Thanks Dr. Leiter,
Glad I got past the verbal stumbling block, and have made sense of things. It's not the color of the measurement, but how the measurement is colored by the act of measuring. Great how you have married that with QED.
A worthwhile idea indeed. Incredible it is, but quite credible at the same time. And worthy of the extra time taken to understand it.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Dear Uncle Al, Stephan, Georgina, Tejinder, Cristi, Amrit, and Anonymous,
I would like to draw your attention to the summary of comments between myself and Jonathan in regard to the observer-participant MC-QED formalism", which are presented below. Since many of you have been skeptical about the ideas
present in my essay it would be helpful to me if we could we have critical group discussion on these comments.
Thanks for your interest and I am looking forward to hearing more from all of you.
Dr. Darryl Leiter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT 1. Dear Jonathan,
You commented that: You seem to move directly from the microscale to the macroscopic observer, however, without any attention to what is between, and according to decoherence theory (DT) that's where all the fun is! The whole transition from Quantum to Classical behavior merges because although decoherence is swift, it is not immediate. And DT asserts that the wavefunction does not simply collapse, but rather gets spread out through entangling interactions, and with the larger environment.
My answer to your comment is as follows:
WHY MC-QED IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH INCLUDES A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.
It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an "environment" associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.
This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.
Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT 2. Dear Jonathan,
(JONATHAN QUESTION) When you are talking about Measurement Color, this is an an attempt to quantify the fact that the process of making a Measurement will Color what we measure, because the observer is also acting as a participant. This statement is true even if both the observer and observed are sub-atomic particles. Therefore you are apparently asserting that it is possible to accomplish quantifying measurement's effect by imposing an Abelian gauge symmetry, associated with this observer-participant aspect of measurements, upon the structure of QED. Is this correct?
(DJL ANSWER) Congratulation! You have got the idea exactly right!
(JONATHAN QUESTION) That is; by figuring in how each measurement will color what is measured, and applying this rule to every microscale interaction, you are able to alter or expand QED.
(DJL ANSWER: Yes this is correct! In MC-QED I have mathematically used the word "Measurement Color" in as an extension of the concept of color is used in the Standard Model to denote the different kinds of quantum particle forces. I am extending the QED formalism by using an additonal Abelian microscopic quantum particle field operator has an integer name which I call its MEASUREMENT COLOR to impose and operator type of "observer-participation" onto the field theoretic formalism. In the Standard Model the Abelian observer-participant symmetry of Measurement Color can be used in addition to the non-Abelian SU3 x SU2 x U1 symmetries.
(JONATHAN QUESTION): And you have extended QED in such a way that by adding in the coloration of measurement, you derive a theory that is explicitly causal, or reveals the directionality of time.Am I getting closer to understanding what you are talking about?
(DJL ANSWER): Yes! The impostion of the observer-participant Measurement Color operator symmetry, onto both the electron-positron and the photon operator fields in QED, leads to the MC-QED formalism which has the form of a non-local quantum field theory is C, P, and CP invatiant but spontaneosly violates the T symmetry. The resulant violation of the CPT theorem implias that the photon carries the causal arrow of time. This observer-particpant formulation of quantum electrodynamics has the potential to open the door to finding the connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. In this way we may be able to find a connection between our minds and the "mind of the universe".
What could be more incredible!
---------------------------------------------------
COMMENT 3: Jonathan replies,
Glad I got past the verbal stumbling block, and have made sense of things. It's not the color of the measurement, but how the measurement is colored by the act of measuring. Great how you have married that with QED.
A worthwhile idea indeed. Incredible it is, but quite credible at the same time. And worthy of the extra time taken to understand it
Hello again,
Since Dr. Leiter has seen fit to use my questions and comments as examples, I am taking a moment to highlight facts I feel are essential to understanding his work. As it turns out, MC-QED relates strongly to the ideas I'll be presenting at FFP10, which I will summarize to facilitate this discussion. I am presenting a common basis for thermodynamic entropy and quantum non-locality (abstract attached).
Energy in all its forms is motive, by nature. It moves, acts, propagates, oscillates, expands, or disperses. If energy is concentrated in a locality, it tends to spread and be shared. The energy in molecules of a gas (for example) is shared or spread among the various microstates which are individual positional and energetic states a given molecule might occupy. While it is matter, every particle, atom, or molecule is also still energy and on the microscale wave-particle duality/equivalence plays a major role in its behavior. Remember that waves are spread out, by nature, while particles are localized.
