Time Does Not Exist / Causality in the Gravitational Field / Time & Quantum Consciousness

0:00 And if there were nothing at all, there would be no present time. But then, how is it that there are the two times, past and future, when the past is now no longer, and the future is now not yet? But if the present were always present, and did not pass into past time, it obviously would not be time, but eternity. If then, time present, if it be time, comes into existence only because it passes into time past, how can we say that even this is, when the cause of it being is that it will cease to be? Thus, can we not truly say that time is, only as it tends to work, non-being? Close quote. Fast forward some 1,200 years, when thought on the nature of time had precipitated into two philosophical schools. These were the absolute and relational schools. Each position was well articulated by founders of the Enlightenment. The champions of absolute time were led by René Descartes and Isaac Newton. Carrying the flag for time as a system of relations was Gottfried Leibniz. Before going any farther, we must acknowledge that we cannot separate the question, what is time, from the equally deep questions, what is space, and what is motion. Although we can grasp the meaning of the width of this room or the time of this lecture, are not these merely measures of space and time intervals, not space itself and time itself. Motion is the changing of a body's position in space with respect to time. But how do we measure time? We measure time by counting cycles of some periodic motion, such as the swing of a pendulum, the spin of the Earth, or the frequency of a spectral line. And how do we measure space? By counting the number of times, the standard of length must be translated across that space, which means our length standard must undergo motion. It seems that motion and space and time are a circular trinity. So it's not surprising when we come to the early articulations of the nature of time to find the proponents of absolute time also advocating for absolute space and the proponents of relative time also arguing for space as a system of relations. Descartes held that because a material thing has a volume, and space has a volume, space must therefore be a thing.

2:30 He wrote, quote, It may be asked, what would happen if God removed all the body contained in a vessel, and allowed no other body to come and take the place of what was removed? The answer must be, in that case, that the sides of the vessel would, if so facto, be in contact. For when there is nothing between two bodies, they must necessarily touch each other. Quote, quote. In the Principia, Newton made his assumptions about space and time explicit. He wrote, quote, absolute, true, and mathematical time of itself and from its own nature flows equitably without relation to anything external. Absolute space of its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. All motions may be accelerated or retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is not liable to any change. For Newton, the time interval and the space interval between two events are separately invariant. This led to the Galilean transformations of Newtonian relativity, with its logical consequence that the speed of light, like any other speed, depends on the relative motion between the observer and the source. Time invariance was also assumed in the equations of motion that apply in an accelerating reference frame, where we encounter the so-called Coriolis and centrifugal forces. In Newtonian relativity, when transforming from one inertial frame to another, Or, when transforming from an inertial to a non-inertial reference frame, the same time differential, dt, is used. Newton's assumptions about absolute space and absolute time were heartily criticized by Huygens, Barclay, and others, and especially by Leibniz. The latter attacked Newton's philosophy of space and time, among other places, in a lively series of letters that he exchanged with Newton's follower, Samuel Clark. In one response to Clark, Leibniz wrote, quote, So from my own opinion, I have said more than once that I hold space to be something merely relevant as time is. In order to prove that space without bodies is an absolute reality, the author, Clark, objected that a finite material universe might move forward in a space.

5:00 I answered, such emotion would produce no change that could be observed. The author replies that the reality of motion does not depend on its being observed. I answer, motion does not indeed depend upon being observed, but it does depend upon it being possible to be observed. Leibniz applies the same argument about observability to the notion of absolute time. quote, supposing anyone should ask why God did not create everything a year sooner. There is no mark or difference whereby it would be possible to know that the world was created sooner, end quote. Leibniz has here identified two points that are crucial to science in general and to physics in particular. First, he has identified a feature that makes science distinct from other ways of thinking about the world. and second, he has pointed to the importance of symmetry in physics. I'll take up the first point about epistemology now and return to symmetry briefly at the end. Science is evidence-based reasoning that must test its conceptions against reality. For a concept to have scientific meaning, its inferences must be observable, at least in principle. Descartes and Newton visualize time as something that exists of itself. To the absolutist, time just sits out there waiting for us to discover it. Leibniz said, that's nonsense. You can't observe this time all by itself, so why talk about it? Time is not a tangible entity independent of everything else. Newton had to admit that, in practice, one could not refer emotions to absolute space and absolute time. Therefore, one had to choose a reference frame, a coordinate system. He wrote in the Principia, quote, But because the parts of space cannot be seen or distinguished from one another by our senses, therefore in their stead we use sensible measures of them. From any body considered as immovable, we define all places. And then with respect to such places, we estimate all motions. And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones. In his famous thought experiment about the rotating bucket, Newton thought he had evidence for the existence of acceleration relative to absolute space,

