Juan Weisz

No, Juan, I do not expect the answer to be in any direction. Personally, I believe that there is no retro-causation. A universe in which both past and future influence the present, is a universe without past and future. I don't imagine how such a universe can evolve. Even the Big Bang explosion can't happen, what was before the Big Bang should remain forever the same.

What I thought was that maybe there can be local effects in which the future may influence the past. I had in mind Maupertuis' principle, but I am not sure what we really can infer from this principle in what regards my question - see my discussion with Daniel.

About the quantum world, the causation is also forward in time, not backwards in time, just those entanglements are something sick.

With kind regards

Hi Sofia,

at the outset only partially touching your question, I was under the impression that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was experimentally refuted in 2014:

Article Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox

(Looking for this article on RG, I found a comment declaring the 2nd law still to be valid - I have to brood about it yet:

Preprint Comment on " Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox"

)

Anyway, I feel that the unidirectional time axis isn't a consequence of the 2nd law, but a crucial requirement for the formulation of the second law. So, refuting the 2nd law would not necessarily affect the arrow of time.

As for entangled systems, at least the entanglement itself is located in time before any tests on parts of the system. If test 1 is done before test 2 but outcome 1 is not revealed before test 2 then the outcome of test 2 reveals inescapably the outcome of test 1 but I think that doesn't mean that the later test 2 has influenced the antecedent test 1.

As to your question regarding a proof, generally the non-existence of something is only provable in mathematical constructs but not in the real world. So, as long as we don't know of a case of backward causation in the framework of a repeatable experiment, I'm afraid we have nothing to rely on than our daily experience.

Joerg Fricke

Hi Joerg,

You answer is wise and careful.

Now, why do you think that the unidirectional time axis isn't a consequence of the 2nd law, but a crucial requirement for the formulation of the second law? Would you explain yourself? In fact, let me guess! The law says that the entropy only increases in time; so, do you mean that what the law says that the entropy increases with the increasing of the time?

As to tests on quantum systems, you can't rely on such a thing that 1 being tested before 2, the outcome of 1 is not revealed before the test of 2. The duration of such a test is terribly small, it may be femto-seconds. And they have to be recorded in some memory, otherwise they are lost. So, what you mean by revealed?

Bottom line, the cooperation between present and future, revealed by quantum entanglements, challenges a fundamental principle that we always accepted as unquestionable: that influence propagates only forward in time. This concern stands behind my question, I mean, could it be that we were wrong?

As we know in relativity time is the conversion of distances due to the relative motion.

A local event see time as the flow of causal connections. In QED you can see illusion of influence backwards in time but in fact it's better to interpret as case of antiparticles.

I'm saying that the entropy isn't any base for time arrow direction just like the interaction doesn't affect only in one direction. There is no time arrow but still there is an entropy arrow. There is no common method for time and entropy.

This is what peoples now can hardly answer.

Time is a coordinate which describes ‘’before and after’’, a causal order between the events.

Newton's laws, Maxwell's equations, Schrodinger equation are the energy conservation equations, these equations do not involve the theoretical structure of the second law, and the reversibility of dynamics may be only the reversibility of the equation, the first law of thermodynamics is also reversible. However, the reversibility of the equation is not equal to the reversibility of the phenomenon, for example, Maxwell's equations are reversible, but an electromagnetic field radiation is irreversible.

In another hand, there has no an explicit definition which indicates the physical content of thermodynamic entropy, thermodynamics itself cannot explain the physical meaning of entropy.

In the second law, the irreversibility is the internal character of evolution, whereas, in dynamics, time is a coordinate prior assumed.

In the quantum mechanics, ‘’before and after’’ lost their original meaning, this is an interesting question, and an interesting answer is ‘’ time, without time’’ (J. A. Wheeler)

CLARIFICATION:

My question is not whether the time may flow from the future towards the past. We, the human beings choose this direction because our experience of life: we grow only older, not younger, our knowledge about the world around increases, etc. What I am asking is if we have any evidence that a future event influences a past process.

For instance, if in the future we choose to produce the event/process D instead of C, could there be a present consequence that we observe the event/process B instead of A?

We use to interpret the things forward in time, i.e. at present we make a choice, by our free will, to produce the event/process B instead of A, and in consequence of that, in the future will happen D instead of C. The question is whether we can indicate a case in which we choose NOTHING at present, only in the future, but, as a consequence of our future choice, we get at present one or another effect.

as a consequence of our future choice, we get at present one or another effect.

I think your question is similar to ‘’Delayed choice experiment’’, then we have a ‘’Participatory Universe’’, it follows that the ‘’present’’ and the ‘’future’’ lost their original meaning.

Tang Suye

Yes, it is similar, that's correct.

And, since quantum mechanics is not intuitive for us - some of its features are very difficult to explain phenomenologically - I am asking whether in the NON-quantum world, the macroscopic one, we have such an effect, i.e. a present phenomenon being a consequence of what we choose to do in the future.

Dear Sofia

This is a very difficult question to give a clear answer and I only try to give you my humble opinion.

In classical mechanics, if you have a trajectory, obviously you can always determine its future state and even its past. In this case, you can also find the cause of such movement: this is pure determinism, what Laplace dreamed of in the eighteenth century. In Thermodynamics, entropy also prohibits confusing cause with effect and also in Relativity (the existence of closed time curves is pure speculation). However, this is much harder to say in Quantum Mechanics because the concept of trajectory does not exist and Bell's experiments show us how there are non local effects. Obviously, cause and effect are always assumed in all physical phenomena, but this non-locality is very difficult to link with the concept of simultaneity of Relativity to obtain a physical image of both simultaneously. In fact, this was the criticism made by Einstein to this Quantum Mechanics well established today and that has not yet been overcome. For me, what remains is a serious topological study of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in addition to gravitation. We use the local symmetries of the Lorentz group, but its non-trivial topology has no use.

Therefore I don't believe that the concept of causality (or retrocausality) in Quantum Mechanics could help us to overcome the difficulties related with quantum entanglement or non local effects.

My wise Daniel,

Your "humble" opinion is always a wise opinion and wellcome.

"the existence of closed time curves is pure speculation"

General relativity is not my domain of competence, but I also think that close time curves are impossible, because that would make impossible the existence of the unstable: the configuration of the universe at a given time would be undefined, multi-fold. To our luck, it is not the situation that we witness, we see a well-defined configuration.

However, do you remember Maupertuis' principle of minimal action? An object follows between two time-space points, (t1, r1) and (t2, r2) the shortest path. How is that possible without knowing in advance the geometry of space between (t1, r1) and (t2, r2)? What if this geometry is not static in time? So, is the future known?

You also say

"this non-locality is very difficult to link with the concept of simultaneity of Relativity to obtain a physical image of both simultaneously. In fact, this was the criticism made by Einstein to this Quantum Mechanics well established today and that has not yet been overcome."

I don't understand what you mean. What is "simultaneity of Relativity"? I think that you wrote things in hurry. The non-locality makes problem because of the relativity of simultaneity, I know very well the facts and examples, but if you want to be understood by other people too, you have to be clearer.

As to Einstein's problem whether QM is complete, it had nothing to do with retro-causality, but with "elements of reality". The quantum community accepted in general the property of contextuality of measurement results, s.t. there exist no elements of reality.

(NOTE: For those who are not acquainted with the contextuality principle, it means the following: consider three observable A, B, and C, for which, both operators B̂ and Ĉ commute with the operator Â, but B̂ and Ĉ don't commute with one another. Then, in a joint measurement of the observables A and B, one may get another value for A than if A were measured together with C. The observables B and C represent the "context" of the measurement of A. Botom line, if one measures the observable A together with B and get some value a, this value of A is not an element of reality, i.e. one cannot rely that if A were measured together with C instead of B, the result for A were also a. It could have been a'.)

Dear Sofia,

I'm not sure to understand you and certainly I wrote to quickly for giving you just an opinion on your in interesting and deep question.

Let me try to answer you. Maupertuis is quite old trying to avoid the Fermat's principle in Optics and looking for one extremal of one action in space, not in time. For him time is just a parameter of the trajectories and the geometry something very different (just Euclidean 3-dimensional). The interesting is that he always can find a minimum path between two points. In this curve there is always a present in given time, a past and a future well determined. As in Classical Mechanics and you calculate always the future understanding by this a given time higher than the present, the same than the past. Doesn't need to say that the future or the past are points absolutely independent and only having in common to belong to such a curve.

You are right that my sentence is not very clear:

Obviously, cause and effect are always assumed in all physical phenomena, but this non-locality is very difficult to link with the concept of simultaneity of Relativity to obtain a physical image of both simultaneously.

What I tried to say is that if you have, for instance, a pair of 1/2-spin particles in a singlet state, the measurement of the z-component of one of tell us how is the other without taking into account of the distance or time for one respect to the other. This is non locality which is not related with distance or if their time is simultaneous or not for the measurement made.

In any case, I have not said to much and less given an answer to your question. For me there is a topological background in Quantum Mechanics waiting to be well formulated. Not only Hilbert or Fock geometry is enough!

Dear Daniel,

You say "he always can find a minimum path between two points."

I'd like to make a side-remark: if the two points are defined in some 2D geometry, one can find some minimal path, but if the points are defined in a 3D geometry, the minimal path may be shorter (apropos worm-holes). But, I don't intend to insist on this - i only thought that it would be interesting to notice.

"As in Classical Mechanics and you calculate always the future understanding by this a given time higher than the present . . ."

No, I can't! Even in the classical mechanics I can't, unless I know in advance the expression of the potential. Don't forget that the potential may be time-dependent. If I don't know the future values of the potential in space, I can calculate no future route. Even Newton's equation F = ma doesn't allow me to integrate it and calculate the trajectory in advance, if I don't know the forces in advance.

"Doesn't need to say that the future or the past are points absolutely independent and only having in common to belong to such a curve."

