Bit is It by Mikalai Birukou

Paul,

#1. We may want to use classical-like substance for fundamental level, but a story about luminiferous aether teaches us that this prejudice towards every-day concepts may not work. And postulate #1 takes concepts that are used in QFT's that predicted top quark and recently Higgs boson. Nothing new, only what nature does, whether we like it or not.

#2. Ask people at LHC if they can pin-point when and which event shall happen. With certainty. Nature is such, that this cannot be done, again, whether we like it, or not. And in postulate #2 we postulate experience, no more.

#3. On "There is a sequence of existent states, each being different." This statement is very, very general, and is true due to its generality. Unfortunately, this generality makes it useless in the quantum lab. On another hand, QM is usable, but it has its pains, which essay addresses.

#4. You missed the point here. It is obvious that information transfer should occur only via physical interaction. But it is not obvious that it leads to quantum entanglement, a behaviour very different from that of classical systems. Check references on EPR and Bell's theorem.

When we say that change of states is time, we highlight that time is a description of states, or their changes. It is relative, as opposed to absolute time. That is a point of such expression.

Joe,

Unfortunately, if we insist on all particles being unique, then lots of things in quantum experiments cannot be explained. But if we replace this every-day notions, as nature suggests, we are able to make progress.

Mikalai

1 I did not refer to a "classical like substance", but to whatever constitutes that. By definition, for there to be existence there must be something (or a variety of somethings). It is no consequence as to what it is in order to make the point that what alters is the physically existent state. There is an important distinction between whatever it is, and the state it is in, at any given time.

2 Whether people can identify any given physically existent state, which I think is probably impossible, is irrelevant. Physical existence does not therefore possess some form of 'vagueness'. It is definitive, we just do not have the ability to identify it.

3 It is a generic statement, how that manifests in reality is to be identified. But it certainly does not make it useless, because if people pursue science on the basis that physical existence does not occur that way, then they are going to create metaphysical theories.

4 Physically, what is "information transfer"?

"When we say that change of states is time, we highlight that time is a description of states, or their changes. It is relative, as opposed to absolute time. That is a point of such expression.

There cannot be a description of a state or change. If change there is a different state. Time is associated with difference, specifically the rate at which that difference occurs, as opposed to what the difference was or the sequence order of the differences. Everything is relative, in so far as anything can only be identified as a difference to something else. The rate of alteration is therefore calibrated with reference to another rate (this is timing), and the timing system is referenced to a conceptual constant rate of alteration. This is the purpose of synchronising timing devices.

Paul

Mikalai, you have provided a very intriguing and bold essay. Your aims are certainly admirable, but I think your argumentation in some places is a little too heuristic (though this might be owed to length constraints). One thing I noticed that's probably not quite right is in section 7: here, you say basically that the apparent increase in mass due to relativistic speeds is due to increased interaction with the Higgs field. But if I'm not mistaken, the Higgs interaction is responsible for a particle's invariant mass, i.e. the mass it possesses in its rest frame; you can see that by the fact that the relevant Yukawa coupling terms in the Lagrangean are Lorentz scalars, as they must be. The 'mass increase' (which is generally a deprecated term; usually, the fundamental mass of a particle is considered to be its invariant mass) is really just an increase in the total energy of a particle moving at relativistic speeds, having nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. (In fact, most mass doesn't: quark and lepton masses provide an almost negligible part of the masses of the atoms.)

Also, I'm not quite sure I understand the detailed mechanism through which your 'Waterloo formulation' of QM solves the measurement problem, as you claim: how do you go from a state that's a superposition of measurement outcomes to a post-measurement state in which only one of the terms in this superposition, i.e. the actual measurement outcome, survives?

Jochen,

I'll do a post for each of your two questions.

Let's take first your "... not quite sure I understand the detailed mechanism through which your 'Waterloo formulation' of QM solves the measurement problem".

Postulate #3 about interaction of systems should apply to all systems indiscriminately. Anything we do in the lab is also described by it. There are no special 'measurement' interactions!

Your see, in Waterloo formulation we do not postulate Hilbert space upfront. This allows us (a) not to have to explain 'collapse' of this mathematical entity to just one outcome (like Copenhagen), and (b), not to have to pretend that the space of possibilities is just hidding (like multi-world implication of Everett's initial thesis).

