Dear Luca Valeri , Your quantum sheep and your deep reasoning needs a deep mind. However, the fundamental must be simple and understandable; it must save our thinking, taking into account the limitations of the human resource. In the "skyscraper", about which I write in my essay you live on the top floor, because you do not want to descend to what is the basis of life. Before establishing the intricacies of quantum states with living phenomena, one must know the essence of quantum mechanics. New Cartesian Physics, which I discovered, argues that the cause of quantum phenomena in the existence of the pressure of the universe, which overcomes the space, to begin fluctuations. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, serves as the foundation for the birth of life. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay, however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

"In this essay I try to defend a positivist view, where properties only exist relative to an observer." I disagree because this would imply that the universe as a whole does not have properties.

"The laws of in Newtonian mechanics are invariant under space translation. The position changes under this transformation. So absolute positions are not observable (=do not exist?) if the world is governed by Newtons laws." I would mention that a measurement of position essentially consists on comparing the absolute positions of the object being measured and the measurement apparatus.

"Whereas for some the observation of the Brownian motion is evidence of the existence of atoms others would let only sense impressions be real." But both viewpoints are not equivalent. The scientist has built an atomic model of matter can use it to make predictions, whereas those rejecting the atomic model cannot do predictions.

"All measurements or observations have to be transformed into these sense impressions in order to be understood." There is no reason for that. I can program a machine to do something when the measurement of certain property exceed a certain threshold. Bohr's appeal to classical concepts to explain quantum measurements does have anything to do with sense impressions, but it is related to the need to break the superposition principle.

The laws of Newton are not only valid for closed systems.

Now we go to describe the color of sheeps using a quantum wavefunction formalism. There are a problem, a sheep is an open system and its quantum state is not described by any wavefunction. Also the quantum evolution of sheeps is not unitary. This non-unitary evolution is what destroy a superposition of the kind "white and black sheep". This is a physical process guided by interactions and it has nothing to do with eliminating all the non observable quantities by some procedure of averaging. You can track all the possible observables (you can track the entire universe) and still the quantum state of sheeps is not represented by any wavefunction.

"Without proof I make the following statement: There always exists a special symmetric state of the environment, such that a system can be described as closed system." I guess by closed you really mean isolated. Well, this statement cannot be correct, at any instant systems interact with the environment. There systems and dynamical regimes for which this interaction with the environment is so small that it can be neglected from computations, but there are systems and regimes where this is not true. I can now imagine dissipative structures, which only exist because the system is open.

Decoherence is an irreversible processes, but it is not needed to solve the time-arrow problem.

Fundamental properties of fundamental particles like mass do not require a Lorenz invariant environment. Not only those properties are well defined without such a environment, but forcing Lorenz invariance on non-Lorenz invariant systems gives well-known problems such as infinite bare masses for fundamental particles.

    Hi Juan

    Thanks for your comments and for carefully reading my essay. I'm really glad and thankful for that. So I have the chance to clarify things.

    You say: "...this would imply that the universe as a whole does not have properties."

    Not necessarily. The question here is a bit, what concepts do we use, to describe the universe. Usually we do it by imaging the universe consisting of things, that we are able to describe as isolated systems (atoms, electrons, photons etc.) But you are right, there is a problem from a positivist view to talk about the size of the universe or about the wavefunction of the universe.

    You say: "I would mention that a measurement of position essentially consists on comparing the absolute positions of the object being measured and the measurement apparatus."

    I'm not so sure what you intend to say here by saying "absolute positions". I did not what to go to much into the interesting topic of how measure distances. I belief this more complicated as one might think. I just wanted to refer to the dispute between Leibniz and Newton about the existence of the absolute space.

    You say: "But both viewpoints are not equivalent."

    You are right. They are not. I just wanted to say, that if you ask different people what an observation or and observational evidence is, you would get different answers, and that it would not be sure, if the people ever could agree. Only if they would have a common realistic theory of how the information from a thing outside me enters my senses, they could agree.

