**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:11:37 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkänen: "[time 1048] Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic"**Previous message:**ca314159: "[time 1046] [Fwd: Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic]"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkänen: "[time 1048] Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic"

Dear Robert and all,

ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net> wrote:

Subject: Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic

*> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
*

*> > Dear Robert and All,
*

*> > ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net> 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
*

space-time.

*> > 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
*

closed timelike

*> > > 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

field equation.

*>
*

*> 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
*

*> interference.
*

*>
*

*> 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

below fundamentally.

*>
*

*> 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
*

*> circuit.
*

The observed "circuit" is divided into several sublocal systems in this

observation.

*> 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.

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Matti Pitkänen: "[time 1048] Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic"**Previous message:**ca314159: "[time 1046] [Fwd: Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic]"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkänen: "[time 1048] Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST
*