Subject: The unknown Hamiltonian of the emergent quantum theory
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:20:35 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>
CC: Philip Pearle <ppearle@hamilton.edu>,
     Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
     Larry Horwitz <larry@post.tau.ac.il>,
     Andre Gsponer <Andre.Gsponer@cui.unige.ch>,
     Claus Kiefer <kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de>

Dear Steve,

May I ask some questions in private. I haven't (yet) read your fascinating monograph [Ref. 1], and that is a big mistake of mine. I remember the late Asher Peres who effectively suggested to me that I should contact you if I want to learn something about quantum theory (Asher put it in a very polite way, of course).

I wonder what are the assumptions about the behavior of the unknown Hamiltonian [Ref. 1] in the light of Schrödinger's statement about the basic tenet of quantum theory: unlike classical reality, the quantum reality does not exist prior to observations [Ref. 2]. Thus, if we use the time parameter from STR, we utterly abuse QM,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Hartle.html#C4

If all that is true, we need a brand new kind of time, to account for 'intact quantum reality out there' (I tried to explain my speculations to Chris on 13 November 1998, the day we first met in London). You can try this new kind of time, pertaining to 'potential reality', at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Rosinger.html

Q: I wonder if you agree with Schrödinger [Ref. 2]. If you do, what are the corresponding properties of the Hamiltonian in your trace dynamics? I also wonder if you agree with Schrödinger and Einstein in general [Ref. 3].

I will greatly appreciate your professional feedback and the opinion of your colleagues. Will keep it private.

Again, please excuse my violent curiosity.

Best wishes,

Dimi

P.S. A totally unrelated issue: do you happen to know the solution to the 9/11 puzzle?

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#clean

My objections to the "conspiracy" versions are highlighted with red at the link above.

D.
--

[Ref. 1] Book Review. Stephen L. Adler, Quantum theory as an emergent phenomenon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 0521831946, 2004, 238pp. Reviewed by Philip Pearle, quant-ph/0602078 v1.

"Which state survives depends upon the particular white noise function. The probability associated with a particular final state is that associated to all the white noise functions which cause it, and is equal to the Born probability (i.e., to the squared magnitude of the state’s coefficient in the initial superposition).
...

"The author clearly was struck by the striking features of trace dynamics and its potential for attaining the "emergent" quantum theory grail. The argument satisfyingly flows along, conveying that conviction, occasionally with reservations, to the reader. The whole thing rests on the properties of an unknown Hamiltonian. The assumptions about its behavior pile up, ... ."
 

[Ref. 2] Erwin Schrödinger, "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik", Naturwissenschaften 23, pp. 807-812; 823-828; 844-849 (1935). Translated by John D. Trimmer, Sec. 8, Theory of Measurement, Part One,
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect8

"The rejection of realism has logical consequences. In general, a variable has no definite value before I measure it; then measuring it does not mean ascertaining the value that it has. But then what does it mean?"
 

[Ref. 3] "Except for Laue, you are the only one who realizes that you cannot avoid accepting reality if you are honest. Most of the others don't even see what kind of a dangerous game they play with reality."

Albert Einstein to Erwin Schrödinger, 1950 (E. Schrödinger, M. Planck, A. Einstein, H.A. Lorentz: Briefe zur Wellenmechanik (hrsg. K. Przibram), Springer Verlag, Wien, 1976.)
--

Note: The problem with abusing QM can be explained with the following quote from Carlo Rovelli, quant-ph/9802020 v3 (emphasis mine - D.C):

"Quantum mechanics was not originally formulated as a general dynamical theory of the world, but as the theory of quantum microsystems interacting with classical macrosystems. In the original formulation of the theory, the interaction of a quantum microsystem S with a classical macrosystem O is described in terms of "quantum measurements". If the macrosystem O interacts with the variable q of the microsystem S, and S is in a superposition of states with different values of q, then the macrosystem O "sees" only one of the values of q, and the interaction modifies the state of S by projecting it into a state with that value. (...) Namely, when precisely can we replace the statement "this may happen with probability p" with the statement "this has happened"? The most common answer to these questions is that quantum mechanics does not determine the time at which the measurement happens."

If the macrosystem can "see" more than one of the potential values of q, it will contact 'the quantum reality out there', as explained here. This is also the solution proposed to the relativistic "collapse" and the smooth classical limit of QM. It has crucial implications for quantum gravity.

Let's go back to 1931 Schrödinger paper. Saul Youssef writes (flipping a quantum coin) in quant-ph/9509004: "The situation before the observation could be described by the distribution  (1/2,1/2)  and after observing heads our description would be adjusted to  (1,0) . The problem is, what would you say to a student who then asks: "Yes, but what causes  (1/2,1/2)  to evolve into  (1,0) ? How does it happen?"

To understand 'how does it happen', try to trace back the event of observation "this has already happened" [heads  (1,0) ]. It is on you past light cone. Can you reach the Schrödinger cat state  (1/2,1/2) ? If you can, you'll find the recipe for merging Minkowski spacetime with the Hilbert space, and will reconcile QM with STR. The task is on the table since 1931.

If we ignore these issues, we're destined to do calculations like Harry.

Recall St. Augustine: the notion of 'time' refers to some concrete object which changes its state 'in time'. We can think of changes in time if we have at least two "successive" states separated by a gap in which the object does not exist. This is the metaphysics of the phenomenon of transience. If there were no gaps of alleged "non-existence", there would be only one single state of the object, which will not be allowed to change 'in time' (recall the problem of time from Wheeler - DeWitt equation). Instead of 'time', we would be living in one instant stretched to infinity, which is nothing but 'eternity' (St. Augustine).

I tried to explain these "gaps" of alleged "non-existence" (called 'global mode of spacetime') at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Price.html#note

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Szabados.html#note

as well as at the links in my last email to Steve Adler above. These "gaps" keep the 'sameness' of an object (Kurt Lewin's genidentity thesis), as preserved by its 'potential reality' or Holon state(s). Just recall the miraculous identity or "sameness" of the "collapsed" particles of the same type, which Charles Misner et al. regard as "a central mystery of physics" (C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973, p. 1215). These "gaps" are the back bone of the bi-directional transition between the quantum and classical realms. Without them, we simply don't have reality, neither quantum nor classical.

I am sure the Albert Einstein Professor S. Adler is fully aware of the dangerous play with reality in present-day theoretical physics.
 

