So if Information Peice A changed into configurating $$|\psi>$$ a structure with such a representation, has no absolute state until the amplitude of the system is measured. In this case, Information Peice A changed into an Information Peice B. These are considered as symbolized as being space points.
So from A to B, there must be a complemetarity if their observables are invariant with each other. So $$\int <\psi|\psi>=1$$. Any information therefore, between one point and another is wayward when trying to contemplate the order of things without falling upon the theory of predeterminism, slave to its logic.
PART TWO
I MIGHT AS far to go to say the universe has a state vector over all the universes $$<0>$$ meaning that the finite model of universes has a respective wave function $$\psi$$ governing its probability smear of information. Interpreting the usual equations, in respect of talking the integral of this respective wave function $$\psi$$ Should lead to a probabilty density. The ampitude of the frequency can be seen as a shadow to the formation of the universe itself.
PART THREE
THE PROBABILITY DENSITY[/b] of these states evolve into [*], however, without imposing a time-dependancy (Were for instance $$\psi$$ was not a function of $$t$$, a problem arises in physics about when the value was originally measured, which kind of dilluted the paranaoia of beleiving that time coud not be somehow important when we make our measurements.
[*] The mathematics which describes the evolution of the state of a system is almost certainly a postulate of quantum mechanics according to evolution equation of the schordinger equation:
$$\hat{H}|\psi>=i\hbar \partial_{t}|\psi>$$
In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian operator is self-adjoint so it's diagonalisable and all its eigenvalues are real. There is always atleast one family of orthogonal states $$|\phi_n>$$ that span the state space:
$$\hat{H}|\psi_n>=E_n|\phi_n>$$
and the state $$|\phi_n>$$ evolves as:
$$|\phi_n(t)>=e^{-i \omega_{n}t|\phi_n>$$
These are called time-dependant evolutions of the schrodinger equation. If we eleiminate the use for time we find an equation called the Wheeler de Witt equation which was designed to express a universe which had no motion, therefore, no change in energy states. Fotini Markopoulou pointed out that this remarkable prediction of relativity can be pretty much summed up as something about observers being inside the universe. The equations where they stand are completely behond comprehension, yes these things we do not understand, seems to be, the only theories which will lead us somewhat further towards the truth.
Taking Wigners Friend's Paradox seriously, just as many have before me, it is not a matter where all conscious beings on the earth, nearly a 7 billion toll count of souls, all are somehow intrconnected to some single unified field of cosmic mind, which three scientists independantly came to the consclusion to, but rathar, we have unique roles in this eternal present.
PART FOUR
Time; the imaginary vector of space
WHEN RELATIVITY WAS[/b] formulated by Einstein, it seemed that the great manifold of spacetime was intertwined with the presence of matter. In fact, according to Fred Alan Wolf [2] who i have had the pleasure of talking to a few times in brief conversations, that you cannot have a spacetime with matter or energy. In fact the union of space and time was but one of the remarkable features, but generally-speaking, is incomplete. The truth of the matter is, is that spacetime really becomes space-time-matter-energy. If you remove any of these quantities, you cannot have the rest!
It is possible to state that space itself (which must include time according to relative standards) that the geometry of space is actually an emergent organization of matter itself. If we had what was initially called ''a pure gravity solution'' [3] to the universe, then what geometry would exist? You would have no phyical objects that would define such a geometry, so it seems that by reasonable conclusion that the whenever matter ''appears'' from the vacuum, is when the vacuum itself has a geometry. In a pure gravity solutioned universe, time does not exist, due to mathematical diffeomorphisms.
But wait a minute! Did i not say that you must involve space-time-matter-energy as a single form in which if any of them where to be removed, the rest would follow? It is true and so a pure gravity solution cannot be right, and therefore, one can proove that the idea of ''timelessness'' in physics is purely obsurd, which means that there is some kind of conceptual error, evolved itself from this dubious paradox. In another sense, one can interpret timelessness as saying that time seems to not exist!
Indeed, many paradoxes can arise from a timeless universe where energy does not change, given in a previous paper i wrote [5], but to take an overview of some of the more interesting points, we will take a look at a famous equation called the Wheeler-de Witt equation, which is given as
$$\hat{H}|\psi>=0 $$
The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts $$\hat{H}$$ and $$\psi$$, which is purely Dirac Notation. The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function [*] (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function $$|\psi>$$ does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.
Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.
Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both. In a better understanding, the Wheeler De-witt equation cannot really have any application to the ''experience of time'', but causes more contradictory problems for a model which may come to describe the human observer.
If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’
So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe F and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.
The point of this, is that on a global scale, it could easily be shown that everything may as well be determined (from the universes point of view) since internal change never happens.
It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer! This means that not only do our experience of time make such a thing real, but it is also a local phenomena. There may even not be such a thing as a non-local time - nor may we find that time on geometrical scales exists. In truth, recent evidence seems to be showing us that time is really ''events of starts and stops'' - not a flow to time at all. Even though our experience is local, we can seem to show that whilst that part is fundamentally-true, there is however evidence showing there is no real flow to time [6]; the kind of flow we all inexorably feel.
