Dear Dr. Zurek,

If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not necessarily a duck, wise men say. Likewise, the empirical fact that tables and chairs around us are in point-like localization in space and time may not be caused by some "decoherence", "environment-induced superselection", and the like.

In your recent "Reduction of the Wavepacket: How Long Does it Take?", Los Alamos report LAUR 84-2750, quant-ph/0302044, you reiterated your hypothesis of environment-induced superselection, and wrote: "It is worth stressing that the loss of coherence and the accompanying "irreversibility" is a consequence of the deliberate tracing out of the environment (...)."

You have suggested that Schrödinger's cat states that were not lucky to be einselected are fading out "very fast". Your idea might look like a sound metaphysical speculation, but I don't think it could provide a rigorous solution to the basis problem, after Henry Stapp's quant-ph/0110148, Sec. 3, "The Core Basis Problem":

"But the normal rules for extracting well defined probabilities from a quantum state require the specification, or singling out, of a discrete set (i.e., a denumerable set) of orthogonal subspaces, one for each of a set of alternative possible experientially distinguishable observations. But how can a particular discrete set of orthogonal subspaces be picked out from an amorphous continuum by the action of the Schrödinger equation alone?"

Also, I'm curious whether you have replied to the objections put forward by Steve Adler,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Adler.html#1

I'm also wondering how long does it take to clarify a well-known objection to the idea of decoherence due to Bernard d'Espagnat,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Kim.html#2

In essence, the objection at the URL above is relevant to any claim, if any, that the hypothesis of decoherence might solve the measurement problem in QM,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/right.html#Bassi_Ghirardi

If we are to explain why do we observe the tables and chairs around us in point-like localization of space and time, we must *not* introduce the hypothesis of locality from the outset. This is a grave logical error. If you are doing analytical chemistry and want to find out whether there is NaCl in your test sample, you must not contaminate it with NaCl from the outset. Any notion of 'center of mass coordinate basis', for example, presupposes a miraculous "point" at the scale of tables and chairs: the same tacit presumption of locality that is supposed to be explained is introduced by hand from the outset.

My guess to the bundle of puzzles of Schrödinger's cat states and Bell's UNspeakable

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Römer.html#2

is that there is indeed a transience of the instant 'now',

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Booth.html#3

and there is 3-D space as well,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Ashtekar.html#note

Perhaps there is a creative process making what I call local mode of spacetime, which *resembles* the projection postulate of von Neumann. This creative process may come from the Holon,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html

Hence we successfully employ QM and its 'shut up and calculate' interpretation,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Khrennikov.html#Växjö

Perhaps the puzzle of 3-D space is the key to Schrödinger's cat states and Bell's UNspeakable. You've been searching for the lost key under the lamp of "decoherence" because it is brighter there, but have you found it?

I can only hope that my email sent to you in the past four years has been safely received. I also hope that the kids who choose theoretical physics to be their professional career will not be deluded by the duck story above and will not waste their time with some "quantum computing",

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Frasca.html#NB

You can read this email also at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Zurek.html

I will certainly include it in my forthcoming CD ROM,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/CD.html

Sincerely,

Dimiter G. Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
--
Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.

========

Subject: Re: A duck story
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:21:49 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: whz@lanl.gov
CC: laflamme@iqc.ca, dalvit@lanl.gov, dziarmaga@k-t.lanl.gov,
     knill@lanl.gov, barnum@lanl.gov, adler@ias.edu,
     kochen@math.princeton.edu, hpstapp@lbl.gov,
     jbarbour@online.rednet.co.uk, joy.christian@wolfson.ox.ac.uk,
     vjquantuminfo@aps.org
BCC: [snip]
 

Dear Wojciech,

In your latest "Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical", quant-ph/0105127 v3 of 19 June 2003, published in Reviews of Modern Physics 75(3) 715-775 (2003), you wrote:

"They (decoherence and einselection - D.C.) have been investigated for about two decades. They are the only explanation of classicality that does not require modifications of quantum theory, as do the alternatives (Bohm, 1952; Leggett, 1980, 1988, 2002; Penrose, 1986, 1989; Holland, 1993; Goldstein, 1998; Pearle, 1976; 1993; Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, 1986; 1987, Gisin and Percival, 1992; 1993a-c)."

I'm afraid you're wrong. The hypotheses of decoherence and einselection do not offer any explanation of classicality because they contain a devastating *logical error*. See again my email of Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:51:53 +0200,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Zurek.html#error

You also wrote: "Decoherence treats observer as any other macroscopic system. There is, however, one feature distinguishing observers from the rest of the Universe: They are aware of the content of their memory. Here we are using aware in a down-to-earth sense: Quite simply, observers know what they know. Their information processing machinery (that must underlie higher functions of the mind such as "consciousness") can readily consult the content of their memory."