Decoherence theory asserts that the wavefunction associated with particle doesn't simply collapse, but is instead spread out into (or transferred to) the environment or shared by interactions with other particles. In the latter scenario, each interaction results in entanglement between the individual entities which have interacted - forming a web of entanglement out of which classical behavior emerges. It would seem that it's this piece MC-QED more effectively models, by regarding each measurement though interaction as an observer-participant relationship.
If we follow where the energy goes, in any system, we can accurately determine both the thermodynamic and quantum mechanical arrow of time. In Dr. Leiter's work, he shows it is the photon which carries the arrow of time. And this comes out directly from adding terms to quantify how measurement is colored by the relationship of the observer to the object, when each particle, atom, or molecule is viewed as a probe which 'measures' other quantum entities through interactions.
Hopefully this little side trip sheds some light on his topic.
All the Best,
JonathanAttachment #1: Dickau1.pdf
Hello dear Dr Darryl Jay Leiter,
Nice to know you .
It's very very very relevant .I liked a lot .
You say
"In this way we may be able to find a connection between our minds and the "mind of the universe".
We see the whole in all ,and the hope in this line time ....
What could be more incredible! indeed the light becomes mass in time evolution ,what more beautiful than our future Universal sphere .we wera at the begining ,we are at this moment and we shall be ....fortunaly .We are catalyzers of this uniqueness .The light becomes mass ,it's the creation ....
Thanks for your essay so spiritual ,and so deep ,and pragmatic about our limits .A pleasure to read .
Best regards
Steve
Dear Darryl Jay Leiter,
I have responded to your post on my essay.
I also noticed above that Uncle Al states:
"Elegantly derived physics fails to ab initio predict weak interactions' empirical parity violations."
Uncle Al, the theory outlined in my essay DOES predict chiral asymmetry.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Hi Jonathan,
You stated that:
"Decoherence theory asserts that the wavefunction associated with particle doesn't simply collapse, but is instead spread out into (or transferred to) the environment or shared by interactions with other particles. In the latter scenario, each interaction results in entanglement between the individual entities which have interacted - forming a web of entanglement out of which classical behavior emerges. It would seem that it's this piece MC-QED more effectively models, by regarding each measurement though interaction as an observer-participant relationship".
I want to clarify your comment futher by pointing out that:
MC-QED DIFFERS FROM QED IN THAT IT IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH IMPLIES THE EFFECTS OF A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.
It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an "environment" associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.
This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.
Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.
Thanks for your interest and good luck in FFP10
Dr. Darryl Leiter
Dear Darryll,
Thanks for bringing my attention to your discussions. One thing that bothers me is the absence of any reference to the many worlds interpretation [MWI]. Decoherence, without many worlds, cannot explain quantum measurement, because while decoherence destroys interference, it preserves superpositions, since it works within the framework of standard linear quantum theory. MWI, by virtue of branching of the Universe, allows us to be in only one of those superpositions. Thus decoherence and MWI must work together. If MWI is not invoked, then one is compelled to consider a radical modification of quantum mechanics.
I would request your opinion on the above. Thanks,
Tejinder
Thanks Dr. Leiter,
I appreciate the clarification. Nice how the forward motion of time just falls out of the theory. Thinking I know the answer to Tejinder's question, I'm curious to see how you'll answer.
Jonathan
Darryl
I found your essay very interesting and there is much merit in what you are developing. With such a radical proposal you may be encountering some unnecessary and artificial limits because of deficiencies in conventional logic and mathematics - which is the theme of my essay.
Dear Tejinder,
YOU ASKED:
"Thanks for bringing my attention to your discussions. One thing that bothers me is the absence of any reference to the many worlds interpretation [MWI]. Decoherence, without many worlds, cannot explain quantum measurement, because while decoherence destroys interference, it preserves superpositions, since it works within the framework of standard linear quantum theory. MWI, by virtue of branching of the Universe, allows us to be in only one of those superpositions. Thus decoherence and MWI must work together. If MWI is not invoked, then one is compelled to consider a radical modification of quantum mechanics".
MY ANSWER:
MC-QED DIFFERS FROM QED IN THAT IT IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH IMPLIES THE EFFECTS OF A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.
It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an "environment" associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.
This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.
Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.
I hope that this answers your question.