Now - this takes some discussion. And raises many issues of applicability to the theory, for instance; why should we accept that time has no flow despite our contradictory experience of it, whilst we are to accept that our experience of it is local?
It's not to complicated to issue that the experience of locality is not an illusion, for if it where that in itself would be an ultimate contradiction of our experience. But the sense of flow can be itself an illusion because conciousness does not seem to be itself an extention of time. By this, i mean that the flow of time it not a requisit for a working quantized theory of time, so we can actually remove this aspect and leave the experience of time in this rigid mannor. As explained breifly before, time has been shown that it doesn't have an actual (flow) as to be associated with geometrical events. Instead, these events on a quantization level or also known as ''the fundamental time'' is really fleeting flashes of beginnings and ends.
To provide some analogy to this, you could assume to have a peice of string which has been cut into several fragments. However, placing the fragments together as though it where one peice would cause an illusion for the observer. Instead of fragments, we would observe a linear system. Albiet, its a poor analogy, but one hopefully which would help to grasp the conceptual idea's presented.
So essentially, time is real, but exists at a quantized level. It seems also that time itself, destinguishing from the external time to the time we experience is purely local. But moreover, what is this subliminal experience of time, and does time exist outside of the mind in a quantized form?
We will be touching later more on the world of the quantized and geometrical time.
PART FIVE
No Time, No Energy
ANE SO IMAGINE if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are acting conjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true that neglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally.
In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen, and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable.
But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and time are not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of space itself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to not follow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.
Readings of interest: - http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1 ~ The topic of timelessness was the basis of many essays written in 2008.
What is Life? - Cambridge University press 1959 and also by Schrodinger ''Mind and Matter'' Cambridge University press 1959
PART Six
Solving the immucalate wave function collapsing when two minds or conscious minds are involved, is not really a matter of consciousness at all. Sure we are conscious beings, but if Wigner observed the tiny electron, does it have a spin up or a spin down, was it determined there?
It seems like this can only be the correct way to solve the Wigners Friend Paradox. It does require however that the Wheeler de Witt equation is a special case of an equation, which has some inverse relationships to our specific roles in the spacetime pantomime.
Time is essential to break free the question concerning when the wave function first collapsed, without resorting that there cannot be any more than a single consciousness. It simply requires from now on, that we mathematically work it out logically, which i will show next.
PART SEVEN
SOLVING WHEN THE wave function collapsed when two minds or conscious minds are involved, is not really a matter of consciousness at all. Sure we are conscious beings, but if Wigner observed the tiny electron, does it have a spin up or a spin down, was it determined there?
It seems like this can only be the correct way to solve the Wigners Friend Paradox. It does require however that the Wheeler de Witt equation is a special case of an equation, which has some inverse relationships to our specific roles in the spacetime pantomime.
Time is essential to break free the question concerning when the wave function first collapsed, without resorting that there cannot be any more than a single consciousness. It simply requires from now on, that we mathematically work it out logically, which i will show next.
PART EIGHT
I'LL TYPE THIS the way i would when writing a paper for some thesis on a class project, or something alone those. Without making this too much to handle, i've tried to write it as simplistic as i can, trying to remember the mathematical basis of 1st year university levels.
There are some identities which must be analyzed first:
$$\alpha$$ is the observer/mind of knowing the state
This is a local system, with local effects. Time as well is relative to $$\alpha$$ (the observer), meaning that time is a local phenomenon not of motion, but of human psychology and perception. [1]
If time is then a local phenomenon relative only to an observer (not meaning specifically a human observer, but it can nevertheless) then the wave function governing the object being wathed by our observer whose state includes the perception of time, means that we inexorably impose the need to catalogue the watched object under some vector of time.
To attempt a solution to understand the observer $$\alpha$$ and the observed (or object) $$\beta$$ i came to treating the observer as part of an eigenstate solution:
$$\alpha (\beta)=\beta$$
And $$\beta$$ on the left handside operates as a ''point reference''. The point-reference is allowing the idea of some communicative mathematic between the observed and the object, not only in terms of time coordinates, but also in terms of giving them values which have mathematical properties identical to that of the dirac function. There must be a quantum wave function governing these states and so, i arrived at an expression to hope to satisfy that question:
$$\sum^n_{i=1} | \alpha_i (\beta_i) \psi(t)|^2$$
where $$i=1$$ and $$j=0$$
This simple expression is an amplitude relation. The amplitude itself has the components which represent the observer and the object, but they have subscriptions marked with lowercase $$i$$ and $$j$$. Well, this relationship had to be introduced, or the entire theory would fail.
In other words, i required there to be some kind of interaction between $$\alpha$$ and $$\beta$$. For sucessful interaction, one where the observer and the observed are in visual union, the we require that both $$\alpha_i$$ and $$\beta_i$$ have these commuting values attached.
This means, that in the case originally given: $$\sum^n_{i=1} | \alpha_i (\beta_i) \psi(t) |^2$$ simply leads to a union between $$\alpha_i (\beta_i) $$ but more importantly, it requires that the wave function mut be able to collapse without invoking any problems.
