Dear Neil,
Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.
Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.
Who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.
Love,
Sridattadev.
"3A is b2 and at 3B is a2... still a superposition and not a mixture..."
Your dedication to the subject of many worlds and "DI" is challenging the way we interpret the underlying changes of this exsistance, maybe even the notion of a Sixth sense? Your dream, for me, was a hint to the illusive behaviour of the untouchable realm.
Thank you.
Dear Neil,
I read with great interest your essay, your ideas are very interesting. The fact if decoherence resolves the measurement problem it is something that have not reach a conclusive solution, your ideas clarify some of my doubts. On the other hand I don't agree with your position that we have to admit that our capacity of understanding is limited. The limits are in the models we use to understand reality, particularly the limitation of our models nowadays resides mainly on the fact that our models are based on classical logic. On my essay I try to explain how changing our logic, we can find new explanations to the measurement problem and other phenomena. I would like to hear your comments.
Regards,
J. Benavides
The information per the theory of this article was very concise in my opinion. I have studied these theories for many years and I agree with most of the theories of this hypothesis. Yet, the technical applications seem to be incomprehensible to most that may read this. The entire concept seems very feasible. I myself agree with most everything inclusive in this essay.
Dear Neil Bates
You opened important topic about decoherence. I suggest you that you use also Feynman's book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". I think that think will be still clearer.
About computability of quantum randomness - in this contest it is also Zenil's essay: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/867
Here is also Zeilinger objective randomness. The both claims similarly as you.
But in essay from year ago I claimed a little differently:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/571
I was too late for contest of this year. Here is my essay, which is not published here:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf
Regards.
Ben, thanks for commenting. I think some readers will be confused by the idea of theories being part of a hypothesis, but I see that makes sense in this context. The theories I use are the existing elements and original perspectives of quantum mechanics, which inform my hypothesis that decoherence does not produce the effects claimed by adherents of the decoherence interpretation of why collapse "seems to occur" in the macroscopic regime. BTW I note for any readers, I did not introduce novel concepts. I just applied existing ones in a creative way to test an idea that many may have been considered not directly falsifiable (compare to Bell inequalities.)
Thanks for hat tip on being concise with the theory end. I do admit that the average layman, even an informed one, may have trouble following my description of the workings of the experimental tests. I have to explain how the output statistics follow from the superposed quantum states, and I don't think there's a simple, breezy popularized way to make the exact point. Here's what writers of these Essays face as a challenge: unlike most popularizers, we are presenting (mostly) novel arguments, not just explanations of existing science. Yet we are asked to aim for a wide readership. Fine, I did my best to straddle those conflicting requirements (as well as follow the size limit, and I could well have used a few thousand extra characters.) It does make for some "engineering trade-offs" in the product.
Feasible: indeed, very easy to do TE2 and not that hard to do TE3. I hope someone will follow through (I don't have wherewithal to do so.)
Dear Sir,
We have gone through your excellent article. While agreeing with your views, we think that there could be simpler explanations of the phenomenon.
We agree that: "Attempts at understanding should not be fallacious or driven by desperation to make the world conform to our prejudices or convenience". But unfortunately, there is a rush for recognition that makes increasing number of young talents desperately trying to project "the world conform to our (their) prejudices or convenience".
You have correctly said: "Consider a graphical simulation, with one state represented as red and the other as green: after decoherence, we imagine a messy and complex pattern with various shades of red, orange, yellow, green - but both colors are always part of the display. Why then wouldn't such a combination be part of our observations as well? Disorder shouldn't make superpositions "inaccessible" in all possible ways." While we agree with your views on decoherence, we have a different explanation for the phenomenon.
You have said: "Nor should it matter to my experience right now of an event, whether I can recover information such as the phase setting on C. Furthermore, why should phase change that happen in the past or future, affect my current experience of exclusivity in measurement? Is there some "anticipation" of that?" The answer to your question lies in the nature of our measurement system and the nature of superposition. We will give an alternative explanation for these phenomena.
Superposition of states and Entanglement are grossly misreported phenomena. Measurement is a process of comparison between similars. Thus the result of measurement is always a scalar quantity. Measurement processes for particles and fields are different, just like measurement processes for space, time and space-time are different. The result of measurement is the description of the state of the object measured at a designated instant. The state of the object was not the same before nor will be the same after the measurement as it continues to evolve in time independent of our observation or measurement. We freeze the description of the state at a designated instant and call it the result of measurement at subsequent times. All other unknown states before and after the instant of measurement together are called superposition of states.
It is said that "micro-sized particles millions of miles apart respond to one another or communicate as if they were local to each other, whereby the speed of light does not apply", whereas in reality, it tapers off after a few kilometers. We have shown in different threads in this forum (below the essays of Mr. Weckbach and Mr. Castel, etc.) that it is not a mysterious phenomenon at all and it has macro equivalents. When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states), but not both at the same time in all locations (as is generally described). After measurement, the answer is conclusively known (so-called wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).
