Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli

Back. To quantum physics.

Attention! I don't know English. Google translation. Hobbies are the philosophy of time.

(c) Temperature is related to electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation occurs when an electron moves from a high, to a low orbit. Consequently, the temperature of the body is one, with the rotational energy of the electrons of the atom. Let's consider the differences between thermal, kinetic and potential energy of the body. Kinetic and potential energy is a vector. Temperature, a scalar characteristic. Having energy of motion, and not having a vector, allows rotation. Conclusion: temperature is the rotational energy of the electrons and nucleus of the atom. Vector, is transformed into rotation if the vector is "bound" to a point moving slower than the body. Braking, when sliding, creates a rotation of the atoms in the contact area, creating an increase in temperature at the surface. The result: Sliding down an inclined surface, the potential energy of the bar, is transformed into the thermal energy of the contact molecules. The impact creates interatomic interaction and the transformation of kinetic energy, into thermal energy, occurs throughout the body volume.

Hi Aleksandr,

sorry I wasn't precise enough. I meant that biological entities release energy from food intake, so entropy decreases rather than increasing for those systems. Yet the 'direction' of time is the same.

Hi Georgina, Write a letter to mltsv126@maul.ru

Material neuronal structure in which memory is encoded, physical records such as writings and relics , such as pottery shards are existing things-Now.

I'd agree that consciousness does not create existence. Through action of material bodies and machines directed change happens motivated by conscious will. Also consciousness 'stitches together' the products of our senses, giving us each a relative perspective and limited semblance of the external, observer independent, existing actualization.

But quantum physics found the act of human observation changes the outcome of experiment.

Of course it changes the outcome. But only because:
If a human observer views a coin, floating motionless in space, then the outcome of "calling" the coin (either "heads" or "tails") will always depend on which side of the coin the observer chose to view, and whether or not the observer made an error in their decision, as would frequently occur, whenever a coin happened to be viewed, nearly edge-on.

Robert McEachern
The chosen coin toss protocol limits the outcome states that can be obtained. To either exposed flat side rather than any orientation, as might be obtained if the coin was instead tossed into a bowl of partially supportive jelly. The chosen protocol affects the outcome state ; catch, then palm opened to reveal gives an opposite result to catch flip onto back of opposite hand, reveal. When the catch occurs is important as it stops the change of state process that is happening. Schrödinger's cat too the time of observation matters , as it halts the fate of the cat being bound to the radioactive decay, if it hasn't yet occurred.

Georgina Woodward

The chosen coin toss...

Why would you ever chose to toss the coin, and thereby disturb it, when I specifically requested that you observe it, undisturbed, floating motionless, in (outer) space?

Robert McEachern
Because I'm still not getting to grips with how this new web site works .I did not see your specification. Isn't that yet another protocol but the coin may be objectively (un-measured) in motion or objectively stationary .We know not which. So the time of result sampling may or may not play a part. It can be any way oriented like the coin in jelly. The sampling protocol needs to specify how to decide the outcome state.

Georgina Woodward
The "sampling protocol" is as follows:

Two astronauts, Alice and Bob, are floating in space, on opposite sides of a coin. Relative to each other, all three entities are motionless. So how do Alice and Bob "decide the outcome state?" What is that state?

Robert McEachern
Accepting the 'state' of a coin to be the flat side of the coin exposed when the 'measurement' is taken: Usually the chosen protocol allows only one of the two possible sides to be seen. In your scenario that is not so. If suitably aligned (you mention on opposite sides of the coin, meaning I think each facing the different exposed faces.) There is not one relative measurement outcome state but two. Pertaining to the two observers. As the characterization of the absolute object is being limited by only considering which of the sides is exposed. Both are individually correct about the state of the coin as seen from their own viewpoint.
You have given a good illustration of why the state of an object is not applicable when there is not a singular, relative viewpoint.

Robert McEachern
Robert, I think it is partially to do with the language we use. By the state of the coin itself , i think you are referring to the condition of the coin, in which the coin exists. I'll say, imagining it to be real, it is an existing object made of metal, with two flat sides, an edge, an inside, that can be oriented in many ways relative to other objects . It, the coin object, is not any relative perception of it. Relative perceptions are limited observation products. Outcome state refers to the result obtained, which when dealing with coins is usually heads or tails observed. Which isn't the coin itself but more like a score to the red or blue team.

i just want to say something about 3 d cartesian coordinates used for mapping, Necessarily they map what is observed to be, from a re al or imagined viewpoint. i.e. They map observation products from a relative perspective.

Georgina Woodward

Do the "two flat sides" exist simultaneously? Are they, in any sense, diametrically the opposite of each other?

Georgina Woodward

Sounds like the very epitome of a quantum superposition:
"Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured"...

Except for the very inconvenient truth that, in Reality, a coin continues "to be in multiple states at the same time..." even after it has been measured...

If the two astronauts had video cameras mounted on their helmets, transmitting video images to each other, they would both see the entire superposition, continuously, without it ever undergoing "collapse", into just one state or the other...

But how can such coins possibly exist at all? After all, the entire physics world has assured everyone, that superpositions like that, only occur in the quantum realm, not the classical realm.

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark", in Copenhagen in particular, and in every other misbegotten interpretation of Quantum Reality.

Robert McEachern
Robert you write "Except for the very inconvenient truth that, in Reality, a coin continues "to be in multiple states at the same time..." even after it has been measured..." That' s where the use of language and ambiguity comes in. The outcome isn't the independently existing object, It's a measurement, or observation, relative product. A product of ' observed or measured this way" and the object's absolute existence as it is.
Yes the astronauts could be shown what the other is seeing. There is no one correct view.
There is never collapse just a change of what is being considered to usually a singular relative observation product .
The absolute material coin has to exist , to be the source of sensory information from which all possible observation products could be generated. An astronaut could be situated anywhere in proximity to the coin and generate the observation product generated with that viewpoint.
Yes, absolute objective reality is missing from both Relativity and quantum theory.

Georgina Woodward

There is no one correct view.

But there must be, whenever a system emerges, that requires that fact to be true - as in any system that requires one correct password, or decryption key, to gain access into the system.

That is what Shannon's Information Theory is ultimately concerned with, and that is exactly what has always been missing from all the theories of physics.

Any system that already knows, exactly what the "one correct view" must be, in order for the system to ever work correctly (deterministically), never has to bother, with trying to deduce how it should behave, from its own "observation products."

Robert McEachern
There is one correct view when seen only one way, so only that view is allowed. But there might have been a different view. Just as valid under those alternative circumstances instead. If talking about particles substitute 'detection/'measurement' instead of observation of a macroscopic object. How the detection is conducted is like "seen this way'. It gives the singular, relative, corresponding state outcome for that particle

Georgina Woodward

Indeed. But there can never actually be "a different view", for an elementary particle - precisely because it only has itself to use, as the sole guide, for any "seen this way" - the one and only way - that it just happens to be. Thus, any deterministic "detection", can only consist of detecting a "perfect" match for itself, precisely because, it has nothing at all, other than itself, to ever compare against anything else. That is why the concept of "identical particles" plays such an important role, in quantum theory. And that is why understanding the detection ability/behavior, and its associated "Uncertainty", in detecting any small difference between an "identical" twin versus a "fraternal" twin, is critical to any understanding of Reality.

Under exactly what circumstances, can a particle "detect" a small difference, between an "identical" twin and a "fraternal" twin? That is ultimately what Uncertainty in quantum theory, is all about. And that is exactly the problem that Shannon's Information Theory solved, 75 years ago. And that is exactly what the Physics World, has never understood.