D.C.
February 8, 2006
Last update: February 16, 2006

==========

Message-ID: <43EF13A1.9000400@chakalov.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:53:21 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To:  kracklau@fossi.uni-weimar.de
Subject: Re: Flipping a quantum coin

>> "Saul Youssef writes (flipping a quantum coin) in quant-ph/9509004:
>> "The situation before the observation could be described by the
>> distribution  (1/2,1/2)  and after observing heads our description would
>> be adjusted  to  (1,0) . The problem is, what would you say to a
>> student who then asks: "Yes, but what causes  (1/2,1/2)  to evolve
>> into  (1,0) ? How does it happen?"
>>
>> "To understand 'how does it happen', try to trace back the event of
>> observation "this has already happened" [heads  (1,0) ]. It is on you
>> past light cone. Can you reach the Schrödinger cat state  (1/2,1/2) ?"
>>
>> Q: Can you can trace back the Schrödinger cat state (1/2,1/2) at the
>> VERY point at which it had entered your past light cone?

1. If your answer is 'yes', please explain (i) the dynamics of converting the cat state (1/2,1/2) into the definite state  (1,0) (heads), and (ii) the history of the other cat state  -- all of them on your past light cone.

2. If your answer is 'no', please explain why.

3. If your answer is 'the question does not have an answer', please explain why.

>> No need to read any web page of mine; just please give me your
>> answer to the question above. Nothing more.

> Ans:  "Cat states" are epistemological and therefore collapse without 
> consequence for SR, just like 'coin states' when we look to see what
> happens as it hits the floor.

> Why do I suspect that you will not like this answer?

What you wrote above is not an answer at all. It may be a brief introduction to your answer, and I would suspect that you're heading toward case (1) above. But I could be wrong.

Any answer of yours to the question above is *very* important to me, and I will like it.

Just please get professional.

D.

==========

Message-ID: <43EF82D3.6000000@chakalov.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:47:47 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: kracklau@fossi.uni-weimar.de
Subject: Re: Flipping a quantum coin
In-Reply-To: <200602121806.00076.kracklau@fossi.uni-weimar.de>
 

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:06:00 +0100, A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
[snip]

> As the "state" is just an expression of what its user knows, it is 1/2,1/2 
> until he sees the coin land, then he "knows" that it changed to 1,0 say.

Don't mix apples with oranges, Al.

With STR, you don't have 'the "state" is just an expression of what its 
user knows'. You have facts. And the fact is that you have a *definite* 
state (1,0).

Facts do not, and cannot dissolve into "knowledge" by tracing back their 
history on your past light cone.

Again, please get professional and submit your choice.

What do you choose? Case (1), case (2), or case (3)?

Dimi

========

From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <kracklau@fossi.uni-weimar.de>
To: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
Subject: Re: Flipping a quantum coin
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:14:08 +0100
Message-Id: <200602130314.08803.kracklau@fossi.uni-weimar.de>

[snip]
> Facts do not, and cannot dissolve into "knowledge" by tracing back their
> history on your past light cone.
>
> Again, please get professional and submit your choice.
>
> What do you choose? Case (1), case (2), or case (3)?

You are mixing QM and SR.  Wave functions "exist" only in QM.  I say they
are epistemological, not "things".  Anyway, in SR signals arrive or they don't, there is no such thing as "tracing back."  After they are emitted and before they arrive, nobody knows where they are or what they are doing, theories withstanding.

This exchange is going nowhere.  You are not privileged and deserving of being spoon-fed.
[snip]

========

Comments: The third sentence from Al Kracklauer's reply presents the current mess in theoretical physics, dominated by the "Copenhagen hegemony", to use Jim Cushing's apt phrase. Asher Peres went even further by claiming that "quantum states are not physical objects: they exist only in our imagination." Can we develop quantum gravity with such ridiculous statements? Recall that in QM the very source of quantum waves is not known; these waves just "appear" in the math, being introduced by hand.

Thirteen years ago, Bill Unruh stressed the problems from such "interpretation" of quantum theory. See also John Polkinghorne's book Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction (reference here), and Euan Squires' The Mystery of the Quantum World (reference here).

Moreover, all those physicists who are bewildered by the Copenhagen hegemony are missing an important fact: human knowledge and imagination are not "ghosts". Their neural basis is in the brain, hence any cat state of our neurons (the Na/K pump) would be lethal. If you believe in the Copenhagen hegemony and measure a quantum system, the very first thing that will happen is that your brain and the quantum system will be entangled, and nothing would have any definite state whatsoever, 'the rest of the universe' included. Hence your brain will immediately break down and could never recall that there are such things as Process I or 'projection postulate', not to mention the Born rule. Your brain won't be able to correlate 1014 events per second (reference here), and you'll be damn dead. Moreover, you utterly need some "point-like" state to initiate the measurement and solve the preferred basis problem, but such a well-defined "point-like" state can be miraculously obtained only after the measurement.

NB: I am deliberately "mixing QM and SR", to show the need for reexamining 'the current situation in quantum mechanics', after Erwin Schrödinger's 1935 paper. Facts do not, and cannot dissolve into "knowledge" by tracing back their history on your past light cone. The quantum states do not exist as "knowledge". They produce the world of tables and chairs, and are a new kind of reality -- potential reality. More can be read here, here, and here, as well as at the links from my email to Steve Adler above.

I also offered an explanation of the quantum of action and the "source" of quantum waves as an effect of the Holon; read p. 16 from my essay on GW astronomy, gw.pdf. To begin with, I think we need to unravel the "mysterious time" of Bill Unruh, which is an "explicit (but unmeasureable) time".

However, Al Kracklauer says: "you are not privileged and deserving of being spoon-fed." Maybe he knows something that I don't know. Chris Isham, however, said: "you do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area."

So be it. I only wanted to stress the need for reality, after Einstein. If we want to learn something about the quantum reality, we must never abuse QM with "that sharp time" from STR.

Besides, I don't need to be "spoon-fed" in quantum gravity to practice PHI. Why would a fish need a bicycle?
 

D. Chakalov
February 13, 2006
Last update: March 12, 2006
 

==============

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:55:36 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Srikanth R <srik@rri.res.in>
Subject: Re: Flipping a quantum coin

Dear Srikanth,

Thank you for your kind reply from Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:21:55 +0530 (IST). I will read very carefully the newer version of your quant-ph/0602114.

> I tend to believe in a philosophy that I call "information realism", 
> which essentially says that information about a quantum state really 
> lives in a deeper layer of Nature (that I call sub-physical), and the 
> wavefunction is not merely a ghost in our own knowledge! In other
> words, the information about a state has an objective (but
> sub-physical) reality.

The deeper layer of Nature that you call 'sub-physical' is the crux of PHI. I call it 'potential reality'. We cannot test it directly (it is sort of "confined" like the quarks), but can verify the *mental reflection* from it, which is known as 'context' and 'Platonic ideas',

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Rosinger.html

Put it differently, if we prove that there is something called 'blue', then there exists something which has produced a mental reflection of 'blue', i.e., EM radiation with specific wavelength. Likewise, in the example at the link above, I can prove the existence of the *mental reflection* of 'potential reality', hence the latter does exist. My web site examines various cases of 'potential reality', as you might have noticed.