Again I do not understand you: the two points may be given to you as absolutely independent of one another and of any curve: just two points in the time-space, (t1, r1) and (t2, r2).

"For me there is a topological background in Quantum Mechanics waiting to be well formulated."

Daniel, which topology can you calculate for two distant objects, A and B, constrained by quantum correlations? Don't you see that what A does, depends on what B does, and vice-versa? When I say "does" means the response to a measurement. And the times at which the two particles are measured may differ, and that, in a frame-dependent way, by one frame B is measured later than A, by another frame, vice-versa. So, what each particle does, depends on the future fate of the other particle. can you speak of topology? HOW?

Dear Sofia,

The study of the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics is very difficult and in some aspects dangerous. People as you, with enough courage to do it, deserve my greatest appreciation, but the task is huge and in some aspects confusing. This theory was born always close to the experiment and without worrying too much of the logic coherence. The practical success was wonderful allowing to understand the mater which sorrounds us and the technology related. Its mathematics were also well formulated, but our common sense or our conceptual understanding fails (at least for me): for instance, I can do many calculations with spins and their magnetic moments but I'm unable to "see" properly what physical quantity is. And mathematically I'm not coherent either because I use them as vectors when they are spinors, etc...This is a big problem when we need to teach magnetism to clever students, who want to know the physics behind this phenomenon. The main problem is always to know enough quantum mechanics or its mathematical formalism, the experiments and measurements is a magic behaviour which always work very well.

For me one of the main advances in Quantum Mechanics was given by Bohm and Aharonov when they found experimentally how the topology could play a fundamental role in this field. In electromagnetism the Lorentz force needs to have a magnetic field and no a potential A. The potential A is not even a physical quantity macroscopically because it depends of the gauge, but quantum mechanically this dependence is fundamental because it glues with the quantum states. This is what is nowadays forms the basis of the topological quantum materials that I'm working on.

If information was sent backward in time people would change the cause of events they did not like so the information would not get sent in first place. That is if there was one future. See the attached two files that discus this in more detail including a mathematical prof that time is multidimensional.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Dear Sydney,

Indeed, my question is motivated by the fact that in the quantum theory, the entanglements behave as if no particle in the entanglement produces its response when tested, independently from the responses of the other particles. But the particles are not tested simultaneously, s.t. the interdependence between the responses is a cooperation between present and future events. The result produced by a particle tested "now", depends on the type of test and answer of a particle which will be tested "some later".

In all, I asked whether we have some similar effect, i.e. influence backwards in time, in the macroscopic physics.

My dear Daniel,

The problem with the entanglements is that the response of each particle at a test depends on the responses the the other particles. But it may be that not all the particles are tested at the same time. Also, which particles are tested first, and which later, is frame dependent. In all, we face a collaboration between present and future test processes.

I know the Bohm-Aharonov experiment, but I don't see what help can it offer in the above problem. As to the Bohmian mechanics (interpretation of QM), it is wrong, I proved its incompatibility with the experiment in section 5 of my

Preprint Are particles possessing rest-mass, STRICTLY waves?

This problem of retro-causality in QM might be eliminated if there would exist a preferred frame. Please believe me that a preferred frame would also elliminate the need of the collapse hypothesis. I can prove that the collapse of the wave-function would be replaced by erasing of parts of the wave-function by destructive interference, completely accordingly with the quantum formalism. I will prove this to you in another post, it's trivial.

However, in all the macroscopic physics there is no such thing as a preferred frame. The laws of physics are covariant at a change of frame.

To put it even more simply, the detector of a particle, either feels the particle and reports it, or remains silent. In any case, why should it care of some preferred frame? The detector has its own rest-frame; it sees an incoming wave-packet and reacts to it, according to this frame.

Dear Sydney,

"But the mechanism of time in the macrocosm is identical to the microcosm so no macroscopic analogy can help you to understand “quantum confusion” "

The backward-in-time influence in QM has nothing to do with the indeterminacy. It has to do with the entanglements, the fact that the response of a particle "now" influences, and is also influenced, on the type of measurement and result of the other particles in the entanglement, measured later.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

I am sorry, Sydney, I understood nothing, it seems as if you talk with yourself. It's a frequent problem amomg the users.

Whatever I can tell you FOR SURE, is that the answer CANNOT be found in text books. It's RESEARCH here. If the answers were in text books we could dismiss our research teams and go home.

"So why don’t you use reasoning without trying to fit everything into the conceptual frame of QM?"

This is an essential thing that you did not understand - probably I should stress it more in my question. I want to know whether backward-in-time influence is strictly an invention of the entanglements, or we find it also in the macroscopic world. Deep in my mind there is a thoght that if this is strictly a property of the entanglements, something is sick with them.

I subscribe to a model suggested by death. We all have a family linage. if your parents die, going back in time means they most suddenly come alive without any cause. So too must energy lost by friction or radiated by a reaction be re-assembled without cause.

But to you other part, think of the quantum eraser rather than entanglement. Two characteristics of the universe are needed to model these experiments without a reverse time (Transaction interpretation of QM). A speed of much greater than light of a wave something (an ether?) not matter that is influenced by matter and that flows from matter to be reflected back to the test matter. The reflected part then has information of the fixtures in the path of the light in the quantum eraser.

Think of light from the torch you are holding illuminating your way through a dark passage.

Dear Sydney,

Consider two labs in relative movement, receiding from one another, one lab of experimenter Alice and the other lab of the experimenter Bob. Let two particles, A and B, come to the labs and being tested, A to Alice's lab, B to Bob's.

Please tell me, do you think that the detector in Alice's (Bob's) lab would care of a preferred frame? The detector feels the object that impinges on its internal material and interacts with that object. We can describe this interaction in the frame of coordinates in which the detector is at rest. So we do for Alice's detectors, and so for Bob's detectors, each detector with its rest-frame.

No doubt, we can pick a third frame and describe the material in the detectors as moving, but this is a complication.

I repeat, what I don't see is why should the interaction between the material in a detector and some object, care of another frame? In which way a preferred frame would make its presence felt by this interaction?

It may sound like agnosticism, but the fact is that the reality you understood is heavily deponded on what you perceived. Since human can only construe causal relations within a temporal forward sequence frame, we are hard to understand or proof, constrained with our cognition, a temporally reversed reality.

Sofia D. Wechsler

Sofia -

Science is the art of supplying theories to explain observed artifacts.

So I would answer you with a question.

Are you suggesting that this theory must be true because no one can supply evidence to disprove it?

This approach isn't science - it isn't even philosophy - I put it in the realms of pure speculation. - great for entertainment - poor at expending the frontiers of knowledge.

Ian

as time is 2-dimensional, backwards does not mean merely one direction

“…Who says that cauzation backwards in time is impossible? …..”

That follows from the definition of the cause-effect events/processes: the effect appears after, i.e. “later in time”, the cause.

Though to understand more – what is “Time” is possible only in “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904., where it is shown that “Time” and “Space” are absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities, that are absolutely fundamentally necessary for (i) - any informational pattern/system could exist at all – “Space”, and (ii) since any information absolutely fundamentally cannot be non-existent, and so at some change of something the next state cannot, say, erase the former state, if something changes – “Time”. Or, by another words – Time is Space for changing states. More see the link above, the SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time would be useful for first reading.

So that

“…The 2nd law of the thermodynamics says that the entropy only increases. From this law we derived a time-axis that has only one direction - forward…..”

is rather popular, nonetheless meaningless allegation. Matter, and every material object – a particle, body, galaxy… constantly change - because of the energy conservation law; and so Matter is always moving in time, and only “forward”; simply usually from a given state into utmost probable next state; if a change is deterministic, that is simply a case, when the probability is equal to 1.

However here are a few semantic/logical nuances. For example some cyclic process is a repetition of the same events, i.e., in fact, a next repetition “in future” is the same as “in past”, and so formally is a travel in the past. Or, say, a cinema can be shown in direct and in reverse order, in the second case we have a “travel in the past” again.

At that the second case is very important for the informational system “Matter”. As that was the outstanding Fredkin and Toffoly finding, if some changes happen in a system, where elements are reversible, then such changes aren’t accompanied by dissipation of energy from the system, and just because of everything in Matter is built basing on the reversive logic, the energy conservation law acts.

However reverse sequences are, in certain sense “illogical” in the “true time” definition above, and so Matter’s Spacetime is [5]4D absolute Euclidian “realization of Space and Time as the Possibilities” as the spacetime dimensions; and the metrics of this spacetime is (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

where “X,Y,Z” are 3D spatial “possibilities/dimensions” [in accordance with von Weizsäcker’s 1950-th outstanding finding that for Matter be built from binary elements, the space should be 3D space],

“ct” is the “true time” dimension, which, again, is absolutely fundamental and acts in every dynamical system in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, and so in a sub-Set “Matter”;

“cτ” is the dimension, which we call “the coordinate time” [which clocks show], and which “legalizes” reverse sequences, including, say, antiparticles, which are reverse algorithms relatively to their particles.

Thus in cτ both, positive and negative “coordinate time travels” are possible, however all particles move only in the positive direction and cannot move “back in time”, and antiparticles move only in the negative direction and cannot move “forward in time”; when, again, all they are absolutely fundamentally constantly move only forward in the “ct” dimension.

Cheers

If information is sent backward in time. People will change the cause of information they do not like. There they will not get the information to begin with. Therefore if there is only one future, nothing with information on it can go bacward in time. If there are many futures things wold get mixed (scrambled) it went backward in time.

See the attached file for more detials.

Just like we have no negative distances there is no negative time too. Time and distances are the same.

It's total misunderstanding to say that you can go forward and backward in space but not in time. Then you consider coordinates. In nature there are no coordinates, only interaction logic.

Esa Säkkinen

Your comment seems very logical.

