Right. A computational universe is inherently non-local. And when one realizes ST dimensionality emerges from the interaction of particles in the conservation of energy and momentum the way is cleared to unify quantum reality and relativity because it transcends the apparent incompatibility between quantum theory's ST where ST is a passive stage where events take place and relativity's ST in which ST is affected by the presence of mass/energy. Instead if we realize how in a computational universe particle interactions create the dimensional relationships mind models as dimensional ST we get a unified universe in which both quantum theory and relativity hold.

The universe is a computational system that continually recomputes its current data state from its previous data state. Minds sample the universal data state as neural data structures in our brains and simulates it as the familiar 'physical' world we experience.

My model of how this happens is discussed in detail in my Complete Theory of Everything at https://EdgarLOwen.info

Another intractable problem with determinism is it implies a block time/block universe theory in which everything is predetermined in advance of it happening. How, pray tell, is a causally determined universe created prior to the actual causality that creates it? See the problem?

Anyway, in my view, the notion of causality is an outmoded physicalist way of modeling the universe that simply refers to repeatable sequences of events that are actually computed instead of caused in any physical mechanistic sense. At this point I'll probably turn my attention to another thread. Thanks guys for the interesting discussion!

There is no 'faster than light' signal between particles. In the spin orientation example the spin orientations of both particles are determined when the particles are created. Must be for the spin orientation of the two particles to be conserved. However that exact mutual spin orientation is indeterminant with respect to a measuring device until one particle reveals it by decohering with the device. At that point the exact mutual spin orientation becomes known and confirmed by a measurement on the 2nd particle.

Consider a volume of free particles that interact. Their particle properties such as energy, momentum, spin orientation, etc. are INdeterminate with respect to each other to a certain degree determined by their wave functions. Now, for particles to interact they must decohere, their particle properties must become exact with respect to each other. That is because their particle properties must be conserved in any interaction. Eg. energy exiting an interaction must equal the energy entering the interaction. In decoherence exact particle properties such as energy are randomly chosen (within wave function limits). Decoherence occurs in all particle interactions. It happens irrespective of whether a human is arranging the particle interaction or not. It's because of this innate INdeterminism of quantum processes that determinism cannot be true.

Don't agree because quantum randomness is intrinsic to decoherence. It doesn't depend on an observer or experimenter.

Determinism is of course incompatible with quantum theory where quantum events occur randomly. In my view that in itself is enough to consign determinism to the scrap heap of pre-quantum history. No one should consider it seriously any more.

Universe is a computational system. Everything contains the complete data of what it is. Elementary particles contain the complete data of what they are. Now maybe at the most fundamental level everything actually IS this complete data of what it is. That would enable the universe to compute everything that happens on the basis of that fundamental data. By analogy a virtual reality game consists entirely of computer data, but appears as an actual world in the mind of the player. Human minds then simulate the data world as the 'physical' world just as they do with virtual reality games.

The very notion of 'causation' needs to be replaced with that of computation. At its most fundamental level reality is not 'physical' but information being computed. The elementary particles are the fundamental information elements. It's the human mind that simulates this information universe as the apparently physical world we experience around us. This is an evolutionary adaptation that makes it easier for us to function. Note there are NO physical variables for any notion of causation in any scientific equation. None! At its most fundamental level the universe is information being computed.

This is discussed in detail in my Complete Theory of Everything at https://EdgarLOwen.info.

Too busy right now with work on my new simultaneity method. Sorry.

And they are both short to the point posts...

Edgar

Mike,

No offense but I strongly suggest you read my solutions to the same problem first. It may save you considerable time and effort.

Best,
Edgar L. Owen

Mike Fontenot wrote
"Sorry ... I don't know why it did that to you. I've been banned for life on Physics Forum (since more than 10 years ago), so at least you didn't get bashed that bad!"

Hey Mike did you not see my other responses to you giving results of the earth times calculated from the two legs of the space twin with my method, and second how to easily calculate the signal lag effect from the earth twin to the space twin which is a separate non-relativistic issue?

Yes, some physics forums seem to be run by the most extremist politically correct martinets one can imagine! I've been banned from a couple myself...

Would like to get your responses to my responses to you from those other posts yesterday.....

Thanks,
Edgar

Mike,

I tried to sign up to http://www.sciforums.com/forums/physics-math.33/ but was rejected with the message that my attempt "resembled spam or automated behavior". So I'll continue to post here.

Edgar L. Owen

No, this is not a matter of belief but the way reality actually works.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

If you want to include the effect of the transit time of light there is a very easy way.

First ignore it completely and just use my method to calculate the proper times from any frame using dτ = √(dt^2 – dx^2) to get the proper time at any point along a moving path in the current reference frame. As I said the effect of light signal transit time is an entirely separate issue which is now easily added.