We hold the field as the absolute entity and define particles are locally confined fields. The nature of confinement differentiates between particles and fields (field densities) and matter and energy. They are not interchangeable, but are inseparable conjugates, though the proportion of each in a coupling may vary. This variation determines its charge. We do not accept Coulomb's law. We have a different explanation for the apparent attraction of opposite charges and the apparent repulsion of similar charges. We explain the double slit experiment and decoherence as follows:
There is a river at the entrance of our home town, where a bridge was built in ancient times by erecting 19 big stone pillars in the water. This created 18 equidistant channels through which water flowed. Sometimes we went swimming and playfully pushed water through the channels. Sometimes we will push water in one channel. Sometimes standing behind the pillar; we would push water through both channels. At other times we would stand still and watch the waves flowing naturally. We would watch the waves and see the interference pattern. When the water flowed naturally, the waves behaved like the bands in the double slit experiment when unobserved. When we pushed the water through one channel, it showed no interference (the small natural waves were subdued). When we pushed water through both channels (slits), the interference pattern was also absent.
The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is the periodicity of wave formation and the interference by the retarded wave. When waves flowed naturally, the periodicity of wave generation remained almost constant. The amplitude and wavelength also remained constant. The waves retarded after hitting the shore line in equal time and velocity. Since the waves propagated through different channels generated different but similar waves, the interference pattern was visible. When we pushed water, it injected additional energy. This changed the amplitude, wavelength and periodicity of the waves. Thus, whether we pushed through one channel or both, the energetic wave alone was visible and the weak interference pattern was subdued. In the case of double slit experiment, something similar happens. The detection device directs the photon or electron to a particular slit. This requires additional energy. This changes the amplitude, wavelength and periodicity of the waves. Thus, we see the result differently from the unobserved state. The confuser in your experiment affects in a similar way.
One reason why the scientists still cling to the theory in spite of such simple explanations is the nature of mathematics for interference experiment. For calculating the probability distribution of detection of the electron or the photon over the surface of the screen, one cannot take the probabilities of the passage through the slits, multiply with the probabilities of detection at the screen conditional on passage through either slit, and sum over the contributions of the two slits. There is an additional so-called interference term in the correct expression for the probability. This term depends on both wave components that pass through the slit. Thus, the experimental result is interpreted to show that the correct description of the electron or the photon in terms of quantum wave-functions is one in which the wave passes through both slits. The quantum state of the electron or the photon is not given by a wave that passes through the upper slit or a wave that passes through the lower slit, not even a probabilistic measure of ignorance. Thus, the scientists are forced to accept the superposition principle and wave-particle duality to explain interference.
Contrary to popular perception, the general mathematical superposition principle holding for linear differential equations has nothing to do with physical reality, as actual physical states and their evolution is supposed to be uniquely defined by corresponding initial conditions. These initial conditions characterize individual solutions of Schrödinger equation: they correspond to different properties of a physical system, some of them being conserved during the whole evolution. Yet, initial conditions alone cannot fully explain the time evolution of a particle or for that matter, anything. The uncertainty principle has to be brought in here and the other environmental effects are also to be considered. Without this there will be no meaning for evolution as evolution implies change and change is not restricted to redistribution of the same thing over and over again. Such statements like: "quantum mechanics including superposition rules have been experimentally verified" are absolutely wrong. All tests hitherto have concerned only consequences following from the Schrödinger equation and not the stand alone equation.
Mathematically, we know that the area of a rectangle and a parallelogram on the same base is equal. Since area implies two dimensional field, we have to use second order terms. If the length is a units and breadth is b units, then the area will be a + b squared units, which is a^2 + b^2 + 2ab. This can be geometrically proved. But when the rectangle is shifted to make it a parallelogram, the projection of b along y axis is reduced. Thus, we have to bring in an additional factor of cos θ to bring parity. This shows that b in a rectangle and b in a parallelogram over the same base are different, even though distance-wise both have the same value. In the diffraction experiment, this difference becomes dominant, because traveling time for the waves after the deflection in both ways are different. There is no mystery in this case. The difference in relative path lengths causes the different patterns.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Mr. Bates, Your essay is a most impressive argument about coherence, a must-read for the math, science, and engineering community. The
dream ending is priceless. It is rare to find classic literary writing in the
work of a scientist.
Sincerely, A.C. Braxton
Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.
Sir,
We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.
"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.
Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.
Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.
Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.
A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.
Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.
In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.
The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.
The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.
Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.
The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.
Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.
In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.
Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".
Regards,
Basudeba.
Hi.
I see now first that you have the same topic as me, decoherence and coherence. I will study the essay with interest.
Have you any idea why the maths are different? I have also some solution to that.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/938
Ulla.