However, please look at Maupertuis' principle of minimal action. Why should an object follow, between two points in the time-space A(t1, r1) and B(t2, r2), the trajectory which minimizes the action? The object knows the space-time point A where it starts its travel. But, does the object know in advance the final point B and the time-space configuration between A and B? How can it fit its trajectory so as to minimize the action function between A and B, without knowing things in advance?

Sydney Ernest Grimm

"The underlying field structure creates Bob’s lab and Alice’s lab from moment to moment. In other words, there is a “shared creator” for both labs."

Sydney, I also believe in God. But I do science without involving the concept of God. If you involve God you don't need anymore the physics laws, you have God and He decides the result of any experiment, He creates or stops movements, etc. No more science, only God's decisions.

Does it seem to you realistic? As far as I know there are laws of physics.

Sergey Shevchenko

"That follows from the definition of the cause-effect events/processes: the effect appears after, i.e. “later in time”, the cause. Though to understand more – what is “Time” is possible only in “The Information as Absolute” conception . . ."

The laws of the Universe existed before we defined definitions.

But I notice a very interesting idea in your comment (if I understood you correctly): that energy conservation is a consequence of the time-symmetry of the laws of the mechanics. That is especially obvious on the Schrödinger equation.

Anyway, please see my reply to Esa Säkkinen, just two comments before this one.

Best regards

Sofia D. Wechsler

In fact as far as a minimal action concerned the continuously forward going defined time coordinate is effective. The space with opposite directions is due to inertial projection for mammal brains.

Sofia D. Wechsler

“…[SS quote: at follows from the definition of the cause-effect events/processes: the effect appears after, i.e. “later in time”, the cause. [end quote]

The laws of the Universe existed before we defined definitions.….”

That is true, but that doesn’t imply that, if some definitions are adequate to the objective reality, then in the reality corresponding objects/events/processes didn’t/don’t exist/happen/proceed.

Including in this case in the reality most of events/processes quite really are casual, all so really have causes and effects; as well as in the reality the effects appear after the causes, and so later in time. Though, of course, that is independently on – invented humans some definitions, or not.

“… please see my reply to Esa Säkkinen, just two comments before this one… Why should an object follow, between two points in the time-space A(t1, r1) and B(t2, r2), the trajectory which minimizes the action? The object knows the space-time point A where it starts its travel. But, does the object know in advance the final point B and the time-space configuration between A and B? How can it fit its trajectory so as to minimize the action function between A and B, without knowing things in advance?...”

Here is no some principal problems also. The object indeed knows the space-time point A where it starts its travel. But the object doesn’t know in advance the final point B.

However if after some concrete “cause” – impact the objects moves in the spacetime, the existent external conditions – not the time-space configuration, neither space nor time affect on the physical processes - but concrete fields and other objects configuration,

which, including the object itself, all exist/happen/proceed only be governed by fundamental laws/links/constants [including the coordinate time symmetry, see above] in accordance with everything in Matter exists, interacts, and changes,

will further make so, that the object will occur in some point B, and the object’s trajectory will be in accordance with the least-action principle.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Your English is not so good. So, at least, try to use short sentences instead of long and complicated forms and also with x/y/z . Keep simple! Bottom line, I understood nothing from what you wrote.

Cheers

Sofia D. Wechsler

“…Your English is not so good… . Keep simple! Bottom line, I understood nothing from what you wrote.…..”

That seems, on certain sense, so. So I attempt to clarify, using short sentences, few points in the last passage in the SS post above, which relates to yours

“… please see my reply to Esa Säkkinen, just two comments before this one… Why should an object follow, between two points in the time-space A(t1, r1) and B(t2, r2), the trajectory which minimizes the action? The object knows the space-time point A where it starts its travel. But, does the object know in advance the final point B and the time-space configuration between A and B? How can it fit its trajectory so as to minimize the action function between A and B, without knowing things in advance?...”

(i) - Here are no some principal problems. The object indeed knows the space-time point A where it starts its travel. But the object doesn’t know in advance the final point B.

(ii) after some concrete “cause”, i.e. after an impact on the object, the objects moves in the spacetime, at that:

it moves in the existent concrete external conditions;

which aren’t some “the time-space configuration”, neither space nor time affect on the physical processes, Matter’s spacetime is nothing more than some “empty container”, where Matter exists and constantly changes;

the concrete conditions above are only concrete fields and other objects configuration.

Everything in Matter, including all in the case above, i.e. fields, other objects configuration, and the object itself, exists, interacts, and changes only be governed by Matter’s fundamental laws, links, constants, including the Matter’s fundamental least-action principle.

So if the object starts to move in a point A, then the concrete impact and concrete conditions above will make so, that the object will occur in some [again - unknown for the object when it was in the point A] concrete point B, and the object’s trajectory will be in accordance with the least-action principle.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Now it's much better, I mean, clear text.

But I don't see that you proved something. You say,

"Everything in Matter, including all in the case above, i.e. fields, other objects configuration, and the object itself, exists, interacts, and changes only be governed by Matter’s fundamental laws, links, constants, including the Matter’s fundamental least-action principle."

The phrases that you said are nothing else than wording, and trivial generalities known by everybody: objects follow the laws of the nature, are influenced by fields, etc., etc., etc. The question asked here is not whether objects follows the laws of the nature. Of course they follow. The question is how it becomes possible that they follow the minimum-action law. For finding the minimum of a function between two points A and B, you have to know the function in all the space between A and B, and even beyond these points, the forces acting in different regions along the time, all the future configuration.

If the future is not known, if the configuration of all the space is not known, how can this law be obeyed?

In the quantum mechanics, a quantum object does not follow between two points the trajectory of minimum action. It follows all the possible trajectories, even the most irregular ones.

Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment

http://bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

Tang Suye

The fact that in the quantum mechanics appears a backward-in-time influence, is known. The question in this thread is whether the macroscopic mechanics also admits backward-in-time influence, i.e. if this type of influence is general. This is the reason for which I mention the principle of minimal action.

Before answering, one has to read attentively what is the question.

Sofia D. Wechsler

“…The phrases that you said are nothing else than wording, and trivial generalities known by everybody: objects follow the laws of the nature, are influenced by fields, etc., etc., etc.…”

Yes, that is so, I didn’t claim that write something new; and only pointed that in

“…The question is how it becomes possible that they follow the minimum-action law. For finding the minimum of a function between two points A and B, you have to know the function in all the space between A and B, and even beyond these points, the forces acting in different regions along the time, all the future configuration. ….”

- there is no question – the object that start to move in point A doesn’t know where is the point B, and moves only as a sequence of “differential” transitions at every time moment from given its and its environment state into next its and its environment state; be governing at that by laws of Matter.

Including so, that at every “differential” transition the physical action is minimal. When the object arrives to the point B, which isn’t arbitrary, but was – in the past – defined by currents states of the object and the environment, the action turns out to be the “least” action.

“…If the future is not known, if the configuration of all the space is not known ….”

Again, for material objects the future is not known, and the configuration of all in the space is not known as well, however that isn’t essential. Though indeed, since humans know some laws in Matter, including about the physical action, they can simulate, for given conditions/states of the object and its environment, the trajectories of the object at motion from point A to point B in any time – in the past, the present and in the future; including at a simulation there can be results for some conditions that the object will never arrive to point B.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Hi, Sergey,

I think that there is circularity in what you say. I will return on that, later.

"at every “differential” transition the physical action is minimal"

No, I also thought of this. The path of minimal action between two very close points may take you in a direction from which on, all the sum of the consecutive minima is worse (greater) than on an alternative trajectory, which begins with a non-minimal first step, but in continuation the minima are smaller than in the other trajectory. I mean, the trajectory in which the first step is not a minimum, may take to a region with smaller forces, or other conditions which are better than in the region through which passes the other trajectory.

Sofia D. Wechsler

I don’t think The fact that in the quantum mechanics has been made clear, your question is not a separate question, it involves some deep issues, for examples, 1) the mathematical logic of the wave function is determinism, there has no any probability factor within it; 2) Schrödinger equation is a reversible equation, whereas, this reversible equation can only be verified by irreversible measurement.

The concept of the time, or the past, the present, the future, depends on one-way direction or irreversibility, not only a causal order between the events. The principle of minimal action does not involve one-way direction or irreversibility, it is a reversible principle.

If an event influences a past process, the event can only be a past event, whether it is a quantum phenomenon or a macroscopic phenomenon.

Hi, Sofia,

“…I think that there is circularity in what you say….”

There is no circularity in the SS posts.

“…[SS post quote]"at every “differential” transition the physical action is minimal" [end quote]

No, I also thought of this. The path of minimal action between two very close points may take you in a direction fomr which on, all the sum of the consecutive minima is worse (greater) than on an alternative trajectory, which begins with a non-minimal first step, but in continuation the minima are smaller than in the other trajectory. ..”

Along real trajectory of real bodies in real environment the physical action is minimal between pairs of any arbitrary distant the trajectory’s points, including “a first step”.

Here is some nuance if QM effects take place, since at that “the point B” is essentially uncertain, however since when we consider motion of bodies that are composed from well more than 1020 quantum objects, which change their positions with frequencies well more than, say, 1010, these nuances are well averaged, and don’t affect on the leas-action principle.

Cheers

Dear Sofia,

As I have said in other posts, your question is very interesting but without a solution, at least from my humble point of view. But let me try to analyse some aspects which are involved in this difficulty.

1. Macroscopically there is what is called the arrow of time, i.e. the entropy of a closed system always increase.

2. The Universe only expands and therefore the future is by definition the direction towards which the universe becomes bigger.

3. In spite that the solutions of the wave equations depend are positive and negative in time, experimentally you only find the ones of positive time, i.e. going from past to future. If you throug an stone in swiming pool you see to go out the waves and never to come in at the point where they were produced.