Best wishes,
Darryl
Dear Jonathan,
The answer to Tejinder's question is:
MC-QED DIFFERS FROM QED IN THAT IT IMPLIES AN INTRINSICALLY TIME REVERSAL VIOLATING DECOHERENCE PROCESS WHICH IMPLIES THE EFFECTS OF A WAVE-FUNCTION COLLAPSE.
It has been shown [Leiter, D., (2009), On the Origin of the Classical and Quantum Electrodynamic Arrows of Time, ArXiv:0902.4667] that for a sufficiently large aggregate of atomic systems (which are described by the bare state component of MC-QED Hamiltonian and assumed to exist in an "environment" associated with the retarded quantum measurement interaction component of the MC-QED Hamiltonian), the net effect of the quantum measurement interaction in MC-QED will generate intrinsically time reversal violating decoherence effects on the reduced density matrix in a manner which can give large aggregates of atomic systems apparently classical properties.
This is in contrast to the time reversal symmetric case of QED where the local quantum decoherence effects only appear to be time irreversible. This occurs in the time symmetric description of decoherence in QED because a local observer does not have access to the entire wave function and, while interference effects appear to be eliminated, individual states have not been projected out.
Hence we conclude that the resolution of the problem of the asymmetry between microscopic quantum objects and macroscopic classical objects inherent in the laws of quantum physics can be found in the MC-QED formalism, because the intrinsically time reversal violating quantum decoherence effects inherent within it imply that MC-QED does not require an independent external complementary classical level of physics obeying strict Macroscopic Realism in order to obtain a physical interpretation.
Darryl
Hello Everyone,
I am re-posting the comments of Edwin Eugene Klingman reply to my essay here
sine they were so interesting and thought provoking.
Further discussion of these points are welcome.
Darryl Leiter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Darryl Jay Leiter,
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I have read your essay and found that Jonathan Dickau's comments were most helpful. The unorthodox use of 'color' combined with QCD may throw some readers off, but Dickau explained it well.
I must confess that the arrow of time has not bothered me much lately, since the attribution of consciousness to a 'field' and the definition of consciousness as "awareness plus volition" almost erases the problem of the time arrow. If volition is the ability to act, it seems self evident that action can only occur going 'forward' in time. A related aspect is that the consciousness field interacts with itself, an inherently non-linear operation. As discussed in my essay, this is compatible with Yang-Mills gauge theory, and is inherently non-Abelian, as explained in detail in "The Chromodynamics War". I haven't given enough thought to the linearization of the consciousness field to be able to say whether an Abelian operator gauge symmetry such as you develop is a reasonable approximation.
I like your treatment, and admire your approach, but I am unable to believe that consciousness 'emerges' from matter or material constructions (glorified Lego blocks).
Avoiding the many-worlds solution, which seems to be inherently non-physical, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be that a particle is 'non-physical', spread over a number of 'possible' physical states until a measurement is made, at which time it somehow 'collapses' into reality, and the multi-state vector settles into the measured state. Although the probability is somewhat deterministic, the behavior before measurement is essentially random. But the true meaning of random is "for no reason at all", since, if there is a reason for a behavior, it is not random.
In a consciousness-field-based theory the unpredictability is not interpreted as random, but as a consequence of the inherent volition, or "free will" built into the field, however small, and however subject to energy constraints.
What are the consequences? The replacement of a meaningless random basis of the universe by a (possibly meaningful but unpredictable) conscious basis of the universe makes it a whole lot easier to swallow the "self-assembly" of the first living cell, an otherwise statistically unlikely event. The net result is that the replacement of an essentially random universe based on a (Yang-Mills gauge theory compatible!) consciousness field allows us to reject an absolutely meaningless (random) universe for a possibly meaningful (conscious) universe.
In fact, the problem becomes, how does the universe emerge from consciousness, not how does consciousness emerge from matter. My essay attempts to outline this approach.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Daryll Jay Leiter,
i read your re-posting of the comment made by Eugene Klingman.
I can only agree to the points, Eugene made here.
