Atoms, Void & Time Reversability

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Canute
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Victor Stenger's model of the universe, which posits that it consists solely of atoms, void, and time reversibility. Participants explore the implications of this model, particularly in relation to quantum mechanics and nonlocal effects, while raising questions about the feasibility and understanding of the proposed mechanisms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Canute expresses interest in Stenger's model but struggles with the concept of how a signal can travel from entangled particles A and B via an intermediate event C without prior knowledge of its destination.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the information provided and requests a direct link to a peer-reviewed article, suggesting that the discussion lacks credible sources.
  • A different participant notes that Stenger's idea may be one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics and asserts that the universe likely contains more than just atoms.
  • One participant draws a parallel between Stenger's model and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves particles exchanging electromagnetic radiation that travels both forward and backward in time.
  • MaverickMenzies highlights Stenger's use of advanced and retarded waves to explain nonlocal correlations, questioning how a wave emitted from event A can know to travel to event C at a specific time and place without implying teleology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and completeness of Stenger's model, with some questioning its foundations and others drawing connections to established interpretations of quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the model's implications or its acceptance within the broader scientific community.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of direct references to peer-reviewed papers and the reliance on interpretations that may not be universally accepted. There are also unresolved questions regarding the mechanisms proposed by Stenger and their implications for understanding nonlocality in quantum mechanics.

Canute
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
0
Victor Stenger has proposed a model of the universe consisting only of atoms, void and time reversability. I like this idea, partly because it's almost simple enough for me to understand. But I have a problem with it.

He suggests that the universe can be explained as atoms and void, as per Democritus, with the introduction of time-reversability to account for nonlocal effects. The idea is this (in my words).

Say A and B are entangled particles. Measuring the spin of A will instantaneously (from some perspective) correlate with an event at B. To explain this he introduces event C, intermediate between A and B but earlier in time. Thus, particle A emits a particle (or whatever) which travels backwards in time to C, where it interacts with a particle, emitting a particle which travels forward in time to B, arriving at the moment we make the measurement on A.

This mechanism, he says, if I understand him properly, which is unlikely, would account for all the results from QM, meaning that the universe can be explained by just atoms, void and time reversability.

However, I have difficulty understanding how a signal can find its way from A to B via C without knowing where it's going when it sets out. Could somebody clarify this issues for me?

His site is here http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/index.html

Thanks
Canute
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I followed that link. Apart from determining that Stenger is a devout Atheist, I could not see the information you referred to. Do you have a direct link to the article?
 
I think I heard of this - isn't it one of those many QM 'interpretations'? Anyway, there can be no discussion here until someone links to a readable peer-reviewed paper or something - your link is to a commercial site and seems quite irrelevant.

One problem with your semantics - your interpretation of whatever you read is wrong, there is certainly a lot more to the universe than just atoms.
 
That idea sounds quite like Cramer's Translactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

www.npl.washington.edu/ti/[/URL] (his webpage)

Physical Review D 22, 362-376 (1980),

and

International Journal of Theoretical Physics 27, 227 (1988).

The basic idea behind this interpretation is that quantum objects are particles but they exchange EM radition that travels both forward (so-called retarded waves) and backward (so-called advanced waves) in time. The idea is that this interaction can then explain the non-local nature of quantum mechanics and the weird behaviour of measurements. However, i think there are still problems with it, else it would be a great deal more famous that it is.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but I don't have a link to a peer reviewed paper. Stenger's new book 'The Comprehensible Cosmos' (not yet available) introduces the ideas in depth but I've just picked up the main points from reviews etc. (one in New Scientist).

He's suggesting that everything can be reduced to minimal physical entities and a void, and uses 'atoms' in Democritus's sense.

MaverickMenzies - Yes, Stenger seems to be using the idea of advanced and retarded waves. I suppose it's just this I want to ask about.

He explains a nonlocal correlation between two events by assuming a third event prior in time. If A and B are instantaneously correlated events then this would be explained by assuming a wave (or something) travels backwards in time to event C then forwards to event B, arriving at the precise moment that event A happens (which would be a measurement of spin or whatever).

Yet I cannot see how this can work without assuming some sort of teleology at work. How does the wave emited as a result of event A know that it has to travel to event C, which is at a very precise time and place? I think I'm missing something here, but I don't know what it is.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K