Mathematically-speaking, $$\alpha$$ and $$\beta$$ are members, so they satisfy this following relation:
$$\alpha_i \beta_i = < \alpha_i(\psi(t)) |\beta_i \psi* (t)>$$
If interaction is sucessful, as it almost always is, then using symbol theory to represent what we want, we can state that $$\alpha(\beta) \in \mathbf{R}_4$$, meaning that the observer and the observed exist in the four dimensional spacetime manifold. In theory, if my speculations concluding time has been true, then the identity $$(\beta) \in \mathbf{R}_3$$ is pretty much a safe assumption. Afterall, time seems to be directly linked with our perception of motion. Remove the observer from that equation, and you find that only the objective real dimensions can only exist.
Describing their roles in a more dynamical sense, we evaluate the observer and the observed under linear complex algebra.
$$\zeta_{\alpha} (\psi (t) ) = (\alpha, t)$$
and
$$\zeta_{\beta} (\psi* (t) ) = (\beta, t)$$
This means that these procedures will behave explicitely on time, and the orders of events in such time.
The Proof in a Nutshell
We have observer 1 $$\alpha_1$$ and observer 2 $$\alpha_2$$. Before any resolution is made on a hypothetical object $$\beta$$ there needs
to time coordinates to a measure of both observer 1's and observer 2's actions. Let us speculate, that the subject (observer 1) goes into the lab and measures
the object. Before this action, both $$\alpha_1$$ and $$\alpha_2$$ were in fact, if quantum theory is correct, existed in some state of superpositioning.
This means, they would be mathematically-expressed as: $$\frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{2} = |\psi>$$. As soon as $$\alpha_1$$ interacts with the object
$$\beta$$, this is a function made in some certain time, so a measurement made earlier, according to these equations we would need admit that the wave function
must have been determined upon the first measurement, and any uncertianty after that cannot be anything but paranoid minds. Using linear models in order to follow these
paths to where these idea' first sprung from, it means that a principle had to be introduced to answer why $$(\alpha_i (\beta_i))$$ have the properties they do.
The equation describing a sucessful mapping between an observation and observed system, in a coherent state is:
$$\zeta_{\delta^j_i} |\psi (\Delta t)> = \int |\alpha_i(\beta_i)\psi(t)|^2$$
where $$i=1$$ and $$j=0$$
This is actually equivalent to this equation: I firstly derive some axioms to base the road to the derivision.
Firstly you have to identify some easy maths here, $$\alpha(\beta(t)) = \beta(t)$$ thus a change in time would be $$\alpha (\beta (\Delta t)) = \beta (t+1)$$.
This means that $$\alpha (\beta (\Delta t)) = \alpha(\beta(\mathbf{A}^{n+1}))$$
So it has a form equivalent to $$\zeta_{\delta^j_i}|\psi(\Delta t) = \int |\alpha_i(\beta_i)\psi(t)|^2$$ when solved.
$$\alpha \psi ( k \beta \psi* (\Delta t)) = \int |\alpha \beta (\psi(t))|^2$$
If observer 1 made a measurement on the state of the object $$\beta \psi(t)$$, then the time quantity, marks the wave functions collapse at a certain period, or frame which has a chronological appearance.
The fact observer 1 made such an observation on $$\beta$$, at an earlier time than his collegue, gives us the grounds in which to claim whose knowledge of the wave function is ultimatey defined. If observer 2
measured the object $$\beta$$ , then the state observer two measures it in will be predictable for observer 1, where their observation had originally unlocked the probability surrounding $$\beta \psi$$.
For objects not being vigintly watched over, have an equation describing this as:
$$\int |(\alpha_i,\beta_j)\psi(t)> \ne \int |\alpha, \beta \psi(t)|^2$$
PART NINE
REAL TIME OBSERVATIONS are always present for an observer, simple because the measurements of observers occur mathematically-speaking, in real time frames. That means then that the frame of reference for an observer occurs only in a real time sense - and this may include the description of the object $$\beta$$ the observer is measuring. This will become important soon.
To make sense of the real invariance in the state of $$\alpha_i$$ on $$\beta_i$$ asks us if there is allows a complex decscription for the $$(\beta_i)$$ component. If it does (which it should when not being observed) has a new form of an imaginary coefficient $$(\beta_i)$$. This means that if the reference principle satistifies the mathematical subscripts in $$\alpha_i(i\beta_i)$$ leads to a negative eignstate, which contradicts the real time notion... and influence of the component $$\alpha_i$$, since from his or hers frame of reference, mathematical measurements on time remain strictly real with no complex values.
Because of this, i have been forced to intriduce to concept of super complex numbers, which hardly no physicist ever uses. But i literally have been forced to use it, to regain the postive time description for $$\alpha$$ to remin invariant, and constant. The eigenstate equation then between the reference point $$\beta$$ and the observer $$\alpha$$ are now given in the fomula:
$$\hat{\box}\alpha_i(i\beta_i)=\beta$$
Which makes the eigenstate absolutely a positive result. However, because the subscripts that act of reference points in terms with each other are dependant on the time component, it means then there must a solution where even:
$$ j=i$$ [1] and for the identification of whether the object is interaction with observer 1 $$\alpha_1$$, can be misleading because they both hare the same subsrcipt $$i$$.