    You say: "...Bohr's appeal to classical concepts to explain quantum measurements does have anything to do with sense impressions, but it is related to the need to break the superposition principle."

    Maybe I should not have said sense impression. What I intended to say was, that at the end, we have to be able to read out some numbers or marks from a measurement apparatus and we have to be able to describe how a machine is build etc. This is done by a classical language. I do not think , that the fact that we are bound to classical concepts is "related to the need to break the superposition principle." But you are right, the reference to Bohr creates more confusion than clarity.

    You say: "The laws of Newton are not only valid for closed systems."

    Yes and no. But I will take more time to reply to this comment and do it later.

    You say: "There are a problem, a sheep is an open system and its quantum state is not described by any wavefunction."

    I new it: I should have been more explicit! The sheep has really no other properties than having the two colors. The colors should stand for properties like spin or location. I really only use the sheep, so we can imagine something concrete in the box with specific properties.

    You say: "I guess by closed you really mean isolated. Well, this statement cannot be correct, at any instant systems interact with the environment."

    I should have been more clear here, because I think it is an important point. If you have two systems in quantum mechanics and a Hamiltonian describing an interaction between the two systems, the two systems usually get entangled. So there is an exchange of information, between the two systems. And the two systems cannot be describe as two separated closed system. If one wants to describe the dynamic of only one subsystem, it would have been described as open system with a non unitary dynamic. But, and here comes the important point: there might exist a state in system 2, such that the two system do not get entangled independently of the state of system 1. (I gave an example in the essay, where this is in fact the case: when the field of flower is in the state |p1,p2>). So the dynamics of system 1 can be described by a unitary dynamic as if it was a closed or isolated system, although it is not.

    I belief, but this certainly has to be worked out more clearly, that you need closed systems to define physical properties. For instance in Newtonian mechanics. You have to have first a force free system. Here you can define, what you mean by distances and velocity. Only then you can the describe, what happens, when forces are applied to the system (ie. you have an open system). This corresponds I think a bit to Poincaré's role of conventions.

    You say: "Decoherence is an irreversible processes, but it is not needed to solve the time-arrow problem."

    You might be right here. The arrow of time is certainly a difficult problem.

    You say: "Fundamental properties of fundamental particles like mass do not require a Lorenz invariant environment. ..."

    Well, this also has to be worked out more clearly. Certainly we can only only define masses of a particle as in a way fundamental property of the particle that does not change and is independent of the perspective, if the laws are Lorenz invariant. Then mass is a Casimir operator and commutes with all other observables. So to conclude in a way, that the environment is also in Lorenz invariant state is not directly clear and needs to be shown. In quantum field theories in a way I imagine the vacuum state could be the environment of the free electron and there the vacuum is Lorenz invariant.

    Thanks again for you comment,

    Luca

    Hi Lucas,

    as I see it analogies and thought experiments can be used to try to understand,and convey to others, what is happening or might be happening; by providing easily visualized or conceptualized substitutes. Rather than being helpful I find your sheep and flowers add to the confusion.

    Already the colour that the sheep can be seen to be is a sensory product. It is not a property of the sheep itself. The use of everyday language does not distinguish qualia from independently existing characteristics of objects. To find the 'difference between the sheep unseen it would be more sensible to carry out chemical analysis of their wool, as there will be correlation between difference in pigmentation and amount of light reflected from the sheep, affecting the appearance. IE this sheep is one that will appear to be black, or will appear to be white. While there could hypothetically be correlation between diet preference and wool pigmentation without having established that, flower preference is not measurement of seen colour difference.

    An important consideration is whether the product of a measurement or experiment is generated by the procedure or represents something independent of it. In the macroscopic experiment, chemical analysis of the wool is a test of something existing independently of the visual observation of the sheep's wool. In a quantum experiment where detected colour is imparted by the procedure, the colour determination can not be said to be independently existing prior to its production. If the sheep is to be dyed pink or blue by the procedure, one can not say prior to the dying this sheep will be seen to be blue, or this sheep will be seen to be pink.