Although we don't know the cause of this direction of time from a macroscopic for these systems, we can accept them easily but that doesn't answer your question because you ask about cause-effect. This is much more difficult to accept, it goes against the reality and the logic: can a son be older than his mother? Can a deadly victim kill his killer? And so on...The problem is that there is a mixing here between Physics and Epistemology, between Eddington ( creator of arrow's time) and Kant (time is an a priori concept in our mind).

Going to Quantum Mechanics, the time inversion operator works producing degenerate states ( Kramer's theorem) for systems which have so symmetry of time. Notice that there are physical systems which don't allow it as, for instance, spins, magnetic field or kaon decay (involving a weak interaction). But when you introduce besides the entanglement concept, where there are mixed states not dependent of the distance between them, the things are much more difficult to say. More exactly, impossible to understand from my point of view and this is clearly a deffect of Quantum Mechanics which was not solved since the almost beginning of this so successful physical theory, despite important people as Einstein or even Schrödinger.

Daniel, my kind friend,

In the classical mechanics I have a problem with Maupertuis' principle. There is no possibility to choose, from all the possible trajectories between the points A and B, the trajectory which minimizes the action, without knowing, in advance, the potential in all the space.

If you have time, you can look at the proof of the Euler-Lagrange equations obtained from Maupertuis' principle. Is a very general proof.

On the other hand, I agree with you that the evolution of the Universe, the lives of the human beings and of all the animals, plants, even microbs, goes only forward in time. A Universe going in both directions of the time would be undefined. The concept of time would not exist, s.t. it would be a Universe in which nothing happens.

So, I infer that there is something unclear with Maupertuis' principle. By the way, it is the principle that defines the geodesic in the classical mechanics.

With best regards

Dear Sofia,

There are several different special cases of the Euler-Lagrange variational principles and historically Fermat and Maupertius were the first to introduce them for Optics. In Fermat the variations are respect to time while in Maupertius is done for the trajectories itself or distances. Thus in Maupertius doesn't allow to know how a "body" (particle) move in the trajectory and less to devide it in steps: the future and past are not the usual concepts here and less their correlation. This is perhaps the main difficulty within this discussion. This doesn't happen in Euler-Lagrange that nowadays we use to do. Obviously if you don't know the boundary points you cannot give any kind of extremal for the possible trajectories between them. But there is no problem of causality in any variational case that you chose. No problem with time order and less with the correlation between them!

In the time dimension we can only remember or sense the past not the future, but other dimensions we can sense or see in both directions. Therefore there a mechanism stopping the reverse flow things with information.

The attached paper gives a mathematical proof based on the behavior of Fourier series that information travel from the future to the present is blocked. It also gives reasons that this seems implies multiple time dimensions.

Dear Sofia,

So far the focus was mainly on the Maximum entropy principle based on "statistics" on multiplicity, strictly tied also to the theory of information by the Shannon Hartely theorem .

The evolution of macro systems in mechanics respond first to the Hamilton Least action principle (as Daniel mentioned), which translates in "all systems evolves towards states which minimize the overall energy density".

The action is an angular momentum (like the Planck constant h), what is minimized is the angular momentum (most of the times the Action is minimized since a stationary point which is not stable goes eventually to a local minimum).

The action is also the energy multiplied by time, in the volume of space where the evolution takes place, it represents the minimization of the quantity of energy in that volume in time.

The arrow of time is the preferred direction of the evolution, determined by the Least action principle:

a mechanical system has a certain sequence of states (proper evolution) and this sequence, determined by the principle, does never occur in the reverse form.

Material bodies have the tendency to get rid of energy and enter in more stable states (chemistry or whatever), they minimize the energy density or energy content, not the opposite...

A propagation of something backward in time would violate also the Least Action principle....

The attached files in my answer above gives proofs that information cannot go backwards in time.

Dear Stefano,

The question of Sofia goes much further than the Hamilton's principle, which is one of the special cases of the least action in Physics. In general each of this principles has its field of application. For instance, the Hamilton's principle cannot be applied to a Riemann manifold in general because you have not always conjugate points for its geodesics. The same happens with Maupertius action even for one sphere because a geodesic doesn't need to be the least distance between to conjugate points.

Hamiltonian Mechanics needs to be defined in a symplectic geometry where the Legendre transformatiosn are well defined and without this condition you have not a relation between the Hamiltonian (or the energy) with the action ( or the Lagrangian).

My Stefano,

"A propagation of something backward in time would violate also the Least Action principle...."

WHY? If the Lagrangian is symmetrical in time, why should the least action principle forbid movement backwards-in-time?

Just as a small ingredient, from the principle of least action one gets the Euler-Lagrange equations and from them Newton's equation of motion, which is time-reversible.

Backwards-in-time evolution is forbidden only for gases for which some macroscopic parameter suddenly changes, open systems (e.g. excited atoms, living bodies), and others.

Sofia D. Wechsler,

Theoretical physicists are lazy. They reads only of Einstein. They do not read anything new. Nobel laureates in physics are mostly physicists, who mainly create and defend physics. Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity...

Change QUALITY

1905 A.E. : Einstein ´s theory Tkin =mc^2 – mo c^2

1996: Tkin id =mc^2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ] Tkin ad = mc^2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ]

Einstein's theory works only for v < 0.1c.

https://biocoreopen.org/ijnme/New-Trends-in-Physics-Extraordinary-proofs.pdf

A particle moving in a transmission medium.

Kinetic energy of a particle ( charge) moving at the velocity of v has two different values:

Kinetic energy of a particle ( charge) Tkin id =mc^2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ] in direction of motion of a particle ( charge)

It is realy as Newton´s kinetic energy, where v is velocity of a particle ( charge) .

Kinetic energy of a particle ( charge) Tkin ad = mc^2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ] against direction of motion of a particle ( charge)

It is realy as Maxwell´s electromagnetic wave energy, where v is velocity of a particle ( charge).

"The difference between a good experiment and a good theory is in the fact that the theory gets old quickly and it is replaced by another one, based on more perfect ideas. It will be forgotten quickly. The experiment is something else. The experiment, which has been thought well and performed carefully, will step in the science forever. It will become its part. It is possible to explain such experiment differently in different periods of times."

P. L. KAPICA

For nearly 100 years ago have been Nobel Prize winners said:

"- The theory of relativity is a mathematical and not a physical theory.

- The theory is far from being confirmed experimentally, the results of the solar eclipse expeditions allow other interpretations

- The principle of relativity is only valid for mass-dependent movements

- The theory of relativity contradicts the fundamental ideas about space and time: the Euclidean space and the usual ideas of time must remain binding. "

I strongly demand: The events of 1905-1920, we can not replace by the events of 1938-1945. We would be making a big mistake with this. Because other future generations will hate us for it.

Crimes of earlier periods lead to war. They are the cause of the wars. The war is very bad.

Change QUALITY

1905 A.E. : Einstein ´s theory Tkin =mc^2 – mo c^2

1996: Tkin id =mc^2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ]

Tkin ad = mc^2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ]

Einstein's theory works only for v < 0.1c.

https://biocoreopen.org/ijnme/New-Trends-in-Physics-Extraordinary-proofs.pdf

HISTORY REPEATED ...

In the era when the "marriage of mathematic with physics" is the space – time, many do not know what space is.

Einstein says that gravity "is born" when the substance gets into the network space – time.

And Lorenz's transformation "shows“ that a son can be a grandfather of his father and that various clocks show different times depending on the speed of movement.

We have returned to the time of the old Jews when they were making a deity-golden calf, poured out of jewelry, and begged him to deliver them from evil. These are now "Einstein´s vicious circle" and "space - time" as modern "deities", to which most of today's theoretical physicists pray...

Mathematics in real 3D space is a basic tool of science.

The problem arises when real physical experiments from 3D space are solved in a utopian 4D space that has been transformed (smuggled) into physics by mathematicians from past centuries: Poincare, Lorentz,...

Einstein and mathematicians brought chaos into physics. They has many non-physical bad concepts:

The definition of "local time" using the "Lorentz transformation formulas" (space-time).

The definition of "covariant equation" using "local time", and

"Lorentz transformation equations" (space-time).

The definition of "physical definition of simultaneity" using "covariant equations," "local time" and "Lorentz transformation equations" (space-time).

The definition of "invariant interval" using "physical definition of simultaneity", "covariant equations," "local time" and "Lorentz transformation formulas" (space-time).

………………………………………….

Please take into account that the theory may be based on mathematical or physical principles.

As for mathematical theory based on mathematical principles, everything is fine.

Similarly, when it comes to physical theory based on physical principles, everything is all right.

Problems arise when it comes to physical theory based on mathematical principles - as is the case of Einstein's theory of relativity, Lorentz transformations,...

In mathematics, the Poincaré conjecture is a theorem about the characterization of the 3-sphere, which is the hypersphere that bounds the unit ball in four-dimensional space.

In 1994, Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman proved the soul conjecture. In 2003, he proved (confirmed in 2006) Thurston's geometrization conjecture. This consequently solved in the affirmative the Poincaré conjecture.

…………………………………..

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory. Why is it wrong from the point of view of physics ?

Einstein's Procedure for Synchronizing Clocks

John D. Norton

Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh PA 15260. Homepage: www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton

This page (with animated figures) is available at www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/goodies

John D. Norton's Homepage--redirect

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: “German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science,” Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting

Jeroen van Dongen

Einstein Papers Project California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA 91125, USA

Institute for History and Foundations of Science Utrecht University P.O. Box 80.000 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands

FACTS (1919 - 1920) :

Professionally non educated EDITORS ( non physicists ) and private owners of newspapers perpetrate really serious immoral act in science by that it hinders its natural development and creating an deceitful picture of Albert Einstein by his glorification:

12 In 1919 it had carried an article [13 autor Alexander Moszkowski (1851-1934), 15 editor-in-chief was Arnold Berliner (1862-1942)] announcing the results of the British solar eclipse expedition that rose to laudatory hyperbole, not shying away from declaring that “a highest truth, beyond Galileo and Newton, beyond Kant” had been unveiled by “an oracular saying from the depth of the skies.”

16 on December 14, 1919, the front page of the Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung [17 This newspaper had been founded by Leopold Ullstein (1826-1899)] carried a large close-up portrait of Einstein whose caption read: “A new eminence in the history of the world: Albert Einstein, whose researches signify a complete revolution of our understanding of Nature and whose insights equal in importance those of a Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton.”

2 The huge public acclaim that was accorded Einstein. It also vexed conservative academics (e.g. the Nobel Laureate Philipp Lenard have felt that the theoretical physicist Einstein had captured too much of the limelight, while other, experimental physicists were not appreciated enough.)

FACTS Then followed (1920):

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: “German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science,” Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting

Jeroen van Dongen

Einstein Papers Project California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA 91125, USA

Institute for History and Foundations of Science Utrecht University P.O. Box 80.000 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands

Two important and unpleasant events occurred in Albert Einstein’s life in 1920: That August an antirelativity rally was held in the large auditorium of the Berlin Philharmonic, and a few weeks later Einstein was drawn into a tense and highly publicized debate with Philipp Lenard on the merits of relativity at a meeting in Bad Nauheim, Germany.

73 Nonetheless, tensions had been mounting. Max Planck was firmly in the chair, but prior to the debate--because he was still not certain whether Einstein would remain in Berlin--he appeared to be quite agitated.

74 Paul Weyland also was present at the debate--but this time he kept a low profile. Einstein and his wife Elsa were strongly affected by the exchange: Elsa suffered a nervous breakdown.

75 The Viennese experimental physicist Felix Ehrenhaft (1879- 1952) recalled that he had to take a highly upset Einstein out for a calming stroll in the park after the debate. Later that evening they avoided the uneasy company of their fellow physicists.

76 Both Lenard and Einstein left the conference deeply distressed. Lenard renounced his membership in the DPG--and even denied admittance to his office at the University of Heidelberg to any of its members.

Albert Einstein und Philipp Lenard

Dr. Charlotte Schönbeck

Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg

Fakultät für Mathematik und Naturwisse

No real physical directional process can move back in time due to irreversibility , dictated by the second law of thermodynamics at every non zero finite temperature. This is

due to the consequence of evolution of process in every time step under the presence of finite electrochemical potential gradient. Unfortunately, Langargian can never be defined for any irreversible process. Also, every irreversible process is a dissipative process. So, strictly speaking, Euler Langarangian equation can NOT be used for any real system which evolves under the finite gradient ( any kind) at any finite temperature and pressure. Nothing should be concluded firmly using ideal equation. Ideal equation does not incorporate irreversibility in derivation and thus

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

It seems that it is worthwhile to repeat some points in the SS post above, 5 days ago now [though to read whole post is useful also, of course]

*********** ***

….Though to understand more – what is “Time” is possible only in “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904., where it is shown that “Time” and “Space” are absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities, that are absolutely fundamentally necessary for (i) - any informational pattern/system could exist at all – “Space”, and (ii) since any information absolutely fundamentally cannot be non-existent, and so at some change of something the next state cannot, say, erase the former state, if something changes – “Time”. Or, by another words – Time is Space for changing states. More see the link above, the SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time would be useful for first reading.

So that

“…The 2nd law of the thermodynamics says that the entropy only increases. From this law we derived a time-axis that has only one direction - forward…..”

is rather popular, nonetheless meaningless allegation. Matter, and every material object – a particle, body, galaxy… constantly change - because of the energy conservation law; and so Matter is always moving in time, and only “forward”; simply usually from a given state into utmost probable next state; if a change is deterministic, that is simply a case, when the probability is equal to 1.

However here are a few semantic/logical nuances. For example some cyclic process is a repetition of the same events, i.e., in fact, a next repetition “in future” is the same as “in past”, and so formally is a travel in the past. Or, say, a cinema can be shown in direct and in reverse order, in the second case we have a “travel in the past” again….

*********** ***

So, for example, that

“…The problem is that there is a mixing here between Physics and Epistemology, between Eddington ( creator of arrow's time) and Kant (time is an a priori concept in our mind).…..”

- in the reality implies that indeed, because of, in this case Eddington an Kant, didn’t understand – what “Time” is, both invented some conjectures that are non-adequate to the reality.

The first, who created the “arrow of time” was Newton, when defined the Time as “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…”, when clocks simply show this flow.

Further this Newton’s definition was used in the SR, though Minkowski and Einstein “corrected” Newton, and assigned to Time’s “equable flow” additional properties – time by some magic force governs by clocks’ tick rates, and can be, again by some magic force “dilated”; however it flows “of itself, and from its own nature. Eddington found “physical sense” for this flow as the consequence of 2-th law of thermodynamics; however, again, Matter as a whole, and every material object, move in this “space for changing states” [in the "true time", more see the SS post mentioned above] constantly at every change, and that would be in the case, including, also when there would be no thermodynamics.

Besides any/every physical process [of 4D motion of an object in an environment, etc.] proceeds only [again, if the QM effects are well averaged, see the SS post above] by the least-action condition; when some humans cannot, say, to write corresponding Euler Langarangian equations, that are private problems of the humans, Matter simply dully follows to the least-action principle.

In the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494. , where physical action is a number of binary [in accordance with the outstanding von Weizsäcker hypothesis] operation, that implies, that interactions/processes in Matter happen/proceed by the condition of minimal number of the operations.

Cheers

Samuel Reich

Excellent and straightforward paper.

It is a fairly trivial exercise to extend this theory and hence demonstrate that under conditions of super-high gravity (black holes), time must demonstrate sinusoidal shifts that return to zero.

This does not imply time 'moving backwards' but that 'zero time' has some other basis than past / future. Perhaps time is truly 'circular' in some way we cannot imagine and moving forward in time always returns us to a baseline.

To picture this think of the sinusoidal movement of waves in water. The waves have a circular moment overlaid on a path moving continuously forward.

Ian

Dear users,

I repeat that my argument in favor of retro-causation in classical mechanics, is Maupertuis' principle of least action.

This principle requires the future to be determined in advance. For a body which at a time t1 is at a point r1, IS KNOWN that at a time t2 will be at the point r2. The principle claims that between these two points P1(r1, t1) and P2(r2, t2), the body takes the shortest route.

Please do not confound this principle with Newton's law of motion derived from this principle. For obtaining the trajectory of an object using Newton's law ma = F, one needs initial conditions, i.e. r1 and v(r1, t1). This is a Cauchy boundary problem. It does not need to know the future. The trajectory of the body can be calculated point after point, using for the calculus of each new point the value of F at the former time and position.

Maupertuis' principle is a Dirichlet boundary problem, it requires to know the starting time and position and the arriving time and position, i.e. the future.

Dear Sofia,

Your error (at least) is that you take the coordinates as granted. All the interactions form spacetime not vice versa. Hence the least action follows trajectories settled by other interactors - no need to know where it will absorb in future. Also, the Maupertuis' principle projects the problem on canvas - it's not any reality but succesful hypothesis to explain how to show the spacetime as coordinates.

Sofia D. Wechsler

My Dear Sofia,

You said: " I repeat that my argument in favor of retro-causation in classical mechanics, is Maupertuis' principle of least action"

We don't have any retro-causation in classical mechanics,

always the particle doesn't need to know the future because the particle has always an initial velocity so Newton's law of motion guides the particle point after point,

therefore the Maupertuis' principle is only a mathematical result!

With best regards.

Retro-causality has not been observed. There are better models where it is supposed to be suggested. Therefore, this speculation is useless.

Dear Daniel,

Eddington wrote:

"The law of gravitation, the laws of mechanics, and the laws of the electromagnetic fi eld have all been summed up in a single Principle of Least Action. For the most part this unification was accomplished before the advent of the relativity theory, and it is only the addition of gravitation to the scheme which is novel. We can see now that if action is something absolute, a con figuration giving minimum action is capable of absolute de definition; and accordingly we should expect that the laws of the world would be expressible in some such form. The argument is similar to that by which we first identified the natural tracks of particles with the tracks of greatest interval-length. The fact that some such form of law is inevitable, rather discourages us from seeking in it any clue to the structural details of our world.

Action is one of the two terms in pre-relativity physics which survive

unmodified in a description of the absolute world. The only other survival is entropy.

The coming theory of relativity had cast its shadow before and physics was already converging to two great generalisations, the principle of least action and the second law of thermodynamics or principle of maximum entropy."

Dear Sofia,

I don't think so...Do you know the optimal control theory written by Kalman? and perfected by Quarkernakk and Sivan

http://www.kn-info.net/kn-info/root/root13/researchgate/Kwakernaak_Linear_Optimal_Control_Systems.pdf

they apply the variational principles with the Riccati equations in which calculations are done "backward in time", but only the calculations..

That book is bloody complicated, is one of the most difficult books I've studied..especially in the discrete system in the stochastic case...

if you had the chance to read it, it is very similar to the Feynmann approach to QED in the transition matrix approach which allows to change the state variables.

Dear Esa Säkkinen

You say

"All the interactions form spacetime not vice versa. "

I don't know where from did you take this. In the same way I can say that the spacetime is formed from dinosaurs. I am in favor of being open-minded, but one cannot re-invent the physics. One should also examine seriously his proposals before exposing them.

In Einstein's field equations the fields define the metrics of the space-time, its curvature, etc.. But Einstein didn't say that the fields are the spacetime itself. You can displace fields from one place to another but you cannot take the spacetime from one place - leaving that place without spacetime - and moving the spacetime to another place.

Feynman sum over paths method gives a small probability but unpredictable causation backwards in time for quanta. He wrote in QED that the backward in time particle is antimatter. Textbooks show the backward time in diagrams of particles interacting. Commentaries say these things can happen by chance in QM but are not found in the averages which apply to classical mechanics.

QM is the only science where backward time is found. Relativity and classical mechanics don't have it.