This means that there are two main condition equations in a slice $$\sum$$ of spacetime corresponding to $$d^4$$, so that
Condition eq. one fo $$\alpha_1$$ which satisfies for a past $$t$$ or a present $$t$$;
$$\mathbb{C}_{\math{1}}=\sum^{t_1}_{i=t} \hat{\box} \alpha_{1}_{i} (i\beta_i)$$
The condition eq. two satifies for a future condition:
$$\mathbb{C}_{\math{2}}=\sum^{t_2}_{i=t+1} \hat{\box} \alpha_{2}_{i} (i\beta_i)$$
with a second observer $$\alpha_{2}$$.
Even though $$\hat{\box}j=i$$ acts on the subscript of $$\alpha$$, we can see that even if $$\alpha_i$$ is reduced to be expressed with $$i\beta_i$$ even though the true form of $$\alpha$$ is not actually in phase of reference $$\alpha_j$$ means that the subscript $$j$$ must resort to the value of $$j=0$$ - the all or nothing show.
[1] - This means that this identity holds: $$\hat{\box}j=i$$
FINAL THOUGHTS
The Reference Principle
This was devised when i realized we could trace relationships between the observer and the observed, even though the observer is considered more important with the delicates of the theory.
We do, incomparably with any inannimate object, refer to their existence due to having a knowledge on the system, gained from;
1) Either entering my consciousness from the outside,
2) Or gaining of information which has been dorment within consciousness itself.
I prefer the latter, for many reasons i do not have time to cover here. The reference of the object on the first observer is not a conscious connection from the frame of the object. Instead, it could have reference to the observer in terms of its observables. If their observations are disturbed, then we can use this as being a reference to our presence.
However, if i begin an arguement on how the object $$\beta$$ refers to out existences, one must result to some type of back-reaction theory carefully part of a gradient of knowledge $$\alpha_{\bold{k}}$$ [2]. To cut this short, we don't just define the world, the world needs to retain order so it can make sense of our frame of reference; a dual self-reflection principle on both states, conscious and innanimate.
[2] For instance observer 1's knowledge on $$\beta$$ is given as $$\alpha_{\bold{k}}$$, and if this happened previous to any measurement from $$\alpha_2$$ on $$\beta$$ on a later state, then presently in accordance with the first postulate, $$\alpha_1$$ has a greater knowledge thus: for simplicity, in an ineequality expression this would be seen as $$\alpha_1_{\math{k}} < \alpha_2_{\math{k}}$$. This means that there is an inherent law of preterminism when states are analysed by humans, because they can subectively define the path's of other potential observers. Destiny is then written for someone, so long as something before them managed to see their proverbial outcomes.
The knowledge of the first measurement must be according to this line of thought as a substantial marker to locally agree as being when the wave function was determined, no matter how much uncertainty is inherent in $$\alpha_2_{\bold{k}}$$.
[excerpts of the first document/paper]
It should be noted
$$\hat{\box}\alpha_i(i^2\beta)= +\beta_{\sum \psi(i,j)}$$ Has in fact, after some private rigurous investigations, must have a commutative rule $$\alpha_i(\beta_i)$$. This means the observer and the observed can be described under similar mathematics found in Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, only this time, uncertainty arises when we have the absolute identity of |\alpha_j,\beta_i|.
$$\hat{\box}\alpha_j(i^2\beta_i)=$$ where is the state of $$\alpha_j$$ is not absolute, and so the supercomplex configuration must mean it indicate a solutin to something else, rather than equivalent to that of the state, or influencing the state $$i^2\beta_i$$.
Note. Some of the math leads to identify $$\hat{\box}(-\beta_i)=\beta$$, and will continue to be compelled to stay represented this way, unless the first observation holds an important relation to the first measurement.
The final equation describing $$\alpha_1$$ as the observer who initially collapsed the wave function of $$-\beta \psi*$$ the in the case of:
$$\hat{\box}_1_{\mathbb{k}}_i(\mathbb{k}\beta_i)$$ must then lead to the final part of $$\mathbb{k}\beta_i}$$ is the same as $$(\mathbb{k}\beta_i)=\hat{\box}\alpha_1_{\mathbb{k}}_i (-\beta_i)$$.
This means that the value of knowledge is important when cataloging the unravelling of events in accord to a wave function requiring time.''
IN A MORE verbal approach, these axioms lead to resonably acceptable models of how informaton in a black hole that, instead of mangling the information past the event horizon and then tunnelling the information through the black holes barrier and back into the spacetime we are usually aquainted with, i see my model as one far more simplistic but certainly not as elegant.
I stated:
1. Information between universes with local QD's are the most probable universes for information exchange.
This means that information can be retained within a black holes (and maybe beyond into parallel unuierses) without any tunnelling effect occuring in a lame opportunity to replace this valuable information, the fact of the matter is, is that the probabilities retaining and sustaining this world act in accordance to these rules which we call conservation. It also plays a most pivotal part in where there is another universe, so identical to ours, that an exact equivalent of this energy is finding its way into our ground state universe in accordance to balancing the information, in an attemt not to cause any contradictory, oxymoronic paradoxes.
I also said:
3. Shared information is a synonymous process between two parallel universes to keep a net-balance.
This means in short that the most probable universes to share energy equally are not only both in their ground state, but also one which is consistently shared by informaton by informaton. (Informatons here are simply beng used as a visual blueprint to which is desired to be mentally-percepted. They could be seen as physical conduits for information ''itself'', but more intuitively, it seems more appropriate to think that all particles contain the same ability to share information, such as a photon energy, being shared between two atoms possessing angular momentum. Exchange of energy does not occur otherwise).
So if Information Peice A changed into configurating $$|\psi>$$ a structure with such a representation, has no absolute state until the amplitude of the system is measured. In this case, Information Peice A changed into an Information Peice B. These are considered as symbolized as being space points.
So from A to B, there must be a complemetarity if their observables are invariant with each other. So $$\int <\psi|\psi>=1$$. Any information therefore, between one point and another is wayward when trying to contemplate the order of things without falling upon the theory of predeterminism, slave to its logic.
PART TWO
I MIGHT AS far to go to say the universe has a state vector over all the universes $$<0>$$ meaning that the finite model of universes has a respective wave function $$\psi$$ governing its probability smear of information. Interpreting the usual equations, in respect of talking the integral of this respective wave function $$\psi$$ Should lead to a probabilty density. The ampitude of the frequency can be seen as a shadow to the formation of the universe itself.
PART THREE
THE PROBABILITY DENSITY[/b] of these states evolve into [*], however, without imposing a time-dependancy (Were for instance $$\psi$$ was not a function of $$t$$, a problem arises in physics about when the value was originally measured, which kind of dilluted the paranaoia of beleiving that time coud not be somehow important when we make our measurements.
[*] The mathematics which describes the evolution of the state of a system is almost certainly a postulate of quantum mechanics according to evolution equation of the schordinger equation:
$$\hat{H}|\psi>=i\hbar \partial_{t}|\psi>$$
In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, the Hamiltonian operator is self-adjoint so it's diagonalisable and all its eigenvalues are real. There is always atleast one family of orthogonal states $$|\phi_n>$$ that span the state space:
$$\hat{H}|\psi_n>=E_n|\phi_n>$$
and the state $$|\phi_n>$$ evolves as:
$$|\phi_n(t)>=e^{-i \omega_{n}t|\phi_n>$$
These are called time-dependant evolutions of the schrodinger equation. If we eleiminate the use for time we find an equation called the Wheeler de Witt equation which was designed to express a universe which had no motion, therefore, no change in energy states. Fotini Markopoulou pointed out that this remarkable prediction of relativity can be pretty much summed up as something about observers being inside the universe. The equations where they stand are completely behond comprehension, yes these things we do not understand, seems to be, the only theories which will lead us somewhat further towards the truth.
Taking Wigners Friend's Paradox seriously, just as many have before me, it is not a matter where all conscious beings on the earth, nearly a 7 billion toll count of souls, all are somehow intrconnected to some single unified field of cosmic mind, which three scientists independantly came to the consclusion to, but rathar, we have unique roles in this eternal present.
PART FOUR
Time; the imaginary vector of space
WHEN RELATIVITY WAS[/b] formulated by Einstein, it seemed that the great manifold of spacetime was intertwined with the presence of matter. In fact, according to Fred Alan Wolf [2] who i have had the pleasure of talking to a few times in brief conversations, that you cannot have a spacetime with matter or energy. In fact the union of space and time was but one of the remarkable features, but generally-speaking, is incomplete. The truth of the matter is, is that spacetime really becomes space-time-matter-energy. If you remove any of these quantities, you cannot have the rest!
It is possible to state that space itself (which must include time according to relative standards) that the geometry of space is actually an emergent organization of matter itself. If we had what was initially called ''a pure gravity solution'' [3] to the universe, then what geometry would exist? You would have no phyical objects that would define such a geometry, so it seems that by reasonable conclusion that the whenever matter ''appears'' from the vacuum, is when the vacuum itself has a geometry. In a pure gravity solutioned universe, time does not exist, due to mathematical diffeomorphisms.
But wait a minute! Did i not say that you must involve space-time-matter-energy as a single form in which if any of them where to be removed, the rest would follow? It is true and so a pure gravity solution cannot be right, and therefore, one can proove that the idea of ''timelessness'' in physics is purely obsurd, which means that there is some kind of conceptual error, evolved itself from this dubious paradox. In another sense, one can interpret timelessness as saying that time seems to not exist!
Indeed, many paradoxes can arise from a timeless universe where energy does not change, given in a previous paper i wrote [5], but to take an overview of some of the more interesting points, we will take a look at a famous equation called the Wheeler-de Witt equation, which is given as
$$\hat{H}|\psi>=0 $$
The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts $$\hat{H}$$ and $$\psi$$, which is purely Dirac Notation. The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function [*] (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function $$|\psi>$$ does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.
Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.
Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both. In a better understanding, the Wheeler De-witt equation cannot really have any application to the ''experience of time'', but causes more contradictory problems for a model which may come to describe the human observer.
If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’
So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe F and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.
The point of this, is that on a global scale, it could easily be shown that everything may as well be determined (from the universes point of view) since internal change never happens.
It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer! This means that not only do our experience of time make such a thing real, but it is also a local phenomena. There may even not be such a thing as a non-local time - nor may we find that time on geometrical scales exists. In truth, recent evidence seems to be showing us that time is really ''events of starts and stops'' - not a flow to time at all. Even though our experience is local, we can seem to show that whilst that part is fundamentally-true, there is however evidence showing there is no real flow to time [6]; the kind of flow we all inexorably feel.
Now - this takes some discussion. And raises many issues of applicability to the theory, for instance; why should we accept that time has no flow despite our contradictory experience of it, whilst we are to accept that our experience of it is local?
It's not to complicated to issue that the experience of locality is not an illusion, for if it where that in itself would be an ultimate contradiction of our experience. But the sense of flow can be itself an illusion because conciousness does not seem to be itself an extention of time. By this, i mean that the flow of time it not a requisit for a working quantized theory of time, so we can actually remove this aspect and leave the experience of time in this rigid mannor. As explained breifly before, time has been shown that it doesn't have an actual (flow) as to be associated with geometrical events. Instead, these events on a quantization level or also known as ''the fundamental time'' is really fleeting flashes of beginnings and ends.
To provide some analogy to this, you could assume to have a peice of string which has been cut into several fragments. However, placing the fragments together as though it where one peice would cause an illusion for the observer. Instead of fragments, we would observe a linear system. Albiet, its a poor analogy, but one hopefully which would help to grasp the conceptual idea's presented.
So essentially, time is real, but exists at a quantized level. It seems also that time itself, destinguishing from the external time to the time we experience is purely local. But moreover, what is this subliminal experience of time, and does time exist outside of the mind in a quantized form?
We will be touching later more on the world of the quantized and geometrical time.
PART FIVE
No Time, No Energy
ANE SO IMAGINE if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are acting conjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true that neglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally.
In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen, and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable.
But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and time are not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of space itself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to not follow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.
Readings of interest: - http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1 ~ The topic of timelessness was the basis of many essays written in 2008.
What is Life? - Cambridge University press 1959 and also by Schrodinger ''Mind and Matter'' Cambridge University press 1959
PART Six
Solving the immucalate wave function collapsing when two minds or conscious minds are involved, is not really a matter of consciousness at all. Sure we are conscious beings, but if Wigner observed the tiny electron, does it have a spin up or a spin down, was it determined there?
It seems like this can only be the correct way to solve the Wigners Friend Paradox. It does require however that the Wheeler de Witt equation is a special case of an equation, which has some inverse relationships to our specific roles in the spacetime pantomime.
Time is essential to break free the question concerning when the wave function first collapsed, without resorting that there cannot be any more than a single consciousness. It simply requires from now on, that we mathematically work it out logically, which i will show next.
PART SEVEN
SOLVING WHEN THE wave function collapsed when two minds or conscious minds are involved, is not really a matter of consciousness at all. Sure we are conscious beings, but if Wigner observed the tiny electron, does it have a spin up or a spin down, was it determined there?
It seems like this can only be the correct way to solve the Wigners Friend Paradox. It does require however that the Wheeler de Witt equation is a special case of an equation, which has some inverse relationships to our specific roles in the spacetime pantomime.
Time is essential to break free the question concerning when the wave function first collapsed, without resorting that there cannot be any more than a single consciousness. It simply requires from now on, that we mathematically work it out logically, which i will show next.
PART EIGHT
I'LL TYPE THIS the way i would when writing a paper for some thesis on a class project, or something alone those. Without making this too much to handle, i've tried to write it as simplistic as i can, trying to remember the mathematical basis of 1st year university levels.
There are some identities which must be analyzed first:
$$\alpha$$ is the observer/mind of knowing the state
This is a local system, with local effects. Time as well is relative to $$\alpha$$ (the observer), meaning that time is a local phenomenon not of motion, but of human psychology and perception. [1]
If time is then a local phenomenon relative only to an observer (not meaning specifically a human observer, but it can nevertheless) then the wave function governing the object being wathed by our observer whose state includes the perception of time, means that we inexorably impose the need to catalogue the watched object under some vector of time.
To attempt a solution to understand the observer $$\alpha$$ and the observed (or object) $$\beta$$ i came to treating the observer as part of an eigenstate solution:
$$\alpha (\beta)=\beta$$
And $$\beta$$ on the left handside operates as a ''point reference''. The point-reference is allowing the idea of some communicative mathematic between the observed and the object, not only in terms of time coordinates, but also in terms of giving them values which have mathematical properties identical to that of the dirac function. There must be a quantum wave function governing these states and so, i arrived at an expression to hope to satisfy that question:
$$\sum^n_{i=1} | \alpha_i (\beta_i) \psi(t)|^2$$
where $$i=1$$ and $$j=0$$
This simple expression is an amplitude relation. The amplitude itself has the components which represent the observer and the object, but they have subscriptions marked with lowercase $$i$$ and $$j$$. Well, this relationship had to be introduced, or the entire theory would fail.
In other words, i required there to be some kind of interaction between $$\alpha$$ and $$\beta$$. For sucessful interaction, one where the observer and the observed are in visual union, the we require that both $$\alpha_i$$ and $$\beta_i$$ have these commuting values attached.
This means, that in the case originally given: $$\sum^n_{i=1} | \alpha_i (\beta_i) \psi(t) |^2$$ simply leads to a union between $$\alpha_i (\beta_i) $$ but more importantly, it requires that the wave function mut be able to collapse without invoking any problems.
Mathematically-speaking, $$\alpha$$ and $$\beta$$ are members, so they satisfy this following relation:
$$\alpha_i \beta_i = < \alpha_i(\psi(t)) |\beta_i \psi* (t)>$$
If interaction is sucessful, as it almost always is, then using symbol theory to represent what we want, we can state that $$\alpha(\beta) \in \mathbf{R}_4$$, meaning that the observer and the observed exist in the four dimensional spacetime manifold. In theory, if my speculations concluding time has been true, then the identity $$(\beta) \in \mathbf{R}_3$$ is pretty much a safe assumption. Afterall, time seems to be directly linked with our perception of motion. Remove the observer from that equation, and you find that only the objective real dimensions can only exist.
Describing their roles in a more dynamical sense, we evaluate the observer and the observed under linear complex algebra.
$$\zeta_{\alpha} (\psi (t) ) = (\alpha, t)$$
and
$$\zeta_{\beta} (\psi* (t) ) = (\beta, t)$$
This means that these procedures will behave explicitely on time, and the orders of events in such time.
The Proof in a Nutshell
We have observer 1 $$\alpha_1$$ and observer 2 $$\alpha_2$$. Before any resolution is made on a hypothetical object $$\beta$$ there needs
to time coordinates to a measure of both observer 1's and observer 2's actions. Let us speculate, that the subject (observer 1) goes into the lab and measures
the object. Before this action, both $$\alpha_1$$ and $$\alpha_2$$ were in fact, if quantum theory is correct, existed in some state of superpositioning.
This means, they would be mathematically-expressed as: $$\frac{\alpha_1 + \alpha_2}{2} = |\psi>$$. As soon as $$\alpha_1$$ interacts with the object
$$\beta$$, this is a function made in some certain time, so a measurement made earlier, according to these equations we would need admit that the wave function
must have been determined upon the first measurement, and any uncertianty after that cannot be anything but paranoid minds. Using linear models in order to follow these
paths to where these idea' first sprung from, it means that a principle had to be introduced to answer why $$(\alpha_i (\beta_i))$$ have the properties they do.
The equation describing a sucessful mapping between an observation and observed system, in a coherent state is:
$$\zeta_{\delta^j_i} |\psi (\Delta t)> = \int |\alpha_i(\beta_i)\psi(t)|^2$$
where $$i=1$$ and $$j=0$$
This is actually equivalent to this equation: I firstly derive some axioms to base the road to the derivision.
Firstly you have to identify some easy maths here, $$\alpha(\beta(t)) = \beta(t)$$ thus a change in time would be $$\alpha (\beta (\Delta t)) = \beta (t+1)$$.
This means that $$\alpha (\beta (\Delta t)) = \alpha(\beta(\mathbf{A}^{n+1}))$$
So it has a form equivalent to $$\zeta_{\delta^j_i}|\psi(\Delta t) = \int |\alpha_i(\beta_i)\psi(t)|^2$$ when solved.
$$\alpha \psi ( k \beta \psi* (\Delta t)) = \int |\alpha \beta (\psi(t))|^2$$
If observer 1 made a measurement on the state of the object $$\beta \psi(t)$$, then the time quantity, marks the wave functions collapse at a certain period, or frame which has a chronological appearance.
The fact observer 1 made such an observation on $$\beta$$, at an earlier time than his collegue, gives us the grounds in which to claim whose knowledge of the wave function is ultimatey defined. If observer 2
measured the object $$\beta$$ , then the state observer two measures it in will be predictable for observer 1, where their observation had originally unlocked the probability surrounding $$\beta \psi$$.
For objects not being vigintly watched over, have an equation describing this as:
$$\int |(\alpha_i,\beta_j)\psi(t)> \ne \int |\alpha, \beta \psi(t)|^2$$
PART NINE
REAL TIME OBSERVATIONS are always present for an observer, simple because the measurements of observers occur mathematically-speaking, in real time frames. That means then that the frame of reference for an observer occurs only in a real time sense - and this may include the description of the object $$\beta$$ the observer is measuring. This will become important soon.
To make sense of the real invariance in the state of $$\alpha_i$$ on $$\beta_i$$ asks us if there is allows a complex decscription for the $$(\beta_i)$$ component. If it does (which it should when not being observed) has a new form of an imaginary coefficient $$(\beta_i)$$. This means that if the reference principle satistifies the mathematical subscripts in $$\alpha_i(i\beta_i)$$ leads to a negative eignstate, which contradicts the real time notion... and influence of the component $$\alpha_i$$, since from his or hers frame of reference, mathematical measurements on time remain strictly real with no complex values.
