Implicate Order

It's probably best to view it this way. The original particle is described quantum mechanically as a mathematical wavefunction. We do not know the properties of this wave until after measurement. The way for a classical observer to view this wavefunction is by how this wavefunction can be described in terms of a superposition of states (eigenstates). The eigenstates of the wavefunction represent the ways that that wavefunction can only be classically described once measurement occurs. The classical expressions of this superposition of states is defined in terms of probabilities. The schrodinger wave function fully describes the probabilities of where and when the properties of a classical particle will take shape under measurement. The original wavefunction is interrogated by a measurement to determine how this superposition will classically collapse on classical interaction. What is happening here however is that in this interaction event we are superimposing a new wavefunction associated with the measuring device on top of the original wavefunction to create a new wavefunction that can then be described classically when referring to the orthogonal components of this new merged wavefunction. Now there are different interpretations on whether or not a collapse is real or whether it is just a way we classically view things. The bottom line is that a merged wavefunction (whether it collapses or not) fully describes the collapsed state (it's classical properties). Understanding this allows you to perhaps realise that the measuring instrument is actually applying a wavefunction comprising defined classical eigenstates at the wavefunction under investigation. The classical measuring device is therefore looking for how this wavefunction is described classically (eg. where it is, what is its momentum and other classical complementary attributes). These properties are often conjugate pairs that can only be measured simultaneously for classical objects. In QM we know that we can only measure one or the other of a conjugate pair and not both at the same time (eg. position and momentum). An electron in this instance is a quantum object. For this entire description let's assume I want to find an electron's position on collapse. I could use the same interpretation used in this post to find an electron's momentum but remember that I cannot find both at the same time through a single measurement. So the measuring device is throwing a wavefunction with defined classical eigenstates at the wavefunction under investigation so that the merged resolution will provide classical answers to the questions thrown at it. The interrogation looks at orthogonal relationships between the eigenstates of the measuring device and the wavefunction under investigation. As soon as the measurement is over (the interaction event), the new wavefunction and its superposition of eigenstates (which describes the prior collapsed state) then exists and on any future measurement will then merge with another observers wavefunction and so on and so forth. This new wavefunction once again is fully described mathematically as a Schrodinger wavefunction. With this knowledge in hand you can then recover prior uncollapsed state descriptions playing around with a knowledge of what eigenstates you need to apply in your measurement to recover a prior state description of a particle. EDIT: Another way to think of it is as follows. We have a measuring instrument which is trying to find out the properties of a 'classically described thing' at a particular spacetime position which is interrogating an unknown wavefunction prior to measurement. That mathematical wave might be anything but as I have being using a gun that on my understanding fires electrons into this experiment, then I am looking for electrons. The measuring instrument then says, ok I want to describe this thing in terms of a defined classical particle we know as an electron. I am therefore going to interrogate that thing with a 'contrived' wave that interrogates that wavefunction with an orthogonal wave description of a classical electron to see if a classical electron description exists at this location in spacetime. I therefore use as my measuring device an 'electron' detector as I want to find electrons. By using a device that finds electrons we know that the interrogation wave will be designed to look for electrons. I also understand that in finding that classical description I am going to have to take into account the probability of finding that classical description at this point in spacetime. The more I undertake this exact experiment then I am reliably informed that probabilities will reflect when I conclude that an electron is found there. What in effect you are doing is superimposing a classicaly contrived wavefunction at an unknown wavefunction to see how the combined effects collapse classically and then recording the result.

Interesting perspective. Your infinite state of continuum of matter provides a perfectly homogenous and unbounded commencement point, not too different from a viewpoint that 'nothing' is actually something. I am of a similar viewpoint that perhaps the notion of 'nothing' needs to be defined in terms of a 'something' as opposed to simple removal of all things in the definition to arrive at 'nothing'. That way it is far easier to commence the construction of a universe or multi-verse from this re-defined state, than having to explain how a 'thing' can arise from nothing or no...thing. I would probably seek however to adjust the description of this null state to remove any definitional context of discreet 'things' that could arise from this state such as 'mass'. In this way it is then possible to treat all 'things' arising from this state as emergent. An interesting metaphysical definition I have recently come across concerning 'nothing' is that perhaps what 'nothing' is in the sense of the fundamental state of this universe is a 'state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity'. While I struggle with the definition of infinite and perhaps would suggest a better term might be a timeless and spaceless quantum state (eg. a universal quantum wavefunction as in Everett's and Wheeler's definition or an Implicate Order as in Bohms definition), such a state provides a possible ideal extreme low entropy condition necessary for a classical universe to emerge and evolve according to entropic laws. From a purely relational viewpoint this blank, infinite and unbounded canvas prevents any relationship being drawn between it's contents. It is only when things emerge from this context with their own boundaries that we can then differentiate these things. Without these things the definition is nothing but probably different to most peoples view of what nothing should be. The traditional perspective of nothing is the absence of something which defines 'nothing' in terms of what it is not rather than in terms of what it is. This makes it extremely hard to then leap to how this universe arose from such a state. Using this definitional starting point of nothing it actually represents a 'state' that is able to be transformed into something else and possibly divided to offer a multi-verse solution. For example the end of our universe according to the popular 'heat death' notion is one of a trend towards an equilibrium state of homogeneity in spacetime which may or may not be bounded or unbounded dependent on topology or finite or infinite in extent. This commencement state however is the antithesis of this definition in that space-time is a 'thing' as are the universal contents of 'things' and represent an emergent state arising from this foundational principle. Blend all the contents of the universe and remove all boundaries and you commence with an unbounded infinite homgenous state which is just a different configuration of those states. The different states are then able to be transformed into each other. A very useful foundation stone for a universal construction. Starting from this state you are then better equipped to interrogate the next question that arises in respect to what caused the change from this state into that which we classically observe today. I can see from your definition that you have had a good crack at attempting to answer this question, but I can't get a grasp on 'why' there is any motion in your universe to begin with given your foundation stone of an infinite continuum of mass. What causes the initial energy displacement from this infinite energy condition through this foundation of yours in the absence in this state of any space-time to get the ball rolling? Your definition does not provide any degrees of freedom for energy displacement or am I missing something? I would be interested to see how you proceed from this point as I am struggling myself and seem to get into self-referential knots when I progress from here.