7:30 but even that was arguable, as Ernst Mach later pointed out. But although Newton had to confess that velocity relative to absolute space could not be observed, he still granted absolute space and time a kind of platonic reality. Quote, In philosophical discussions, we ought to abstract from our senses and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. On this point, Mach suggested that Newton had departed from physics and wandered into metaphysics. At the end of the 19th century, Mach wrote, quote, It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction. at which we arrive by means of the changes of things. A motion may, with respect to another motion, be uniform, but the question of whether a motion is in itself uniform is senseless. With just as little justice also, may we speak of an absolute time, of a time independent of change. This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion, it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value, and no one is justified in saying that he knows ought about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception, end quote. In Newtonian relativity, the absolute time to be measured by a clock was thought to exist independent of any clock, time set out there all by itself, running along at the same rate for everybody, whether they do physics in the lab frame or in the rocket frame. But according to critics such as Leibniz and Mach, clocks do not merely measure a pre-existing time. In a sense, they create time. Time of itself does not exist. It comes into being only when there is some mark or difference whereby one can note a change. Besides counting periods of oscillations, I suppose we could use the entropy increase of the universe as a creed kind of clock, And in the real sense, we use the expansion of the universe as a cosmic clock for any co-moving observer. But the entropy clock illustrates the point. When the universe finally reaches a state of thermodynamic equilibrium,

10:00 no spontaneous processes will occur. Nothing will change. Time will cease to exist. But let's get back to Newton. To do mechanics, he had to make some statement about relativity. Theories of relativity are built on what remains invariant. between members of a class of suitably defined reference frames. And Newton had to hang his theory of relativity on something, so he took the only path he really could under those circumstances and made time and space separate relativistic invariants. There was simply no reasonable alternative. Non-Euclidean geometry and the invariance of the speed of light lay far in Newton's future light bulb. I think it's to Newton's credit that he was aware of the assumptions he made about space and time and had the presence of mind to articulate them explicitly. Sometime between 1895 and 1905, Albert Einstein began... Sometime between 1895 and 1905, Albert Einstein began asking himself some questions about space and time and motion. As you know, those questions led to the special theory of relativity. It's interesting to reflect that Einstein did not create special relativity by taking philosophical arguments about whether space and time are absolute or relative. Rather, he asked how one actually measures the time interval between two separated events or the length of a moving object. At age 16, Einstein began asking one of those profound kinds of questions that most second graders, but only a few adult minds like Einstein's, have the audacity to ask. He wondered what he would see if he rode on a beam of light. He later recalled, quote, if I pursue a beam of light with the velocity C, I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations, end quote. Einstein recognized in his simple question a deep paradox, which is one of nature's ways of telling us something important. Something was not right here. So Einstein revisited Newton's assumptions

12:30 about the separate invariance of time and space. That time intervals are not invariant became quite apparent with a simple thought experiment. Jacob Bernowski beautifully illustrated this thought experiment in his splendid essays called The Ascent of Man as follows. If I I write on the beam of light that was reflected from the clock tower when the clock read high noon, then I am always writing on the piece of information that says the time is 12 o'clock. For me and my beam of light, no time advances between my interaction with the clock face and my interaction with the retina of the viewer's eye. But for the pedestrian who glances at the clock, the scattering of the light from the clock face and the arrival of that same light in the eye are separated by a non-zero increment of time. Absolute invariant time that stands outside of events does not exist. This crucial insight about time came when Einstein realized that the relativity of time is ultimately the relativity of simultaneity. In his 1905 paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, he wrote, Quote, if we want to describe the motion of a particle, we give the values of its coordinates as functions of time. However, we must keep in mind that a mathematical description of this kind only has physical meaning if we are already clear as to what we understand here by time. We have to bear in mind that all our judgments involving time are always judgments about simultaneous events. If, for example, I say, the train arrives here at 7 o'clock, that means, more or less, the pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events. He then proceeded to turn relativity on its head. In Newton's relativity, time and space intervals are separately in Bariot. Therefore, the speed of light is relative to the observer. In Einstein's relativity, the speed of light is in Bariot. And therefore, the length of an object and the time between two events are not properties of the objects or of the events themselves. Rather, length and time are properties of the relation between the observer and the observed. Absolute time was out. Absolute space was out.

15:00 Today we understand space and time through the invariance of the space-time interval. In September 1908, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski began a speech with this now-famous introduction, quote, The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade away into the mere shadow, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. He then proceeded to lay out what today we call space-time, a four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold with time as one of its dimensions. But let me return now to the second important point for physics that Leibniz raised in his criticism of absolute space and time. You will recall that he said, supposing anyone should ask why God did not create everything a year sooner. There is no mark or difference whereby it would be possible to know that the world was created sooner. Here, Leibniz invokes a symmetry argument. In this case, the systems invariance under a time translation. Similarly, in criticizing absolute space, he invoked invariance under spatial translation. Such symmetries have profound consequences. The most comprehensive expression of the relation between symmetries and conservation laws was expressed in the elegant 1918 theorem of Hemingway. In its deepest theoretical orchestrations, physics describes its task as maximizing or minimizing certain functions and considering their invariances under transformations of the independent and dependent coordinates. Whenever a functional is invariant under a transformation and has been made an extremal, the Neuter's theorem gives us an elegant conservation law. The conserved quantity is a linear combination of the Hamiltonian and the canonical momenta with coefficients that are generators of the transformation. What then are some of the essential functionals in physics? Ray optics was placed on a theoretical foundation in 1662 with Fermat's principle.

17:30 It says that if a light ray goes from point A to point B, of all possible paths available to the ray, the path actually followed is the one that minimizes the time for the trip. After Newton's generation, it was realized that mechanics could also be expressed in functional language. called Hamilton's principle or the principle of least action. Of all the trajectories in phase space available to a particle and going from event A to event B, the trajectory actually followed is the one that makes the time interval of the difference between kinetic and potential energies a minimum. Special and general relativity can be expressed as a relativistic version of Fermat's principle. of all the trajectories between two events that are available to a freely falling particle the trajectory actually followed is the one for which the proper time, in other words the space time interval is a maximum. It is significant that in the weak field and low speed limit the relativistic Fermat's principle becomes Hamilton's principle I use these three examples Fermat's principle, Hamilton's principle principle, to point out a central role played by time as an independent variable. In these, the most fundamental physics principles that we know. Apparently, the task of physics ultimately is to describe how systems evolve with time. Time sits at the center of it all. With Augustine, we have to ask all over again, what then is time? Let's think about what we're doing when we do physics. Physics is the art of creating and testing and improving a network of concepts in terms of which the universe becomes comprehensive. For facts to be turned into knowledge, they have to be organized into a theory. That takes creativity, a system of values, and imagination. Ultimately, the inferences of the conceptual world must be tested against the real world. That comparison has shown us that absolute time, setting out there all by itself, was not a thing to be found, because as such, it does not exist. Time somehow comes into existence with change in nature,

20:00 but time is also a concept that we have created in terms of which the universe starts making some sense. We have gone far beyond the arguments of Descartes and Newton and Leibniz, and we worry today about questions such as what happened before the Big Bang and whether time is quantized at the clock scale. But here is one fact about time of which I am fairly proud of. Whatever time is, or is not, I see that I have exhausted my allotment of it for this event today. My time is gone, my song is over, thought I had something more to say. Thank you very much. So, we have some questions. Lakers? Lakers? Yeah. You wrote a lot of poems. I think I made a poem. Yeah, I'm not sure. Is that a blank poem? Yeah, it's important to me. Thank you. The Dog Reads of Innocence is one of my favorites. The Dog Reads of Innocence is one of my favorites. Well, no, I really like the way that you brought art and particularly Francesca. Do you have any idea of relation between, like I said, what has been done in special relationships, and people like that do persist in September 8th, and there was an influence. We know that there was an influence. Duchamp knew about special relationships, and Duchamp through about the space that people like that kind of thing, the people that they . Is there a question? That's a really fascinating question. And it's interesting. I think what happens, this is my own personal hypothesis. I don't think there's hardly any evidence that Picasso or Dali actually sat down and held a coffee one day and talked with Einstein . But ideas are in the air. And people pick up all ideas. The typical public has some concept of a black hole. And so those ideas are in the air, whether or not people understand them at a technical level.