> My answers to your quiz are as follows. Kindly let me know if any 
> clarifications are needed, which I shall gladly give.

> 1. Yes. The manner of (1/2,1/2) going to (1,0) is an abrupt, nonlocal 
> collapse. Strictly speaking it is not a dynamical, but an algorithmic, 
> change in the sense that one cannot write down a Hamiltonian for it,
> but can give a discontinuous algorithm. To give a crude analogy, it is 
> similar to the crash of a computer program, except that in the present 
> case, it is the crash of the Unitary program in response to 
> unresolvability of a sufficiently entangled state.

> 2. (not applicable)

> 3. (not applicable)

I'm afraid I can't understand your line of reasoning. The quiz at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Kracklauer

was the following:

--
Saul Youssef writes (flipping a quantum coin) in quant-ph/9509004:

"The situation before the observation could be described by the distribution  (1/2,1/2)  and after observing heads our description would be adjusted  to  (1,0) . The problem is, what would you say to a student who then asks: "Yes, but what causes  (1/2,1/2)  to evolve into  (1,0) ? How does it happen?"

To understand 'how does it happen', try to trace back the event of observation "this has already happened" [heads  (1,0) ]. It is on you past light cone. Can you reach the Schrödinger cat state  (1/2,1/2) ?

Q: Can you can trace back the Schrödinger cat state (1/2,1/2) at the VERY point at which it had entered your past light cone?

1. If your answer is 'yes', please explain (i) the dynamics of converting the cat state (1/2,1/2) into the definite state  (1,0) (heads), and (ii) the history of the other cat state  -- all of them on your past light cone.

2. If your answer is 'no', please explain why.

3. If your answer is 'the question does not have an answer', please explain why.
--

You answer is 'yes' (case 1), but can you "trace back", as a Gedankenexperiment, the definite state (1,0) at the VERY point at which it had entered your past light cone?

Also, what is the history of the other cat state, which was not observed? Is it on your past light cone as well? If it isn't there, where is it, and how is it "waiting" for the next flipping of the quantum coin, to get the 50/50 chance to be observed?

BTW my answer to the quiz is case (3), but I will be more than happy to be convinced by you that the right answer is indeed case (1).

Best regards,

Dimi
 

===========

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:32:11 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: "Dmitry A. Arbatsky" <wave@front.ru>
Cc: David Ritz Finkelstein <df4@mail.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: quant-ph/0608138 v1
 

Dear Dr. Arbatsky,

>> Hence you may claim, after Lev Davidovich, that if, at the instant of
>> measurement of energy, you look at your wristwatch, you will eliminate
>> all "uncertainties", correct?
>
> No. I do not know, whether it is possible in some situations to introduce
> some good self-adjoint "operator of time" (with continuous spectrum;
> for which Hamiltonian would be a generator of spectral shifts).
> Why not? Formally, I can construct something like that.

The quiz below is exactly about constructing "something like that", to
reconcile QM with STR. Why? Because STR deals with facts, and facts do not dissolve into "knowledge"/probabilities/whatever by tracing them back on your light cone. Please see below.

> But, definitely, it would not be something that you just see on your
> wristwatch at some arbitrary instant.

Sounds like a very strange animal :-)

>> To settle this issue, I invite you to take part in the quiz at
>> http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Kracklauer
>> Please don't hesitate.
>
> "Do not hesitate" to do what? I see there only archive of your
> letters.

I'll make copy & paste from the link above:

-- 
Saul Youssef writes (flipping a quantum coin) in quant-ph/9509004:

"The situation before the observation could be described by the distribution (1/2,1/2)  and after observing heads our description would be adjusted to (1,0) . The problem is, what would you say to a student who then asks: "Yes, but what causes  (1/2,1/2)  to evolve into  (1,0) ? How does it happen?"

To understand 'how does it happen', try to trace back the event of observation "this has already happened" [heads  (1,0) ]. It is on you past light cone. Can you reach the Schrodinger cat state  (1/2,1/2) ?

Q: Can you can trace back the Schrodinger cat state (1/2,1/2) at the VERY point at which it had entered your past light cone?

1. If your answer is 'yes', please explain (i) the dynamics of converting the cat state (1/2,1/2) into the definite state  (1,0)  (heads), and (ii) the history of the other cat state  -- all of them on your past light cone.

2. If your answer is 'no', please explain why.

3. If your answer is 'the question does not have an answer', please explain why.
--

Since you're Russian, I suppose you answer will be 'yes' (case 1), but can you "trace back", as a Gedankenexperiment, the definite state (1,0) at the VERY point at which it had entered your past light cone?

Also, what is the history of the other cat state, which was not observed? Is it on your past light cone as well? If it isn't there, where is it, and how is it "waiting" for the next flipping of the quantum coin, to get the 50/50
chance to be observed?

Kindest regards,

Dimi

===========
 

Can you "trace back", as a Gedankenexperiment, the definite state (1,0) at the point at which it had entered your past light cone? See the drawing below, from J. Christian's gr-qc/0610049 v1.
 
 

My answer to the 'flipping a quantum coin' quiz is (3), 'the question does not have an answer'. As stressed by Alfredo Macias and Hernando Quevedo in gr-qc/0610057 v1, "time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman’s path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. The absolute character of time in quantum mechanics results is crucial for its interpretation, i.e., matrix elements are evaluated at fixed time, and the internal product is unitary, i.e., conserved in time, and it implies conservation of the total probability. Therefore, time is part of the classical background, which is needed for the interpretation of measurements."

Our hands are tied, and all we can do is to abuse the very spirit of QM.

Briefly on the answer (3): the normalization of probabilities in QM is relative to a fixed instant from the "time" parameter in STR, hence one would gather the impression that we can bet on the case (1) above. On the other hand, the time-of-arrival of the definite state (0,1) or 'heads' cannot be squeezed into a "point" that would correspond to a fixed instant w.r.t.w. we normalize the outcomes from 'flipping the quantum coin' (more references here). The way I see it, the only remaining possibility for the quantum beast to "smuggle" into our good old Minkowski spacetime is "through" the apex of the cone (more info here and here).

Bill Unruh and Bob Wald had suggested that any reasonable quantum theory should contain a parameter, called Heraclitian time, whose role is to set the conditions for measuring quantum variables and to provide the temporal order of such measurements (W.G. Unruh and R.M. Wald, Time and the interpretation of canonical quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 2598). And that's a whole new ball game.
 