Thanks for the book reference studiot. I have just read the reviews and it is on its way from the tropical rainforest to my front door. Now I just need to hide the next credit card statement from my wife

You can be pretty quirky dealing with relativistic space travel and associated length contraction and time dilation compared between reference frames say from here on earth and the traveller. For example with a bit of poetic licence allowed for in sci-fi, develop your story around the relativistic rocket. Send your prisoners on a relativistic rocket to a new planet far way and let them be a problem for your future generation. I believe it is our obligation to transfer our problems to our kids in a kind of pay it forward way. *tongue in cheek*

I tend to resolve the EPR paradox taking the following viewpoint of the non-locality of entanglement. Let's assume we have an entangled pair now seperated in space on either side of earth. Let's assume the entanglement refers to spin up or spin down properties. What is the actual reason that an observer cannot simultaneously measure which one is up or down without invoking spooky action at a distance? The actual reason is that the observer undertaking the measurement cannot be in two places at one time. Theoretically even a massless observer can only get to each location to conduct the measurement at a maximum speed of c. So an observer can only ever measure a spin up OR a spin down condition. Never a spin up AND and spin down condition simultaneously. The only way we can attempt to measure what is happening simultaneously is to introduce a second observer.....but how can you ensure both observers measurements can be perfectly synchronised. Relativity forbids it as confirmation of synchronisation can only be achieved at c. There will always be a delay that prevents confirmation of synchronised measurement. The issues associated with entanglement appear to me at least to be frame dependent problems.

It's probably best to initially compare and contrast the notion of a 'particle' from a classical and then quantum mechanical perspective. Classical particle physics talks in terms of 'point' particles which descxribe the properties of particles without any spatial dimension. In this way we may have a point mass property, a point charge property and so on and so forth. In QM there is a distinction placed between a 'point particle' property also called an elementary particle (eg. electron, quark and photon) and a composite particle (eg. proton or neutron). The distrinction is based on how many properties we are defining. When defining single properties we refer to elementary particles and when defining multiple properties we refer to composite particles. Note here that when talking in terms of single properties, a single wave description of an electron for example is fully described but exists as a superposition of states. To be clear I am not combining a wave description of charge, a wave description of spin and a wave description of rest mass to produce this electron wavefunction as fundamentally the electron wave description is as small as we can go from a particle perspective. The wave description needs to include all this information and the possible superposition statesw of this description. In QM (without first taking into account HUP) an elementary particle with a single property is a 'delocalised wavepacket' which is in a superposition of states and can be 'exactly localised' on wavefunction collapse and hence approximates a classical notion of a particle with no spatial extent. However a composite particle (comprising multiple properties) can never be 'exactly' localised on collapse due to the inability to make a single coherent superposition of states of its component properties. As a result, the composite particle has extent in space in QM. Now we unfortunately have to add the Heisenbergy Uncertainty Principle to this perspective which therefore renders both descriptions in terms of uncertainty. When dealing with uncertainty it is best to not talk in terms of gradating scales in resolution of time or space. I see your confusion in dealing with a diminishing time interval, but I am thinking in your description that you may be falling into this trap which is very easy to do. It is a phenomenon that arises at a particular scale referred to as the planck scale. Many of us think that this scale arises from the inability of our measuring instruments to specifically define a particles location or momentum, but importantly the uncertainty principle is not a measuring instrument accuracy problem. It is a fundamental limit at a particular scale that prevents us from ever determining the exact position and momentum simultaneously of a particle. It is not a progressively fuzzy nature of things as we increase our magnification (the fuzziness is referred to as the observer effect and simply is a resolution problem in our equipment). The HUP however is an additional fuzzy effect that hits us like a brick wall a particular scale resolution.The HUP is an inherent fundamental feature of all wave like systems and arises on any interaction event occurring between a classical measurement of a quantum system. What HUP says is that it is not a problem of the specificity of our measuring instruments, but at a fundamental level there is an actual limit to which certain pairs of physical properties (known as complementary variables) can be known simultaneously. An example of a complementary pair is position and momentum. For example, the more precisely the 'position' of some particle is known, the less precisely it's momentum can be known, and vice versa. This obviously throws a spanner in the works for classical physics using notions such as a smooth and continuous spacetime. Now you may say that this is not a problem if we could freeze the entire universe in time at an instant (and therefore sacrifice our knowledge of each particles momentum) as we would then be able to determine the position of every particle contained theirein, but that is not how nature seems to work. QM says that every physical system 'must' have some residual energy, and we literally cannot freeze the universe even when the temperature is absolute zero. At this point we are left with residual energy known as 'zero-point energy' or the energy of the vacuum. This zero-point energy allows the sudden appearance of particles to pop into existence and then annihalate each other (provided they do so within the finite limits allowed by HUP). Even at the smallest scales (as energy is equivalent to mass) of spacetime, this energy-mass equivalence produces space-time curvature. This spacetime curvature causes fluctuations in the distance between points in spacetime resulting in stochastic behaviour and resulting in distances in spacetime becoming ill-defined. The problem with this notion is that when we look at an infintesimally small region, our calculations yield infinite energy answers which clearly does not seem to be the case with nature suggesting that perhaps there is a fundamental limit to how small we actually can go with spacetime to avoid this conundrum. Work in QM derived a theoretical 'natural' limit referred to as the Planck length which neatly utilised universal consants in its definition thereby avoiding relativists demands that space and time canot be considered seperate but can only be invariant when considered together as spacetime. Some believe that the Planck length (being derived from universal constants) retains its value in all reference frames (this however may lead to doubly special relativity) but my opinion is otherwise. I am thinking that the scale referred to as the planck boundary is where classial properties emerge from a fundamentally quantum realm....but that is just philosophical mumbo jumbo so take no heed. Jake1, this is the best explanation I can give without setting forth into philosophical territory. You are right to be confused about the causative factors of HUP and vacuum energy as dependent on your interpretation taken, you have different viewpoints. I could share my viewpoint with you on this but the thread would probably need to be re-located from mainstream physics. I hope the above helps at least a bit with your ponderings.