Because of this, i have been forced to intriduce to concept of super complex numbers, which hardly no physicist ever uses. But i literally have been forced to use it, to regain the postive time description for $$\alpha$$ to remin invariant, and constant. The eigenstate equation then between the reference point $$\beta$$ and the observer $$\alpha$$ are now given in the fomula:
$$\hat{\box}\alpha_i(i\beta_i)=\beta$$
Which makes the eigenstate absolutely a positive result. However, because the subscripts that act of reference points in terms with each other are dependant on the time component, it means then there must a solution where even:
$$ j=i$$ [1] and for the identification of whether the object is interaction with observer 1 $$\alpha_1$$, can be misleading because they both hare the same subsrcipt $$i$$.
This means that there are two main condition equations in a slice $$\sum$$ of spacetime corresponding to $$d^4$$, so that
Condition eq. one fo $$\alpha_1$$ which satisfies for a past $$t$$ or a present $$t$$;
$$\mathbb{C}_{\math{1}}=\sum^{t_1}_{i=t} \hat{\box} \alpha_{1}_{i} (i\beta_i)$$
The condition eq. two satifies for a future condition:
$$\mathbb{C}_{\math{2}}=\sum^{t_2}_{i=t+1} \hat{\box} \alpha_{2}_{i} (i\beta_i)$$
with a second observer $$\alpha_{2}$$.
Even though $$\hat{\box}j=i$$ acts on the subscript of $$\alpha$$, we can see that even if $$\alpha_i$$ is reduced to be expressed with $$i\beta_i$$ even though the true form of $$\alpha$$ is not actually in phase of reference $$\alpha_j$$ means that the subscript $$j$$ must resort to the value of $$j=0$$ - the all or nothing show.
[1] - This means that this identity holds: $$\hat{\box}j=i$$
FINAL THOUGHTS
The Reference Principle
This was devised when i realized we could trace relationships between the observer and the observed, even though the observer is considered more important with the delicates of the theory.
We do, incomparably with any inannimate object, refer to their existence due to having a knowledge on the system, gained from;
1) Either entering my consciousness from the outside,
2) Or gaining of information which has been dorment within consciousness itself.
I prefer the latter, for many reasons i do not have time to cover here. The reference of the object on the first observer is not a conscious connection from the frame of the object. Instead, it could have reference to the observer in terms of its observables. If their observations are disturbed, then we can use this as being a reference to our presence.
However, if i begin an arguement on how the object $$\beta$$ refers to out existences, one must result to some type of back-reaction theory carefully part of a gradient of knowledge $$\alpha_{\bold{k}}$$ [2]. To cut this short, we don't just define the world, the world needs to retain order so it can make sense of our frame of reference; a dual self-reflection principle on both states, conscious and innanimate.
[2] For instance observer 1's knowledge on $$\beta$$ is given as $$\alpha_{\bold{k}}$$, and if this happened previous to any measurement from $$\alpha_2$$ on $$\beta$$ on a later state, then presently in accordance with the first postulate, $$\alpha_1$$ has a greater knowledge thus: for simplicity, in an ineequality expression this would be seen as $$\alpha_1_{\math{k}} < \alpha_2_{\math{k}}$$. This means that there is an inherent law of preterminism when states are analysed by humans, because they can subectively define the path's of other potential observers. Destiny is then written for someone, so long as something before them managed to see their proverbial outcomes.
The knowledge of the first measurement must be according to this line of thought as a substantial marker to locally agree as being when the wave function was determined, no matter how much uncertainty is inherent in $$\alpha_2_{\bold{k}}$$.
[excerpts of the first document/paper]
It should be noted
$$\hat{\box}\alpha_i(i^2\beta)= +\beta_{\sum \psi(i,j)}$$ Has in fact, after some private rigurous investigations, must have a commutative rule $$\alpha_i(\beta_i)$$. This means the observer and the observed can be described under similar mathematics found in Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, only this time, uncertainty arises when we have the absolute identity of |\alpha_j,\beta_i|.
$$\hat{\box}\alpha_j(i^2\beta_i)=$$ where is the state of $$\alpha_j$$ is not absolute, and so the supercomplex configuration must mean it indicate a solutin to something else, rather than equivalent to that of the state, or influencing the state $$i^2\beta_i$$.
Note. Some of the math leads to identify $$\hat{\box}(-\beta_i)=\beta$$, and will continue to be compelled to stay represented this way, unless the first observation holds an important relation to the first measurement.
The final equation describing $$\alpha_1$$ as the observer who initially collapsed the wave function of $$-\beta \psi*$$ the in the case of:
$$\hat{\box}_1_{\mathbb{k}}_i(\mathbb{k}\beta_i)$$ must then lead to the final part of $$\mathbb{k}\beta_i}$$ is the same as $$(\mathbb{k}\beta_i)=\hat{\box}\alpha_1_{\mathbb{k}}_i (-\beta_i)$$.
This means that the value of knowledge is important when cataloging the unravelling of events in accord to a wave function requiring time.''