|THE DIRECTION OF TIME|
I wonder if I am right about the proposed restrictions of the conservation laws on new worlds. We assume in all superposed worlds the same laws of physics to hold. Otherwise an outside observer could not interpret the interference pattern it experiences according to one set of physics laws. That would contradict the established agreement between observations and calculations of nowadays physics. The laws don’t change when shifting from one world to another. The conservation laws hold in any of the superposed worlds. But do the conservation laws apply to the shift itself? Is there a special reason why they would? The outside observers? That is the question. Could a measurement make us enter a complete different universe, with new and different outside observers, as long as the new universe obeys the old laws? It is not the universe that changes then, neither it is us. It is the link of our local environment to the outside, to the rest of the universe, that changes to a different link.
The superposed worlds differ. The case of correlated particles (See Experiment 1 the EPR experiment at page 1 of EXPERIMENTS ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION) shows the differences might be distant to each other. But this is all meaningless. We are our local environment, local in space and time. The speed of light is the upper limit of an influence. We can gather observations from far away and long ago, but we know them only when data about it (read: particles) had actually reached us. Then we enter one of those possible worlds.
(This is what I think Descartes meant by his expression “I think so I am”. Nothing is for sure. The world may end just outside your visible horizon. The remembrance to the past might be fake memory. The future has always been uncertain. There is only one thing for sure: “I think so I am”. Your here-and-now experience. Your local environment.)
There is no influence to a local environment other than through the direct neighbouring environments. You can’t pass over environments. You can take a different route but that route too has to consist of a continuous row of events. You can’t break up a particles worldline in disconnected points or line pieces.
(The speed of light is established as the absolute upper limit of every kind of displacement in Experiment 2 The inverse square force law at page 2 of EXPERIMENTS ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION, amongst a lot of other things about the adapted interpretation of quantum mechanics that I present in this site. It is considerably longer than Experiment 1.)
This is in agreement with special relativity. In sr a frame of reference can be decomposed in a collection of linked neighbouring local environments. The lorentz-transformations between two frames can be rewritten as a changing of the links only (see the storyline SR about Special Relativity). When you are changing speed, links are disconnected with neighbours in spacetime and are connected again with other neighbours in the same spacetime. In fact that’s all there is to special relativity.
In general relativity a frame of reference can be decomposed in the same collection of linked neighbouring local environments. One can rewrite the transformations in gr as a collection of contractions and expansions of local area’s in spacetime. The contraction or expansion will usually be anisotropic: the amount of contraction or expansion of a local area differs in different directions. There might be a contraction in one direction while the area expands in another.
By example, a local area somewhere above the earth is “falling” or “streaming” towards the earth (falling along with gravity) and while doing so it expands along the line through the centre of the earth. But the falling area contracts in all perpendicular directions (causing the so called tidal effects).
As a result the view of spacetime decomposed in linked local areas is in agreement with gr too. As far as I can see, that is.
Isn't it all about the question whether the local shift to another world is an event? And if so In what world?
The outside observers experience the interference of all possible you’s, as long as they don’t observe you. But in fact there are more you’s than an outside observer can experience. You - just one of them - experience the interference pattern of all possible outside observers, as long as you don’t observe them. The same you’s fitting with different outside observers.
When you enter an outside observer, do the other outside observers disappear then? This is the same question as in a superposition of states, entering one of them and then to ask whether the other possibilities disappear. The answer must be no. For every you entering an outside observer there is another you that didn’t measure the outside yet. Or that entered a different outside observer.
Is it possible not to observe the outside observer? I mean, the outside observer consist of the rest of the universe - all of the universe except for your own local environment. It very well might be the fabric of spacetime - whatever that may consist of - bears some properties of the universe. Its overall energy density. Its observable 3-dimensionality. Its direction of time. So if your local environment bears these properties then all your possible outside observers are bound to them too.
So at this stage the answer seems to be “Yes, the past can be changed, as long as the remnants of the past are outside your local environment and are not measured yet.” The measurement of the electron and in doing so reducing its wavefunction, might shift all of its outside (in space and time) to a universe in which the electron had a very different past.
NEXT PAGE Up CONTACT