Provided that we understand how the things that we describe as 'real' to us as individuals are constructed, then I have no problem dealing with a possible perspective that the foundation stones of this construction are illusory. Once long ago when we looked at the moon, we may have thought that what we were seeing was 'real' but as we delved deeper we found that the 'apparent solidity of form out there in space' we referred to as real needed to be amended to take into account the form's construction which comprised atoms and then peering deeper those 'solid bricks in space' became more illusory. As we progressed with our reductionism the foundation stones of the construction became more and more abstract and took a variety of forms dependent on what we individually as observers were seeking to achieve. I think we can all sleep at night knowing that the structure of the moon to all intents and purposes is real to us. It is really of no concern to me whether the fundamental commencement points of this structure are real or not. Science has progressivey delivered blows to our notions of intuition. Just accept that fact, move on and keep investigating. The construction is 'real enough to me' to give me piece of mind despite the fact that the foundations may be illusory. Such a notion may be a problem for those with a religious or philosophical conviction seeking peace of mind that they are part of a bigger picture but not for me. If I ultimately find that the reality is simply a point of view from my reference frame which is self-referential in nature (as I am getting closer and closer to accepting) then I don't need anyone else's god to fill any gaps in my reference frame as this universe from my perspective is all there is. While I acknowledge that I can never step outside my self-referential system to peer into my system from outside, I leave that job to what I would define as my very personal god.

Hi Jake1 This handy set of brief FAQ's should help.

Hi Hoola For the inertial observer who is committed to travelling along the curvature, as they are unaware they are passing through the point of no return, they are therefore still able to access information from the exterior region as they are not aware of any system seperation. In GR the event horizon is a limit to things coming back out from the interior region into the external region. In this discussion we are talking about things that fall into the interior region.It is a one way limit only for things getting out. For an inertial observer falling in, they are unaware of this point of passage past any boundary. From the perspective of this inertial observer travelling into this gravitationally compressed area, they are simply travelling through space (as per normal) in free fall, and the frame of reference their system occupies includes the entire path of travel (from the past and into the future towards the singularity). There is nothing to distinguish anything different. It is only from the perspective of an accelerated observer that this observer actually sees or registers something different to simply travelling through spacetime. For the inertial observer their system includes the exterior region they have come from and the interior region they are now travelling through. This is unlike the accelerated observer who is safe outside the black hole. They do not see any interior region as their system is confined by the boundary of the event horizon. Note that therefore the different observers have a different system of reference to do their experiments in. This difference is what destroys any invariance between the two frames of reference. It is therefore observer dependant from this viewpoint. The physics applied to each viewpoint in this interpretation depends on the frame of reference as it is implied that the reality differs from these two frames of reference. This is the conclusion that is hitting me on the head at the moment. Furthermore what this is saying is that spacetime is emergent dependent on frame of reference. From one frame of reference there is no boundary and there is a additional region of spacetime to consider. From the other perspective there is a boundary and no additional region of spacetime. So what happens to the mass-energy of this discrepency in viewpoint if we abide by the Law of Conservatiion of Energy (let alone the Conservation of Information). We conclude that this missing energy between the frames of reference must be present in the boundary. Can you see how structure is being created simply from a change of reference frame in this thought bubble. Hawking initially did not concede to this viewpoint. When Hawking radiation was derived by Hawking, this was in response to explaining gravitation that demonstrated that some very important conservation laws were being exposed and possibly incorrect. This is what through the physics community into a flap and why the Black hole war between Sussking and Hawking resulted. Susskinds complementarity response was what ultimately won the debate. There was a recent worry about firewalls to consider but fortunately complementarity seems to have stood up to the test provided we strictly abide by the principle of insiting that we treat the problem from the perspective of two seperate reference frames. This centred on the notion that you cannot simultaneously treat both viewpoints as valid. It is like any complementary pair of variables. It is one viewpoint OR the other. Not one viewpoint AND the other. This therefore throws a possible spanner in the notion of Hawking radiation itself. The notion of information encoded on the boundary of an event horizon is from the frame of reference of an observer who is safe and accelerating away from the curvature. There is no information paradox as they say that instead of passing through the event horizon, infalling matter is splatterred across the event horizon and frozen in time from that reference point. Form arises and structure arises from this viewpoint. Information to the accelerated observer does not lie in the interior as this does not exist for them. It lies on the event horizon from this perspective. For the infalling inertial observer that information is still available to them in the interior of the black hole. Consequently from Susskinds perspective the Law of Conservation of Energy and Information is satisfed provided you look at it from the frame of reference of each individual observer. Now when you look at manifolds in GR, you realise that curvature and mass-energy distribution are two sides of the one coin. They are equivalent. In GR with the Einstein equation. This equation however adopts a gods-eye view to the system which we know is not seen from the frame of reference of an internal observer. Their frame of reference will see one side of the coin OR the other but not both. Susskinds approach to this complementarity has been significant for string theory. Initially the theory was dealing with strings, then structure was formed when dealing with D-branes and then M-branes but now string theory seems to be concluding that it is all about holography. They appear to be inexorably drawing closer guided by the process of enquiry they have taken and as they address string theories previous weakness of background dependence, we are now seeing suggestions that almost everything previously treated as invariant such as particles, fields, and spacetime itself, seems to be becoming observer-dependent. It recognises that dealing with 'things' in a fixed background was perhaps an inappropriate starting assumption and through a revised notion of relativism within string theory, theorists are starting to get a bit of headway. Holography appears to be the 3rd major revolution in string theory. So how does this new approach treat the results of the double slit experiment say with an electron moving through the apparatus. From a God's eye view of this perspective, a component of the electron passes through both slits resulting in an interference pattern. When being observed however from the frame of reference of a particular observer it moves through one or the other but never both. When under the frame of reference of observation there is no interference. You need to treat frames seperately under observation. It certainly seems to be providing a very powerful way of dealing with some of the counterintuive notions of physics when viewed this way.

