Bit is It by Mikalai Birukou

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?

We are basing ourselves on concepts from QFT in order to have compact and clean foundation, on which QM can be formulated. This part I consider complete.

The spacetime business needs ideas and exact calculations to arrive at Minkowski thing. Sort of like Sorkin & Co do, but for all four dimensions. Once this is done, one will need to apply this to QFTs of SM. If any parameters will happen to be derived, instead of inserted, if scale problem disappears, if renormalization procedure(s) starts to have a physical background, then kudos. But at this point I won't speculate. All that we have at this moment is a clean foundation for QM, which also gives a huge hint at how spacetime emerges.

Yet, in the absence of complete math for spacetime, we may think of a shortcut calculation for gravitational constant, using existing higgs math. But this is also just a speculation, for now.

I put a link to Wheeler's paper into references. Its a pdf, located somewhere in the cloud. Use direct text. By the way, Anderson's "More is Different" can be found in pdf with google. I've read when writing this essay. It is a profound piece.

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.

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.

Check reference #9, where I go through steps of assembling usual QM math. Length of one essay cannot fit all details.

Check reference #9, where I go through steps of assembling usual QM math. Length of one essay cannot fit all details.

My last post in this thread was meant to be in the other thread.

Your point that unitary evolution implies entanglement is certainly correct, however, when you say 'when you assemble an interaction, which tells you which spin particle has, you will have one OR the other value', this isn't possible unitarily. In as much as your postulate 3 leads to the outcome of any interaction being a single, definite state rather than a superposition, it explicitly breaks unitarity. And even so, since a definite state in one basis is generally superposed in another, you are not out of hot water here; if you invoke postulate 3 to force the state of two electrons after interaction to be |00> or |11> rather than the superposition of both, then in the {|>,|->}-basis these will be superpositions of all basis vectors in general.

And I must admit that I find your notation in equations (5) and (6) to be rather confusing. I guess you mean to say that in equation (6) the additional system does not 'know' about the state of the original system, while in equation (5), it does; however, such knowledge only occurs through interaction, and thus, without having interacted with the original system, the outside system does not 'know' anything about it in both cases (as is shown by the fact that it does not change its state).

How would you, in your formalism, model an actual experiment? On the traditional view, you have some measurement apparatus that interacts with the system in such a way as to reflect the system's state in its own state after the interaction. So for instance, a {|0>,|1>}-detector is defined by the equations

[math]|r\rangle|0\rangle\to|"0"\rangle|0\rangle[/math]

[math]|r\rangle|1\rangle\to|"1"\rangle|1\rangle[/math]

where |r> is some ready state of the apparatus, and |"0"> resp. |"1"> is the state in which it indicates the measurement result 0 or 1 respectively.

Now, using such a measurement device, I can retell the story I told in my previous post, where each of Alice and Bob have both a {|0>,|1>} and a {|>,|->} measuring device (the latter of course working analogously to the above).

Now the measurement device, if I understand correctly, is your external system |Y>. What difference does it now make whether it works according to equation (5) or (6)? In both cases, it does not seem to change state---thus, it measures nothing, and knows nothing about the system. So, how would a measurement apparatus that changes its state according to the above definition interact in your picture? How would it, in particular, yield the observed perfect correlation across both bases? Certainly, if your framework is adequate, there should be a way to mathematically derive these correlations, just as I have done above for standard quantum mechanics; I'd be very grateful if you could show it to me.

Let's consider a classical OR example. Imagine that you hide a coin in one of your hands behind the back. When you did so, interaction between hands and coin, or choice of hand happened. Now, I do not which choice happened. This is described by equation 5. Me, an external system does not have i-suffix, in 5, but the choice is fixed for me. And if coin's suffix says "right", any further interaction, like you showing me a hand with the coin will change my state accordingly, to "right" with 100%. This is a classical flow of information.

If it were quantum situation, or equation 6, although you chose the hand, this choice is already fixed, but only for you and a coin. My getting this information through interaction will be loaded with the choice "re-happening" for me. The system hand-coin will decohere for me. And notice that there are no good analogies, no good everyday words to describe this non-classical flow of information. This weirdness is the essence of entanglement, either in EPR, or in a double-slit experiment.

We can say that classical flow of info (equation 5) can be sufficiently described by REAL numbers, that are directly probabilities. But this calculus with real numbers has no room for choice "re-happening". A bit more room in math is needed, thus complex numbers are needed, with a prescription of obtaining real probabilities (0 to 1).

By the way, if we ask what sort of mechanics can drive info flow described by 6, in terms of something more common, which follows equation 5. May be, there are some hidden variables, for example. Variables are describable with real calculus, but it has no space to accommodate experimental results for Bell's theorem (Aspect's references). Thus, there is no use in trying to disassemble quantum info flow into less weird terms.