Hitoshi Kitada (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:11:37 +0900
Dear Robert and all,
ca314159 <email@example.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > Dear Robert and All,
> > ca314159 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Subject: [time 1044] The Un-logic
> > > Dear Stephen, Hitoshi and all,
> > > Stephen Paul King quoted:
> > > > But there must be some bounds on how rich a repertoire of hidden
> > > > properties can be ascribed to spacetime.
> > > What happens when space-time topology is 'paradoxical' like
> > > a Moebius strip or a Klein bottle ? Is it an "illogical"
> > > space-time ?
> > I think the Goedel's space-time is an example of such an illogical
> > Koichiro refers to it as follows in his paper "Emergent Phenomena OF Time in
> > Quantum Mechanics" at
> > http://bio.nagaokaut.ac.jp/~matsuno/preprints/HELSIN98.html
> > > Relational aspect latent in what one calls globally synchronous
> > > time is already implicit in general relativity. The presence of
> > > closed timelike curves in the realm of general relativity discovered
> > > by G$B > > > constrained internally, the forward causation along a
> > > curve would come to destroy the causation itself when it returned
> > > to the younger stage while rounding the closed curve in the
> > > forward direction. That is the grandfather paradox, referring
> > > to the scenario that, for instance, a boy travels into the past
> > > and shoots his grandfather at a time before he became father,
> > > ending up with no such boy traveling into the past in the first
> > > place (Earman, 1995). Although this paradox may look almost nothing
> > > but a science fiction, it is quite pedagogical in pointing out the
> > > possibility that globally synchronous time conceived in general
> > > relativity as a self-contained theoretical framework could not
> > > remain internally consistent in itself. General relativity may
> > > require some additional constraints in order to remain consistent
> > > even in its theory alone. Globally synchronous time in general
> > > relativity can be relational in observing the global self-consistency
> > > at the same time.The likelihood of globally synchronous time
> > > being relational is thus both empirical and theoretical. We shall
> > > first examine a relational underpinning of globally synchronous
> > > time in the empirical domain, because an empirical discourse can
> > > minimize intrusion of theoretical artifacts.
> > >
> > This space-time looks like a concretion of Moebius strip/Klein bottle.
Here the point is that Goedel's space-time is an exact solution of Einstein's
> Stephen and I had a very long talk. And some analogies which came
> out, may be of interest. Particularly the last example.
> There is a difference between ray optics as a particle model
> (in terms of the orthogonality of the rays) and the Huygens construction
> (in terms superposition and interference of waves).
> There is a difference between filtered light (which is received
> only subtractively through filters) and reflected light which
> is received superpositionally (in terms of additive and subtractive
> There is a difference between and electric circuit modelled
> in terms of one the possible paths for an electron to follow
> and the circuit modelled as a whole.
> There is the difference between recorded (orthogonalized) time
> and dynamic time (superpositional time).
> The former cases are all distinctive or orthogonalized (particle) models
> while that later models all allow for combinatorics in the superpositional
> sense of interference (wave-like models).
Wave models are always approximations and as such I agree with your arguments
> There are many other analogs such as in terms of datagrams and streams
> in network theory or in terms of fundamental or speculative stocks....
> We try to connect these two extremes in each case together.
> Special Relativity is a particle-like model with local times.
> General Relativity is more of a wave-like model with a universal time
> but it tries to include Special Relativity as a subset
> (wave-like models include particle-like models as subset)
> The particle models can be called slices of the wave-model.
Or wave models can approximate the particle models.
> The wave-particle model or unified model is a further consideration
> of what happens when these two complementary models morph are allowed
> into each other.
> There is this same sense in Feynman's path integrals in terms of
> local rays(paths) and the more global superposition (the extrema).
> When looking at a painting (reflected light), two people see much
> that is the same, and this is their global commonality analogous
> to common or global time, and what they don't see in common is due
> to superpositional interference and results in their local distinctions
> or analogously their local times.
Two observers are not synchronous much in this case.
> But if the two people look so closely at the painting that they
> cannot each see the superpositional effects, then they will see absolute
> frequencies, and not colors. Their _measurements_ and their times
> become the same or common because they have eliminated the
> interferences. They enter more closely into the same local system
> with the same space-time reference.
There is much synchronization between the two observers.
> Every electric circuit is based on fundamentals like resisters
> capacitors and inductors. The different impedances create different
> currents and so different "times" in the different branches of the
The observed "circuit" is divided into several sublocal systems in this
> These different times in each branch can only be measured
> statically by closing off power access to all the other branches.
> This "branch time", expressed in terms of resistance or current, is
> reversable because of the static nature of its measurment.
This is the case as the branch time is exactly the local time of each sublocal
system. In the same sense the global time of the circuit as a whole is also
reversible if it means the local time of the circuit.
> (This assumes we have infinite power to test each branch
> parametrically; the power supply is distinct from the circuit's
> power supply).
> There is also the "global time" of the circuit which
> is measureable only dynamically in terms of the overall power
> consumption and expressed as the impedance of the circuit
> as a whole.
This is an observer's time that observes the circuit, and as a subjective local
time of the observer it is not reversible.
> This global time is not reversible because of the
> dynamic nature of its measurement. (This assumes there is
> a finite amount of power in the power supply when we test the
> circuit as whole; we use the circuits power supply when we
> test the circuit. We do not use an separate power supply)
> The impedance is reactance + resistance. The reactance
> is in terms of alternating current which obeys the superposition
> principle and direct currents under resistance obey the mixture
> or filtering principle.
> When we try to combine dynamic and static measurements, we
> are performing a power measurement which has an inherent
> uncertainty in it at some level. But in a practical (empirical)
> sense, it's not terribly important for electric circuits,
Yes, as we know when we see things there are not serious problems or
discommunications among plural observers. If another observer would be in
Andromeda galaxy, there might be a problem in communication.
> only at a theoretical level does it become important when
> we try to unify all the analogs under the same model.
Yes. And I proposed a theoretical distinction between the local times and the
usually conceived space-time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST