Subject: Embedding a dissipation "device" responsible
for the loss of information
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:08:40 +0100 From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net> To: agranik@pacific.edu, agranik1@attbi.com CC: hajicek@itp.unibe.ch, m.blasone@imperial.ac.uk, petr@cm.ph.tsukuba.ac.jp, kleinert@physik.fuberlin.de BCC: [snip] Dear Alex, I'm reading your recent paper [Ref. 1] with great interest. You've suggested a way to "eliminate both the indeterminacy and the lack of information inherent in quantummechanical description", by embedding a dissipation "device" responsible for the loss of information in classical mechanics. It looks to me that some sort of "information loss" could be the crux of the Schrödinger's cat paradox as well, as known since 1935, http://Goddoesnotplaydice.net/Corbett.html#2 Would you please elaborate on Schrödinger's cat as "fuzzy object"? I'm also wondering what could be the end result (if any) from some simple case of gravitational collapse, say, a Schwarzchild "black hole". Can you sustain an event horizon, or would it be some "fuzzy object" as well? See also Petr Hajicek, http://Goddoesnotplaydice.net/Rosinger.html#2 In general, what can or might be expected from your approach for elucidating the Quantum Einstein's equations [Ref. 2, p. 103; see also p. 78], if we do not have any of the notions of 'time' or 'evolution' from classical mechanics, http://Goddoesnotplaydice.net/Schwarz.html#2 Best regards, Dimi
Reference [Ref. 1] Alex Granik, Schroedinger revisited: How the timedependent wave equation follows from the HamiltonJacobi equation, quantph/0409018 v1 "Interestingly enough, the introduction of the information
loss (in a
"It is based on the recent suggestion by 't
Hooft [2] about establishing
"As a result, the wavelike quantum mechanics turns out
to follow from the particlelike classical mechanics due to embedding in
the latter a dissipation "device" responsible for the loss of information.
Indeed, the initial precise information about the classical trajectory
of a particle is lost in quantum mechanics owing to the "dissipative spread"
of the trajectory and its transformation into a fuzzy object such as the
fractal Hausdorff path of dimension 2 in a simple case of a spinless particle.
"(...) the initial precise information about the classical
trajectory of a particle is lost in quantum mechanics owing to the "dissipative
spread" of the trajectory and its transformation into a fuzzy object such
as the fractal Hausdorff path of dimension 2 in a simple case of a spinless
particle."
[Ref. 2] Abhay Ashtekar and Jerzy Lewandowski, Background Independent Quantum Gravity: A Status Report, grqc/0404018 v2 p. 78: "As in the full quantum theory, we do not have
a background spacetime, hence no natural notion of 'time' or 'evolution'.
However, since each <l is an eigenbra of the volume operator,
it tells us how the matter wave function is correlated with volume, i.e.,
geometry. Now, if one wishes, one can regard p as providing
a heuristic 'notion of time', and then
think of (7.31) as an evolution equation for the quantum state of matter
with respect to this time."
===
Dear Alex, Thank you for sharing with me your opinion on propensities. I suppose you are aware that I meant Popperian propensities http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#Popper and Margenau's Onta, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#Margenau > The propensities belong to the realm , which I think,
is outside of
The problem I have with this common viewpoint comes from neuroscience. If there were no propensitystates of the brain, which I include in 'potential reality', http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html to explain the nature of quantum realm, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html#quantum http://members.aon.at/chakalov/right.html#Note_2 , then the brain would be some "information gathering and utilizing system" (GellMann and Hartle) or computer (e.g., S. Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Bantam Books, 1988, pp. 163164). The other possibility which is compatible with your opinion is that of some ghost playing with the computer above your neck, and hence this ghost might exist without/outside the brain and matter in general, as suggested by Andrei Linde at "Anthropic arguments in fundamental physics and cosmology" (Cambridge, 30 August 1 September 2001), http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/10/3 I think the first option is MarxistLeninist garbage, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Page.html while the second is a dull mystical New Age. If we reject these two options, we will come to what Pauli and Jung have suggested more than fifty years ago, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/right.html#Pauli http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#trialism That's all from me. Best wishes, Dimi
======= Subject: Night thoughts
Dear Alex, > Any further increase of energy is not going to produce
( detect)
Or it might be just tending asymptotically toward the Planck time interval. > In general, I think, we always measure only the intervals,
and not
Yes, we measure changes/increments but not the absolute values. Hence we have the cosmological constant problem, since in this case we have to consider not a change w.r.t. some provisional basis value, but the whole thing. Hence we need to consider a new kind of reality, *potential* reality, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/right.html#Note_2 If we sum up all "clouds" and other virtual things and calculate the energy density of the vacuum, the discrepancy b/w theory and observation will be enormous. So, we need new physics here. But where would you keep these propensities? How long could you keep them alive and kicking, ready for actualization, if necessary? In what reference frame would you measure their lifetime? No need to reply, these are just some 'night thoughts of a mental engineer':) Best wishes, Dimi ============ Subject: White Paper
Dear Alex, Thank you for your prompt reply of Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:23:17 0700. > I think that the assumed "reduction" of a quantum
mechanical