Sum over paths is accepted because it gives the correct prediction of other probabilities, and the backward time components are needed to account for all the results. All it means is there is always a possibility to produce an antiparticle.

Agreement with Esa Säkkinen

Stefano, my dear friend,

I cannot even think of reading a complicated book, I am trying to sleep a sufficient number of hours per day.

By the way, in electromagnetism we have the same situation, integral equations, and alternatively, Maxwell's differential equations.

But with Maupertuis' principle it seems to me that something is wrong in our understanding. You see, the Euler-Lagrange (E-L) equations, which are derived from that principle, do not require to know the future. They form a Cauchy boundary problem, i.e. for solving the E-L equations we need the initial conditions, which are the initial position and velocity.

Now, do you know the question what was before, the egg, or the chicken? Similarly, which laws come from which, the E-L equations from the least action principle, or vice-versa?

As it also seems to me that the future can't have a retro-causal influence, I think that the E-L equations come before, s.t. the least action principle is more likely to be the consequence of the E-L equations and not vice-versa.

Let me give some justifications: the E-L equations define how an object moves in the geometry defined by certain fields. If there are no fields the space is homogeneous, s.t. the object conserves its linear momentum. With or without fields, if the geometry of the space is isotropical, then the angular momentum is conserved. The space properties seem to me more basic than the least action. I don't see any reason why an object should move according to the least action, but knowing that the least action is the integral counterpart of the E-L equations, then I understand.

What you say?

With kind regards

Of course the field presented by some coordinates is the spacetime. The measurable reality is not the values you measures - it's all the nature; more complicated to squeeze in some coordinates. Spacetime is a theory among others though so general that many people consider it as a reality. Sigh.

Sergey wrote,

". For example some cyclic process is a repetition of the same events, i.e., in fact, a next repetition “in future” is the same as “in past”, and so formally is a travel in the past. Or, say, a cinema can be shown in direct and in reverse order, in the second case we have a “travel in the past” again…."

Ans: It shows that you are very ignorant for two reason. One, every cyclic process move in forward time. Once one cycle complete in time T, the next cycle complete in next T time ( assume system is moving anticlockwise) Even if system move clockwise after first anticlockwise cycle, even then clockwise cycle will be completed in next T time. If system move either clockwise or anticlockwise at any finite temperature, then it must to the surroundings. Surrounding will not allow any net directional movement without any gain( existence of Carnot cycle is prime testimony of it). System must pay to the surrounding if it moving under finite electro-potential gradient. Second, your movie reel example which allegedly move back in time is very very wrong. Because, first, if you want to move

stored information ( in this case movie frame) either forward or backward , then you need external agency ( disk driver in this case) which will consume electrical energy in every time step and will do only fraction of work, rest of supplied electrical energy will go the surrounding during every frame motion. Also, stored information will always move forward in time. Stored Frame data can be accessed from high end to low end , but every bit of data will always move in forward in time only. Stored information can be accessed in any ordered /random fashion but that does not means that you are moving back in time. The day you will able to move back in time, then that day every thing in nature will be collapsed. Dead man will become alive. You don't know the horrible consequence of moving back in time.

Dear Stefano,

My comment to your post was due to the importance that you gave to Hamilton's least action principle. This is always invariant under the time inversion as it is easy to show:

variation of action= 0 equivalent to minus variation of action=0

On the other hand the action is not a physical object (even it has units of angular momentum in three dimensions) and it only corresponds to a functional able to lead the motion equations. By the way, Eddington forgot to mention that gravitation (general relativity) had an action due to Hilbert and to Noether. Nowadays you can find many different actions depending of the subtleties that you want to include in the motion equations.

On the other hand, the Sofia's question has one original part which is quite clear and it goes much further than variational principles and over all further than the Maupertuis one: the physical possibility to have one interaction between past and future. It is obvious that the past must determine the future if we are in a deterministic equation but the inverse cannot happen: you know that it is wrong to see a film where some materials transform in a beautiful house and in one plain taking a bomb against gravitation. The film was only back in real time but never could hapen in our physical reality! Notice that this is very different to say that most of the physical laws (if they don't take into account the losses) are invariant under time inversion, i.e. t -> -t. In fact this one of the discrete symmetries of the Lorentz group and but which doesn't follow under certain quantum effects (related with weak interaction). In summary, there are here many different aspects of the time behavior in Physics which are very difficult to explain in a post as this one.

In fact, there is physically no time flow from past to future or backwards. We have only structures for memories and predictions both unsure. Again the time is feeling for mammals to survive - yes, strong feeling but nothing more.

Gokaran Shukla wrote

“……Sergey wrote, [SS post quotation] ". For example some cyclic process is a repetition of the same events, i.e., in fact, a next repetition “in future” is the same as “in past”, and so formally is a travel in the past. Or, say, a cinema can be shown in direct and in reverse order, in the second case we have a “travel in the past” again…."

Ans: It shows that you are very ignorant for two reason. One, every cyclic process move in forward time. Once one cycle complete in time T, the next cycle complete in next T time ( assume system is moving anticlockwise) …he day you will able to move back in time, then that day every thing in nature will be collapsed. Dead man will become alive. You don't know the horrible consequence of moving back in time…The day you will able to move back in time, then that day every thing in nature will be collapsed. Dead man will become alive. You don't know the horrible consequence of moving back in time….”

It seems as here is necessary to repeat what is written really in the quoted by Gokaran Shukla SS post, 22 hours ago now:

__________ ____

[The assertion]

“…The 2nd law of the thermodynamics says that the entropy only increases. From this law we derived a time-axis that has only one direction - forward…..”

is rather popular, nonetheless meaningless allegation. Matter, and every material object – a particle, body, galaxy… constantly change - because of the energy conservation law; and so Matter is always moving in time, and only “forward”; simply usually from a given state into utmost probable next state; if a change is deterministic, that is simply a case, when the probability is equal to 1.

However here are a few semantic/logical nuances. For example some cyclic process is a repetition of the same events, i.e., in fact, a next repetition “in future” is the same as “in past”, and so formally is a travel in the past. Or, say, a cinema can be shown in direct and in reverse order, in the second case we have a “travel in the past” again….

__________ ____

In the repeated text above the bold passage is the bold passage in the quoted SS post also, and, again, in this post and other SS posts as well, always is stated that there fundamentally cannot be some “travels back in time”, that is absolutely fundamental consequence from the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904., where, unlike Newton, Einstein, Minkowski, Eddington, Kant, etc., the absolutely fundamental [i.e. that act in whole “Information” Set, so, including in the informational system “Matter”] phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are rigorously defined.

All that is quite clearly written in the SS posts.

However, if after some “animate discussion” some posts are shifted from the visible page, then somebodies think that they can write anything, including claiming some their own strange assertions, or truncating by rather “specific way” the opponents’ assertion [as in this case], as their opponents assertions; using at that such wording as “you are very ignorant”, etc. That is indeed rather popular practice in some “scientific community”, though….

More see the SS posts above, in this casefirst of all that are now 22 hours and 6 days ago.

Cheers

Daniel Baldomir

My dear Daniel, I believe that I know what happens with Maupertuis' principle which necessitates knowing the future. I reproduce here what I wrote to Stefano, in general:

Maupertuis' principle is a Dirichlet boundary problem, s.t. it requires the knowledge of the solution on the boundaries of the support. The support being [t1, t2], the solution has to be known not only at t1 but also in the future, at t2. One cannot argue with the mathematics.

On the other hand, the Euler-Lagrange (E-L) equations, which are derived from Maupertuis principle, form a Cauchy boundary problem. For solving these equations we need the initial conditions, which are the initial position and velocity. No need to know the future.

Now, do you know the funny question "what was before, the egg, or the chicken"? Adapting it to my question it would be, "which laws come from which, the E-L equations from the least action principle, or vice-versa"?

Let me tell you some facts: the E-L equations originate from the geometry of the space-time. They define how an object moves in the geometry defined by certain fields. If there are no fields the space is homogeneous, s.t. the object conserves its linear momentum. With or without fields, if the geometry of the space is isotropical, the angular momentum is conserved. Newton's laws of mechanics, which are an explicit form of the E-L equations in the Euclidean space-time geometry, reflect precisely these consequences of this geometry.

On the other hand, there is no obvious reason why an object should move between two points so as to minimize the action (action is an abstruct construction, not something that we can measure directly). The only reason is that this principle is the counterpart, in integral form, of the E-L equations. It's a similar situation with the Maxwell equations for the electromagnetic field, and the integral equations.

What you say?

Dear Sofia,

Maupertuis principle don't need to know the future, it only needs to know the value of the velocity in two points of the space if you want use the time. This is exactly what we always do when we employ time as a parameter of a curve. In fact Maupertuis didn't use in its original formulation the time but the space points and trajectories. For fixing ideas let me put the action A defined by the moment p and length l as

A=∫ pdl extremes of the integral l2 and l1 which can be tranformed in time variables

dl=v dt => A=∫ pdl= ∫ p vdt

where you can obtain pv in the integral ( and therefore the kinetic energy as a result) where dl2=v dt2 and dl1=v dt1for the change of variable. This is the pre-history of variational calculus. Nowadays we know that the important are the good definition of the differential manifold where you define this action and its symmetries, i.e. Lorentz group with 10 laws of conservation, or so on. Finally notice that you never never needs to use the concepts of future of past out of being just parameters of the curves, nothing more. The concept of space-time is a relativistic one which assumes a constant velocity and independent of the system of coordinates employed very far of Maupertuis or his principle.

In any case, your question is much further than these variational considerations if you want to substitute the non-locality of Bell in Quantum Mechanics by the dependence of past by future. This is a very interesting question which mixes geometry-topology-quantum mechanics-quantum field theory.

My dear Daniel,

How you don't need to know the future? You don't need the final point (t2, r2)?