22:30 But it's interesting that the Darwin thing, that you know here he's from the early 1930s, 1931. And he has symbols of time, and also biology and geology around him. And in the previous century, the geologists were beginning to demonstrate that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old, and biologists is hundreds of millions, billions of years old. And so I would love to know the answer to your question. Picasso developed Cubism about the same time people were starting to slice space up in different ways. Relativity and also crystallography was being discovered about that time. But I have read somewhere, somebody that's looked into this, there is no evidence that Picasso and Einstein ever knew each other. But the idea was in the air. I agree with you that the idea was in the air, but I think the one who knows about it was Duchamp. And I think this is described, if I remember well, but I read it a long time ago, in the Penrose of Boucher, and there's another Penrose in terms of, I don't think especially is Picasso. And I think in his book on Picasso, he explains that. Okay, yeah, and you have the futurist paintings and those kinds of things coming at the same time. Okay, that's very interesting, thank you. Great, yeah. It's always interested me. This picture, though, is called Persistence of Memory, which suggests that it's not, and I don't really understand, but it's not really a comment on a physical mind at all, but it has something to do with, you might call it a logical sense of mind. I'm not really sure what it has to do with that, but I mean, the title suggests that it really goes off in a different direction, the direction of the It's occurred to me that maybe the speaker was going to talk on consciousness this afternoon, right? You know, the persistence of memory, that sounds like there's, you know, a mind behind the scene there. Yeah. I don't know. Any good questions? I think there's a key quote about Einstein, I remember that, in which he mentioned,

25:00 I mentioned, I don't know that word in English, it's the contrary of stagy, of structural stagy. So, he talks a lot, plastic blocks, and things like that. And I think that he mentioned . I want to mention, I've seen some speculation by an art historian who suggested that, of course, that Einstein himself was influenced by R. V. Moll in his creation of the Special Examine Theory. And Einstein is quoted as explicitly denying that he ever was inspired by any of that. I think there's material for a future symposium. That very well is. Some of you may have noticed, and I don't have a response to Steve's question, but we actually used the DALI image in some of our posters for this conference, even though I don't know what the connection is. The white rabbit was great, too. They're a mess. Well, thank you very much. The next speaker is Sergey, I should have checked it, I will never make that one. And he's going to talk, he's from the University of Missouri, Columbia, and he's going to talk to us about causality of the gravitational field experimental testing in the solar system. Can we? Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you.

27:30 Thank you. So today I would like to talk about the causality of gravity and possible experimental testing of this principle in the solar system. So first of all, let me, Don showed his picture with his teacher. This is a picture of mine with my teacher. So this is Yakov Borisovich Zeldovich, a famous cosmologist, and his department, as it is shown in 1986. So there are quite many remarkable people shown on this picture, one of them is me. This guy is Shakura, famous Shakura, who created a theory of accretion disk theory, along with Sinhaev. This person is Leonid Grishuk, working presently in Cardiff. This is Michael Sajin, who is well known for his work on cosmic strings and pulsar timing. and this person is Vladimir Lipunov. All of them are professors now. So, quite a multiple diploma. So, this is the abstract. General theory of relativity demands that gravitational field abays the principle of causality as it does not propagate faster than light. We discuss this principle in the linear approximation of the general relativity theory and demonstrate how it can be tested

30:00 gravitational light ray deflection experiments conducted in the field of major planets of the solar system. So this is not the experiment in the field of sound. Well, first of all, we need to ask a question about what is the causality of gravity. And so common public thinks about causality of gravity in this way. But this is wrong, of course, as you understand. But some people can lie. So, in mathematical physics, particularly in the context of classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity refers to the speed at which changes in gravitational field are propagated out to affect the other bodies acted on by that field. This changes travel as waves. Where no other theory is specified, discussion of the speed of gravity is normally in reference to general relativity. So now, let me remind you a famous experiment, Gedanken experiment, proposed by Laplace and protected presently American scientist Van Flandern. So the experiment about planetary motion in the solar system. Imagine that the speed of gravity is finite. denote with speed of gravity as c sub g. And if the speed of gravity is finite, then two bodies attracting each other with the force of gravitation must not feel their positions in space instantaneously, but with the retardation. But if it is true, then the retardation must cause displacement of the body from the central line connecting to bodies through the body center of the two-body system, here. So this displacement of the gravitational force from the central force will lead to the violation of the angular momentum. And it will lead to the breaking force, so the solar system will collapse very soon, if the assumption about finite speed of gravity is correct. So it was the argument of Laplace against the finite speed of gravity. And it is supported by Tom and Flander right now. General relativity explains this paradox in a very nice way. In addition to the retardation or the aberration of gravity,