Hi Hoola In your interpretation I can see that possibly you may be dealing with 'the Dirac Sea' which is a very interesting viewpoint to consider the vacuum. I am really not sure about anything connected to the topic of black holes. It really is a moving feast. I am probably doing nothing constructive in giving my lay persons interpretation. In the best interpretation I could muster above I was stipulating that you must use seperate the frames of reference when dealing with the topic of black holes. In one frame of reference the event horizon does not exist so Hawking Radiation does not apply. In the other relating to accelerated observers the event horizon exists and there is no interior to that boundary. In this instance 'real particles' emanate from that boundary and the notion of anything getting through that boundary into a hidden region does not exist. There are strong parrallells I am drawing in this interpretation to Susskind's viewpoints and he disagreed with Hawking on the subject of event horizons and black holes. I also assume from Susskind's viewpoint that it is irrelevent what goes on inside the hidden region son Hawking Radiation is once again not applicable in that interpretation. In the interpretation I am using you can see two different system viewpoints that both obey conservation and information laws. Where trouble arises is when you try and pick both viewpoints. Things such as Laws of Conservation apply differently to these two viewpoints. In you interpretation it gets tricky as you need a balancing action when you are dealing with both sides of the event horizon. I note that Hawking is also questioning his own viewpoints on the matter. Perhaps however from your interpretation you could look at Dirac's interpretation of the vacuum. That may lead you on the way to working out the negatives and positives of energy and conservation laws that apply. It is a very interesting and exciting interpretation by the way. Sorry I can't be of more help in the matter.

Sorry about that michel123456. It is quite a difficult subject. Most physicists trying to describe time to the lay audience need complete books to do so. It involves looking at the different viewpoints relaing to time including: 1. The standardised ticking of clocks that measured system mechanics and behaviour in Newton's day. This is perhaps how most of us think about time; 2. To the recognition in relativity that the progression of time or the ticking of clocks is relative to the observer. In Special Relativity we deal with different inertial frames of reference in flat spacetime (Euclidean Space). The difference in ticking clocks in SR is based on relative motion and can be deduced by Lorentz transformations and is reciprocal. In General relativity we deal with motion in a gravitational field and we need to deal with gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. 3. To the understanding in Quantum Mechanics that due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle there is a finite interval of time at the planck scale below which time is indeterminate and what constitutes a 'instant in time' cannot be determined. The three views above are suggestive that time itself is an ilusion. I wanted to point this out in my preceding posts on discussing what time is which clearly is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer and the scale of observation itself. These viewpoints above give a counterintuitive understanding of time. What I also wanted to point out is that there is no counter-intuitivity in our classical world. There is a very good reason in thermodynamics why time marches in one direction. This is attributed to classical systems and entropy. The prior post was a crack in a detailed paragraph without going into a book about it, what seems to be going on with time. If you want a 'basic undersanding of time' then as simply as I can put it, it is just what classical observers perceive as change to a system. But that alone does not give any insight into time. I assumed readers of the forum may want to hear a perspective on this insight form a fellow interested lay person.