    I can see from your abstract that you are playing 'the devil's advocate'. I think that rather than supporting a positive view as you set out to do, you have presented an argument that detracts from it by over complicating matters. The above is meant as food for thought. I'm sorry if it seems harsh. Better to get feedback that can be considered and may be addressed, rather than being ignored.

    Kind regards Georgina

      Dear Georgina,

      I appreciate your critical feedback. And it might be true, that I overcomplicated things. I chose the simple and totally fictional model, that what a sheep is eating depends on its color, because that allowed to me to ask, what would change in our knowledge about the color, if the interactions changes. It is a petty, that this prevented you to discuss the interesting consequences of my interpretation:

      1. relative to the observational setting, the phases are not observable. (the density matrix is reduced).

      2. This reduction of the density matrix is not subjective but objective.

      3. The object measurement system must be separable from the environment in order to give a successful measurement in contrast to the decoherence interpretation.

      4. The EPR reality criteria has to be given up

      5. The fundamental concepts and thus the laws depend on the measurement setting

      I do not play the 'devils advocate'. I really belief some sort of positivism has to be accepted. But this is not without problem. I belief that how we usually think about reality is a realistic one. I suspect from several posts of yours, that you endorse some kind of disturbance view on quantum mechanics. But that view is still a realistic one. I try to explore, how we could imagine the world be giving up some of our realistic prejudice, without becoming totally solipsistic.

      I did not wanted to enter the discussion what qualias are. Certainly the color white has two meanings. As subjective impression and as objective property of the sheep. I discuss only the second one. Maybe you find the time to reread the essay to discuss the more interesting points, that the essay aimed at.

      Best Regards,

      Luca

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      Hi Lucas,

      The differentiation of realist and positivist is fundamental as per the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

      To tried to get a background on realism and positivism. I did a Google search on realism and positivism. Oh my God! It when on and on, and I was not really capable of understanding a lot of it. I did however scan your essay. Here are my thoughts:

      1. You know a lot more of QM than I do.

      2. Is the moon there when you are not looking?

      Realist: Yes

      Positivist: No

      Neo Positivist: Maybe

      Niels Bohr: It depends

      Albert Einstein: How can you even ask such a question!

      Quantum Mechanic: Objective states do not exist prior to an act of measurement.

      Mad Max: Realism, Positivism, Gravitism... who cares! it is just more information.

      Sheep: Baaaa

      Flowers: ?

      Thanks for your essay. It made me think and opened a world I did not know existed.

      Don Limuti

        Hi Luca, sorry for misspelling your name earlier.

        here's a question: "The number of white or black flowers eaten by the sheep per time unit tells us, how many black or white sheep are in the box. Suppose at beginning there where only white sheep. With time passing the sheep change color randomly" luca. But it was earlier established that white sheep prefer white flowers. Isn't it going to happen that the sheep will eat all of the white flowers, reinforcing their white colour. Leaving black flowers. So then out of necessity eventually the black will be eaten -giving fluctuation of wool shade back and forth between white and black not random change?

        Your experiment could be done with red factor canaries. Red factor canaries fed red factor food are red. However, red factor canaries that are fed ordinary canary food become yellow. So there can be two different populations yellow red factor and red red factor. They could be trained using positive or negative reinforcement to prefer one or the other kind of food. If the food is also treated to make the kinds distinguishable. The colour change isn't quick but would take time for the birds to molt and grow new feathers. The appearance of the bird informs of its diet but is also due to its diet.

        Kind regards Georgina

        Don,

        the question is not specific enough. It could refer to the independently existing material object. Or the sensory product.

          Hi Georgina,

          Again you are missing the point here. White sheep do not change their color in reality. Nor do they prefer black sheep to make families. Ehrenfest's Urn model is just a model, that shows, that if you are in a low entropy state, with great probability you will end up in a mixed state. This is the second law of thermodynamics. The point I want to make, is that if you introduce an intermediate level, the conceptual richness increases. New structures emerges, that have not been possible in the low entropy state.

          Now if the fundamental concepts depend on the possibility of being observed. If the microstructure depends on the macrostructures: could it be that the laws change depending on the conceptual capacity to describe these microstructures?