If you start to travel with your car to the university, you know the departure time t1, and position, your house, but you don't know whether at a time t2 you'll exactly enter the parking place of the institution, or you'll be still on the way, or you'll be already in your office. r(t2) depends on the conditions on the road.

As to the rest of your example, you wrote in hurry, as you do many times. The Lagrangian is defined as EK - EP, where the subscript K stands for "kinetic" and P for "potential". The Lagrangian depends on r and v, or, more generally, on q and q̇, but not on p and v. My question is too much problematic for permitting changes. A change in the question invites the answer to another question, different from what I asked. So, one should stay with my question as it is.

About I1 and I2, I have no idea who they are. You said that I is a length. Then, which dI1 and dI2? The end points of the interval are fixed, dr1 = dr2 = 0, otherwise you won't get the E-L equations.

I want to insist on that the E-L equations, seem much more realistic than integral equations. These are differential equations, i.e. respect the fact that processes in physics and physical fields propagate from vicinity to vicinity. That means locality, there is no action-at-a-distance. (Of course, with the quantum entanglements we have nonlocal effects, but that doesn't mean that some field propagates faster-than-light.)

With kindest regards

If causation went from the future to the past and there was only one future. For undesirable events would happen in first place because if they did the future will the pas and never get the information to cause that. If there one future and there exists a way to send information from to the present one has the same problem. Even there would lots of noise in such transfer, information can be sent by bursts of noise. So it appears time in some way would ave to be multidimensional for reverse causation to be possible (which would also allow the sending of information from the future to the present). If time was and you had reverse causation each future will try to make different past.

See the attached Fourier-Time document for how that affects the Doppler blue shift. The other two attached files give new impacts of axial Doppler shift and I think you find interesting.

Dear Sofia,

Great, important and complex question! Let me give it a try.

You wrote: "I am asking if we have any evidence that a future event influences a past process."

Wouldn't that create a parallel time-world, in competition with the actual world? At least, the possibility of a(n almost) timeless perpetuum mobile or butterfly effect?

I would rather think that we can have the illusion of "a future event that influences a past process": by forcing a particle back in a former state while it was already in a newer state. Such an effect can only be temporary in my opinion, if it exists. A kind of quantum effect.

I further have a few thoughts on "time".

It is evident to me that time doesn't intrisically exist, because it is a clock-dependent concept, which can never been universally and unambiguously observed at large scales, but only applied in simplified theoretical situations.

Our concept of time doesn't coincide with an entropy increase either, although the unilaterial direction is the same idea. The entropy increase is more a cause-effect event, and as you said well, a permanent motion like electrons in atoms seem to have a constant entropy (perhaps), however, no time freezing.

Furthermore, I think that the future is only unknown to us due to the statistical combinations of the elements, but nevertheless deterministic by itself.

My kindest regards,

Thierry

Dear Sofía,

The concepts that I have tried to show you are too trivial and perhaps difficult to show here. In any case, as I told you in my first post, I cannot answer your question of the effect of future on the past or the present. That is for sure and for me this is independent of the variational principles that you want to use. Nothing with respect to old Maupertuis (no E-L equations have for it).

Let me try to give you the idea of future, past or present in a curve with time as parameter. Imagine a parabolic trajectory, could you tell me what is the future, present or past just looking at it?

Thierry De Mees

You wrote that

"It is evident....that time doesn't exist....because it is a clock dependent concept".

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Time is an 'event' driven concept. These events occur naturally at every level from the galactic scale to the sub-atomic scale.

A key definition of time is 'the interval between regular, repeating events' and science has sought many ways to regularise those events and the interval measurement.

A clock is a simply a tool that regulates or measures time in a way that we mere humans can agree on as a standard and I think the latest standard is based on Caesium decay.

By confusing the measurement with the concept, which many do, then ideas like negative or backwards time become ingrained in our thinking and are quickly assimilated as 'facts' instead of mere fantasy.

Using the event based definition of time then makes backwards time impossible because if a later event happens before an earlier one then it is simply measured or rather observed as the earlier event, with perhaps a glitch in the matrix.

This kind of question is best left to SF writers and film makers.

Ian

Entropy only increases in time for a closed system, till it reaches a constant in equilibrium. For an open system it can decrease.

Even so that the past show an effect coming from the future, is considered a mark of some faulty model, any time this shows up. That is the consensus.

Juan Weisz

A thought. If the external system is included in a new closed system, then that defines a new closed system in which entropy increase. For example, the earth is a closed system. But if the sun is included, another closed system is defined. Ans so to be the universe. Is the universe a closed system? Cosmology tells us that the entropy is constant - total potential energy = total kinetic energy. So the universe cannot be adiabatic as the Big Bang model would have it.

@Ian_Proffitt,

I wrote: "It is evident to me that time doesn't *intrisically* exist, because it is a clock-dependent concept, which can never been universally and unambiguously observed at large scales, but only applied in simplified theoretical situations."

Indeed, nobody can prove that a certain event that occurs here on Earth has a "time" flow that is identical to that of this event when it occurs elsewhere in the universe. It is even uncertain to be able to properly and fully define the other "time" flow.

Every clock will show different results, depending even from the clock construct itself.

An atomic clock and a pendulum clock will give very different outcomes.

Yes, this is a matter of observation, because it is impossible to get an absolute "time" reference, nor is it possible to perfectly ponder all the interrelationships between "time" and the parameters that affects "time" measurements through clocks.

Hence, since time is not absolutely definable, it doesn't exist (for humans and even for Aliens ;-) ). And we can safely say that what cannot (absolutely) exist for us has no utility *to* exist.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Daniel, my friend,

"I cannot answer your question of the effect of future on the past or the present. That is for sure and for me this is independent of the variational principles that you want to use. Nothing with respect to old Maupertuis (no E-L equations have for it)."

You know the proverb that about taste one doesn't argue. So, I won't argue about your decisions on the issue.

"Let me try to give you the idea of future, past or present in a curve with time as parameter. Imagine a parabolic trajectory, could you tell me what is the future, present or past just looking at it?"

My Daniel, for answering you I have to hire an aircraft for watching from above. I don't have that money. Moreover, from above I would loose details of the curve. So, what I can do is to begin to walk from some point of the curve and look at a small region, then go on and look at another small region, and so on. When I reach the end - and that takes time, as you said ("time as parameter") - I will tell you how was the curve all along, where is the end point, and how much time it took to me for reaching it.

All the best

A version with edited files (the original has too many typos)

If causation went from the future to the past and there was only one future. For undesirable events would happen in first place because if they did the future will the pas and never get the information to cause that. If there one future and there exists a way to send information from to the present one has the same problem. Even there would lots of noise in such transfer, information can be sent by bursts of noise. So it appears time in some way would ave to be multidimensional for reverse causation to be possible (which would also allow the sending of information from the future to the present). If time was and you had reverse causation each future will try to make different past.

See the attached Fourier-Time document for how that affects the Doppler blue shift. The other two attached files give new impacts of axial Doppler shift and I think you find interesting.

Samuel Reich,

You wrote that ''If time was and you had reverse causation each future will try to make different past.''

A reversal symmetry denotes that the mirror-image process of a mirror-image system be allowed to happen according to the laws of physics, it does not denote that the process of a system can be reversed along the reverse trajectory or change the law of physics.

A reverse causation does not denote from future to past, such as a clock pendulum.

Thierry De Mees

Hi Thierry

Your response above cuts to the heart of science and decimates it.

If we cannot agree that we may observe a series of events happening sequentially and regularly and that we may also measure an interval between individual instances of the recurring event then we don't have a fundamental basis for science.

We may observe a then b the c identical events, but to then conclude that the original sequence was a then c then b destroys the fundamental philosophy of observation based investigation.

To date and to the best of my knowledge we have never observed any evidence that time goes backwards or doesn't exist.

We see events, we observe what we call intervals, devise a measure for them and we define this this as time.

All the rest is idle speculation.

Ian

Ian Proffitt

Hi Ian,

I never said that the sequence of physical events would possibly inverse in reality. The apparent effect in which energy is borrowed may however result in that kind of observation to the inattentive scientist.

On the other hand, in order to define time intervals, you cannot but use a clock. And since all clocks work at tick rates that depend from their construct and from their environment (internal and external fields, ether, velocity, velocity of ether, local speed of light, etc...) it is practically impossible to measure time accurately and unambiguously for a journey between, say Earth and some planet in another part of our galaxy.

This is true for whatever the clock is.

Hence, "time" cannot be defined, nor any interval of it, except in very simple situations with "good" approximation.

The same is true but less prominent for space.

By the way, although Einstein intuitively understood the difficulty that I explained above, his Special Relativity is total nonsense, especially the second part: "Electrodynamical part" because Einstein treated electromagnetic fields as if they were observable entities by light, which they are not, and he did that by applying the "kinematical part" upon a Maxwell equation. That "kinematical part" however is a.o. about the observation of deformed light between moving frames.

Einstein screwed it and with the help of some "dark forces" this is still ongoing...

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Sofia,

The variational methods only provide you with extremals being trajectories, i.e. curves or equations which may be transformed in curves. That was my question about the parabolic curve which could be a geodesic obtained by E-L equations or others. Present, past and future are not included in the curve as a whole, thus variational methods as the Maupertuis or others cannot solve your problem of the action future on past or so on. You don't need to expend money buying a ticket of the airplain at all. Don't be worry.

Another thing very different is that the equations of motion associated to the variational methods can have solutions in the past or/and in future. This is difficult question because maths gives, for instance, waves from the future that you never got them. Such a problem was studied deeply by Wheeler and Feynman without arriving to a definite conclusion in all that I know.

My Daniel,

I simply don't understand your language,

"The variational methods only provide you with extremals being trajectories, . . ."

The extremal points in the problem are the initial and final point. Alternatively, do you maybe mean that the solution of Maupertuis' principle is a trajectory?