I must have missed the point for my interpretation requires the higgs field for an observer-dependent viewpoint. The Higgs Boson in my opinion is a necessary ingredient for standard particle physics but not in the same way that the interpretation discussed below requires it. When however dealing with quantum mechanics and relativity, our notion of calling particles things and describing their properties to give them form becomes problematic. So dependent on which camp you are in is going to have its problems when searching for unifications that seek to merge notions of both things and the background they move through. I therefore choose an observer-dependent viewpoint that merges the two notions in my thought processes when trying to work on what quantum gravity is all about. For example quantum mechanics deals with non-local entangled states and quantum statistics and relativity deals with spacetime points in a metric field. Standard particle physics seems to conveniently side-steps these issues. The following has been derived from a summary of information taken from Amanda Gefter's recent book which is a mind blower. When an observer describes the properties of a thing referred to as a particle (eg. an electron), the observer uses a wavefunction to note it's phase. Phase differences matter in interference experiments which is crucial to understanding in quantum terms, the nature of particles. The phase describes a reference frame from the point of view of an observer. For example an electrons wavefunction is spread throughout space with an amplitude peaked around a specific location and when as an observer interacts with it's wavefunction (which extends as far as the observers light cone) the result is a phase shift in the portion of the electrons wavefunction (but not across the entire wavefunction of the electron). So in a local portion the observer has shifted the phase of the electron and there is a mismatch created by the phase shift which can only be restored through a diffeomorphic transformation. What I am actually doing here is describing gauge symmetry. Gauge symmetry demands that all gauges are invariant but local gauge shifts require a local gauge force to restore this symmetry. In other words the out of phase wavefunctions from the perspective of an observer creates 'fictitious' forces. Now all the known four forces are all gauge forces. In this interpretation we have therefore already debunked the four forces as mythical all by taking a measurement from the point of view of an observer. The point is that gauge forces aren't invariant in themselves and you can transform them away with a different observers point of view. Now if gauge symmetry can do this to the forces, isn't it a logical step to view what gauge symmetry has to say about particles. Interestingly a Higgs field is required to preserve gauge symmetry so I am not disputing the discovery of the Higgs particle in this interpretation. We actually require it. In CPT symmetry we need to deal with a particles property referred to as spin. All particles have this intrinsic rotation but it is either left handed or right handed in relation to how it moves through space. Once again the handedness in this interpretation will depend on the frame of reference of the observer. But this is a problem with the weak nuclear force as we need this property to be invariant to agree with experiments in the lab. So let's assume that the property defined as spin is not associated with the mass of a particle and treat these properties seperately. I therefore assume that particles that are massless with spin must travel at c which will save my interpretation as there will be no frame of reference that can outrun c to have an altered view of the handedness. But we are caught here as we know that particles with mass can't travel at c. If the particles move slower than c, there is no way to explain the weak force's preference for left-handed particles without violating gauge symmetry. All is not lost however if in this inerpretation you have a Higgs field. The Higgs field in this interpretation operates in the background swapping left and right. In reality the weak force is really acting on left and right handed particles equally but thanks to the Higgs field particles can have mass without violating gauge symmetry. The Higgs field patches up the difference between different observers reference frames.

Hi Hoola This is only my interpretation and needs the qualifications of experts in this area. I am seeing two different perspectives about the reality of a black hole that are associated with the frame of reference of the observer external to the gravitationally compressed area. These two different frames of references create two different realities but a symmetry exists between their respective viewpoints. Namely that each viewpoint is equivalent to the other (they sum out to a big fat zero). For example from the frame of reference of an inertial observer who simply follows the curvature of no escape they are actually not aware they are passing through any defined structure such as an event horizon. Their fate is sealed following the curvature. Their system therefore extends to include the external area and the internal area of curvature leading to the singularity. However from the frame of reference of an accelerating observer who is escaping the curvature in this frame of reference their is a hidden region to that frame of reference which is defined by an event horizon. All observers who are not following the curvature of entry reach the same conclusion that there is an event horizon. Their system therefore does not include the hidden information applicable to the inertial observer. The missing information of this region is reflected by the information created through the 'apparrent' event horizon boundary. This is necessary to allow for a central tent of this assumption which is 'the conservation of information'. The exclusion of this hidden region requires that the total state expression of the hidden region is expressed at this boundary. Structure therefore emerges from the frame of reference of the external accelerating observer. The mass-energy content of the hidden region is reflected by the boundary and particles are seen to emerge from the vacuum. This is where in my opinion the energy comes from from to create the reality for particles popping out of vacuum space. In determining the energy content between frames of reference they are equivalent (Law of conservation of energy) but the boundary exclusion of the hidden region is supplemented with energy arising from the hidden region hence structure being created from the vacuum. So if we assume that virtual particles are boosted by the energy contribution associated with the apparrent horizon, this is where the work is drawn from this boost from the perspective of an accelerated observer. Regarding why I discussed the Casimir effect, the reason was to show how the discrepancy arising from a seperation of system (the vacuum) with a boundary displays how each seperated system possesses a different state from the previous state arising before seperation. The different states created through boundary conditions allows for dissipative force rules to emerge from this prior equilbrium state. I am hoping from this description of the frames of reference between two perspectives you can see that from either perspective the net energy or information content of both systems are equivalent. For the inertial observer, include the state of the entire system which comprises the external and internal region of the black hole. For the accelerated observer include the state of the system comprising the external region plus the energy contribution of the boundary of the event horizon itself. It is critical to note however that just like wave-particle duality you cannot take a perspective considering the frame of reference of both observers at once. It is either one OR the other. Not one AND the other. In this way there is no confusion arising from the mismatch of both observers viewpoints. There is a complemenarity principle being applied here to allow for both viewpoints. This interpretation seems to be what Susskind is suggesting and according to many, he won the black hole war with Hawking. I could be wrong however as this is just how I am putting all the pieces together of readings on Quantum Gravity.

