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.
The 'state' of the coin, is not "the flat side of the coin exposed"; that is merely what an observer happens to see. The question is, what is the actual state of the coin itself, independent of any observation, that induces the multiple observers to see, whatever it is that they see?
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.
Do the "two flat sides" exist simultaneously? Are they, in any sense, diametrically the opposite of each other?
Robert McEachern
yes, they both exist as a part of the pattern of all existing things.
They are back to back faces .Separated by internal coin material. So not exactly / precisely opposite like different faces occupying the exact same space, which is not possible.
One observation product outcome state is generated from sensory input from the face exposed to that observer ,the other observation product likewise generated from the face exposed to the other observer.
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.
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
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.
Robert McEachern
Different measurement options can be used. Such as orientation of Stern Gerlach apparatus. So though there can only be one outcome state, an individual particle, before detection/ 'measurement' has the potential to produce different outcome states corresponding to the orientation of apparatus used. True, once the detection is made the outcome can only be what it is found to be, there is no alternative to 'seen this way' anymore.
I think we agree there is something very wrong with quantum physics. I have spent my time considering the kind of metaphysics needed to understand reality as it exists and reality as it is measured and observed. Which are not the same. You seem focused on information theory providing a solution . What were you trying to show with the astronauts and coin?
Different measurement options can be used.
True. But, in some circumstances, it is a very bad idea, to ever actually use them; because, unfortunately, there are common circumstances, in the real world, for which, it has been proven (by Shannon) that doing so, will inevitably cause frequent, gross errors, in the "measurement outcomes." In other words, all such measurements will be garbage.
'measurement' has the potential to produce different outcome states corresponding to the orientation of apparatus used
True. But many of those 'measurements' are guaranteed to be garbage; by which, I mean, specifically, that the 'measurements' imply that something is 'true', even though it is actually known to be 'false', a priori.
I have spent my time considering the kind of metaphysics needed to understand reality as it exists and reality as it is measured and observed.
It is time for you to seriously consider the metaphysical fact, that trying to understand Reality, by deducing valid conclusions, from measurements indicating that 'what is true' is actually 'false', is an exercise in futility. Everyone, including you, must first learn how to avoid ever making any such totally misleading 'measurements.' And the only known way to do that, is to employ the astounding, mind-boogling, breathtaking method discovered by Shannon; avoid ever making any 'measurements' at all!!!! - do something else entirely - something that is guaranteed to eliminate all the garbage (bit errors) from the "observation outcomes.' The 'Measurement Problem' will simply cease to exist, the very instant, that one ceases to ever make or employ another 'measurement!'
What were you trying to show with the astronauts and coin?
That is the situation involved in every Bell Test. Every Bell Test, in effect, is trying to 'measure' the true state, of dirty, worn-down 'coins', that are frequently being observed from a nearly edge-on angle. It is impossible to correctly 'determine', the state, under such circumstances. All the supposedly 'weird' correlations, are entirely caused by all the resulting garbage 'measurement outcomes.' That is not an idle, metaphysical speculation. It is a proven, reproducible fact, in the classical realm. In the classical realm, it is known, a priori, what the 'true' state is, because the objects being measured, were created in a known state. But the frequent, garbage measurements of those objects, nonetheless, yield the completely opposite state! When all those, easily identified, garbage measurements (bit errors) are eliminated from the subsequent correlation analysis, the 'weird', 'quantum' correlations vanish.
Garbage in, garbage out: that is "Quantum Reality."
Robert McEachern Thank you for that comprehensive reply. I know where you are coming from.
Re metaphysical speculation. I 'd argue its more than speculation,. There is hard evidence ;
I'd argue its more than speculation
So would I.
But I would further argue, that the reason philosophers and physicists alike, have all failed to comprehend the true nature of reality, is because they all have assumed that the entire physical world (except perhaps for conscious beings), must be behaving physically, in response to any "observation products" or "Laws of Nature", rather than behaving symbolically.
But that assumption appears to be incorrect - not just for conscious beings, but even for elementary particles!
Because Shannon discovered that even inanimate objects, can be made to behave much less chaotically and much more deterministically, if they behave symbolically. And Mother Nature appears to have discovered that same principle of operation, eons before Shannon ever did.
But most interesting of all, Shannon realized that the symbolic "alphabet", that must be used to generate any truly-deterministic cause and effect behaviors, is an "alphabet" consisting entirely of "White Noise." - one of the very things that causes the "Measurement Problem." Fighting fire, with fire:
Pure Order, emerging from Pure Chaos! Who would have guessed?
Georgina Woodward
On absorbing EM radiation: Photoreceptors (biological)show chemical changes.Photocells (inorganic) show change in electrical resistance.
In GR eventhought in empty space there is always energy which fill all the space with negative pressure. So space , time and energy have mathematical nature and empirical realities.
I can proove it as follows:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector wave-vector (duality wave-corpuscle)
Split the duality wave-corpuscle in two dualities:
4-vector momentum= universal constant times 4-vector identity
4-vector wave-vector= universal constant times 4-vector identity
What is 4-vector identity?:
4-vector identity= (inertial time times celerity of light, inertial time times speed of corpuscle)
What is inertial time ?:
Inertial time=Inertia of the corpuscle/universal constant
What is inertia of the corpuscle ?:
Inertia of the corspucle= Energie of the corpuscle/square speed of light
Don't think that the universal constant in the definition of inertial time is equal to c3/G: it can be different, it can be a new universal constant and gives a 5th dimension for the corpuscle.
The way that vision and cameras work ,there has to transmission of the stimuli, which lead to production of seen light from material object source to observer device or organism. That means there is an intermediate stage, where the stimuli exist in the physical environment unseen prior to detection. By stimuli here I'm referring to light' quanta.'
123 what do you find insightful in their comments?