D.C.
February 15, 2006
Last update: October 12, 2006

================
 

Subject: Probability in modal interpretations of quantum mechanics, quant-ph/0703020 v1
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:43:09 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: <dieks@phys.uu.nl>,
 Dennis Dieks <d.g.b.j.dieks@phys.uu.nl>
Cc: IGUS Jim <hartle@physics.ucsb.edu>,
 Steven B Giddings <giddings@physics.ucsb.edu>,
 Mário Everaldo de Souza <mdesouza@sergipe.ufs.br>,
 Tony Rothman <trothman@princeton.edu>,
 Stephen P Boughn <sboughn@haverford.edu>
Bcc: [snip]

Dear Dr. Dieks,

If we "drop the rule that a system can only possess a well-defined value of a physical magnitude if it is represented by an eigenstate of the
corresponding observable" (quant-ph/0703020 v1, p. 4), then the system may not possess any "well-defined value" at all: it will be an Onta, as stressed by my late friend Henry Margenau (Phil. Science, 16 (1949) 287-302).

Please see four "eigenstates" of an Onta (=the quantum state as quantum
reality 'out there'), presented with four sayings,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Brown.html#brain

So, we may speculate that the Schrödinger equation were "unitary" only at the instants of observation of these "eigenstates", but what would be the true dynamics of Margenau's Onta and its explications if no one was
"looking" at them, as in quantum cosmology? As M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle once put it, "quantum mechanics is best and most fundamentally understood in the framework of quantum cosmology".

A penny for your thoughts! Will appreciate the insights from your colleagues, too.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
 

Note: Notice that people infer the stipulation that von Neumann's Process II were "unitary" (see the animated cat below) only from those instants at which they completely and irreversibly destroy it with von Neumann's Process I or "collapse". Of course the "logic" of this inference doesn't make sense at all. It is like trying to demonstrate how a dark room looks like with a torch, and then speculating about 'the dark room' as T.S. Eliot's cat Macavity, by considering only the instants of observation with their "torch".

Instead of using the wave function that appears in Schrödinger's equation to model cat states,

let's look at Margenau's Onta with Wigner quasi-probability distribution, as introduced by Eugene Wigner in 1932, and consider just two (not four, as in the example above) perfectly coherent, "individuated" Schrödinger cat states (or, if you prefer, |cat> + |dog> states, after Erich Joos). Notice that we consider an 'individual quantum object', which would require an infinite time to show up at the scale of tables and chairs without the "collapse", as demonstrated by Klaus Tausk in 1962 and, ten years later, by Klaus Hepp in Helvetica Physica Acta 45, (1972) 237-248. (If you consider some 'ensemble of identically prepared particles', you may also need infinite time, as well as a lot of wishful thinking, to produce such 'ensemble'.) So, if we wish to abandon the unphysical "collapse", and also consider individual quantum objects, the Wigner function can greatly clarify the situation.

The text and the image below are from this http URL; emphasis added to stress the "imprint" from Margenau's Onta on the quantum realm.

Can you fit this 'interference pattern with negative regions' into Hilbert space? Hardly.

Point is, if you ask a question about the "true" cat state in this unique region, the answer will be YAIN, or 'both yes and no at the same instant.' (Notice the error in the textbook treatment of Schrödinger's cat, identified by Gyftopoulos & von Spakovsky, quant-ph/0406164 v1, p. 12.) If we wish to accommodate 'the quantum state of dogs' as well (see E. Joos above), we simply move to a higher level of abstraction, that of 'animal with four legs and a tale'. The highest level of abstraction is that of the quantum vacuum: see the game of twenty questions played by John Wheeler here. Does the quantum vacuum gravitate? Yes or no?

This is the quantum state as 'quantum reality out there', with "quantum certainty". It fully complies with Kochen-Specker and Conway-Kochen theorems, and can never be "collapsed". It just disappears upon observation with our "torch" from von Neumann's Process I, but can be revealed with Wigner's function, and perhaps with some brand new theory as well, if someone could toposificate the two coherent cat states in Wigner presentation and then move to the general case of [phi].

The only problem is with L. Wittgenstein's thesis No. 7, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. I can live with it.

Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.
 

D.C.
March 5, 2007
Last update: March 8, 2007

--
 
Schrödinger cat state

This is a coherent superposition of two coherent states: |a> and |-a>. It is hard to generate experimentally, but the Wigner function is instructive to look at. We see two round hills at the top and at the bottom, associated with each coherent state involved. If our ensemble were an incoherent, statistical mixture of these two states, its Wigner function 
would just feature these two hills. But because the superposition is coherent, the Wigner function exhibits an additional, highly nonclassical feature in the middle: a fine structured interference pattern with negative regions.


----------------------------------
 
 

Regarding the double-slit experiment, recall Richard Feynman: "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery."

Fact: The interference pattern resulting from double-slit experiment appears even if the intensity of the passing light is decreased until an average of only one photon is being transmitted between source and the double-slit screen.

Interpretation in QM textbooks: A single photon is capable of interfering with itself.

Like Baron Munchausen maybe?

Suggestion: We need quantum gravity to understand QM and reconcile it with that "sharp time" (Erwin Schrödinger) of Special Theory of Relativity.

Perhaps one viable way to approach this task is with the so-called quantum computing: "This ambiguity gets worse as the number of particles increases", says Karl Svozil in quant-ph/0206076 v6, p. 4.

It may not be "ambiguity" (cf. Ernst Specker) but flexibility: see the Anzats for 'dynamical determinism' here and here.

Another viable way to approach this task could be with the so-called GW astronomy, as suggested here.

D.C.

 

===============


Subject: quant-ph/0503026 v1
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:05:52 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: John Field <jfield@mail.cern.ch>

Dear Dr. Field,

Thank you for your kind feedback.

> Any comments you may have are welcome.

I know your quant-ph/0503026, but I don't think can say anything that may be new to you. Just some brief comments.

I looked at your footnotes, and was expecting to see Ernst Stueckelberg being mentioned, for obvious (I believe) reasons.

I was never able to understand the classical limit (2.25, p. 13): "In the limit ¯h --> 0 the sum over paths is replaced by a single path, the one predicted by Hamilton's Principle of classical mechanics" (p. 67). How come we have those "tails" in the decoherence hypothesis, but not in the "single path"? I will be happy to elaborate with a simple Gedankenexperiment in which the so-called classical limit is being "derived" from simple considerations from STR. I am not sure if Feynman's QM would survive under such "classical limit". Please tell me if you are interested.

Then of course comes the very "dynamics" of the theory, capsulated in the Feynman Path Integral -- "elementary physical processes ordered in time" (p. 67). Do you mean the "time" as being defined operationally 'by looking at your wristwatch'? If yes, what could be the "other time" used by the quantum beast to 'sniff off' the virtual paths and eventually choose the right one?

Also, R. Penrose (reference available if you're interested) argues that "the
'amplitude' is not really a (complex) number, here (which, as written, would
have to have unit modulus), but some kind of density. (...) But here we have a continuous infinity of classical alternatives. Our above 'amplitude' thus has to be thought of as an 'amplitude density' (...). But the bad news here is that the 'space of classical paths' will almost certainly turn out to be infinite-dimensional." I wonder what you can say on this issue.

