Prev: Al Bore has his own 'inconvenient truth' at Copenhagen
Next:  “Roll Your Own”, Quoting.
From: Raymond Yohros on 15 Dec 2009 12:29
On Dec 15, 7:07 am, pekka.virta...(a)webinfo.fi wrote:
> Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories. He said that they are
> a temporary stage to some other model. For example, the abstract
> propability waves of elementary particles were too much for him.
>

scientist and teachers have been able to advance alot
with quantum mechanics because it is so much closer
to us in the micro cosmos.
without it there'r be no chemestry, no electronics
no computers or any fun technology.

what einstein didn't accept is the uncertainty in QM because,
after all, everything has to have a meaning and
explanation even when it appears to be to us a random process.

r.y
From: eric gisse on 15 Dec 2009 13:38
pekka.virtanen(a)webinfo.fi wrote:

> Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories. He said that they are
> a temporary stage to some other model. For example, the abstract
> propability waves of elementary particles were too much for him.

He was wrong. Aspect's EPR experiments, delayed choice, and other random
fuckery settled that one nicely.

[snip rest]
From: PD on 15 Dec 2009 14:30
On Dec 15, 6:07 am, pekka.virta...(a)webinfo.fi wrote:
> Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories. He said that they are
> a temporary stage to some other model. For example, the abstract
> propability waves of elementary particles were too much for him.

I don't think this was really the issue. Probability waves are no more
complicated than curved spacetime.

What the real issue for Einstein was the principle of locality -- that
two objects that are separated in space are in fact two objects and
that signals are required for a change in one to effect a change in
the other. This is where he was wrong.

>
> The geometric structure of empty space is not a part of quantum
> mechanis. Empty space, its lengths and its directions, are not
> quantized there. Geometry of empty physical space may have an
> essential role to combine quantum mechanics with gravity. According to
> the Relativity theory an empy space has some properties. It is more
> than nothing.
>
> The structure of empy physical space can be defined cell-structured
> and to seem isotropic. It is abolute (, but not the same as Newton's
> absolute space) and Lorentz-compatible. It shows that a certain
> geometry is standing behind the abstract propability waves and behind
> the non-locality of quantum mechanis. It will suggest a new solution
> to the gauge problem of quantum mechanics. The solution is in the
> space.
>
> More about this subject:
>
> http://www.netikka.net/mpeltonen/siirretyt/tekstit/dtheory.htm
>
> Pekka Virtanen

From: Rock Brentwood on 18 Dec 2009 17:40
On Dec 15, 12:38 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Albert Einstein did not accept quantum theories. He said that they are
> > a temporary stage to some other model. For example, the abstract
> > propability waves of elementary particles were too much for him.
>
> He was wrong. Aspect's EPR experiments, delayed choice, and other random
> fuckery settled that one nicely.

The incompleteness that Einstein found objectionable was this: there
is no probability in quantum theory. The evolution law is
deterministic. Yet, the phenomena that QM is supposed to explain
involve a seemingly intrinsic randomness -- one that is (provably)
absent from the theory.

The EPR experiments are not relevant to THAT question; only to the
question of locality -- which is an entirely different issue.

It was von Neumann who made the missing ingredient the most stark: by
posing 2 axioms. The one axiom (Evolution) is the one that lies at the
center of the mathematical formalism for quantum theory. It's what
contains the evolution and/or field equations: the Schroedinger
equation, the Dirac equation, the field laws in operator form, etc.

The other axiom (Projection) -- there is (in fact) no consensus on
what it actually is or whether it's actually real or not. All we know
is that Projection cannot be modelled by Evolution in any way -- it
lies strictly outside that part of the theory that includes all the
equations of motion, field equations etc.

Without Projection, there is absolutely no probability of any kind
anywhere. Its appearance is irreducible: that is, any attempt to try
and force it in amounts to the equivalent of slipping something like
Projection in under the rug. The only time you don't see it actually
being slipped in is where arguments are NOT cast in formal
mathematical language, so that you can explictly see all the
assumptions actually being made; and where arguments, instead, are
cast in the sloppy hand-waving style typical of physicists and
engineers. But once you put all the missing pieces in and cut off the
hands that are doing the waving, you end up back at ground 0 -- no
probability is anywhere.

The closest semblance you get to probability is decoherence. But even
here, you have to (at some point) assume -- even if tacitly -- a
confusion between a superposition (which is just a fancy name for a
PURE state, which denotes the ABSENCE of any probability) versus a
mixed state (which is tantamount to the definition of probability,
itself).

The very notion of probability is synomymous with mixed states. But
the appearance mixed states are exactly what unitary (or even
automorphic) evolution SPECIFICALLY prohibit.

Hawking, too, raised the point a long while ago. He said that any who
would proclaim to be judging on the opinions of people like Einstein
regarding the completeness issue, or who would be presuming to have
solved the problem of explaining what account for Projection, have the
onus of explaining precisely what the probability metric is and what
the (tacit) Mixed State(s) is/are that are spontaneously emerging.

The textbook treatments of QM sorta gloss over or evade this issue or
try to "explain it away" by something along the lines of "oh, the
Decoherence people already handled that" and, combined with a few
magical waves of the hand, like they're doing some kind of Jedi mind
trick.

But it can't be explained away. The very viability of this or any
science as an EMPIRICAL science requires that there be definite yes/no
statements made at the end of the day. Without the Projection
postulate, the field equations only give you evolution of a quantum
state with no way to implement anything like a Born rule or anything
else to get any kind of definite predictions.

When Quantum Theory is taken literally what it says is that states
evolve under the Schroedinger equation (or operators, in the
Heisenberg picture in accordance with the Heisenberg equation) ... at
all points in space and time, except for a subset of discrete points
("events"). At the "events", there is a spontaneous appearance of a
mixed state from a pure state. In that mixed state is contained the
probabilities in question -- and indeed ARE the collection of
probabilities in question (mixed state MEANS probabilistic state).

So, if the initial state is a pure state W0, then after the event, it
transforms into a probabilistic mixture p1 W1 + p2 W2, where p1, p2 >
0 and p1 + p2 = 0. The components states W1, W2 may themselves be pure
or mixed and further reducible.

There is a school of thought that asserts that there is also a second
state to this process in which the mixed state transforms
stochastically into either W1 (with probability p1) or W2 (with
probability) p2. But, I take issue with that notion. To me, at least,
the very concept of mixed state ALREADY MEANS that, so citing the
"extra step" as a step is a null operation.

Some people take it to mean a two step process. Then there is also the
question of whether the second step even happens at all, or whether
the state remains as a mixed state p1 W1 + p2 W2 without any further
change. That would essentially amount to a Many World's hypothesis.

Ironically, everyone has this backwards. The Projection postulate is
the intrusion of CLASSICAL theory into quantum theory; and mixed
states are a CLASSICAL concept. So, the Many World's hypothesis is not
only NOT a hypothesis about quantum theory, it's the very antithesis
of quantum theory!

In a quantum state, a superposition like (|White> = a |Red> + b |
Green>) is just as pure as the so-called "components" |Red> and |
Green>. It is not any kind of mixture.

The confusion between this and the incoherent mixture
W = |a|^2 |Red><Red| + |b|^2 |Green><Green|
is the root of all the confusion on the questions raised above. Even
Newton got this concept wrong.

This point is hammered home as follows. Newton believed that "white is
made up out of red and green". That "of" in "superposition of" or
"made of" is DEAD WRONG. White is NOT made up of red and green. It is
a superposition of red and green.

But red and green are superpositions of whites. You can just as well
write
|Red> = A (a |Red> + b |Green>) + B (c |Red> + d |Green>)
provided that Aa + Bc = 1 and Ab + Bd = 0. That shows that the whole
concept of "made up of" which seems to dominate the thinking of what
"superposition" means is completely misleading and is getting in the
way.

Everything is a superposition, even those things that are "not". So,
there is no "probability" to be read out of any of components
anywhere.

The problems run far deeper than what I'm letting on.

What is the meaning of the superposition of two states where the
gravity and definition of free fall of each disagree with the other?
According to the Hawking-Unruh effect, an accelerated observer sees an
inertial observers' pure states as MIXED and vice versa. The state
spaces of the two observers admits no superpositions at all.

Therefore, by the equivalence principle, it follows that the two free
fall states cannot be superposed.

In other words, gravity is a fundamentally UN-quantizable force.

(This problem shows up in far deeper ways. The Dirac equation involves
fermions, which are spinor fields. Spinors do not have a coordinate
transformation property. A spinor field requires a SPECIFIC definition
of "free fall" or "inertiality" to be in place already before it can
even be defined. Two spinor fields that reside in "spinor bundles"
corresponding to inequivalent free fall states cannot be quantized in
a single state space and their respective state spaces cannot be
superposed with one another at all).

Ironically, therein may also lie the resolution of the problem
underlying the Projection postulate by this unusual feature. But
without the solution, quantum theory is incomplete.
From: pekka.virtanen on 19 Dec 2009 03:50
> He was wrong. Aspect's EPR experiments, delayed choice, and other random
> fuckery settled that one nicely.

Only if the space is presumed to be similar (or not quantized) in all
scales. And not nicely. Nobody understands quantum mechanics and there
still stands the unresolved Gauge Problem.

Pekka
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Al Bore has his own 'inconvenient truth' at Copenhagen
Next:  “Roll Your Own”, Quoting.