          Luca

          Hi Don,

          Thanks, you found the way to my essay.

          What does moon mean, if it would not be observable at all? Would you still claim it exists?

          Luca

          Luca, even if not observable a prediction could be made of the moon's material existence from observed tidal forces. It does not need to be seen to have gravitational effect on the oceans.

          If it has gravitational effects on the oceans it is observable. But here lies the core of the realism positivism debate. If only coarse grained effects are operational accessible, does the moon have other hidden properties?

            Luca,

            I do think you are making an important point early on about the different way circumstances can be interpreted. Also you make good points about what can't be observed and that measurements are relative and not absolute. Mentioning the complication that implies.

            If one is only interested in flower consumption (measurement protocol) and correlated weight, for meat production then wool colour is irrelevant. The numbers matter.

            Being realistic a question is, whether to increase meat production low weight sheep should be eliminated or black flowers. Should the purchaser buy only white sheep or is the colour irrelevant. Should the farm technician feed only white flowers or is their colour irrelevant.

            The measurements can now be used together with a hypothesis to make a decision about what is happening. 1, Is sheep genetics, linked to wool colour, (predetermined) causal, or 2, is diet and behaviour (unfolding over the process/(measurement through diet in your analogy) causal. It isn't a matter of opinion. Hypothesis: weight will change if diet is altered to the opposite choice. Method: Remove all the ones that have been found to be light weight (by diet choice). Then feed the heavies black flowers and the separated light weights white flowers.

            The classical physics realist notion is more like the first case,"We have seen in the classical sheep that only the difference of the amounts of flowers is sensitive to the color of the sheep" Luca. The quantum mechanical more like the second. "The sheep flower system evolves..." Luca. Though because of the connection made between colour of wool and weight it would be necessary for the sheep to be able to change colour when their weight alters. Which is why I made the suggestion of canaries with the potential to change colour, Flamingos would work too for the same reason.

            Typo p6 "black whole",

            You do talk about how what is considered fundamental can change as conceptual capabilities grow. A good point. Quantum physics provides a good example of something considered by many to be fundamental but being a relatively recent development in physics.

            I think the question of does the moon have other hidden properties is a bit like does the tree that falls when no one is listening make a sound? It is a question of whether independent qualities of something or some happening are being considered, beables, or attributes or associated facts gleaned from the realtionship of the observer with sources of information, including effects on the environment, measurables.

            Are there vibrations from meteor impacts on the moon surface? I'd say yes and that could be detected with sensors on the surface. Impact craters tell us there are impacts, so the vibration of the impacts is a realistic assumption that can be made into measurables with the appropriate equipment and mission to place it on the surface. I'd say other physics is happening to the beables on the moon, such as due to solar radiation, that could also be investigated with apparatus allowing collection of measurables.

            Like hide and seek, whether something is hidden depends on whether you are looking for it, firstly. As the word hidden is associated with seeking. Secondly do we have the capability to conceptualize its existence, and initiate seeking? There are differences between potential knowns, 'hidden' yet find-able, or potentially find-able with development of the technology, or the desire to seek, not find-able because it is unknown and unconsidered, so there is no search and not find-able because it isn't there to be found. Like the realist presumed hidden cause of a result, when that result is only actualized by the measurement process.

            Hi Prof Luca Valeri

            wonderful OP...."As a realist I imagine the world consisting of fundamental things with properties, that are independent of whether they are observed or not. In this essay I try to defend a positivist view, where properties only exist relative to an observer. The observer must not be a human being. I will explore a toy model, where a sheep is in a box and I want to find out what color the sheep has by giving the sheep different flowers to eat."....Nice work ...

