Questioning the Foundations: Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong? Experimenter’s Free Will by Joseph Bisognano

Joseph,

" ... an alternate perspective might, for example, substitute global space time self-consistency rather than an initial condition conspiracy..."

Yes! Also, a topological initial condition is not only a global characteristic, it is orientable. Joy Christian used it to explain quantum correlations without invoking a probabilistic framework. (See my essay "The Perfect First Question.," esp. p. 6) I agree with you that a network formalism will restore determinism -- complex systems science has already opened the door.

It's becoming fast apparent that the number of us who are "crazy enough" is growing. Awesome job on your essay! -- good luck in the competition.

Tom

Dear Joseph Bisognano,

You state, "The equations of quantum mechanics only described the evolution of the probabilities; the measurement act, which yields a definite result, is not described." You then wonder if there is some larger theory that would describe how a definite result is decided.

My essay explains how the Schrodinger equation describes the induced wave of the physical de Broglie-like particle-plus-wave system, and how one sums over such possible waves and normalizes to obtain the probability amplitude. This introduces a level of physical reality missing from the above description. That is, the physical wave solutions exist, from which probability amplitudes can be obtained. This differs from the Copenhagen interpretation that you seem to be describing [or the many-worlds alternative you mention].

You acknowledge the essential noise involved in measurement processes that prevent the measurement of definite values (except statistically), but are concerned about no-go theorems that proclaim that such values do not exist until measured. I address Bell's theorem as well.

Because my wave functions have the same form as the standard solution to Schrodinger's equations, they provide the same results, but they represent real local systems of the kind forbidden by such no-gos. On the other hand Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph recently derived their own no-go theorem that logically proves that the 'information-only' approach cannot produce quantum mechanical results. To understand quantum mechanics in the context of these competing no-go theorems, I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, and comment.

Thanks for laying out the problems as you see them, and a potential resolution.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joseph Bisognano,

The first sentence of your abstract uses the term "whim." I was an undergraduate at the Univ of Iowa when Van Allen was building the Explorer satellite packages, and I was provided with background information on some of Van Allen's high altitude measurement projects before Explorer. I was never told that the types of measurements his instrument packages recorded were based upon a whim. If what to measure is a whim, as a matter of scale, in comparison to the modest Explorer instrument packages, the measurements by the CERN LHC instrument could be considered a super-whim.

Personally, I don't believe that physicists make measurements on a whim.

I think physicists are frustrated by their inability to identify the mechanism that produces "superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance." You use the term "inference" as though the superluminal Newtonian gravity instantaneous influence-at-a-distance, which is required to keep our planetary orbits from become ever increasing spirals, doesn't exist.

It is an "assumption" to make the statement that superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance cannot be used for communications when physicists do not know the structure of the mechanism that creates that phenomenon. Are physicists making the assumption that the mechanism is unknowable? There is a simple explanation for the phenomenon, but it involves classical physics, which seems to have been marginalized by contemporary physicists.

It takes guts to tackle an assumption this thorny, and this argument needs to be heard. One assumption that I don't think we're ready to make, though, is that we have just yet "eliminated all which is impossible." I believe that answers lie outside of the realm of Kuhnian normal science, which rescue free will. In my essay I describe a possible way that free will might constrain a lab experiment, one that is best visualized using Bob Coecke's diagrammatic formalism. You are invited to read and comment...if you would freely choose to do so!

Dear Professor Bisognano,

Congratulations on a superb essay which is extremely well written and accessible to the layperson like myself. You have a common sense approach which is much appreciated and your wording seems similar to my own at times. Phrases like "Such simplicity is, however, forbidden" caught my attention. You capture the 'blind leading the blind' methodology of modern physics. I have no hesistation in awarding you a top score and hope you do very well in the competition.

Dear Prof. Bisognano,

You clearly make the case with solid arguments you make about the removal of the experimenter's free will and expansion of determinism on the full spectrum of time.

Though your ideas do not confirm as such some of my own exploration, they somewhat validate my approach which.

For instance, I have constructed a toy model, not of space-time, but of the universe. In my toy model, all physical phenomena are strictly causal. That is, they are sequences of causality dependant states. In such a model, time itself is not a physical aspect of reality but a purely relational concept which allows us to compare events with periodic and cyclic systems (clocks).

Also, the physics emerging from only two axioms behaves much like our own observable universe. At the fundamental scale, such universe is deterministic, but its determinism is not directly observable and models can only approximate its behaviour, hence must be probabilistic.

It would certainly be interesting to see where and how our respective toy models correspond.

Daniel L. Burnstein

One word ... aether:-)

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

Dear Professor Bisognano

I enjoyed your essay because it very much resonates with my own conclusions that while measurement is important in practical everyday terms, one can (and should) bypass the experimenter role when making a theoretical model of the universe. Not only in QM as you show, but also concerning Einstein's SR then GR where he proposed an absolutely measureable universe (c is constant) while the universe itself, space-time, is relative. One might as well have used Lorentz' relative measurement in an absolute universe: variable c and moving frames where measuring rods- not space- contract, and clocks slow down, not time itself.

You propose a "toy model of a space-time net" and here it is, sort-of, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . I have used this theory as a springboard for my 7 questions of fundamental physics in my present fqxi essay. I will be honored if you give your learned feedback on both papers.

With best wishes

Vladimir

Dear Professor Bisognano

this is a very nice paper, particularly because it takes the quantum measurement problem seriously. It needs a lot more thought on my part to really get to grips with it, but two brief comments are relevant: (i) as you know from my paper, I believe that relating this kind of discussion to the different level in the hierarchy of structure is important, and (ii) there are of course various hints that quantum mechanics may behave in a time-symmetric manner under some circumstances. Either of these issues may have the capacity to impact your argument.

George Ellis

Dear Professor Bisognano,

Your conclusion "With all of space-time truly a unified whole, existing outside of the flow of time, determinism and quasi free will coexist." is a good description of the singularity and duality that we experience. Realizing that our "self" is the space-time is singularity, and thiking that our free will is separate from this space-time is duality.

Please see the essay Conscience is the cosmological constant in which i explained the absolute true singular nature of our self using the mathematical equation of zero = i = infinity.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Hello Mr Bisognano,

It is relevant about the possible convergence between the free will and the determinism , pure and simple. Of course the irrationality must be differenciated of this free will. if not we have possible stupidities.

The free will is not the probelm. The free will and its pure creativity is an important parameter , and this essential permits to have several interesting universal correlations. The determinsim, it , is a foundamental. The determinism is always the determinsim, the irrational has no place. We arrive at an important relevance considering the free critics like a free will, which can be futhermore determinsitic. The critics permits to sort so the irrational free will and the rational free will, deterministic. The deterministic free will so can be a reality. The rational critics, so, permit when we consider the experiments, irrational for example, to evitate the lost of money. It is a simple dterministic evidence. To be or not to be , that is the question ! :)

That said, the relevance is when both are unified.

Regards

Dear Joseph Bisognano,

A very well written, comprehensible and relevant essay, according to the competition judging criteria. The measurement problem is an important topic to address. You have looked at it in an interesting way. I am afraid that by removing the experimenter's free will you are substituting one problem for another worse one, ( red hat dislikes in my own essay). So it is to my mind a provocative suggestion, (other's may find it less so). IMHO it is possible to overcome the measurement problem without having the observer's behaviour fully determined. That difference of opinion over the physics and philosophical implications of your 'solution' does not alter the fact that you have expressed your ideas and arguments clearly in a thought provoking, well crafted essay. Good luck in the competition.

The problem with quantum measurement is really a question about why there is the appearance of a classical world. In this classical world there are eigenstates associated with "large N" that are stable under environmental perturbations. Quantum mechanics by itself is really fairly simple. We can describe it with linear vector spaces, operators on those spaces that are unitary and Hermitian and so forth. The problem comes with trying to get our classical or macroscopic understanding of the world, which is the physical format for most instruments, to jibe with the quantum world.

The free will of the experimenter is interpreted as the context of an experiment. In the EPR experiment the two experimenters can set their Stern-Gerlach apparatuses as they chose. Quantum mechanics does not provide this, for the eigen-basis of the quantum system is just one of an infinite number under unitary transformation. So we invoke the notion of free will, but this does not have to be so. We can well imagine a computer making the choice based on some algorithm, which could be a random number generator. If one is not happy with pseudo-randomness of algorithmic simulations of randomness one could use radioactive decay. A computer reads off a binary stream from the clicks on a Geiger counter, and this rotates the SG apparatus.. Now the reduced state of one quantum system is used to decide the context whereby another quantum system is measured.

The need for freewill might then be argued to be irrelevant. Physics that is not dependent upon such is best. The problem is that freewill is a part of consciousness, where we have little idea of what consciousness really is.