I think there is a deep metaphysical quandary here. Classical (Newtonian) mechanics says that there is indeed an *exact* pointlike state in the future, but we cannot calculate it *exactly* because we don't know *exactly* the initial parameters and boundary conditions. In other words, in a classical determinism a la Laplace, Mother Nature reduces to Allah (Koran, cf. 58:8; 21:48; and 51:56). I prefer a genuine indeterminacy and a bit of free will, otherwise all these Jewish layers would have to become car mechanics:) Can't sue Allah, or can you? The other issue is a trivial example of a rocket launched at a fixed position on the ground. Suppose that after, say, 2 min you can calculate its precise instantaneous state, and from that state the probability distribution for its future states and past states (plural!) on the ground. The best case to see this, I think, is with a Markovian chain. But the past state of launching the rocket was pointlike, unique, while the future states are smeared over a finite error margin, and cannot be "collapsed". It seems to me that the indeterminacy here is genuine, and suggests some tacit timeasymmetry, which was lost in the timereversible classical mechanics. > To think about a transition
Thank you very much for this. The whole story in my White Paper is about the nature of time. I suppose if you move into the quantum realm, you'll have to use the global mode of time, which I tried to explain with the allegory of a car in superposition of all colors, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/white_paper.html Stay there, and try to alter all your potential "initial states" presented to you as a spectrum of all your possible actions in your potential future. If you choose to be a 'blue car', the car 'per se' will not collapse. It is UNspeakable, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Vecchi.html Next time you choose to be a 'red car'. Same story, the car 'per se' will not collapse. All this is a very old story, I think it was first introduced in 1946, by Raymond Ruyer's 'potentiel' and 'domaine transspatial', http://members.aon.at/chakalov/chakalov.htm#Ruyer The great advantage of this purely metaphysical story is that (i) you have free will in your 'domaine transspatial', and (ii) your TRAJECTORY in the quantum realm is exactly precisely fixed, in all your instantaneous states, each and every one, along a truly continual line (1D Euclidean space), oneata time. In what time? The global one, which goes physical (local mode) in each and every *concrete* color of the car 'per se'. Again, the car 'per se' is UNspeakable, since in keeps all colors in the global mode of time. Your brain is the only thing that can identify it, by a concrete *feeling*. Can't do that with a photographic plate, it will "measure" only one color of the car 'per se', and will inevitably "collapse" it. Surely the Schrödinger equation must be stationary, since it is based on the time parameter from the classical (Newtonian) mechanics. > What should be done? If you ask me, I got it all sorted out, but in purely metaphysical terms. Replace your free will with the 'chooser' (Pearle) in the quantum world, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html#QM This 'chooser' is 'everything else in the universe'. Ernst Mach would like this, I suppose. Only I can't say anything on the nature of gravity, just some poetry: You can't stir a coffee without disturbing a star. Any suggestions? BTW I use the brain as a black box, and don't need quantum gravity, as I tried to explain at the end of my White Paper. Best wishes, Dimi
Note: Regarding the poetry above: the reason why the words 'stir a coffee' are linked to the cosmic equator of the universe is the following. It is wellknown that Ernst Mach's theory of gravity is not compatible with Einstein's GR, but it seems to me that his brilliant idea of an absolute frame of the 'rotating bucket' can be implemented here, albeit with some specifications. The 'spin' of all physical bodies in the universe might have a real 3D component along the local mode of spacetime, and an imaginary component in the global mode of spacetime. Please see the idea of Mário Everaldo de Souza. It is important to bear in mind that the two modes of spacetime provide a dual age of the universe: finite in the local mode (say, 13.7 billion years "after" time zero), and infinite or rather indecisive in the global mode. By 'the universe' I imply everything that exists in its two modes of spacetime, namely, 'insidetheuniverse' coupled to its current Holon valid for one single instant of the physical time, as read by a physical clock (local mode of spacetime). Hence the puzzle of the cosmic equator boils down to the blueprints from the "rotation" of the universe left on the real, 3D component (also 'insidetheuniverse') of its "spin": these blueprints might imply that the universe has a dual topology in the global mode of spacetime, both closed and open, and leaves a single snapshot of an asymptotically flat universe in each and every instant 'now' from the local mode of spacetime, as I tried to explain to Max Tegmark. To understand this, please see the example with the topology of brain states in Ulric Neisser's cognitive cycle. All this might seem too farfetched, but please recall that the absolute/preferred reference frame of the global mode of spacetime is utterly needed for understanding the cosmological constant paradox (Robert Klauber) and the puzzle of those empty waves called gravitational waves: they cannot be registered in the local mode of spacetime, since their real 3D component is "collapsed" (Angelo Loinger). The bidirectional "talk" between matter and gravity takes place in the global mode of spacetime (Todd Brun), while in the local mode we have a perfect continuum of alreadycorrelated physical states with particular mass, as specified by 'everything else in the universe'  the ultimate 'chooser' in the quantum world and in the new Machian theory of gravity which we call quantum gravity. In Einstein's GR, "you automatically get the correct grav. contribution to the stressenergy from the Christoffel symbols in the covariant derivatives", as explained eloquently by G. 't Hooft. In the new Machian gravity proposed here, you should calculate the instantaneous gravitational contribution to the stressenergy from 'everything else in the universe'. Then you may find out whether you
really disturb a star by stirring your morning coffee, and what is the
feedback from it. Its recoil should be tending asymptotically toward zero,
just like we live in an asymptotically flat universe with a cosmological
constant tending also toward zero. But we're all connected by our Holon,
aren't we?
Dimi Chakalov