            I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

            By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

            Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

            -No Isotropy

            -No Homogeneity

            -No Space-time continuum

            -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

            -No singularities

            -No collisions between bodies

            -No blackholes

            -No warm holes

            -No Bigbang

            -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

            -Non-empty Universe

            -No imaginary or negative time axis

            -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

            -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

            -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

            -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

            -No many mini Bigbangs

            -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

            -No Dark energy

            -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

            -No Multi-verses

            Here:

            -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

            -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

            -All bodies dynamically moving

            -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

            -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

            -Single Universe no baby universes

            -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

            -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

            -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

            -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

            -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

            -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

            -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

            -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

            - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

            http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

            I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

            Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

            In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

            I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

            Best

            =snp

              Hi snp,

              I won't read your essay, because you did not read mine but just post in every blog the same comment with a citation of the abstract. Seems your are not interested in a discussion.

              Also I don't belief you will ever read this reply.

              Luca

              Luca,

              Interesting, fundamental and nicely written. But who let the sheep out of the box and into the field!?

              I confess at times, (and as it's getting late and I've been on the Bollinger), counting your sheep I often lost touch, as Georgina seemed to. I think I finally grasped it all. I still think Bohr's and the positive formulation flawed. I agree NO retro causality, but I then prefer Bells choice to the Lamb (or mutton?); A different starter, then classical beables with scattered fermions, finished with an Eton mess.

              You didn't claim you understood my essay so I'll explain. We know polarizers change polarization. So yes, ONE quality is retained, which is 'which pole? N/S (A,B) but the observer dictates the rest, including by field angle rotation (as Zielingers work confirms). Pairs then have Maxwell's 'curl' AND (orthogonally) linear momenta, changing inversely by cos latitude, so by rotational velocity (right the way through)! imparted from the field fermions by absorption /emission. A,B can then 'flip' polarity. Now follow that carefully through, including the 3 rotational axes and two orthogonal measurement angles then CosLat again at the photomultiplier. You'll find all Beables and no non-locality needed to reproduce the interpretational mess at the end.

              I use logic & geometry not algebra or maths (despite top score of the Wigner essays!) so the ontological mechanism does need a formulation check. You seem good at that. Any chance of help? Declan Traill's short essay gives the computer code & Cos^2 plot.

              So do properties ONLY exist relatively to observers? I suggest Yes & No. All do but many not determinable as changed by observation.

              Nice description, argument and writing generally. Well done. Expect a score boost. I hope you have time to study mine in more detail and discuss.

              Very best

              Peter

                Luca,

                This is a well-written essay that would be a nice chapter in an intro to quantum book. The "fundamental " for this essay seems to be quantum mechanics. Only problem with this essay is a style and editing choice, I feel the theme of this essay is buried. "The rules of quantum mechanics are the rules of the universe and now I will show you an example of why that is possible." Or similar statement would be a nice place to start and end this essay. The wonderful thing about fundamental is that it is what it is and a statement like I suggested is as good as any.

                Hope you do well,

                Jeff Schmitz

                  Dear Peter,

                  Thanks for reading and replying. I certainly will read again more carefully your essay, as I also want to apply my interpretation to EPR.

                  As you ask: "So do properties ONLY exist relatively to observers?" Well I don't know.

                  The great simplicity of the known fundamental laws suggests that nature is fundamentally simple, mathematical.

                  As religious person and as a atheist I find that not satisfying. So I came to belief that the math is brought in by the relation of things, by their interactions. By simple operations of putting one ruler after the other and counting how many I need to come from one point to another.

                  In my essay I discuss what the consequences could be if properties are defined by such simple operations and under what condition such operations can successfully define these properties. I find that the consequences of such a thinking could be quiet fantastic. Without trying a bit to hard to find the underlying reality, that explains these quantum phenomena by introducing any ad hoc mechanism that does the job.

                  You'll hear soon from me.

                  Luca

                  Dear Jeff,

                  Thanks for the "well written". To write in English is very hard for me.

                  For the editing choice you're certainly right. The essay is surely very dense and touches to many topics.

                  Now after reading also some other essays I found that I expect the reader (that does not know me) to trust me to much and to follow me in my thoughts. That is to much to expect.

                  Also I trust the reader to make the right connections to debates in the history of science or in the discussions of quantum mechanics. Next time I surely will guide the reader much more and not let him alone in the jungle of connections.

                  Best regards,

                  Luca