Hi Lawrence,

The eigenstates that we measure are picked randomly by the quantum system. In a way, the quantum system has free will to pick whatever quantum state it wants. In other words, from our point of view, we measure an eigenstate that is random to us. But free will is sort of like how you and I make a decision that is a random choice to someone else. Go to a resteraunt and chose a meal (eigenstate) from the menu. The waitress has no idea what you're going to order. That is free will. Right?

A classical eigenstate is usually the most expected amplitude in a path integral. The orbit of a planet around the sun is a path that is the most expected path if an electron were in that orbit. However, the electron would exhibit an interference of different paths. Yet as a system which has an action S = Nħ for n -- > ∞ exhibits less interference between paths which converge to the most expected path. This destruction of interferences between paths is a measure of the entanglement the system enters into with the environment. The inference phase, or equivalently the overlap phase in the off diagonal portions of the density matrix, is converted into an entanglement with the environment. The density matrix is then reduced to its diagonal probability entries. However, for the large N conversion to macroscopic or classical reality only one of those entries is physically real: the most probable amplitude defines (in most cases) the classical path.

Consciousness or free will is problematic. This is particularly in light of Libet's fMRI experiments. These demonstrated how the neural activity for engaging in motor activity that defines a choice occurs before the subject is aware of the choice or having made a choice. This suggests that what we call free will, or even the consciousness of making a choice, is some epiphenomenon of neurophysiological processes that are more deterministic.

Cheers LC

If you had free will, what would you do with it?

If I had the free will ,I will save this planet Jason with universal faith and real revolutions.:)

REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION ...

Dear Joseph Bisognano,

very well written essay with deep thoughts on the measurement problem and its different "solutions" on the market of theories.

But one has - in my opinion - to be careful to not confuse oneself with the term "consistency".

Consistency is surely needed for every scientific theory, but is it also sufficient? As long as consistency in yours and other's theories/interpretations of QM is the only difference, we have a new problem: it's a matter of personal taste which interpretation the subject prefers. And that would mean - speaking in the language of your theory - that the subject hasn't the free will to choose the "right" interpretation! So "quasi-randomness" in the acceptance/non-acceptance of theories enters the field of our deepest scientific questions!

Would this make sense to you? I see no way out of this new paradox without assuming a meta-level of nature that has some "teleology" built in to lead us (to correlate us) with the true scientific interpretation of QM! So what you've achieved by eliminating free will, is to install a teleologic sense that guids the whole universe (maybe with, maybe without free will....).

So, i can not see how you can say that

"having "...eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -And that truth is that the universe is fully determined"

is the truth - because assumptions about what's possible and what's not cannot be proven in advance, there are only verifications of possibilities allowed in this case. And for this case you need at least a practical demonstration that predicts every measurement outcome!

Hi Joseph:

A Solution to QM Measurement Paradox

I enjoyed reading your clear and well-written essay describing the QM Measurement Paradox and offering a compromise interim solution - "It appears that accepting that the experimenter's free will assumption is wrong offers a powerful foundation to move forward."

I would like to draw your attention to my posted paper - - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" and my book - -" The Hidden Factor......" wherein I describe the following alternative approach to resolve the QM measurement paradox:

A Gravity Nullification Model is developed that describes the physics of the dynamics of the spontaneous particle decay. This model allows a mathematical description as to how a particle responds deterministically to the experimental apparatus or measurement characteristic in terms of the velocity V of the measuring frame of reference that interferes with the quantum particle being observed. The observed mass, energy, space, and time for the particle are relativistically determined by the model in terms of velocity V chosen by the Free-willed observer to observe the photon moving at the speed of light C. If V=0, the photon is stopped to provide the classical result in a Newtonian frame of reference. If V is chosen to be a higher value, then V/C determines the actual photon mass, frequency, and wavelength as shown in the attached figure 4-14 (pdf file). Thus, the results of the observation are deterministic and dependent upon the free willed choice (V of the measuring device) of the observer.

This also resolves the paradox of the Spooky Action at a Distance as follows. The photon moving at C experiences a fully dilated space and time (due to specific relativity, figure 1 in my posted paper) in its own frame of reference. Hence, a photon that is apparently broken into two subsystems remains correlated or entangled in spite of the appearance of separation experienced in the observer's frame of reference moving at V less than C.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper that also resolves many existing paradoxes and inconsistencies of QM and explains its inner workings in deterministic relativistic formulations.

Best regards

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Waveparticle_behavior_of_a_photon.pdf