"Present, past and future are not included in the curve as a whole, . . ."

Present and future are the conditions that the curve must fullfill. You are given the present point on the curve, (t1, r1) and you are also gibe the information that the object traveling on the curve will be at the time t2 at r2. The object has to travel in such a way as to obey the predicted future. An object that does not arrive at the time t2 at r2, is not relevant to the problem.

You may pose the problem otherwise: say that from all the cars starting at (t1, r1) we pick those who reached t2 at r2. It won't help you, because for being able to do this picking we have to wait until t2. Moreover, you can't be simultaneously at r1 and r2, only God may be so, not human beings. There is no room for miracles. You have to be at t1 at r1, take a car that starts its trip right at this time heading to r2, and travel with it to r2. When you are at r2 look at the time.

You can't tell me to look at the curve simultaneously at (t1, r1) and (t2, r2) - there is no such thing. I may be at t2 in the place r2, but in this case I won't know what happened at (t1, r1) unless I was at t1 in the place r1.

E-L gives an equation of motion, used to figure out a trajectory, with initial conditions fed in.

The equation of motion just predicts the path based on the time parameter.

Another way is just figure out a path, say an optical path based on the Fermat

principle of least time duration.(straight line or geodesic, for example)

Dear Sofia,

OK, let me try to fix the language. You know how to find an extreme (maximum, minimum or inflection) of function: you differentiate it and equal it to zero. Isn't? This mathematical operation is more than a function, in fact it is a function of a function, i.e. a functional. The functional is what we call action and the one that we want to find the extremals. Ok? Thus in the simplest case of Classical Mechanics where we define it as the integral of a Lagrangian (kinetic energy minus potential energy) with respect to time. After that we make a variation of this action just taking an infinitessimal variation r(t) in r(t) +detal r(t). Yes? And you can keep fixed some points ( Dirichlet boundary conditions). That is all! You substitute your variation within the action and you find Newton's equation, i.e. mass per acceleration plus gradient of the potential are equal zero. Perfect! This is a general equation of motion and you have not past, present or future in any part. Do you understand what I wanted to say? Certainly if you have concrete potential as the gravitational and also an acceleration given to a body you are able to find a trajectory but again, this means that you a curve where you can select a given point, i.e. a r for a t. Nothing more! There are not future, past or present in this trajectory. That corresponds only to an order of time that you can consider within the curve for different points that you pick up. But this choice is out of the variational method, absolutely out.

Surely that you know, but in any case I recommend you to look at the fantastic book of mechanics where these concepts are much better explained (and not so simply deducted, but much better mathematical and physical founded )

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7d35/fdb4e676200a61d88fb06a9bbe0bf7cd7c28.pdf

My Daniel,

Do you really think that I need to be explained what is a functional?

Dirichlet boundary conditions means that one has to know the solution of the problem on the boundaries. If the support of the problem is on the TIME axis, one of the boundaries is in the future. Not even the best book in the world would say otherwise.

For solving the Dirichlet problem in the Maupertuis' principle, one MUST indicate the value of the solution also on that future boundary. Given these boundary data, i.e. (t1, r1) and (t2, r2), one begins to construct the trajectories that begin at (t1, r1) and end compulsorily at (t2, r2), making use of the expression of the Lagrangian. From all these trajectories (which may be many), one picks the trajectory for which maximum of the kinetic energy can transform into potential energy s.t. the difference between the two be minimal.

Newton's equation goes with a Cauchy boundary problem, one needs only the value of the solution and its derivative(s) at one boundary (usually, the lower in time boundary). There is a HUGE difference between the PHYSICAL meanings of these two problems, although their solutions are identical.

Thiery

Your response to Ian is hard to understand.What is the problem with the observability of em waves? You detect them by the forces they exert or using a radio. If you see light you are seeing the average effect of an EM wave.

What is the kinetic part of a Maxwell equation? A hamiltonian

could have a kinetic part.

And what do you mean be deformed light?

regards, juan

Sofia D. Wechsler , you write:

" I am asking if we have any evidence that a future event influences a past process."

Future event influences a past process - exist only in Einstein´s closed vicious circle.

Academic and non-academic criticism

Some academic scientists, especially experimental physicists such as the Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, as well as Ernst Gehrcke, Stjepan Mohorovičić, Rudolf Tomaschek and others criticized the increasing mathematization of modern physics, especially in the form of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

Future event influences a past process - exist only in Einstein´s closed vicious circle.

I expect to find, that all the physicists break free from "Einstein's vicious circle": Lorentz transformation equations local time covariant equations physical definition of simultaneity invariant interval Lorentz transformation equations...

Nobel laureates in physics are mostly physicists, who mainly create and defend physics. Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity...

For nearly 100 years ago have been Nobel Prize winners said:

"- The theory of relativity is a mathematical and not a physical theory.

- The theory is far from being confirmed experimentally, the results of the solar eclipse expeditions allow other interpretations

- The principle of relativity is only valid for mass-dependent movements

- The theory of relativity contradicts the fundamental ideas about space and time: the Euclidean space and the usual ideas of time must remain binding. "

To construct Theoretical Physics ONLY ON EXPERIMENTAL BASICS.

„The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.“

R. P. FEYNMAN

"The difference between a good experiment and a good theory is in the fact that the theory gets old quickly and it is replaced by another one, based on more perfect ideas. It will be forgotten quickly.

The experiment is something else. The experiment, which has been thought well and performed carefully, will step in the science forever. It will become its part. It is possible to explain such experiment differently in different periods of times."

P. L. KAPICA

I strongly demand:

The events of 1905-1920, we can not replace by the events of 1938-1945.

We would be making a big mistake with this.

Because other future generations will hate us for it.

Crimes of earlier periods lead to war. They are the cause of the wars.

The war is very bad.

Change QUALITY

1905 A.E. : Einstein ´s theory Tkin =mc^2 – mo c^2

1996: Tkin id =mc^2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ]

Tkin ad = mc^2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ]

Einstein's theory works only for v < 0.1c.

https://biocoreopen.org/ijnme/New-Trends-in-Physics-Extraordinary-proofs.pdf

Dear Sofía,

I didn't attempt to show you what is a functional, of course. What I tried is to explain after that you said:

Sofia>I simply don't understand your language,

Variational methods cannot introduce the concept of future or past as you asked. And less the interaction among them using the old method of Maupertuis.

My dear Daniel,

"Variational methods cannot introduce the concept of future or past as you asked. And less the interaction among them using the old method of Maupertuis."

Where is the proof? You cannot introduce new postulates in physics, you can only prove. I believe in proofs, not in postulates, even if the latter are emitted by my wise and beloved friend Daniel.

My dear friend, do you relize that you never proved what you say, only postulated? For instance, let's take my last post. If you refute what I said there, you have to place the finger on what you think that is wrong. But you didn't even refer to what I wrote, you just replied by postulating. How do you expect me to consider such a type of reply? We are scientists, and science goes with proofs.

With kind regards from me, and sorry for the criticism

Dear Sofía,

Your last post is wrong because the boundary conditions are only given on the differential equation but not on the functional. The variational methods only allow you to select one extremal equation (maximum, minimum or inflection) and the boundary conditions do the same but without taking into account their extremal points. A partial differential equation has infinite solutions and you need to keep only one for a given physical situation. This is out of a time order, although you can put it but as an extra condition. Not necessary and only making the problem more complex. In Quantum Mechanics the things are even more difficult because you cannot even define a trajectory. Let me to finish saying that it is more difficult to prove that God doesn't exist to a religious person than to create it.

Daniel,

"Your last post is wrong because the boundary conditions are only given on the differential equation but not on the functional. . . . . the boundary conditions do the same but without taking into account their extremal points"

Daniel, WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT? Look at the integral that appears in Maupertuis' principle. What are (t1, r1) and (t2, r2), not boundary conditions? The solution of this Maupertuis' problem is a curve r(t). The boundary requirements are that r(t1) = r1 and r(t2) = r2.

LEAVE IN PEACE THE VARIATIONAL METHOD. It only allows you to pass from a Dirichlet problem to a Cauchy problem, and from the integral equation to differential equation(s). But Maupertuis' problem is a Dirichlet problem and is integral, not differential.

There is a huge difference between the physical meaning of a Dirichlet problem, which requires to know the beginning and the future, and a Cauchy problem which requires only one of them, usually, the beginning. I repeat, Maupertuis' problem is an integral problem and of Dirichlet type.

But, for understanding one another let's not talk in generalities, but try to solve the problem, Maupertuis' problem. For this purpose we have first to find all the set of to curves r(t) which satisfy r(t1) = r1 and r(t2) = r2. Note that the derivative at (t1, r1) is not given. What is given is the value of the Lagrangian at each point in space. It won't be simple to find the satisfactory set, most of the curves r(t) starting at r(t1) = r1 won't fit r(t2) = r2. We will have to try to modify the curves in all sort of ways until they'll fit r(t2) = r2. A curve for which no modification helps, we'll discard.

Let's though say that after a huge amount of work, we have found the set of curves satisfying both r(t1) = r1 and r(t2) = r2. Then, we calculate the action - the integral - for each curve, and pick the curve producing the minimal action.

As you see, we need to know the future, r(t2), it poses a condition on which curves can be accepted and which not. Eventually, we modify a curve for fitting the future. This is the meaning of future influencing the past.

Again with kind regards

Have a good day Sofia!

For elementary particles it is certainly possible. The pair production and pair annihilation events can be interpreted as time inverse of a single particle .

Also the absorption of photons by atoms and ions can be better comprehended as reverse time emission. For more complicated actions it becomes difficult to interpret events as reverse time instances of another event.

Dear Sofia,

I think I've already provided this link

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.3529.pdf

so basically classical mechanics with the Hamilton Least action principle, determines what is the preferred direction of evolution of Phenomena.

Feynman QED with path integrals finds the Least action as the converging solution of the infinite paths which the Action may follow.