This thread is getting very interesting. In our discussions however it naturally extends into metaphysics or philosophy as a mainstream consensus of what time is is still undecided. What has hit me like a brick lately is a thought bubble arising from immersing an observer into our universe and the measurements that each observer would take to conclude the invariance in physics dependent on the perspective of each observer. I am thinking that there is a very good reason for the invariance of c. From the perspective of any observer it allows a hubble volume to be extended around them that provides an invariant scope to undertake their measurements. Each observers laboratory to conduct experiments in will therefore be standardised. If the physics in each laboratory is the same, we can conclude that the box that we have done physics in can be extended for all observers. While each observer may conclude different measurements inside their hubble volume based on the observers relative location and movement with respect to other observers and their measurements taken, the sum total of their conclusions in their box from observing a standard symmetry associated with the contents of their hubble volume will all agree. Add all these discreet hubble volumes up from all observers and you have a 'god's eye view' of this universe.This perspective concords with a relativistic viewpoint so what would quantum mechanics have to say about this. On the one hand under a relativistic viewpoint in a single grand universe each seperate history effectively transposes to on the other hand a multi-verse interpretation from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics. I am seeing a direct equivalence here. If I look at the boundary of each observers hubble volume I would conclude that he information contained on the boundary was equivalent to the information contained in the state of the boundaries contents. This comes from the notion that a metric of that closed boundary is directly equivalent to the contents within that boundary. There is a Wheeler expression that comes from General Relativity which states that the boundary of a boundary is zero. Thanks to Amanda Geftner I think she offers insight to Wheeler's thought bubble. Consider the equivalence in the Einstein equation between the geometry of the manifold and the mass-energy contents of that manifold. If the manifold is closed (like our hypothetical hubble volume surrounding each observer), then the boundary geometry possesses the information associated with the contents. Beckenstein also saw this relationship between the information contents of a black hole and the area of the boundary. So each observer has their own hubble volume to contend with. The information state of that hubble volume can either be determined through the boundary or the state of its contents. In comparing the information state between hubble volumes however we have to superimpose the information of these hubble volumes which therefore necessitates a relativistic comparison of the information state of each observers wavefunction associated with each hubble volume. From the perspective of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction that describes this hubble volume state will exclude the observer in this description. If we try to include the observer, they will collapse this wavefunction. Now from gauge theory in QM we understand that a comparison of out of phase wave-functions gives rise to the notion of force (or more importantly directionality arising from the difference in phase). It is the information difference contained in each wavefunction that leads to this wavefunction phase variance. You can see that as each observer has a different viewpoint on their hubble volume by virtue of their location or motion, each wavefunction will represent their personal viewpoints. Only when we include the observer in this viewpoint as a participant will be obtain an equivalence. So as we collect more out of phase wavefunctions to supimpose on each other to compare more observers points of view in our universal description we merge superpositions and their respective information contents that reflect differences attributed to the state of each observer in the context. If I take the viewpoint that a collapse of the wavefunction does not in reality occur, I am therefore left with the view that decoherence from the superposition of competing wavefunctions of alternate wavefunctions gives the notion of classical collapse. I am getting quite comfortable with the notion that our classical universe is simply the 'apparrent' decoherence collapse of a superposition of entire wavefunctions that describe each observers hubble volume. As a result, each observer concludes the reality of the resultant collapse and see the same 'things' arising from the collapse. Here is another interpretation that looks at this from a different perspective. An observer as a collector of information about his universe receives that information from light. Commencing from the farthest point in the observable universe, binary information in the form of 1' and 0's are progressively collected to create causal strucure until it reaches his retina where the information content describes his entire hubble volume. This information can be described in terms of his personal wavefunction. Other observers also collect information relaed to their universe in the same way. It is when the wavefunctions of these different histories are then merged in an environment containing multiple observers that it collapses the superimposed wavefunction to provide a classical description that all observers can agree on. From decoherence arising from the superposition of wavefunctions of entire causal histories I am seeng notions of classicalism emerge and also directional trends associated with the progressive accumulation of information by each observer........ What's this got to do with time? Well in this interpretation I am therefore left with a classical interpretation of time as superimposed histories of causality that is agreed on by all observers provided that each observers hubble volume is connected to anoher observers hubble volume (intersecting sets of information captured by the light cone of c that reaches each observer). I can through fourier transforms project the information collected by the mind of each observer and then superimpose these projections to create a classical reality that when viewed again by each observer includes a description from their frame of reference. In this viewpoint I could alternatively state that the single history of the observer can be described by the information content of a planck unit of spacetime given that this history can also be represented by a geometry on the boundary of a universe comprising all its observers. Remember however that the information content of this planck unit of spacetime includes the observer in this description. As a result, the information content of each unit is invariant. I am seeing a tasty correlation with the vacuum in this thought process being the information content of the quanta (the information contained in each planck unit) which is also expressed invariantly as a finite minimum amount of energy and time. Alternatively I can sum total the information contained in the hubble volume including the observer themselves or collect the information contained in the total universal boundary of this collective and treat this as an invariant agreed upon by all observers....In this giant summation of the boundary or its contents (including the observer)...I can come to the conclusion that our universe nets out to a big fat zero... This is not saying that the universe commenced from nothing however. It is suggesting that nothing in this context is actually something, namely the universal quantum wavefunction. ....anyway, I will leave it there before I ramble too far in speculation and handwaving. Time for my medication and pills and back to the padded cell.

