Subject:
arXiv:quant-ph/0607196v1:
An ontic nature of the quantum state Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:42:36 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Elio Conte <elio.conte@fastwebnet.it> Cc: Andrei Khrennikov <andrei.khrennikov@msi.vxu.se> Dear Elio, Thank you for your interest in my opinion. > 2. arXiv:quant-ph/0607196 [pdf] > > Title: The transition from ontic potentiality to actualization of states in > quantum mechanical approach to reality: The Proof of a Mathematical > Theorem to Support It > Authors: Elio Conte, Andrei Khrennikov, Joseph P. Zbilut If the quantum state must be considered to be real, ontologically significant, but *not* being actual, then we simply cannot fit it into Hilbert space. Let me quote from http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#update "Stated differently, we have to preserve and protect the quantum state -- before, during and after its measurement/observation -- from being entirely and irreversibly converted into some 'definite, macroscopically describable, state'. Which in turn means that we have to deal with two things -- the quantum state and its fleeting "projections". Which is why we need to modify the Hilbert space, or perhaps even replace it by 'something else'. I opted for the latter." Let me start reading your arXiv:quant-ph/0607196, after which I will express my opinion. "It is known that the problem of how a mathematical superposition of manifold possibilities evolves to become a particular observable actuality, represents the basic unsolved problem of measurement in quantum mechanics. ... "On the other hand, quantum theory is not able to reach adequate evidence on the nature of such potential entities, on their qualification between their quantum actualizations and, finally, on the same mathematical and physical features regulating the transition in our reality from potential to actual entities. The aim of the present paper is to move in the framework of a quantum like formulation, giving for the first time a mathematical proof of such possible transition from potential to actual entities in our reality and simultaneously describing the mathematical and physical features that characterize such transition. ... "In an ontic interpretation we admit instead that the quantum states are ontic and this is to say that they describe the system as it is. The point here is to consider an ontic nature of the quantum state but the settlement of its definition is paved with conceptual difficulties. ... p. 2: "In fact, it is not so easy to introduce an adequate notion of ontic potentialities in our reality. As example, it seems rather an approximation for defect to consider here a superposition state of potentialities meaning that the system can be in two or more states at the same time. In fact, we must remember here that the entity in consideration is a potential and not an actual entity. It must be considered to be real, ontologically significant, but not
being actual."By the previous definition we ran the risk to consider the coexistence of potentialities as an actual like form, that is a superposition of coexisting like actualities and this is not what the quantum superposition principle admits. This is one first difficulty. ... "Let us consider two quantum non commuting entities A and B. Quantum mechanics tells us that, if one such entity, say A, is actualized, B consequently remains an undefined potentiality. In our opinion, this is an ontic holistic process that must receive a proper general, mathematical formalization while instead in this case the traditional quantum formalism, based on the Hilbert space formulation, holds only the requirement of mutually orthogonal vectors that are representative of the mutual exclusivity of the states." In order to offer "a proper general, mathematical formalization", the traditional quantum formalism, based on the Hilbert space formulation, should be abandoned, for reasons explained by Schrödinger in a letter to Einstein dated 18 November 1950, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Bub I believe you should try to tweak Bayes' learning rule, to accommodate the Aristotelian 'potentia', http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Professor_X.html#Bayes Using the Hilbert space would direct you to a dead-end. Namely, if A and B are non commuting entities sharing a common 'ontic quantum state', and if A is actualized from the latter, then the *actualized* presentation of A should be such that neither the 'ontic quantum state' nor the 'potentia' of B should "feel" any disturbance whatsoever: please see the first link above. I will be happy to hear from you and Andrei. Best regards, Dimi ========== Subject: arXiv:quant-ph/0607196v1: An ontic nature of the quantum state Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:58:58 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Elio conte <elio.conte@fastwebnet.it> Cc: andrei.khrennikov@msi.vxu.se On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:51:49 +0100, elio conte <elio.conte@fastwebnet.it> wrote: > > Dear Dimi , > the approach you performed is not actually the approach I expect to the > problem I moved. Thank you in any case. Elio. Dear Elio, I'm afraid your approach is inadvertently wrong, because it requires Hilbert space: please read Schrödinger at the second link from my preceding email. Best regards, Dimi ===================== Subject: Re: arXiv:quant-ph/0607196v1: An ontic
nature of the quantum state Subject: Interference of minds?
Dear Professor Conte, Andrei Khrennikov wrote in quant-ph/0205092 v3, "At the moment there are no experimental confirmations of hyperbolic interference for cognitive systems." I think we all are entangled in the Cyber space, like a big Italian family, and interference of our minds, leading to Jungian synchronicity, can not be excluded. I tried to promote your biquaternion quantum mechanics [Ref. 1] last August, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Brody.html Now, I'm wondering if you or some of your colleagues can find a Fibonacci sequence in the standard model, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Palazzi.html http://members.aon.at/chakalov/LHC.html#Holon As to your main question, "what happens in the physical dynamics when such physical quantities assume such definite numerical values and others do not" [Ref. 1], which was posed by Schrödinger back in 1935, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Corbett.html#2 please see my feedback to Nature http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Nature.html and my email to Angelo Bassi and GianCarlo Ghirardi, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bassi.html E sarà mia colpa se così è?:-) Please convey my kind regards to Dr. Maria Pieralice, I couldn't find her email address. Best regards, Dimi Chakalov
Reference [Ref. 1] Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics,
by Elio Conte,
Pitagora Editrice s.r.l.
"There is still another feature of BQM that we intend
to outline here. As Bell stated just in 1987: ".. a problem is brought
into focus. I think any sharp formulation of quantum mechanics has a very
surprising feature: the consequences of events at one place propagate to
other places faster than light... ". For me this is the real problem with
quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation
and fundamental relativity.
"We repeat here one of the results of the book: we have
found that few basic axioms are required in order to realize a general
quantum theory. They are also required for relativity. They have been given
by us in (1.1) as the basic axioms of the biquaternions.
"Instead, the usual quantum mechanics remains substantially
unable to express algebraic equations involving different physical quantities
beyond its predictive attitude, and, in particular, it is unable to analyze
the behaviour of such physical quantities when they must be considered
and written in terms of their assumed numerical values. We retain that,
out of the experimental confirmations, a correct physical theory must have
this important feature. It cannot limit itself to only predict the possible
numerical results of its physical quantities as consequence of the measurements,
but it must be able also to write these physical quantities in terms of
these assumed numerical values, and, thus, explaining in this manner to
us what happens in the physical dynamics when such physical quantities
assume such definite numerical values and others do not. Only this kind
of theoretical approach gives us an understanding of the physical events
and of their quantum reality as considered to be at the basis of the observations
and of the measured results. This is precisely the quantum mechanical approach
that has been developed by us by biquaternion quantum mechanics.
"Thus, Minkowski space is only a "partial" representation of the true space that actually is the biquaternion space with connected basic unities ei (i = 1, 2, 3) for a single particle, and E0i, Ei0, Eii, Eij in the case of a compound system of particles as in EPR. "Thus, the conflicting condition correctly claimed by
Bell, seems to vanish."
See also: E. Conte. THE SOLUTION OF E.P.R. PARADOX IN QUANTUM MECHANICS Abstract. We realize a Clifford bare-bone-skeleton of quantum theory showing that, with regard to it, some important mathematical and physical features are missing in standard formulation of quantum mechanics. On this basis, the E.P.R. paradox of quantum mechanics is analyzed, and it is solved and explained. |