Just extend a line 45° downward from any point on the vertical ct axis until it intersects the relatively moving path. Since Minkowski diagrams are scaled by c, light takes 45° upward paths.

Assuming the reference frame is one of the legs of the space traveling twin then where the 45° downward line from time t on the vertical t-axis intersects the earth path at time t' will be the earth time the space twin 'sees' at his time t. You can connect any two points on the two paths with similar 45° lines to get the apparent time at any points along any moving path including the light transit time delay once you've used my method to first get the innate time relationships.

Hope this is clear. It's really quite simple...

Edgar L. Owen

Yes, the apparent contradiction that each other's clocks are running slower is just a very simple matter of perspective.

Here's an easy explanation from the book I'm currently writing:

1. Thus in relativity when two clocks move relative to each other they both see each other’s clocks running at a slower rate due to time dilation, and thus they both see less time passing on the other’s clock than their own.
2. This is easy to understand as a matter of perspective. A spatial analogy will make this clear.
3. Imagine two cars each traveling at the same 60 mph but on roads that are angled with respect to each other. Each measures the speed of the other and the distance it seems to travel in terms of a coordinate grid aligned with the road it’s on. Each car travels entirely along the x-axis in its own coordinate system. Thus each driver sees the other car traveling some distance at some velocity along the y-axis.
4. Using the familiar Pythagorean formula this apparent motion along the y-coordinate reduces the other car’s distance traveled along the x-axis by dx’=√ (dx2 – dy2) and thus its apparent velocity along the x-axis.
5. And the same is true from the perspective of the other car since both measure the other car’s motion relative to their own x-axis.
6. Thus both drivers each see the other car traveling at a slower velocity and covering a lesser distance than their own.
7. But importantly both drivers are viewing the same actual reality from the perspective of their respective coordinate systems.
8. The same is true with respect to time dilation and elapsed proper time. Again each of two relatively moving observers each sees the other’s clock ticking slower and covering a lesser distance through time than their own, and for the exact same reason of perspective.
9. Here too everything is going at the same velocity, the speed of light. So if two clocks are traveling with relative spatial velocity, each will see the other clock ticking slower and covering less distance in time.
10. Here again both observers measure motion through spacetime in terms of a coordinate system in which they are traveling entirely through time with no velocity in space relative to themselves. And both see the other traveling with an equal but opposite relative motion along the x-axis.
11. So using the same Pythagorean theorem, each sees the other’s distance through time traveled as as dτ =√ (dt2 – dx2), less than their own as they see some of the other’s spacetime c velocity as being through space along the x-axis.
12. But again it’s important to understand that both observers are viewing the same actual reality just from the perspectives of their different coordinate systems. In particular they are seeing the actual clock readings of the other clock, and seeing the actual tick rates of each other’s clocks, just from their own native perspective. Each sees the other from the perspective of the frame in which it is at rest.
13. Even though observers in different frames may view the spacetime variables of another clock differently how it’s viewed doesn’t affect its actual behavior at all. The actual behavior of everything in spacetime depends entirely on its own path through spacetime.
14. Specifically its actual elapsed proper time depends entirely on how much it deviates from an inertial path. Otherwise all clocks travel exactly the same distance through time at the same c velocity so long as they follow inertial paths in flat spacetime.
15. How clocks are viewed by other clocks doesn’t affect them in the least, however relativity enables us to calculate any clock’s elapsed proper time from any inertial frame.
16. So all views are perspective views of actual events, but we only see part of a moving clock’s passage through time from our perspective, as do all other observers in relative motion to it, who all must view everything entirely from the perspective of their own coordinate system.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

Rather than doing the example you suggest here's one I've already done using the standard method I outlined.

This example starts in Earth twin frame with her path from (0,0) to (10,0). Space twin path is from (0,0) to (5,4) to (10,0). Earth twin calculates proper time of space twin over the entire trip as 6 while hers is 10, and Earth twin calculates space twins clock reads 3 at turnaround.

I then use Lorentz transformations to convert to frame of 1st leg of space twin path, From the end of that path (turnaround) apparent time of Earth twin calculated by space twin is 1.8.

I then use Lorentz transformations to convert to frame of return leg of space twin's path. From turnaround at the start of that frame I calculate apparent Earth twin time is 8.2.

So at turnaround in this scenario there is an apparent instantaneous symmetrical jump of 6.4 due to the non physical instantaneous acceleration assumed. As I said this disappears when a physically possible acceleration-deceleration is used in which case the change sweeps continuously across the difference. I can show you a diagram of this if you like.

I can also post all my calculations if you want to see how I got these results.

I used the standard method I outlined to get these results. I suggest you do the same example with your method and see if you get the same results.