It looks like you and I have similar sleepless nights pondering such matters. I wish these physicists would hurry up and work it out so we can get some sleep at least.

It’s great to be questioning time and what it means yet is is such a difficult thing to pin down. We experience a notion of time as a means to describe how a system progressively changes from an initial to a subsequent state but we have extreme trouble trying to define it. Is it an 'illusion' or is this pasage of time 'real'. The old notion of 'eternal' time of Newtons day where an observer adopted an external view of the system under investigation has been replaced today with a new notion of time that is very dependent on the perspective of an observer embedded in the system of examination. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have lot's of interesting things to say about how we as 'change observers' use time as a measure of this change but they are mute in providing a reason for 'why' systems change (eg. causative factors). For example we have relativistic equations and schrodinger wave functions to describe the change, but nothing in these theories to answer 'what causes the change'. The reason for this is that these theories treat time as an illusion based on the frame of reference of a passive or participatory observer. Thermodynamics on the other hand (eg. observing constraints applied to dissipative systems) at least provide a clue to 'why' systems evolve in a particular way. This provides some hope to those who who are looking to initial first causes as opposed to symmetries. In addressing what is time therefore, I tend to listen more closely to those theories that fully embrace these principles. Thermodynamics seems to me to be bypassed in our search for quantum gravity as opposed to being more thoroughly integrated and addressed. Unfortunately the mathematics of relativity and QM when dealing with complex systems is not currently up to the task given the complexity of thermodynamic systems and this may be the very reason it is not being given the necessary lip-service. The problem of course is how do we embed an observers participatory viewpoint in the thermodynamic system under investigation. Some runs on the board appear to have been made in his direction with the Unruh effect for example, but there may be a long way to go. What time is and whether it is real or not is still actively queried in physics and is taking central stage now in Quantum Gravity research. In summary there seem to be at least 3 different paths being taken at the moment with respect to time: From the relativists camp - the passage of time is an illusion and merely reflects the different incremental paths of passive observers moving through a pre-defined static classical system. Add all these relativistic observer viewpoints up and you have a gods eye view of the system (eg. block universe deterministic concept of relativity); From the quantum camp - the passage of time is a classical illusion and reflects the different participatory paths of classical observers moving through a pre-defined static and deterministic quantum system. Add all these probabilistic and relativistic viewpoints up and you arrive at the static deterministic quantum wavefuntion; or From the minority complexity theory camp - the passage of time is fundamental where an observer is travelling upon a ‘moving now’ into the future as the system progressively evolves as suggested by thermodynamics with times arrow and entropic direction. Add all these stochastic relativistic viewpoints up and you have an indeterminate evolving system. Contemporary mainstream view is tending towards options 1 & 2 but there is a glimmer of hope with option 3 given the difficulties currently being faced in further unifications of physics.

At this hypothetical stage, I think a question such as this cannot be answered. However it would hinge on the energy excitations of the vacuum that could be reached from virtual pair production within the energy and time constraints allowed by HUP. Not ony this, but the locale of the event horizon itself would have a significant source of energy made available to it from the gravitational field. These are just some of the factors to consider. Someone with good knowledge of vacuum excitation fields and gauge theory may be able to offer more insight. It is worthwhile to comment at this stage on the thermodynamics and particle production associated with the notion of 'hidden regions' emerging from spacetime such as Rindler Horizons, Black Hole Event Horizons and Cosmological event horizons (eg.De Sitter boundaries). It gives a clue that spacetime and particle properties appear to emerge from these boundaries in the vacuum. Your question really can only be addressed once we have a firm understanding of quantum gravity. We obviously are a long way off. Interestingly I have just been reading Amanda Geftner's "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn' which is an account from a science journalist who has been asking the big questions of the heavyweights who are experts in this arena. One of the significant things that needs to be taken into account is the impact of seperated regions of the vacuum through the insertion of boundaries into the vacuum. The boundary we are talking about here is the event horizon itself. We see the effect of boundary insertion with the vacuum in the Casimir effect where a fictitious force is created to attract two metal plates that are microscopically seperated. The fictitious force arises from the insertion of boundaries into the vacuum that constrain possible energy states arising in the system of vacuum energy between these plates. The vacuum outside these plates is unconstrained allowing freedom of energy states. The boundary itself creates different energy profiles in each system hence the energy gradient and ultimate attraction of plates. Now as you may be aware, an event horizon in GR is invariant and all observers external to the event horizon would agree this to be the case. However from the quantum gravity camp, they say that this is not so. The event horizon of a black hole is only identifable from an accelerating observer (external to the black hole) who is escaping it's curvature. The accelerating observer observes this hidden region and associated thermal energy and particles emerging from this boundary. An inertial observer however sees no event horizon, no hidden region and no particles or thermal energy. There is nothing for the inertial observer to distinguish this locale as different to bog standard spacetime. General covariance from this inertial frame of reference insists that the inertial observer simply assumes he is free falling in curved spacetime (under no forces). The observer-dependent viewpoint of event horizons stressed by the QG camp is also shared by Rindler Horizons from constantly accelerating observers and the associated thermal radiation and particles associated with the Unruh effect and is assumed to be the case with cosmological event horizons from a De-Sitter universe. Anyway recent doubts raised on black hole cosmology is raising more questions than answers at the moment. I think it is wiser to stay out of the debate until we get a better grip on Quantum Gravity.

