The Quantum Reality Paradox

Existent and non-existent are one.

See: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Is-True-Reality-the-Immaterial-Influencing-the-Material

One what?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist thus showing that a hidden variable model of QM could possibly be contextual, thus not obeying the premises of the Kochen-Specker Theorem. The definition of noncontextuality given in the reference The Kochen-Specker Theorem is :

«If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.»

Let's take a macroscopic spinning object like a pencil with a central spinning axis. It can have a clockwise or anticlockwise sense of rotation when viewed from its top.

Let's define what I call the «relative sense of rotation». Instead of refering to the topview of the pencil for the sense of rotation, we will refer to an observer's Z axis of reference making an angle with the spinning axis of the pencil. We will measure the sense of rotation relative to that axis. In that case, its value, clockwise or anticlockwise, depends upon the angle between the spinning axis of the pencil and the Z axis. Rotate suffisantly the Z axis towards or away from the pencil, as could be done with an astronaut in a weightlessness state, and you change the «relative sense of rotation» of the pencil from clockwise to anticlockwise or from anticlockwise to clockwise.

The measured sense of rotation here is a «contextual» value of the observable I called the «relative sense of rotation». We deal with a real observable with contextuality. I therefore see no reason why hidden variables models in QM should be presumed to be non-contextual. The key of the matter should lie in the three dimensional spatial behavior «perceived» by the measuring apparatus of the quantum phenomenon or particle under study. No «magic» there.

Dear Bertrand,

Could you possibly try a bit harder to write understandable English? You mystifyingly wrote: "Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist..." All observations made with real eyes are real because they are seen with real eyes. You do not need to see if any abstract context could exist, the fact that you are really looking at a real plethora of real surfaces automatically provides all the context you will need.

Glad to have been of health,

Joe Fisher, Realist

You are right. «Real observable» should be replaced with something like «an observable taken from a classical physics context». Sorry for the confusion between the word «real» and the intended idea of giving a «realist» example!

Joe,

One reality. Where reality is dual. Immaterial wavefunction and material particle. Metaphysical/ subjective and physical/ objective.

Robert,

The one spirit;

Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themself as separate and distinct lifeforms.

See http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php

From Article:

"God's Omniscience?

It was through these interviews that Cabello discovered that Specker wanted to study quantum reality--whether it was indeterministic, as standard quantum theory asserts, or could instead be described by a deterministic hidden-variables theory--in part, to better understand deep religious questions. Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is observed by humans?"

Sum Over Futures

Sum Over Futures (SOF) is the CTMU interpretation of quantum mechanics. In SOF, quantum phenomena are not random (acausal), but obey higher-order causal invariants. These invariants tend to maximize generalized utility as the universe evolves. Langan observes that due to quantum uncertainty,

Chris Langan said:

[T]he last states of a pair of interacting particles are generally insufficient to fully determine their next states. This, of course, raises a question: how are their next states actually determined? What is the source of the extra tie-breaking measure of determinacy required to select their next events ("collapse their wave functions")?[1]

The answer, he writes, is neither "randomness" nor distributed laws of causality, but rather higher-order causation, involving nonrandom temporally-extensive relationships not wholly attributable to distributed laws. In this picture, the universe sums over timelines to extract the utility of possible futures and selects the most utile configurations for actualization. This "sum over futures" is enabled by the Extended Superposition Principle (ESP) under the guidance of the Telic Principle.

Sum over futures involves an atemporal (existing or considered without relation to time) generalization of "process" (from past participle stem of procedure "go forward"), telic recursion (before determining the next state, Reality takes all of the past and future into account and then chooses a particular state on the basis of its own values), through which the universe (Reality) effects on-the-fly (as time passes, in other words, at every moment) maximization of a global (over all of Reality) self-selection parameter (measurement), generalized utility (what the universal Desire hopes to achieve).

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Sum_Over_Futures

The CTMU is based on the premise that not only does life evolve, but the universe does as well. And the collapse of the wave-function plays a fundamental role in its evolution. In other words, it is atemporally communicating between past, present and future in order to maximize a quantifiable self-selection parameter to produce the best outcomes. The Uncertainty Principle states that pairs of properties of particles such as position and momentum cannot be determined simultaneously, this then leads us to the conclusion that reality branches off into many possible futures. This is good news, because if it atemporally communicated a doomed future for mankind it can always retroactively adjust itself for the greater good. It appears that the CTMU is empirical after all.

Further reading on Sum Over Futures: https://warosu.org/sci/thread/6658825

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot have a finite whereabouts.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot contain a finite spirituality. Please think for yourself.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

I wish there was an ignore option for you.

Hi Bertrand

I don't think this is, what contextuality means. Your observation is relative but not contextual. An observer in one direction can share its information with another observer in another direction. If they know their relative location (rotation or distance or whatever), they can agree, that they observed the same thing. This is not possible any more in QM.