Best,
Edgar L. Owen

The underlying solution to the apparent contradictions you mention is the notion of two kinds of time.

Processor time which proceeds at the same rate throughout the universe in each tick of which the entire universe is recomputed including the computation of the allocation of the constant identical total distance traveled through spacetime of every object between distance in time and distance in space. The result is the universe as the present moment surface of a cosmic hypersphere in which everything is at the same processor time but objects have different proper times depending on how much spatial distance they have traveled along their own world lines in their own frames,

Within this present moment surface, frames view other frames from the perspective of their different coordinate systems and calculate differed relative values to the space and time values of clocks in relative motion to their own.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

Also I don't understand all your agonizing over the twins. It's really quite simple.

Ignore the signal transit time. That's an entirely separate issue...

1. In a Minkowski diagram in the earth reference frame use dτi = √(dti2 – dxi2) to calculate the proper times of both legs of the space twin's path, or any point along the path.

2. Use a Lorentz transformation to convert the diagram to the frame of the first leg of the space twin's path. Use the same equation to calculate the apparent proper time of the earth twin from that perspective.

3. Use a Lorentz transformation to convert the diagram to the frame of the second leg of the space twin's path. Use the same equation to calculate the apparent proper time of the earth twin from that perspective.

This method gives both twin's views throughout the whole trip. If you want to add signal transit effects which I don't do, that's a completely separate issue.

Also Caltech? physicist John Baez has a complete animation of all possible effects on his site including the little known Penrose twisting etc. though you have to spend some time with it.

Best,
Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

There need be no signal received to calculate the apparent age of a relatively moving clock. It's a simple calculation in a Minkowski diagram dτ = √(dt^2 – dx^2). The signal transit time doesn't appear in this proper time equation at all and is ignored. This is the standard way to calculate the proper time of a relatively moving clock when the signal transit time is ignored as it usually is. Very simple and correct in all cases. If there is a non-instantaneous acceleration we just integrate this over the path instead.

Edgar L. Owen

no Axioms,

First thanks for looking at my site and commenting on it. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from but will try to tease out our differences. We seem to be talking at cross purposes somewhat and you seem to be misinterpreting a number of my statements. Easy to do in relativity if not very carefully stated.

Take your last 3 paragraphs quoting 3 statements of mine.
1. I said " If it follows an inertial path all its constant spacetime distance traveled is through time."
I meant in its own frame where it is at rest. That was assumed but perhaps should have been explicitly stated.

2. I said " Time passes at the same rate on all inertial clocks"
Again I meant in their own frames since in their own frames all their constant motion through spacetime is through time. Normally I mean 'in their own frames' unless I state otherwise.

3. My statement is of course when we ignore signal transit time and red or blue shifts which we normally do when calculating proper times of moving clocks. Ignoring those, two relatively moving clocks do each see each other's clocks ticking slower than their own by the same amount. This is simple time dilation which is well established.

Also you seem to believe the past still somehow exists which leads me to suspect you believe in a block universe in which all past and maybe future states actually exist. I don't agree...

I suspect when we understand how we each use the terminology some of our views are closer than you think.

Mike,

Normally (in most but not all methods) the signal transit time is ignored when the proper time of a moving clock is computed.

And, sure both perspectives are correct in their frames. The difference is that her's is actual because she just looks at her comoving clock and reads the time, while his is apparent or observational because he from a distance in a different state of motion has a perspective view. He's not actually there reading her time on her clock.

Just my terminology to distinguish the cases which are in fact quite distinct.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

Good point. It's what he computes or would see disregarding the time lag of light traveling between them. It's her apparent age in his reference frame as opposed to her actual age in her own reference frame.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike and Relativist,

Yes but of course this is only how the space twin VIEWS the aging of his earth twin. That doesn't affect the actual aging rate of the earth twin in the least which goes on completely as normal unaffected by how anyone else views it.

Edgar L. Owen

No Axioms,

I'm not an absolutist or presentist. Labeling thought generally misrepresents it. My theories are my own perhaps a new interpretation but completely compatible with relativity though not necessarily how it's interpreted (which varies anyway). I have around 12 books and 22 YouTube talks explaining my Complete Theory of Everything with free pdf's and links at http://edgarlowen.com/reality.shtml

[note that the sections on special relativity there are out of date and currently being updated]

Proper time is simply what any clock is currently reading. The presence of an observer is irrelevant though if there is a comoving observer he is aging at the same rate his clock is ticking.

You are correct that the elapsed proper time of a world line between two events is invariant and the same seen from any frame after a Lorentz transformation.

Anyway the twin example is pretty simple. A lot of people over complicate it...