Lastly, you wrote (p. 75): "The world of our every-day experience not only
requires quantum mechanics for its rational interpretation but also for
enregistering the raw data from which that experience is derived."

I think you hit the nail on the head: please see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Brown.html#brain

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Dieks

Your professional comments will be highly appreciated, and will be kept
strictly private.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov


========


Note: Regarding Ernst Stueckelberg, let me quote from

http://quasar.physik.unibas.ch/~aste/stueckelberg.html

--Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize in physics for 1965, jointly with Julian Schwinger of Harvard and Sin-Itiro Tomonoga of Japan. After the Nobel award ceremonies Feynman went to CERN to give a lecture. Feynman's lecture at CERN was attended by Ernst C. G. Stueckelberg. After the lecture, Stueckelberg was making his way out alone from the CERN amphitheatre, when Feynman - surrounded by admirers - made the remark:

"He did the work and walks alone toward the sunset; and, here I am, covered in all the glory, which rightfully should be his!"
----

Regarding the Gedankenexperiment mentioned in my email to John Field above, notice that the idea behind it is very simple: the notion of 'reality' in STR can de defined operationally with a time interval of finite duration, hence once we observe/measure the quantum phenomenon at the scale of tables and chairs, we inevitably "convert" it to 'classical reality out there' by placing the event of observation in our past light cone. Thus, if we trace back the history of the quantum phenomenon from this event in our past light cone, we will inevitably treat it as 'classical reality', in blatant contradiction with the basic tenet of Quantum Theory. In the case of Feynman's QM, such tracing of the history of the observed quantum phenomenon would require placing the whole 'amplitude density' (cf. R. Penrose above) on our past light cone.

Likewise, we cannot treat the Dynamic Dark Energy as 'classical reality' either, as explained here.

The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is again in the "selection" of one classical path from the whole undenumerable set of possible paths that make the 'quantum dough' called 'amplitude density'; more here.

There is hardly anything more deceptive than Bohr's recipe for "classical limit",   ¯h --> 0 . As John von Neumann put it: "In mathematics you don't understand the things. You just get used to them."


D. Chakalov
March 23, 2007

 

===============

Subject: quant-ph/0610066 v3, comments welcome
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:29:41 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Olivier Brunet <olivier.brunet@imag.fr>
CC: Daniel Lehmann <lehmann@cs.huji.ac.il>,
     Dov Gabbay <dg@dcs.kcl.ac.uk>,
     James Malley <jmalley@mail.nih.gov>,
     Joy Christian <joy.christian@wolfson.ox.ac.uk>,
     Daniel Greenberger <dansuzy@nyc.rr.com>,
     Karl Svozil <svozil@tuwien.ac.at>

Dear Dr. Brunet,

You wrote "comments welcome" in the abstract of your quant-ph/0610066 v3 [Ref. 1].

If we consider, just for the sake of the argument, that *after*  m  has
been performed, the state of S has not changed [Ref. 1], that is, the
measurement had left the state S unchanged [Ref. 2], then the first off
question is what kind of "state S" can survive unchanged after
measurement has been performed.

I invite you and your colleagues to examine the "state S", called 'the quantum state out there', at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Brown.html#brain

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Dieks

I believe it does contain the complete 'a priori knowledge' about quantum systems, and does not change upon any measurement whatsoever, only it does not live on the Hilbert space, and cannot be normalized.

In case you and your colleagues disagree, please follow the links above and write me back.

More, in the context of quantum gravity, at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Straumann.html#Eric_note

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
---

[Ref. 1] Olivier Brunet, quant-ph/0610066 v3, comments welcome
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0610066

"2 A priori Knowledge about Quantum Systems

"Let us consider a quantum system S, and suppose that a measurement  m
is performed on it. The result of this measurement can be represented by
an eigenspace E of the hermitian operator corresponding to  m .

"Now, if moreover we consider that after  m  has been performed, the
state of S has not changed, then the following statement has to be
considered as valid:

“if we perform measurement m on S, the outcome will be E”

"Such a statement corresponds to what we call a priori knowledge about
the system: it provides informations about the state of the system, and
is a priori in the sense that it tells what the result of a
not-yet-performed measurement would be. Finally, the term knowledge
refers to the fact that it is a non-probabilistic statement but rather a
testable logical assertion about the system."
 

[Ref. 2] Daniel Lehmann et al., quant-ph/0507231 v1
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0507231

"But, here, the assertion of the proposition, i.e., the measurement, changes the state of the system. The assertion holds in the state resulting from the measurement, but did not necessarily hold in the state of the system before the measurement was performed. In fact it held in this previous state if and only if the measurement left the state unchanged."
 

================

From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: bassi@ts.infn.it, bassi@mathematik.uni-muenchen.de
Cc: itayhe@post.tau.ac.il, amirk@techunix.technion.ac.il, jhorcon@yahoo.com, kochen@math.princeton.edu
Subject: At the same non-linear time
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:30:57 +0200

Hi Angelo,

In your latest quant-ph/0701014 v1, you wrote:

p. 2: "... all terms of the superposition would be present at the same time in the wave function..."

p. 3: "The aim of the dynamical reduction programm is then to modify the Schrödinger evolution, by introducing new terms having the following 
properties:

* They must be non-linear, as one wants to break the superposition principle at the macroscopic level and assure the localization of the wave function of macro-objects."

Let me pick "at the same time" and "non-linear", and invite you and your 
colleagues to try the Gedankenexperiment at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Arbatsky

It's about the classical limit of QM, derived from STR (not by hand and with wishful thinking, like Bohr's $\hbar\to 0$).

In the context of GR, see the issue in the subject line at
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Straumann.html#hobby

Regards,

Dimi 
 
 

================

From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Ghenadie N Mardari <g.mardari@rutgers.edu>
Cc: Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>,
Sheldon Goldstein <oldstein@math.rutgers.edu>,
Andrew Steane <a.steane1@physics.ox.ac.uk>,
Sergey S Kokarev <8helper8@gmail.com>,
Andrei Khrennikov <andrei.khrennikov@msi.vxu.se>,
Itamar Pitowsky <itamarp@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Negative probabilities
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:52:29 +0200

Dear Dr. Mardari,

I read with great interest your latest physics/0611043 v1, and agree with
your that quanta interact with each other, even when they are not involved in direct collisions -- please see the classical limit of QM derived from STR at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Arbatsky

Can you use negative probabilities to temporary cancel out all-but-one
potential quantum state? I will appreciate the opinion of your colleagues
as well.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov

-------

Note: You can see "negative probabilities" here. The hypothetical cancellation mechanism is outlined here. The extension of QM is not new either: click here. See, however, a cautious note here, and I hope you'll understand why nobody has paid any attention to my efforts.