A easy introduction to contextuality seems to be in this blog.

Regards

Luca

Hi Luca,

I refered to the following definition of noncontextuality in QM: «If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.» Applying the same definition in classical physics, the sense of rotation relative to the observer is contextual. It has a measurable value that clearly depends on the context, that depends on the observer.

The fact that there is a unique objective reality behind the different measurements made by two observers has nothing to do with the definition of noncontextuality that is given to us in the citation. You may give another definition to noncontextuality and contextuality, but I refered precisely to the above mentioned definition.

Let me reframe clearly the question of noncontextuality and hidden variable models.

With their theorem, Kochen and Specker showed that noncontextual theories that invoke hidden variables cannot explain the outcome of quantum measurements. But it says nothing about the nature, quantum or classical, of contextual measurements.

In classical physics, the sense of rotation relative to the observer or to a measuring apparatus is clearly a contextual property. A rotating object impacting a measuring apparatus will deviate accordingly to this sense of rotation. The «subjective» act of measurement is as important here as the intrinsic rotation of the classical object. So Kochen and Specker and its reference to contextuality in no way exhausts the question of the deterministic or non-deterministic nature of quantum reality.

Let me finish by stating my own opinion on the Bohr-Einstein controversy : as proven and stated repeatedly by modern physicists, Einstein was wrong to refer implicitly to noncontextual hidden variable models but he was quite right is thinking that QM in its current form is incomplete...

Does Commonsense really run counter to Quantum Mechanics?...

http://sciforums.com/threads/does-commonsense-really-run-counter-to-quantum-mechanics.153740/

Thanks for the Kochen and Specker reference. I continue to be amazed at the large number of different approaches to the quantum versus classical dilemma...is reality real?

I tend to like Category Theory as a more general approach to the algebras of either classical reality (parabolic, commuting) without phase coherence or quantum reality (elliptic, noncommuting) with phase coherence. Category Theory includes one more quantum algebra, hyperbolic, that I find especially intriguing.

However, at the root of all of these algebras is the phase coherence of matter and the quantum dilemma and all of these restatements using words like context and Hilbert space and commutation tend to obfuscate the basic notion of the quantum phase coherence of matter.

The missing piece in our quantum dilemma is gravity phase coherence, which is a very much weaker effect than charge, but phase coherence must be somehow just as important for quantum gravity as it is for quantum charge.

One of the pieces that is always missing in quantum phase arguments is the role of quantum phase of gravity with charge. Just because we can ignore gravity phase in much of our classical reality does not mean that gravity phase coherence plays no role in our quantum reality.

In a sense, the hidden variable of quantum charge lies in the nature of quantum gravity, which bonds each particle of matter to the universe as well and therefore to each other as well. Quantum gravity is ever so much weaker than quantum charge that it appears as our classical reality without phase coherence. However, gravity phase coherence is there and is simply hidden by a lack of understanding, not by its absence.

- "Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is observed by humans? " -

First, let us change the word "God" with "Nature" in order to avoid any offense. A simple dialogue follows:

- What if a cat observed the "particle" of the exp? Will the result be changed?

- Of course it would. But no cat is able to observe the "particle" as it does not have the appropriate equipment for this.

- OK. What if another "particle" (e.g. electron, photon) observed our "particle"?

- Hm. This is a good quest, but we consider living creatures as observers and not "particles".

- The equipment of measurement we have used for observation is a living creature?

- What do you mean, the "particle" of exp is always observed by something and this is contextuality?

- YES. In a sense, contextuality, as humans like to say it, is the same thing with "entanglement" because anything has been born by an entanglement procedure in the past. This interconnection of anything with anything in the Universe is one of the causes that weirdness quantum theory seems to have. The other missing part is the duality of the reality we are all living in. We tried to host two realities into one without success.

- Though you went too far for me, can you explain what do you imply?

- Let us suppose that reality is consisted by two (sub-)realities, red(R) and blue(B). These two are inseparable and they both shape our whole reality (R+B). We are able to sense only the R one. So far we have formalized two theories (GR and QM) that are not compatible.

- So what?

- You always wait for a ready solution. Try to get your brain to work. Anyway, What if one theory (GR) is dealing with R part and the other (QM) incorporates both R and B?

- Stop, I think I got you. These two theories would seem incompatible because QM would be like having some "hidden variables" that would be undetectable through GR. Furthermore, whenever these "hidden variables" play a role, by enforcing R to "strange" results, we would discover a new "paradox".

- I think you got the point ...

The dialogue could finish like this:

- OK, I will try to find some more paradoxes.

I would hopping to a different response ...

In the past couple months I've witnessed God a number of times. He is the self-aware reality.