1. The elapsed proper time of any clock depends entirely on its own motion through spacetime, not in the least to how it's being observed by any observer. If it follows an inertial path all its constant spacetime distance traveled is through time. Time passes at the same rate on all inertial clocks. However to the extent it deviates from an inertial path it travels a shorter distance through time due to the distance it deviates in space. This is what happens to the space-traveling twin.

2. The entirely separate issue is how relatively moving observers view each other's clocks. That is simply a matter of perspective and is easily calculated as dτ = √(dt^2 – dx^2) for any point (dt, dx) in the reference frame to find the proper time of the moving clock as it appears from the perspective of the reference frame.

That's about all there is to it.

Edgar L. Owen

noAxioms,

No, proper time is the current reading of a comoving clock, a clock moving with an observer. ELAPSED proper time is the proper term for a duration of proper time.

It was Mike, not me that said there was a sudden jump in how the traveling twin views the age of the earth twin. I just pointed out this is only under the a-physical simplification of instantaneous acceleration.

Edgar L. Owen

Madfool,

The 'instantaneous aging by a large amount isn't anything actual'. First, it only occurs when a physically impossible instantaneous deceleration - acceleration in the opposite direction is assumed to simplify the twin example. When a physically possible deceleration-acceleration is used the apparent aging sweeps continuously across the difference. And second this is only describing how the space twin SEES the earth twin's age. It does NOT describe the actual aging process of the earth twin which doesn't depend on how it's being observed in the least and is proceeding normally.

Edgar L. Owen

Well it's the scientific answer to whether or not everything exists at the same time or not.

Yes everything does exist at the same time. Now is the only time that actually exists, and in which the entire universe exists....

Edgar L. Owen

Hi Mike,

Sure, it's SPECIAL relativity. That sentence should read "In general, relatively (NOT GENERAL RELATIVITY) moving... Note I wrote relatively, not relativity!

It's easy to calculate the elapsed current proper time of a moving clock as it appears from the perspective from any frame. One just uses the equation dτ = √(dt^2 – dx^2) for any point (dt, dx) in the reference frame to find the proper time of the moving clock as it appears from the perspective of the reference frame.

That however does NOT give the actual proper time of the moving clock in its own frame at the current common spacetime distance everything in the universe currently occupies which is the true universal current moment.

My understanding from posters in other groups is that you also advocate a universal current present moment, and in that sense an absolute notion of a universal coordinate system based on that. Is that correct?

Edgar L. Owen

First there it's easy to demonstrate there is a universal current present moment in which everything exists.

1. It's well known that everything in the universe continually travels through spacetime (combined space and time) at the speed of light.

2. As a consequence everything in the universe is continually traveling the same distance through spacetime as light does.

3. Thus the current distance everything has traveled through spacetime is the universal current present moment. This is the only moment that actually exists, and it's common to the entire universe.

4. Now the current proper time on any object's clock depends entirely on its own path through spacetime, not on how it is being observed from any other frame. Specifically all the distance it travels through spacetime is through time if it's path is inertial. However the amount of deviation from an inertial path reduces the distance it travels through time. Whatever the result an object's current proper time at the current common distance it has traveled through spacetime is the proper time it has in the universal current present moment.

5. There is a unique 1:1 invariant correlation between the current proper times of all clocks in the universe in this universal current present moment, which we all inhabit simultaneously.

6. It must be noted that this is independent of how observers in relative motion view each other's clocks. That is a matter of perspective, and in general relatively moving observers each view the time on each other's clocks ticking slower than their own. They DO NOT see the actual 1:1 current present moment proper time correlations except in specific cases such as being at rest in the same frame.

Edgar L. Owen.

Mike, Hope you are still here. I just joined so am just able to reply.

First there it's easy to demonstrate there is a universal current present moment.

1. It's well known that everything in the universe continually travels through spacetime (combined space and time) at the speed of light.

2. As a consequence everything in the universe is continually traveling the same distance through spacetime as light does.

3. Thus the current distance everything has traveled through spacetime is the universal current present moment. This is the only moment that actually exists, and it's common to the entire universe.

4. Now the current proper time on any object's clock depends entirely on its own path through spacetime, not on how it is being observed from any other frame. Specifically all the distance it travels through spacetime is through time if it's path is inertial. However the amount of deviation from an inertial path reduces the distance it travels through time. Whatever the result an object's current proper time at the current common distance it has traveled through spacetime is the proper time it has in the universal current present moment.

5. There is a unique 1:1 invariant correlation between the current proper times of all clocks in the universe in this universal current present moment, which we all inhabit simultaneously.

6. It must be noted that this is independent of how observers in relative motion view each other's clocks. That is a matter of perspective, and in general relatively moving observers each view the time on each other's clocks ticking slower than their own. They DO NOT see the actual 1:1 current present moment proper time correlations except in specific cases such as being at rest in the same frame.

Hope you see this Mike!

Edgar L. Owen.