Hi Sensei Thanks for the valid comments. Probably the use of the word negative mass in this context is misleading. What I think Hawking was referring to was the notion of the energy lost from the context immediately outside the event horizon from the point of view of an external observer (the external system). The energy contribution of the lost particle (added to the black holes confined system) is substracted from the perspective of the external observer. I should have spelt this out. I am not necessarily referring to negative mass as a property of the lost particle itself. As you have mentioned, it is a still a very subjective 'hand waving' hypothesis and there are many different takes on what may be happenning. For example some view that energy is taken from the gravitational field at the event horizon itself to turn a virtual particle pair into a real particle pair and then via quantum tunnelling a real particle is emitted (escapes the event horizon) as thermal radiation. Not only that, but the very notion of black holes themselves (as simpified GR constructs) is problematic in itself as quantum mechanics may forbid these classical simplifications occurring. As we cannot probe observationally beyond the the mathematical notion of an event horizon itself from the frame of reference of an external observer, there may be a profound reason in nature, why we can't. Hawking seems to be wrestling with this at the moment.

Ultimately a black hole will stop consuming matter when there is no remaining matter to collect from its accretion disc. At this state a black hole temporarily stops growing in size as it's mass does not increase further. To understand why a black hole is proposed to lose mass you need to step into the domain of quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking surmised that a black hole will continue to very slowly lose mass attributed to vacuum fluctuations close to the event horizon (just outside) of the black hole. His reasoning is as follows. It is likely that particle-antiparticle pairs from the vacuum are produced close to the event horizon due to the energy boost attributed to the intense gravitational field in this locale. One of these partners cross the event horizon and is forever lost while the other partner is forced to materialse as a real (as opposed to virtual partner) and radiate away from the event horizon as thermal radiation (a black hole therefore emits black body radiation) . The particle that fell into the black hole has negative energy while it's partner that radiates has positive energy. (together this virtual partnership has zero net energy but it can exist as a virtual particle pair within the time-energy constraints imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The negative energy contribution to the black hole means that it loses mass ( black hole evaporation) reflected by the positive energy increase of the region outside the black hole. Now just remember the verdict on black holes as physical reality is still under dispute. Hawking only very recently is questioning his own powerful ideas so stay tuned to science news.

I half suspect the final verdict of quantum gravity will be a further single unifying symmetry stemming from the fact that our reality can only be described from within this universe and not outside it. Namely that the reality can either be expressed from the mind of an observer or observers (eg. many minds interpretation) from a reality projected from the mind or alternatively that the reality is the information state of that external context viewed from the reference frame of an observer and an analysis of that information (a purely relational viewpoint). In a nutshell a symmetry from a multi-verse perspective where each observer occupies his own universe - eg. an observer dependent holographic universe with an infinite array of intersecting hubble volumes each governed by classical information causality. Underneath this symmetry lies the quantum domain in abstract space (our classical world being embedded in this complex mathematical space) from which our classical world and Boolean logic emerges at the planck boundary attributed to the ability to undertake discreet measurements (as opposed to dealing with observer dependant probability distributions) for single seperated 'things' emerging from this boundary upwards (enter the world of local distributed information processing and our classical universe). Beneath this boundary lies a universal timeless quantum wavefunction that we will never (using classical measuring instruments) be able to plumb due to it's non-local AND counterfactually indefinite nature. In my opinion John Wheeler and Susskind in their interpretations may just about have it right.

Thanks xyzt. I am going to have to mull on it. It still doesn't come easy but there is a glimmer of hope in your clue relating to the way the problem was constructed. PS Not sure what I am doing but I am having a drama linking correcty to the wiki page describing the paradox as it always truncates the description to bring it to the incorrect page.

I am obviously having some difficulty in my interpretation of Special Relativity as I am continuously mentally defeated by Dewan and Beran's interpretation of what is going on in this thought experiment referred to as Bell's spacehip paradox. I cannot in my mind avoid the temptation of assuming that the spatial distance between accelerating spaceships should also experience lorentz contraction. Apparently according to Dewan and Beran, it doesn't. Could someone enlighten me on why it doesn't?

Well that clearly is not the case with cognitive sciences. Here is an example. Of course scientists are interested in the why's of the human condition such as emotions. What they would try to avoid however are those very same subjective human emotions such as personal taste, spiritual preferences or opinions contaminating their unbiased objective investigations as these very notions tend to get in the way of good science.

I think it is quite healthy to interrogate the question of whether a 'real' or 'apparent' event horizon exists. This certainly is a crucial boundary to investigate. While GR can mathematically model using simplified assumptions what may occur beyond the event horizon, our ability to physically test these assumptions is permanently hidden to us from the frame of reference of an external observer. As a result, rather than delve into the hidden interior of a gravitationally compact object with hypothetical projections that end in singularities or einstein rosen-bridges etc and lead to other further exotic speculations about our universe (being extended from already flimsy foundations), we need to very carefully examine this apparrent boundary as the likes of Susskind do and take special heed of possible alternate propositions put forward by quantum gravity theorists that at least may be able to be observationally tested as our technology improves. It's fine to mathematically model simple black hole solutions in GR based on the absence or presence of charge and rotation, but without the ability to empirically test the interior regions of black holes, it is difficult to not conclude that such modelling is educated hand-waving at best. When conservation laws such as Information conservation are being tested at the event horizon, it is wise to slow down and closely consider this boundary.

Nice reasoning swansont. I concede and I dropped an olive in your martini. )