32:30 there is, in the Einstein equations, predict existence of an additional so-called gravity magnetic term, which cancel out the retardation of gravity in the first order only terms of, so if you write down equations of motion of planets around the Sun, you will have the Newtonian law plus corrections of order v over c squared. But there are no corrections of order v over c because the retardation of gravity is cancelled by the gravity magnetic term. Well, this is true for planets, for massive bodies, which are moving with speeds much less than the speed of light. Now, the idea is that let us replace one of these bodies with a light particle. Nobody prohibits us to take a light particle, a photon, and propagate it in the gravitational field and to see what will happen. So this is the picture. Basically, my talk consists of two parts. One part is quite pictorial, and the second one is more technical. Let me see if I shall be able to go to the second part. But pictures probably can explain everything. So now imagine we have a source of light here, a star, emitting light, and we have a world line of observer. And this is Minkowski diagram, so space is horizontal and time is vertical. And so light travels along now geodesics, which are inclined on this picture at the angle 45 degrees. Well, let me now assume that we have a light ray deflecting body moving along this world line. So, according to general theory of relativity, gravitational field cannot propagate faster than light. Actually, according to Einstein, it must propagate with the same speed as the speed of light. So we must associate with the body another null cone, which I call gravity null cone, in contrast to light null cone, because two null cones are made of two different fields. One field is electromagnetic, another field is the gravitational field. So two fields interact, and actually the interaction of light particle with gravity occurs when the light cone intersects with the gravity null cone.

35:00 Well, what is interesting from this picture? You can write down the equations of propagation of light particle in this field of a moving body, and it has been done in terms of the linear behavior potential. So I saw Einstein equations in the linear approximation. Do you have a question? No, no. I just have a question on the . I'm understanding what you have said. I'm verifying that I remember right. That there's this graphimetric term. Do I remember the word right? Graphimetric. Graphimagnetic. Graphimagnetic. Yeah, OK, that makes sense, more sense. That protects angular mental conservation from gravitational radiation damage. You're not saying that radiation damage doesn't happen. angular momentum is conserved yes okay that's it yeah after a certain approximation yeah because somebody lectured in 1982 i don't remember what it was but he showed the decay of an orbit in his speech my astronomy book uh because of gravity waves the orbit decayed yeah sure but not the In the solar system we cannot see it, it is too big, we can see it only in binary pulsars. So binary pulsars, orbits, decay. But not the angular momentum because of the ground, the magnetic turn. Everything decays, the energy is decayed and the angular momentum of the orbit also decays, both decay. Everything decays because of the initial gravitational wave. But this is incredible approximation. I will ask you later, I'm very sorry. So what is interesting on this picture, you see, when light reaches the body and starts propagating away from the body towards observer, the light now come and the gravity now come, they practically coincide, as you can see. So the light particle will not feel the gravity now come after the light particle passes the body. for such a light particle is frozen. The new speaker was talking about frozenness of electromagnetic field and so on, but here we can really see the gravitational field is frozen for the light particle. So when the light particle arrives to observe, the observer must... Now, imagine that observer can measure very precisely the gravitational deflection of light.

37:30 So, in that gravitational deflection of light, that angle of the gravitational deflection of light is defined by the position of the light ray deflecting body. And the position of the light ray deflecting body in the sky must be also connected with observer by a null light. So, now, this is another schematic diagram, Minkowski diagram of interaction of light and gravity. So, when, imagine we have observer, observer receives a signal, electromagnetic signal from a star, a light, photon, arrives to observer at time t, let's say. So, according to general theory of relativity, because gravity doesn't propagate, or more exactly, propagates exactly on the same null cone as light does, the planet must be at the retarded position at the time of observation of the photon. So we can detect position of the planet in the sky by precisely measuring the gravitational deflection of light. We don't need to see the planet. We need to measure very precisely where the light will come from the star. And this will define position of the planet. After that, we can compare position of the planet measured with the help of the gravitational deflection of light with the real position of the planet measured with light, for example, from GPL cameras, which is based on radio or optical observations. So here is another picture explaining how and what we can measure. Basically, now, let us assume that the observer and the light ray-deflecting body, the planet in our case, are not moving with respect to each other. Of course, in such a case, we cannot detect the presence of the gravity cone because when we receive a light particle here at this position, this position will not distinguish position of the planet at the position one and at the position two because the planet is at the same distance from observer. But if the planet moves with respect to observer, even with constant speed, then when we receive light signal at this point, we shall be able to distinguish between positions 1 and position 2 of the planet.