But if, as according to the postulate, only one of the possibilities [math]|\psi_j\rangle |\phi_j\rangle[\equation] actually occurs, then you don't get any entanglement, since these are only product states. Entanglement only exists in states like [math]|\psi_1\rangle |\phi_1\rangle |\psi_2\rangle |\phi_2\rangle[\equation], that can't be written in tensor product form. Or in other words, as long as you only consider pairs of states as valid endpoints for any interaction, the combined Hilbert space of both systems will just be the direct product of the two systems' Hilbert spaces, rather than the tensor product space, and you only include those states in the Segre embedding of the full space---but those are just the separable states.

Or am I misreading your postulate?

Entanglement.

We, an external system, see two systems as being entangled because of confinement of their interaction. That is postulate 4. There is no need to put any 'magical juice' into existence postulates in order to get quantum entanglement.

Jochen,

Second technical question about Higgs mechanism for mass. Although you pin-point a technicality of currently done calculations, I want to make couple of remarks:

a) At the fundamental level we do not assume existence of a space. Any space. This sort of nukes the whole framework of calculations, which we currently (highlight currently) do. But to gain technical precision, which you ask for, we need to first go through contruction of a metric on top of point. This, most probably, will do something for divergent quantities we have, etc., i.e. we'll have to go through Standard Model again, keeping in mind new definitions of space and time. And only then we will be able to settle an argument precisely.

b) Even without Higgs, in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) we do a little calculation where we have a bare mass, and we assemble an effective mass. We renormalize something :) . So, there are many ways to 'skin this cat', so to speak.

Paul,

On, 'Physically, what is "information transfer"?' It is illustrated precisely in Shannon's work on communication, were he introduces quantified measure of information. That is reference #1 in essay, take a look.

On, too general of a statement, to be useful in the lab. I want to remind you the way it all done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffr69ZovHKc We make a statement, then refine it, making it more rigorous, and less general, so that we can calculate something, and then we compare it to experiment. Without these meticulous steps, initial grand statement is worthless, no matter how nicely it sounds (highlight sounds).

Hi Mikalai,

I think you are 100% on the right track, just like DR. Philip Gibbs. All that, are in line with my own ideas which I hope I can submit, time permitting. Especially the part where space is emergent from "particle events" and time is nothing but a change in state. This exactly what my upcoming theory predicts in a very clear and unambiguous way. Moreover I reproduce a lot of the standard QM/QFT results plus some other simply stunning results. I am sure you will love it because it is all through simulation.

And it is funny, I have used your Wheeler's last paragraph as the opening to my website ! which I created three years ago.

But let me ask you this. Would your theory be able to derive QFT or gravity or calculate the SM constants or CC to name a few?

I love your writing style! I have just read two first sections so far. Regarding this many world idea. Is it more propable that entanglement of two systems most likely vanishes at some point in time? "The chain" so to speak is broken down by some other events in space. More the nearby events more likely that break down.

I'm heading to the section seven and still loving your essay. I insist that you read this paper immediately -> http://toebi.com/documents/ToEbi.pdf

I'm sure that you will find it more than interesting.

Without that Higgs part it would have been perfect. But definitely the best essay so far!

Hmm, I can't seem to figure out how to apply your postulate 4 to reproduce the phenomenology of entanglement. Perhaps we can work through a concrete example together?

First, picture two two-level quantum system in your favourite physical realization---trapped ions, electron spins, polarized photons, whatever. I'll write as if I had electron spins in my mind, but of course everything readily translates. We can measure the electron spin in two bases,

[math]\lbrace|0\rangle,|1\rangle\rbrace[/math]

and

[math]\lbrace|\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle|1\rangle),|-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle-|1\rangle)\rbrace[/math]

Now, we let the two particles interact to produce the state (in conventional quantum mechanics)

[math]1: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle_A|0\rangle_B |1\rangle_A|1\rangle_B)[/math]

Here, the index refers to the party that has access to each particle, A for Alice and B for Bob. Now if Alice does a measurement in the {|0>,|1>} basis, it's plain to see that she will either obtain the 1 or 0 with 50% probability each. If Bob then does a subsequent measurement, he will obtain the same value as Alice with certainty---their measurements are perfectly correlated.