For example the concept of randomness in QM. If QM is fundamental, then randomness in ultimate reality is also fundamental. But what could this mean? It would mean nothing, i guess. An absolutely random reality also has it's rules, namely that it can't have any conditions. Besides the fact that in an infinite random universe (multiverse) everything happens, - not only once but infinitely many times, it's absurd for me to believe that pure randomness should be the source of ultimate reality. One could ask where that randomness came from and this last question can't be answered by the statement "it popped up into reality randomly". So there has to be a deeper, more meaningfull ground at the bottom of ultimate reality. Also there has to be a condition that limits the possibilities of this ultimate reality. I think the only condition could be, that ultimate reality can't destroy itself and cannot *not exist*. In this sense ultimate reality is the one-and-only stuff from which all reality flows and i can't imagine another "stuff" that suits more for this than consciousness/awareness.
Dear Stefan
Universe is a whole. Universe is a permanent flow of energy. Nothing is above and not below. Nothing is primary and not secondary. Physical world and observer are belonging to the same universe. Mind see all in parts, but universe is one, better to say, universe is oneness.
yours amrit
Darryl
I do love QBD. Nice essay. I didn't understand your low public score at all so have added a better one! It occurs to me you may not have read the Peter Jackson one 'Perfect Symmetry', in which one strata is a practical experiment on developing brain dynamics, but the real content hiding in plain sight, is of a real answer, also hiding in plain sight! which seems even more in your line. There seem to be very few with hidden depths here, which I think yours also has.
best wishes
Tom
Dear Darryl
Your mind is incredible!
Be well.
Dear DJ Leiter,
I just managed to read a tiny part of your essay and I would like to confirm that you very understandably explained John Wheeler's variant of the old idea that measurement acts back on the measured process. Unfortunately, I did not manage to see the text again after I copied a 74k *pdf file which was not readable to my eXPERT PDF tools. I tried to copy it again and failed to do so. An Adobe Reader told me: file does not begin with %pdf.
While I prefer the quite different approach of restriction of reality to the past, I do not exclude that your approach is as equivalent to mine as are FT and CT to each other. Do not declare me stupid or crazy. If there is not yet any future, then the notions symmetry and asymmetry lost their meaning.
Regards,
Eckard
Dear Dr. Leiter
Thank you for noticing my essay. You work on important topic. I think that QM should be explained without macro-world, in a opposite case QM is not complete.
I please you, that you explain your equations with help of Feynman's »QED: the strange theory of matter and light«.
When you are in CED, can you repeat, I think that there it is not any difference between CED in MC-CED?
You wrote that virtual photons from the electron do not act on itself. Is it not theory of Wheeler and other? But they propose such theory.
Do you know Cramer's interpretation of QM? Where the differences are?
My assumptions were that time only flows is standstill matter and that unsymmetry of weak force is a consequence that W and Z particles have standstill mass, but electron do not have standstill mass. But, who know, as first I should better understand your formulae.
Regards
p.s.
I read your reference but formulas are not numerated.
Some grammar corrections to the above post:
You wrote that virtual photons from the electron do not act on itself. Is it not theory of Wheeler and some attempts of Feynman? Why their theories were not accepted.
Do you know Cramer's interpretation of QM? Where the differences are with your theory?
My assumptions were that time only flows is standstill matter and that asymmetry of weak force is a consequence that W and Z particles have standstill mass, but PHOTONS do not have standstill mass. But, who know, as first I should better understand your formulae.
Dear Dr. Kokosar,
Thank you for your interest in my essay.
You have asked two importatnt key questions, namely:
(1) How is MC-QED different from Wheeler-Feynman Theory and
(2) How does MC-QED relate to Cramer's Tranactional Interpretation of QM
The answers to these questions are as follows:
ANSWER TO QUESTION (1) Even though "self-measurement" is operationally prohibited by the Measurement Color symmetry when it is applied to both the
electron-positron operator fields and the electromagnetic operator fields in MC-QED, the resultant theory is not equivalent to the Wheeler-Feynman theory since the electromagnetic field operators are still dynamic variables and have not been eliminated from the formalism.
ANSWER TO QUESTION (2) Since Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM involves a generalization of the Wheeler-Feynman formalism it is not equivalent to MC-QED by virtue of the answe to question (1). However since
MC-QED is a non-local quantum field theory there may be some nonlocal-in-time phenomena predicted by MC-QED which are similar in nature to those predicted by Cramer's version of QM theory.
Finaly note that a generalization of MC-QED into the a Measurement Color version of the Standard Model is possible. In this more general spontaneous CPT violating formalism, the arrow of time would be carried by a) the massless photon, b) all of the massive vector bosons, and c) the Higgs particle, since they would all have a negative parity under Wigner Time Reversal in this formalism.
Dr. Darryl Leiter