40:00 Position 2 is instantaneous position of the planet, so when we receive light at the time t, this is the position of the planet on its world line. And this position of the planet is in a retarded position. So if we receive the light particle at this instant of time, and from this measurement we will see that the planet is in the retarded position, it means that gravity doesn't propagate faster than light. So this is my paper published in Astrophysical Journal Letters in 2001 with the proposal to test the relativistic effect of the propagation of gravity with a very long baseline interferometry. So this proposal, I explained the proposal to radio astronomers at one of the conferences, and everybody was excited, particularly a friend of mine, Edward Formalant, who is a researcher at National Radioastronomical Observatory. So here, a picture shows him and me during my visit to NRIO to Sakura in 2002 in June for the preparation of the experiment. The experiment has been done with a very long baseline array, American very long baseline array. So I'm very much enthusiastic about this radio system which we have here in this country. It consists of 10 radio telescopes. All of them are shown here on these pictures. They are located at different sites in the United States. One radio telescope is on Hawaii, and another one is on Virgin Island. So the largest baseline between these radio interferometers is something about 5,000 miles, And this machine allows us, right now, to measure angles in the sky with the precision about 10 microseconds. So, now, how to understand the concept of measuring position of the gravitating body in the sky with the deflection of light rays.

42:30 So this is basically an original Eddington picture, Eddington experiment. Here you can see sun, and you can see deflection angles of light due to the presence of the gravitational field of the sun. These vectors are actually, it's a vector field, and this vector field is a vector field of gravity force, right? So if we extrapolate back this vector field, then in ideal situation, all these vector lines must intersect at one point. This point is the center of gravity of the body. So if we measure very precisely deflection of light in the sky, we don't need to see sun or any other light ray-deflecting body. We need only to measure the gravitational deflection of light. From this vector field, we can obtain position of the body in the sky, very precisely. And this will be the gravitational deflection of light. We can even replace that body with the black hole. We can determine position of the black hole in the sky by doing this procedure. However, astrometric tolerance sets a limit on the precision in measuring direction to the light ray deflecting body. For this reason, Eddington, for example, he could not measure very precisely the position of sun in the sky, because if you calculate from this picture, from the light ray deflection, the position of the body in the sky, then you will see that in order to measure position of the body quite precisely in the sky, measurement like one milliard second. Of course, it was not attainable for a long time. So, this is the idea of the experiment. It was done with Jupiter. So, we have a radio observatory. We have a light from a quasar coming down to the observatory. So, when light propagates down to the observatory, it propagates in the field of a moving light ray reflecting body, and it was Jupiter. It was Jupiter. So Jupiter was deflecting light, and when a photon, radio photon, arrived to radio observatory, we could measure very precisely the position of Jupiter in the sky, like on this picture.

45:00 On this picture, you can see a kind of a black hole moving in the sky. You don't see the black hole, but what you see is a displacement of stars in the sky due to the presence of the gravitational field of the black hole. From these displacements, you can determine position of the body in the sky and compare this position with the prediction based on the general relativity. So, general relativity predicts that when light arrives to radio observatory, Jupiter must be in the retarded position. Another prediction is that the speed of gravity is infinite, and it means that when light arrives to radio observatory, position of Jupiter must be taken at the same time as the photon arrived to radio observatory. Now, these two predictions can be compared, actually. Well, this picture explains how. observe, you don't observe Jupiter. You observe the quasar in the sky, and the gravitational displacement of the quasar in the sky due to the presence of the gravitational field of Jupiter. When Jupiter moves, and it moves on this picture from right to left, light position, apparent position of the quasar in the sky is displaced. So this point is the catalogue position of the quasar when Jupiter is very, very far away and its gravitational field is not relevant. When Jupiter approaches to the quasar in the sky, then from position 1, Jupiter will deflect position of the quasar to position 1. From position 2, it will deflect it to the position 2 here, from position 3 to the position 3 here, and so on. So this is basically a mapping, what is called mapping in mathematics. We can map position of Jupiter in the sky to the position of quasar in the sky, or vice versa, opposite. From the displacement of the quasar in the sky, we can determine position of Jupiter in the sky. So there are two predictions. One prediction is that Jupiter deflects light from the retarded position as predicted by general theory of relativity. And this prediction tells us that the gravity must propagate with the speed of light. It has a causal nature. Another prediction is based on the assumption