Now, you probably wish to ask the recursive question, 'but where's da math?' It was available in December 2004, but nobody showed any interest whatsoever.
 

D.C.
November 7, 2006
 

==============

Subject: The present is always a negotiation between the past and the future
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:06:50 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: G E Hahne <ghahne@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
CC: Daniel Sheehan <dsheehan@sandiego.edu>

RE: "... where t is the time, [Psi](t) is as in (2), ...."
gr-qc/0611098 v1, p. 2

Dear Dr. Hahne,

Perhaps you may wish to see

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Arbatsky

As Daniel Sheehan put it, "The present is always a negotiation between
the past and the future",

Scott LaFee, SignOnSanDiego.com, June 22, 2006,

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060622-9999-lz1c22cause.html

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

==============
 

From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Frank Tipler <tipler@tulane.edu>
Subject: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:39:33 +0200

Dear Dr. Tipler,

In your latest quant-ph/0611245 v1, you wrote: "The frequency interpretation would mean either that there really is an irreducible element of chance in reality, completely undetermined by any laws of physics -- God really does play dice with the universe -- or there is a deeper theory than quantum mechanics, which is deterministic."

The fact that you used the format 'either -- or' means that you haven't even glanced at my web site. Of course there is a third possibility, but -- see the subject line.

You also wrote: "We cannot follow the physics of individual atoms because the behavior of individual atoms is determined by what is happening in the other universes of the multiverse, and being unaware of these other universes, we naturally cannot keep track of what is happening in them."

I'm afraid you failed to show (i) how you can "keep track" of each and every individual atom in the so-called multiverse, (ii) in what reference frame you can place the "tracking" device, and (iii) how you would correlate entangled objects throughout the alleged multiverse.

It's a pity you choose to ignore my previous email. See the subject line.

Sincerely,

D. Chakalov
--
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html 
 

=============
 

Subject: How to establish that QM has the correct classical limit?
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:57:37 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Eric D Chisolm <echisolm@lanl.gov>
CC: Thomas Jordan <tjordan@d.umn.edu>,
     George Sudarshan <sudarshan@physics.utexas.edu>,
     Anil Shaji <shaji@unm.edu>

Dear Dr. Chisolm,

RE your recent quant-ph/0611293 v1, may I offer you the oldest (since 1931) challenge to the issue in the subject line: derive the classical limit of QM, "at a succession of times" (quant-ph/0611293, Eq. 3), from STR,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Arbatsky

If you or some of your colleague can solve the task, please write me back.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html
 

Note: Let me quote from Eric Chisolm's "Decohering histories and open quantum systems", quant-ph/0611293 v1 (emphasis and links added):

"The practical issue to be dealt with is this. Roughly speaking, the classical limit of quantum mechanics consists of two components: Classical statistics and classical dynamics. By classical statistics, I mean that the probabilities associated with histories in classical physics obey the Kolmogorov rules of probability given above; Axiom 3 in particular is an essential part of our classical intuition, from coin tossing to weather prediction.

"By classical dynamics, I mean that the probabilities assigned by theory are strongly peaked around histories that correspond to solutions of the classical equations of motion; it is this aspect of the classical limit that received the lion’s share of attention until about 30 years ago, when decoherence in its various forms made its appearance. Both components, however, are equally necessary, which means that decoherence of an appropriately chosen set of histories is a precondition for a quantum system to have a sensible classical limit, and it is in precisely those histories that classical behavior will be seen."

Two observations follow: the Kolmogorov rules of probability can only be applied to objects with fixed, point-like values. Not to smeared quantum beasts that can only be "strongly peaked" around such point-like values.

Secondly, don't be befuddled by the phrase 'relativistic quantum mechanics', after P. Dirac. To the best of my knowledge, neither Dirac nor anyone else has addressed the problems of classical limit of QM, which arise from STR.

The task is on the table since 1931. Good luck.
 

D. Chakalov
December 1, 2006
 
 

============
 

Subject: $48,819 for exploring physical realism
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:38:06 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: markus.aspelmeyer@quantum.at
CC: caslav.brukner@univie.ac.at, kcs39@cornell.edu,
     v.vedral@leeds.ac.uk, anton.zeilinger@univie.ac.at

Dear Dr. Aspelmeyer,

I learned that you got $48,819 from FQXi for exploring physical realism, so may I suggest a simple Gedankenexperiment at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html#Arbatsky

If you or any of your colleagues can derive the classical limit of QM from STR, please write me back.

Sincerely,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

============
 
 


 
 
 
 

Subject: The tantalizing future of the color degree of freedom
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:39:25 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>
CC: paolo.palazzi@cern.ch, witten@theory.caltech.edu, wilczek@mit.edu, jackiw@lns.mit.edu, woit@math.columbia.edu, holstein@physics.umass.edu, youssef@bu.edu, G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl, David.Miller@cern.ch, djm@hep.ucl.ac.uk, lederman@fnal.gov, msouza@fisica.ufs.br, ferminews@fnal.gov
 

Dear Steve,

I read with great interest your Letter to the editor of Physics Today, hep-ph/0412297 v2, regarding some omissions in

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p21.shtml

You said that comments are welcome, so here's a short one.

I see no reason to stop at the tripling of the number of fractionally charged quarks. Besides, since you -- not Mother Nature -- have left the poor electron out of the game, I'm very much interested in the next level of your game.

Perhaps you may wish to see pp. 98-108 in Mario Livio's book

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Woit.html#5

Wishing you and your colleagues all the best for 2005,

Dimi
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net

Download the whole web site, 4.5MB, from
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/PHI_info.zip
 
 

Note: The last time I heard from Steve Adler was two and a half years ago, on Tuesday, 14 May 2002. I don't expect to hear from him. I was in Princeton in May 1989, and noticed an incredibly heavy "intellectual aura" in Princeton University and in The Institute for Advanced Study, the place where Steve Adler makes his living.

It's a dangerous place. If you work there, you may very soon develop the feeling that you are in the center of the quintessential intellectual elite of the whole civilized world. Many years ago, the Physics Department of Princeton University was keeping all preprints for 6 (six) months, so at the time their authors were allowed to submit their papers for publication, the above-mentioned Department will be at least six months ahead from the rest of the world. These days are history, of course, but the old glory is still there, wrapping the theoretical physics community at Princeton with a heavy intellectual patina. It is indeed a very dangerous place to work at, because you may develop the feeling that you 'know it all'.

Then, you receive an email from some guy from Botswana, or rather from Borneo, ... , no, let's say, from Bulgaria, which is the same. It really doesn't matter, since you work at The Institute for Advanced Study, like Steve Adler, so let's denote this person with 'BBB guy', from Botswana-Borneo-Bulgaria. This BBB guy suggests an idea that you hate, deeply. But it's not an original idea. Not at all. It's author is Leonardo Pisano, also known as Leonardo Fibonacci. See an outlook here and here. It's something that has been in front of your nose, but you've missed it.

