Horwitz, L.P. (2005) On the significance of a recent experiment demonstrating quantum interference in time. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507044

“I comment on the interpretation of a recent experiment showing quantum interference in time. It is pointed out that the standard nonrelativistic quantum theory, used by the authors in their analysis, cannot account for the results found, and therefore that this experiment has fundamental importance beyond the technical advances it represents. Some theoretical structures which consider the time as an observable, and thus could, in principle, have the required coherence in time, are discussed briefly, and the application of Floquet theory and the manifestly covariant quantum theory of Stueckelberg are treated in some detail. In particular, the latter is shown to account for the results in a simple and consistent way. ”

The authors also failed to take much note of the “extended present”

See Time and conscious experience

You’re being timeist.

http://fqxi.org/community

some time in the future?

As of `right now’ it says”

BREAKING NEWS
Essay contest announcement is imminent

Deary me. You really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, do you?

Respected by whom? I just re-read his essay. Now, I’m not going to pretend that I know the answers to the mysteries of time. But I will bet my last Kuwaiti dinar that the problems associated with interpreting the Wheeler-De Witt equation will *not* be resolved by sophomore-level disquisitions on the definition of a clock. All that junk about clocks and meter sticks belongs in antiquated introductions to special relativity — you know, the kind designed for over-eager undergraduates who are judged unripe for Minkowski space and “high-powered” mathematics like that….

Barbour has a following, but I think you will find that remarkably few of them are professional physicists. What the field needs is people like Carroll and Kiefer who can bring the right machinery to bear on it, not yet more vacuous philosophizing about the definition of clocks or “duration”.

Indeed. Barbour is many things, but “obscure” is not one of them; he is – and has been for decades – one of the most highly respected people in this particular field.

I’m not sure why you have allowed through an anonymous comment containing a meaningless slight against the winner though.

I really liked the piece on the movie review and think you may be onto something with your idea of short, single topic videos but there are some things I think that deserve more of our attention (our deferred gratification),and which occasionally demand some work/effort and time on our part. What was it that the person who once used your desk when a reporter asked him to explain/describe his work–why he was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics–in near Planck time?

Thanks again to you and to your colleagues for providing a glimpse to rank amateurs like me into your world. I wouldn’t miss it.

Well, just imagine if you’d tried buying a house a year ago. It must be cheaper now. (Sez the guy who’s trying to sell one without losing money on it.)

JoAnne, there is some loot, which ordinarily I would think was quite a lot. Right now I am buying a house, and any ordinary amount of cash just seems like noise.

There were plenty of ‘a-ha’ moments in your essay and the others. Thank you.