47:30 that gravity has no propagational speed. It propagates instantaneously. So regarding these two predictions, we can draw basically two circles displaced in the sky respect to each hour by the angle in that particular experiment, that displacement was only 50 micro arcseconds, and 1.3 milliarchseconds is the deflection of light, the main gravitational deflection of light predicted by Einstein. I'm talking about the correction to the Einstein deflection of light, and so the impact parameter between the Jupiter trajectory and the catalogue position of the equator was 3.7 arc minutes. So after we determine position of Jupiter in the sky from observation of the gravitational deflection of light, we can compare that position of Jupiter with the ephemeris position of Jupiter taken from GPL ephemeris. So there are two predictions. So this is a real experiment, because GPL can measure position or measured position of Jupiter in the sky a long time ago, and this measurement is based on optical or radio observations. So GPL effemerates, if you take them, they are radio or optics. They predict position of Jupiter in the sky on the basis of the propagation of light from Jupiter. But from the gravitational light deflection experiment, we can determine position of Jupiter in the sky on the basis of general theory of relativity and on the basis gravitational field, deflects light. So, we did this experiment, and we attained, indeed, precision 10 microseconds. 10 microseconds is a remarkable precision. This is the width of a human strand, of human hair, from a distance of 650 miles. So, this is the precision we have reached in this experiment. And we measured this effect with the precision, well, 10 divided by 50, Roughly speaking, it is 20%, and given this error of the experiment, we proved that the deflection of light, so Jupiter deflects light from its retarded position, as predicted by general theory of relativity, but not Newtonian light theory. You can argue that this 20%, like some journalists argued, okay, they said 20% of measurement is basically nothing,

50:00 And you have to remember that this 50 microseconds and 10 microseconds, 10 years ago, we could not dream about this. So we could get it only with this American VLBI system, and only presently. So this is high technological. This is nanotechnology. Nanotechnology. I think it's better for me to stop, because I can go to details, technical details. But basically, the idea is explained, and I hope that you understood it. The paper was published, you can see it. And I published also several other papers on this experience. Do you have any questions? Just a few questions. If you talk about this, you're measuring the cool on one, two, you'll be able to achieve it in your right. to measure what the light is responding to with respect to. This is a Coulomb theory, but there's nothing— I'm a little—just a little confused, and I wanted a clarification. It's called the speed of gravity. Usually when you talk about the speed of gravity and the speed of light, you talk about the speed at which the radiation propagates. And there's no field—you're not measuring the speed of radiation here, are you? You have to distinguish the speed of propagation of so-called transverse which fall out as one per hour distance from the system. But there are other kinds of ways. For example, Coulomb, if you take a spherical symmetric body and start moving the body in space, it just has a Coulomb component. Well, more exactly, Newtonian-like component, right? But that Newtonian-like component cannot propagate, cannot interact with light particle faster than the speed of light anyway. We are not detecting gravitational waves in the sense of TT waves. So these waves are, people are looking for these waves with LIGO and so on. In this experiment, we are just working with that Coulomb-like component of the gravitational field. But we show that that component, a base to linear B have potentials, and it doesn't propagate faster than life. So you have the retardation, and now we have potentials, you have the retardation.

52:30 And that retardation... There's a lot of work here that you know about, it'll make the difference, and it'll be looking. What goes on is, when you have some aberration like this, I think it's called an aberration of light? Let's think, or is that... What is it called? You have three fields, the aberration of light, the aberration of gravity, and the retardation of gravity. All right, so what you're seeing is life is responding to a retortive potential, that's the word, and that's a word that gives you legitimacy to go Google or whatever, because Google makes everything interesting. It responds to retortive potential, not to the Coulomb potential, but the one that would have been. The retortive component of the Coulomb potential, yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's the same type of experiment. We made the sun disappear now, which it will be. Reality and light are totally different issues. But you can observe something about gravity if you observe light, because light is an environment constant. Electromagnetic field is environment. It helps us to understand the environment of the gravitational field. Test particle tests properties of the gravitational field. That's it. Great. Thanks, Frank. Thank you. So it's my pleasure to introduce to you Carrie Welch, who was actually an Austin College graduate, who was one of my students, was a joint physics religion major here, and philosophy here, and she's now working on her graduate work at San Francisco California Institute for Physical Studies. But the time I've been talking is time in quantum consciousness, so I'll arm you with this device here and I will go and raise the screen.