When you enter a field that is totally alien to you, don't rely on your layman's introspection. Read something about how "observers know what they know". It's not that simple,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Penrose.html#NB

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bushara.html#PS

Another excerpt: "Observer is -- in part -- information. Moreover, this information encoded in states of macroscopic quantum systems (neurons) is by no means secret: As a result of lack of isolation the environment -- having redundant copies of the relevant data -- 'knows' in detail everything observer knows. Configurations of neurons in our brains, while at present undecipherable, are in principle as objective and as widely accessible as the information about the states of other macroscopic objects."

Given the fact that your exercise was "in part supported by a grant from the NSA", I believe can understand your efforts. It's not clear to me why would NSA be interested in your metaphysics, however. Leibnitz, for example, has never made logical errors. See

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/#2

Next quote: "The 'higher functions' of observers -- e.g., consciousness, etc. -- may be at present poorly understood, but it is safe to assume that they reflect physical processes in the information processing hardware of the brain."

If consciousness is "at present poorly understood", you can't make any safe assumption whatsoever. I regret that you didn't quote any text in brain neurophysiology regarding "the information processing hardware of the brain."

"Hence, mental processes are in effect objective, as they leave an indelible imprint on the environment: The observer has no chance of perceiving either his memory, or any other macroscopic part of the Universe in some arbitrary superposition."

Here I don't need to read your references in brain neurophysiology to prove you wrong. You can do it with your own brain,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Vecchi.html

If you can understand the UNspeakable at the URL above -- as thousands of people already have -- you are wrong. I hope all your colleagues can and will prove you wrong with their brains too.

Final quote: "Perseverance of all afflicted was very much appreciated by the author (if thoroughly tested by the process)."

Well, read my mind:-)

I presume you will not reply to my criticism, as you haven't replied to my email in the past four years. Please don't bother, I'm writing this mainly for the readers of my forthcoming CD ROM. I hope it will appeal to kids age 18-25,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/CD.html

The future belongs to them. We're old and biased.

May God help you find what you are looking for. I personally wish you a very pleasant and cheerful retirement.
 

Dimi Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
--
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with youth.

Max Planck

========

Note: Regarding the claim by Wojciech Zurek that decoherence and einselection were "the only explanation of classicality that does not require modifications of quantum theory, as do the alternatives" (see above): Two issues need clarification.

One is the explanation of the transition from quantum to classical [Ref. 1], based on the hypothesis that there are already "points" in the classical realm. It is like trying to explain how oranges would be transformed into apples, provided apples are readily available and can be compared to the former oranges. Steve Adler has explained this first problem very clearly [Ref. 2]: if you keep the unitary evolution, the decoherence doesn't work. The oranges do not evolve into apples by unitary transformations. Period. Wojciech Zurek is certainly aware of this problem, only he keeps quiet. Needless to say, the apples fully comply with the laws of special relativity theory. Converted oranges don't.

Then there is a second problem intermingled with the frst one: how do oranges evolve into apples if the latter do not exist. See the logical error above. In quantum cosmology, if we require the unitary time evolution of the universe to be our 'apples', they inevitably go to a dead-end. Hence in order to keep our apples and oranges alive and kicking, and also to explain the transition from apples to oranges and back, we need a brand new treatment of time and space, such that the unitary evolution would be kept safe in the local mode of spacetime. We have "points" in the local mode of spacetime only. This is what the Holon is all about, only its evolution is non-unitary: in the global mode of spacetime, the inner product at time zero/Big Bang is not unity. Hence we can solve the Hilbert space problem as well [Ref. 3]. Only the spacetime is dual, and so is the age of the universe. It evolves like a huge brain, much like the one above your neck.

Join the club!

Dimi Chakalov
June 21, 2003
 

[Ref. 1] W.H. Zurek, Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical, Physics Today, October 1991, pp. 36-44.

[Ref. 2] S.L. Adler, Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem: A Response to P.W. Anderson, quant-ph/0112095 v3.

Steve Adler: "Going back a few years, an informative and lively debate on these issues can be found in the Letters column of the April 1993 Physics Today (starting on page 13 of that issue and continuing over many pages), in response to an earlier article in that journal by Zurek (1991). An enlightening discussion of the measurement problem has been given by Bell (1990), and there also are extensive discussions of both the measurement problem and the role of decoherence in the philosophy of physics literature.
...
"What decoherence does is to cause the rapid decay with time of the inner product
[Eq. 4]
which at time t = 0 was unity.
...
"But because these states are orthogonal, they cannot both have evolved from a single initial state by a deterministic, unitary evolution (...). 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. This contradiction is in no way ameliorated by decoherence, since the inner product of Eq. (5b) plays no role in the final state vector of Eq. (6a) or Eq. (6b) that describes the outcome of the measurement."
 

[Ref. 3] C. Kiefer, Conceptual issues in quantum cosmology, gr-qc/9906100.