Impossible! Therefore, the BBB guy is wrong. Period. No need to reply to his email, ever. It doesn't matter that nobody in Princeton, Steve Adler included, can explain the transition from the macro world to the quantum realm. This is a smooth, bi-directional, and reversible transition, and we know nothing about it, the BBB guy included.

The point is this. There is a very rigid, albeit unwritten, rule: BBB guys do not make discoveries. Discoveries are made in Princeton, eventually Caltech. Well, sometimes they might happen in Europe, but not in the third, BBB world. Unless, of course, some young grad student, very poor and very ambitious, looks at pp. 98-108 of Mario Livio's book mentioned above. She/he could be from Bangladesh as well. Then after a few months the whole Princeton community may have to shake off its intellectual glory and start working seriously, or else they will be made obsolete.

You never know with those BBB guys, or do you?
 

[This note was written by a BBB guy on Friday, 31 December 2004.]
Last update: May 24, 2005

====== 

Subject: A natural selection of the standard model
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:45:19 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Thomas Schücker <schucker@cpt.univ-mrs.fr>
CC: Pierre Martinetti <pmartin@math.ist.utl.pt>
BCC: Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>
 

Dear Dr. Schücker,

If possible, may I ask you to help me understand the meaning of your statement "the triple of the standard model with one generation of quarks and leptons is also irreducible", in your hep-th/0409077, Sec. 4,

Thomas Schücker, Noncommutative Geometry and the Standard Model, hep-th/0409077 v1,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0409077

I will highly appreciate the opinion of your colleagues as well.

My curiosity stems from Fibonacci,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Adler.html

but I know nothing about the geometry of the standard model of elementary particles in spectral terms.

Kindest regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net

======

Subject: How to verify the stochastic modifications to the Schrödinger equation
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:57:01 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Steve Adler <adler@ias.edu>
CC: ppearle@hamilton.edu, bassi@ictp.trieste.it,
     ghirardi@ts.infn.it, kip@tapir.caltech.edu,
     rprice@physics.utah.edu

RE: Stephen L. Adler, Stochastic Collapse and Decoherence of a
Non-Dissipative Forced Harmonic Oscillator, quant-ph/0411053 v2

Dear Steve,

In your recent quant-ph/0411053 v2, you wrote: "On the other hand, stochastic modifications to the Schrödinger equation have been
extensively studied [4] as a way of resolving the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, and are known to be theoretically viable."
--
[4] S.L. Adler, Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2004), Chapt. 6.
 

I haven't read your "Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon", and am wondering if you have tried to solve the relativistic "collapse" at

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Tresser.html#addendum

If you can solve it, I believe you will find out how to verify the
stochastic modifications to the Schrödinger equation, and will shed some light on Phil Pearle's "almost" relativistic model as well
(quant-ph/0502069 v1).

Please tell me if you can solve the task at the link above. I personally believe that it leads to 'reductio ad absurdum', such as time operators in QM.

As to the so-called GWs, LIGO, etc., see Angelo Loinger at

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0502089

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Price.html

Regards,

Dimi
--
Dimi Chakalov
35 Sutherland St
London SW1V 4JU
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net

===========
 

Subject: Re: How to verify the stochastic modifications to the Schrödinger equation
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:14:00 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Stephen Adler <adler@ias.edu>

Dear Steve:

Thank you for your reply.

> In my book I don't attempt to set up a relativistic
> collapse model, and argue one should only expect a non-relativistic
> collapse model.

I'm afraid this is totally unacceptable situation. I will be happy to elaborate, from your quant-ph/0004077. Hence I suggested the so-called global mode of spacetime as a possible link b/w the Hilbert space and Minkowski spacetime,

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Tresser.html#collapse
(February 28, 2005)

As a bonus, you may have a chance to discover a Fibonacci sequence in quark numbers (Re: The tantalizing future of the color degree of freedom, email from Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:36:06 +0200).

> This of course implies a specific frame, most likely
> the preferred frame tied to the microwave background radiation.

M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle claim that "quantum mechanics is best and most fundamentally understood in the framework of quantum cosmology",

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Kiefer.html#Hartle

> As to the link on nonexistence of gravitational radiation, I suspect
> it's wrong

I believe the issue is very tricky, in the sense that the question 'do GWs exist?' yields a typical 'Jain' answer: 'yes' in the global mode, 'no' in the local mode. If you're interested, see the two links above.

Best regards,

Dimi
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net

=============

Subject: The infinitesimal segment
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:20:10 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Stephen Adler <adler@ias.edu>

P.S. I wrote:

> I will be happy to elaborate, from your quant-ph/0004077.

Let's see your "Probability in Orthodox Quantum Mechanics", quant-ph/0004077, regarding a "unitary evolution that is different for
each  i ."

p. 4: "Any path through Hilbert space connecting two normalized pure states can be described by a succession of infinitesimal unitary
transformations. To prove this, it suffices to consider the
infinitesimal segment

 |psi> -->  |psi> + |dpsi> , with

 <psi|dpsi> = 0 ."

Q1: Do you really believe that  <psi|dpsi> is *in fact exactly zero*?

Q2: If yes, how could the "unitary evolution" be different for each
infinitesimal step  i ?

I can handle Q1&Q2 with the global mode of spacetime, as you might have guessed.:-)

D.
 

Explanatory note

John von Neumann says: "In mathematics you don't understand the things. You just get used to them." Examples: Roger Penrose believes that the "ordinary unitary evolution is "local" simply because it is described by a partial differential equation (the Schrodinger equation), albeit in configuration space rather than in ordinary space." Likewise, Steve Adler believes that the same "configuration space" is some differentiable and finite-dimensional space.

We use PDEs in both quantum theory (the Schrödinger equation) and classical physics, sure. But the two cases of physical reality are drastically different, as explained here and here. Perhaps we should first understand the things, and then pick up the corresponding math. If you prefer to "just get used to them", recall what John von Neumann wrote to George David Birkhoff, in a letter dated 13 November 1935: "I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe in Hilbert space anymore".

As I said above, I'll be happy to elaborate on the gaps between what Steve Adler called "two normalized pure states". Then will remind the reader of the miraculous identity or "sameness" of the "collapsed" particles of the same type, which Charles Misner et al. regard as "a central mystery of physics" (C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973, p. 1215).
 

D. Chakalov
March 2, 2005
--

Addendum (March 3, 2005)

The reason why I jumped on Steve Adler's "infinitesimal segment" is that I've been arguing about a global mode of spacetime in my White Paper, which I believe he knows very well.