55:00 So you would like some light to it? Yeah, great. Okay, so here we are towards the end of the two days of lots of information in a really short amount of time, so if y'all are anything like me, their heads are kind of full and swimming. And so hopefully we can switch gears a little bit here. And so I'm going to do some of what Balachandran was referring to this morning as idealistic speculation basically. And you know, not everybody would classify it. In fact, I'm going to be referring to some very serious theories also. But want to take it in a more of a brainstorming type session so that we can do some idealistic speculation because I really think that's how things move forward and that's how the creative process moves forward. So, I am going to start with, let's see, what's that? Michael, you want me to start right there. In the answer for you. We'll get there, we'll get there. Okay, but I'm not going to jump there. I'm going to try to address a little bit of this length between consciousness and cosmology that we've kind of come across before. Basically, in physics, most of our physical equations involve time or time symmetrical. And then our experience of time is something that is obviously not time symmetrical. We don't experience time flowing backwards. We experience it as flowing in one direction. And so there's this disjoint here. And there's also a disjoint because there are a whole bunch of different ideas of time within physics that are not exactly I mean in the same way that quantum mechanics and relativity have not yet come to meet in a really satisfactory way. So we're going to kind of look at some ways that maybe those different visions of time can link up in different points.

57:30 So I went into earlier when I was phrasing the question as to if time is a projection of our consciousness onto reality then or is it something that we have come up, it's an external property of the external reality that we are in the midst of and so we experience it because of that. And I suggest that both sides of these questions are really the same thing. Because consciousness is a property of the universe that has developed in the universe, it is the relationship. We're talking about relational time. Time happens in relationship. It's the relationship of consciousness observing the universe. So we really have to deal with the problem of consciousness in order to get a satisfactory answer for the problem of time. Okay. So, and I didn't support that very well, but you can argue about it if you want. Okay, so for me, when I try to figure out, okay, so if I'm going to say that understanding consciousness is essential for understanding time, what is consciousness? And for me, it's inherently late to time in that the fundamental property of consciousness is the ability to project ourselves forward in time and backwards in time, so that we have the ability to remember and the ability to predict. And somehow end up doing that from the moment that we're currently situated in. And so there's this kind of idea of looping time that's going on there that we've kind of seen alluded to in Gradle's universe and the notion of backwards time in a few different places. Then the next question I would have is what is the space-time structure that facilitates this function of consciousness, consciousness' ability to project itself forward in time and come back to this present moment, or to remember the past and come back to bring that into this present moment. Because it's not only that ability to project in either direction, but to bring continuity to that whole system. And so, because consciousness is a manifestation of the universe, somehow the universe is manifesting consciousness that could do this, bringing continuity to this new string of events. Okay, so let's jump on into Penrose and Hameroff.

1:00:00 Roger Penrose, mathematician, physicist, and Stuart Hameroff, who's an anesthesiologist at the University of Arizona, that have a theory of quantum consciousness, which is basically based on the fact that they kind of found the smallest parts of the brain that they could. You know, the brain is made up of neurons, and the neurons have a cytoskeleton of microtubules, and the microtubules are built of microtubulean, which are built of 13 little columns of proteins. And each of these proteins changes shape, and it can be in two different shapes. And so when they look at that, the brain has a bit system, as if it were a computer, shapes is like a one and a zero and then they look at you know the number of these proteins in the brain and does that give us enough computing power to do what our brain does and that's no one near close but if they look at it as if it's a quantum system as if it's a qubit system instead of a bit system so not only do you have that one and the zero but you have the superposition of those two states as well all of a sudden that the computing power increases exponentially and you have you know what our brain can do, or closer to it than we have. Anyhow, this is also very satisfactory, because they've taken this principle of quantum mechanics, which we have in physics. They've linked it to neurophysiology, which is already something you don't normally see happening. And they've also linked it to subjective experience, which I think is crucial, and then we don't, this is kind of the question that was alluded to earlier about what do we treat as more real, our theories or our experience, and do we, we often want to make sure the mathematics and the physics is consistent in itself, but we don't often make sure it's consistent with our experience. Not necessarily our experimental experience, but our mental and emotional and subjective experience. So the way that they link it up is to say that the superposition of states is analogous.