However, in your case, according to your postulate 3, after the interaction between both parties, we have either the state

[math]2a:|0\rangle_A|0\rangle_B[/math]

or the state

[math]2b:|1\rangle_A|1\rangle_B[/math]

with presumably 50% probability for the alternatives (though you don't seem to discuss how to get the usual Born probabilities in your framework). Now, if Alice does a measurement, she will again get either 0 or 1 with 50% probability, and again a subsequent measurement by Bob will agree with certainty. So all is well so far.

But now consider measurements in the {|>,|->}-basis. In this basis, the state 1 is written as:

[math]3: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\rangle_A|\rangle_B |-\rangle_A|-\rangle_B)[/math]

So the same conclusions as above apply: Alice measures, gets with 50% probability either or -, and Bob's subsequent measurement will perfectly agree.

But in your case, the state (for example) 2b expanded in the {|>,|->}-base, is:

[math]4: \frac{1}{2}(|\rangle_A|\rangle_B - |\rangle_A|-\rangle_B - |-\rangle_A|\rangle_B |-\rangle_A|-\rangle_B)[/math]

So if Alice now measures in this basis, she will obtain either or - with 50% probability, but if Bob then performs a measurement, he too will obtain either option with 50% probability, independently of what Alice has obtained! So their measurements will be wholly uncorrelated, in contrast to the standard quantum account on which they will be perfectly correlated.

So, my question now is, how does your postulate 4 work to avert this disaster?

Mikalai,

I read your essay with great interest. I especially noted your definition of time in terms of changes in quantum states. I agree (as described in my essay "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"), but you really need to distinguish the coherent evolution at fixed frequency (i.e., energy level) from the incoherent change in state from one frequency to another. The former follows continuous dynamics from the Schrodinger equation, whereas the latter is generally represented as a discontinuous "collapse of the wave function."

In addition, I question whether the Quantum Hilbert Space Model is really a correct description of nature. Yes, everyone uses this without question; but that is exactly my point. This formalism has embedded assumptions, as I describe in my essay. It is these assumptions that give rise to quantum entanglement, in what should otherwise comprise a system of real relativistic waves interacting in real space.

Alan

About entanglement.

We, an external system, see two systems as being entangled because of confinement of their interaction. This confinement is key to having this quantum phenomena. Once we interact with one of the subsystems, so that result of interaction (or information we get) is related to the confined aspect, the entanglement breaks. Or, you can say that we start to be a part of tri-entanglement. It might be easy to visualise this using quantum computing schemes.

Entanglement is how we see two systems from the outside, while sub-systems' interaction is confined. It makes all reasoning simpler.

You see, if I give you just foundation for QM, which treats current imperfections, you may find it interesting, and move on. This foundation must produce hints for further development, that will be proved or disproved by experiments. And, in this essay, after all, we should try to dream like Wheeler did.

It seems to me that guys did the best job possible in forming mathematical framework for QM in 1900-1920's. They couldn't possibly do better, because they didn't have all experiments with particles of 1960's and later. But now, in 2010's, we may try to straighten things up, by placing QFT's concepts as a foundation, as a physical essence for QM's math. After all, everything is maid of particles seen at CERN.

Let's look at it conceptually.

Firstly, the OR sign in postulate #3 is a real OR for systems involved in the interaction. This way, when you assemble an interaction, which tells you which spin particle has, you will have one OR the other value. Remember, we have no special interactions here.

But, this OR does not apply to the external system! That is our interaction confinement. Information about interaction is not leaking without actual interaction with sub-systems. The OR, therefore, does not apply to external systems, till external system interacts with any of sub-systems. Pay a close attention to brackets in equations 5 & 6 of the essay. It is natural for us to assume brackets positions of 5, cause this is how information flows in our everyday life. But for quantum systems nature chooses 6!

You cannot make this up, that is why we needed an experiment to tell how OR sign should be related to external system. And that sums up entanglement phenomena.

From mathematical perspective, entanglement is a direct result of unitary evolution of a closed system. So, whichever element of theory gives you unitarity, that piece is responsible for entanglement. Interaction confinement postulate #4 gives unitarity here.