If we "look" with our wristwatch at the Hilbert space, we will see an already build static wall of "normalized pure states", all of them en bloc. Our wristwatch cannot possible read the build up of this static wall, just as it cannot read the very flight of a photon: the absorption and emission of a photon is one event, according to our poor wristwatch. It cannot read the state of a photon "shortly after" the emission but "immediately prior" (I love this phrase!) the absorption. Briefly, the so-called time parameter in Process II (von Neumann) does not overlap with the time parameter read by our wristwatch at more than one point/event.

Our wristwatch will read the intact/isolated/unobserved quantum world as totally timeless, as we know since 1929, from the seminal paper by Sir Nevill Mott on the generation of observable paths in Wilson cloud chambers. Just like "that damned equation" (the Wheeler-De Witt equation), there is no reference in Nevill Mott's paper to any time parameter which out wristwatch can read. Just probabilities which strongly peak around the observed bubble path. Again, we cannot talk about "immediately prior the collapse", because this latter phrase explicitly means some finite positive amount of time that can be read by our wristwatch, which is impossible. Only our brain can read the intact quantum reality in the global mode of spacetime, as an UNspeakable non-Boolean wall of potentialities. An inanimate physical clock, such as my wristwatch, can only "collapse" the whole wall into one event, and of course the wall itself will never 'move in time'.

Steve Adler is fully aware of these pitfalls, and his only recourse is "one should only expect a non-relativistic collapse model". But we know damn well that it is not possible to explain the embedding of any "collapsed" event into Minkowski spacetime from the absolute reference frame of the non-relativistic collapse. I suppose he will never reply to my email and will never comment on the crux of the issue.

Princeton is a dangerous place, as I said above.
 

D. Chakalov
March 3, 2005

=============
 

Subject: Unit normalized state?
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:49:43 +0300
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: adler@ias.edu
CC: kochen@math.princeton.edu, jimax@princeton.edu, tbrun@ias.edu, G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl, Adrei.Khrennikov@msi.vxu.se, c.isham@ic.ac.uk, wbialek@princeton.edu
 

Dear Dr. Adler:

I'm reading the third revised version of your quant-ph/0112095 [Ref. 1] with great interest. I can not understand how one could have a 'unit normalized state' while including literally everything in the universe: all environmental particles within the causal horizon  R  for the apparatus plus Planck scale physics.

Please keep in mind that your brain is obviously included [Ref. 2], and that you perform a bona fide 'self-action' by thinking *about* your brain, *with* your brain.

May I ask two questions.

Where would you place the Schnitt (cut) w.r.t.w. one could envisage a "unit normalized" state?

Is your stochastic approach capable of solving the basis problem?

I will appreciate the feedback and insights of your colleagues as well.

Thank you very much for your time.

My efforts to speculate on these issues can be read at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Anandan.html#below

Regards,

Dimiter G. Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html
(last update 6 May 2002)
 

References

[Ref. 1] Stephen L. Adler. Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem: A Response to P. W. Anderson. Fri, 10 May 2002 19:59:56 GMT,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0112095

"While it may be questionable whether the Schrödinger equation can be applied to the entire universe, there should be no difficulty, if quantum mechanics is an exact theory, in applying the Schrödinger equation to the state vector for all environmental particles within the causal horizon  R  for the apparatus.
...

"Returning to the general formula of Eq. (3), the quantum measurement problem consists in the observation that Eq. (3) is not what is observed as the outcome of a measurement!

"What is seen is not the superposition of Eq. (3), but rather either the unit normalized state,

[Eq. 6a]

*or* the unit normalized state

[Eq. 6b].

"But because these states are orthogonal, they cannot both have evolved from a single initial state by a deterministic, unitary evolution, since it is a property of unitary transformations in Hilbert space that if |(A)> = U|0>, and |(B)> = U|0>, then <(A)|(B)> = <0|U'U|0> = 1. Thus, when quantum mechanics is applied uniformly at all levels, to the apparatus and its environment as well as to the system, we are faced with a contradiction.
...

"Heuristically, the idea here is that quantum mechanics may be modified by a low level universal noise, akin to Brownian motion, possibly arising from new physics at the Planck  scale, which in certain situations causes reduction of the state vector."
 

[Ref. 2] William Bialek. Thinking about the brain. Fri, 10 May 2002 14:21:44 GMT,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0205030

"Behind this uncertainty is a deeper and more disturbing question: maybe as we progress from sensory inputs toward the personal experiences of that world created by our brains we will encounter a real boundary where physics stops and biology or psychology begins. My hope, as you might guess, is that this is not the case, and that we eventually will understand perception, cognition and learning from the same principled mathematical point of view that we now understand the inanimate parts of the physical world. This optimism was shared, of course, by Helmholtz and others more than a century ago. In this last lecture I want to collect some of my reasons for keeping faith despite obvious problems.
...

"Unlike entropy, information always is *about* something."

======

Subject: Re: Unit normalized state?
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:16:06 +0300
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: Stephen Adler <adler@ias.edu>
CC: kochen@math.princeton.edu, jimax@princeton.edu, tbrun@ias.edu, G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl, Andrei.Khrennikov@msi.vxu.se, c.isham@ic.ac.uk, wbialek@princeton.edu
 

Dear Dr. Adler:

Thank you for your reply from Tue, 14 May 2002 15:39:20 -0400.

My first questions was "Where would you place the Schnitt (cut) w.r.t.w. one could envisage a "unit normalized" state?"

Your replied:

> 1.  Since in the discussion I am assuming standard quantum
> mechanics, the usual rule of unit normalized states, which still
> applies to the multiparticle case with particle number N very large,
> applies.  I'm not doing anything different  here than is done in any
> of the standard texts on many body theory.

NB: I still have no idea where would you place the Schnitt (cut) w.r.t.w. one could envisage a "unit normalized" state.

My second question was "Is your stochastic approach capable of solving the basis problem?"

Your replied:

> 2. The stochastic equation does solve the basis problem, as first
> pointed out (I  think) by Ghirardi, Pearle, and Rimini,  The
> operator coefficient of the Wiener process or noise term picks out
> the preferred basis. In the GPR case the preferred basis is a center
> of mass coordinate basis;  in the energy driven equation it is an
> energy basis.

To understand how something could possibly "pick out" a preferred basis, I think we must resolve the first issue. First things first.

Also, I'm sure you are aware of the tail problems, even if very low probability amplitude is assigned to them. See:

A. Shimony, "Desiderata for modified quantum dynamics", in PSA 1990, Volume 2, A. Fine, M. Forbes and L. Wessels (eds), Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan.

> I don't think the brain or consciousness has anything to do with
> the state vector reduction problem.

It's part of the problem of the Schnitt (cf. NB above), since your brain is included, along with EVERYTHING in the universe. Hence to explain why we observe definite objects around us, with point-like localization, we need an auxiliary reference object w.r.t.w. the outcome of QM observation can be interpreted as "unit normalized" state.

Am I wrong?

Sincerely,

Dimiter G. Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html