==========

Subject: quant-ph/0603092 v1, p. 7
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:46:26 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Roland.Omnes@th.u-psud.fr
CC: Roland Omnes <roomnes@wanadoo.fr>

Dear Roland,

I think the hidden mysterious traceless quantity could be the "remnant" from the quantum Holon: the faculty of each quantum particle to 'think globally' in the Holon, and act locally. It should be completely "dark", since such holistic effects cannot be traced back to any particular physical stuff.

It's a bit like trying to understand the holistic organization of the human brain: no matter how you study it, you'll see only neurons and synapses, and yet they manage to 'know of each other' in a way that cannot be derived from the neural pathways alone. Here, the Holon is totally "dark", too.

More, in the context of GR, at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Weinstein.html#F1

What do you think?

Best regards,

Dimi
 

=========

Subject: Is "reduction" a last step in completing "decoherence"?
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:00:04 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Roland Omnes <Roland.Omnes@th.u-psud.fr>
CC: Chris Isham <c.isham@imperial.ac.uk>,
     Karel Kuchar <kuchar@physics.utah.edu>,
     James Hartle <hartle@physics.ucsb.edu>
 

Dear Professor Omnes,

In your latest "A model of quantum reduction with decoherence", quant-ph/0411201 v2, you stressed that "(...) it is clear that the meaning of very small probabilities must be better understood". I thought you might be interested to see how Jim Hartle would explain the "decoherent" CPU of his computer,

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

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

You also wrote: "Isham and coworkers devised for it a convenient
mathematical formalism. Rather than using a unique Hilbert space, they introduced a tensor product of as many copies of the Hilbert space as there are instants of time in a family of consistent histories [29]. The procedure relies however on a foliation of space-time by space-like surfaces and the existence of such a foliation looked questionable in the Wheeler-De Witt theory of quantized gravity, in which there is no time variable. A recent proposal by Kuchar might open new possibilities for this approach and will be described here briefly [31, 32].
...
"Kuchar considered the case of pure gravity, but a very interesting problem will occur when the time foliation will be coupled to decoherence. The consistency of decohering histories will strongly constrain the time foliation and reduction might give it an objective local meaning. This is of course only a speculative perspective, but it looks encouraging for further investigations."

I believe Kuchar's ideas may look encouraging for further investigations  iff  somebody resolves the problem of decoherence at the links above. Maybe he has tried it, I haven't read his unpublished
report (K. Kuchar, communication at the 2nd. DICE meeting, Piombino, September 2004, unpublished).

Your critical comments and corrections, as well as those from your colleagues, will be highly appreciated.

Regards,

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

Note: Karel Kuchar considered only the case of pure gravity, and his paper mentioned above is not published, right? Of course he will consider only a toy model with pure gravity. He is incredibly good physicist, only prefers to keep quiet. I suggested to him to make a 'reverse engineering' of the main problem of spin networks: start from a perfectly smooth 3-D space, and pin down the requirements for solving the Hamiltonian constraint problem; more here. I do believe Karel Kuchar can elucidate the task undertaken by all people working on loop quantum gravity, A. Ashtekar included, and show them that their efforts are doomed to fail: there is no way they can recover a smooth 3+1-D spacetime. Why? Because they have to employ Kuchar's Perennials (a.k.a. global mode of spacetime) to solve the Hamiltonian constraint problem.

But Karel Kuchar doesn't want to show them 'the rules of the game', and keeps quiet. Why? Good question. I don't know the answer to it, and probably will never learn it, because Karel Kuchar, Roland Omnes, Chris Isham, and Jim Hartle do not respond to my email. Why? Well, maybe because they believe I'm wrong, but don't want to be bothered with showing my stupid errors.

But am I wrong? Unlike all those sticky bubbles in loop quantum gravity and the tantalizing issue of "intersecting knots in 3dimensions" (A. Ashtekar), the task of Jim Hartle is very simple: he uses a computer, and all he has to do is to prove that its CPU can indeed "emerge" at classical scale as some "decoherent" quantum system. That's his 'proof of the pudding', plain and simple. Besides, he communicates with his colleagues by email, and they all can try to solve the task. It's a matter of simple calculations, with immense impact on their ideas, however.

Are they going to do it? I will be more than happy to learn more from them, since I was told that I "do not know enough theoretical physics to help with any research in that area", as acknowledged here.
 

D. Chakalov
March 30, 2005