Uncertainty Question

[foodchain]

Could the uncertainty of a hydrogen atom be directly related to its superposition? Such as a measurement performed at any giving time would reveal data with of course a limitation being the uncertainty principal, so would that in a sort equal to superposition of the hydrogen atom being a constant?

[ecoli]

do you mean the position of it's electron, perchance? or just the whole atom in some random space?

[swansont]

I don't understand the question. As ecoli asked, what uncertainty? Superposition refers to two states, e.g. being in a superposition means that the system is in a state that's described by a linear combination of two states in a different basis. So "its superposition" doesn't make sense.

[fredrik]

Could the uncertainty of a hydrogen atom be directly related to its superposition? Such as a measurement performed at any giving time would reveal data with of course a limitation being the uncertainty principal, so would that in a sort equal to superposition of the hydrogen atom being a constant?

 

Foodchain, considering your record of questions on QM, have you read Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics?

 

Relational Quantum Mechanics

"I suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of nature (the "measurement problem") could derive from the use of an incorrect notion, as the unease with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of observer-independent time. I suggest that this incorrect notion is the notion of observer-independent state of a system (or observer-independent values of physical quantities). I reformulate the problem of the "interpretation of quantum mechanics" as the problem of deriving the formalism from a few simple physical postulates. I consider a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of information theory. All systems are assumed to be equivalent, there is no observer-observed distinction, and the theory describes only the information that systems have about each other; nevertheless, the theory is complete."

-- http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002

 

A large part of that paper is very conceptual and you can read and probably apprecaite a large part of without math! I'd recommend it.

 

Rovelli argues that the notion of "absolute physical state" is behind alot of confusion. Instead he argues that the fundamental thing is relative states, which is a relation between observer and observed. Moreover he argues that there are no absolute relations either.

 

I don't agree with all his reasoning in that paper, but for a starter it's a very good reading, and his emphasis on the relative nature of things is excellent IMO. But I don't share his conclusive reasoning that QM is "complete" or satisfactory but I think that's beyond the first point of relational notions he makes.

 

He doesn't really, like the abstract suggests, "derive QM formalisms". But he suggests perhaps at best a possible route towards such a goal.

 

/Fredrik

[foodchain]

I have no idea what an atoms geometry is at any giving moment. Is it static, I think the only way we could know would be to observe it, which I think we have with gold or something, not sure btw on that.

 

Second its stated that certain entities in the natural world, like the electron or whatever, or whatever it is that’s observed to constitute an atom can exist in superposition, it also states that measurement of such can only be as good as the uncertainty principal will allow, so if we make a measurement on something quantum for instance I am to believe that best I can ever hope to do in regards to exactness is up to the uncertainty principal. Yet this item that is being measured can exist in a superposition of states, so that would mean that I can only discern what state I am observing it in up to the uncertainty principal in detail? So that’s why I wondered if it was superposition that is causing the uncertainty principal to exist, and as such is constant with anything quantum.

 

Thanks for the article fredrik, I will read it sometime.

[swansont]

When you observe a system, you collapse the wave function. It can no longer be in a superposition of states of that particular observable variable.

 

e.g. I take an alkali atom and put in a superposition of the two hyperfine states. But if I measure the atom, I will only find it in one state.

[foodchain]

When you observe a system, you collapse the wave function. It can no longer be in a superposition of states of that particular observable variable.

 

e.g. I take an alkali atom and put in a superposition of the two hyperfine states. But if I measure the atom, I will only find it in one state.

 

Right and a state I assume is to correspond to a physical observable right, such as position or momentum, but a person or whatever that is performing a measurement I am to understand cannot be 100% accurate as to know exact position or momentum at the same time for a giving quantum thing. Why is this outside of superposition? Is it to say that simply to observe something, or make a measurement of it, on any particular state the ability to discern exactness in regards to the others fail, if its not superposition then what is that that allows a quantum object to escape having both its position and momentum known exactly at the same time? The only other thing I can think off is that when a measurement is made, its really being made on an ensemble then of quantum things? Such as to get a BEC the environment has to be in a certain controlled format, yet even with that is it not uncertainty or superposition that makes absolute zero currently impossible to obtain?

[swansont]

Right and a state I assume is to correspond to a physical observable right, such as position or momentum, but a person or whatever that is performing a measurement I am to understand cannot be 100% accurate as to know exact position or momentum at the same time for a giving quantum thing. Why is this outside of superposition? Is it to say that simply to observe something, or make a measurement of it, on any particular state the ability to discern exactness in regards to the others fail, if its not superposition then what is that that allows a quantum object to escape having both its position and momentum known exactly at the same time? The only other thing I can think off is that when a measurement is made, its really being made on an ensemble then of quantum things? Such as to get a BEC the environment has to be in a certain controlled format, yet even with that is it not uncertainty or superposition that makes absolute zero currently impossible to obtain?

 

Because the thing being measured is a wave — it's "smeared out"

 

The uncertainty principle is a fundamental limit, and is not related to superposition of states. It's a consequence of the wave nature of things, and the relationship of (in this example) position and momentum.

[foodchain]

Because the thing being measured is a wave — it's "smeared out"

 

The uncertainty principle is a fundamental limit, and is not related to superposition of states. It's a consequence of the wave nature of things, and the relationship of (in this example) position and momentum.

 

okay, last attempt.

 

theoretical quantum computer. Humans want to take advantage of superposition to do calculations, because it can happen all at once or whatever. when a measurement is to be made for useful data, we are making a measurement on the state of the system, or some state at any rate, but to make the measurement ultimately brings up the uncertainty principal. now you say because its a wave, i thought the wavefunction was to describe superposition?

[swansont]

okay, last attempt.

 

theoretical quantum computer. Humans want to take advantage of superposition to do calculations, because it can happen all at once or whatever. when a measurement is to be made for useful data, we are making a measurement on the state of the system, or some state at any rate, but to make the measurement ultimately brings up the uncertainty principal. now you say because its a wave, i thought the wavefunction was to describe superposition?

 

The measurements done in computing are observable eigenstates of the system. When you do the measurement, the atom is either in state A or state B, and you get that answer. The uncertainty principle doesn't come into play.

[foodchain]

Okay, thank you.

[fredrik]

There is an online preview of the very first chapter in Dirac's classic "The principles of Quantum mechanics" called

 

"The principle of superposition"

-- http://books.google.se/books?id=XehUpGiM6FIC&pg=PA1&dq=principles+of+quantum+mechanics&psp=1&source=gbs_toc_s&cad=1&sig=ACfU3U3u6e4LsWZuzUEz57qh4_1VtxMGSg

 

If that doesn't work just google "principles of quantum mechanics" and it's probably the first hit you get from google books.

 

The point is that the first introductory chapter is in plain english, except in the last pages where he introduces the bra and ket notation.

 

/Fredrik

Edited June 26, 2008 by fredrik

[foodchain]

There is an online preview of the very first chapter in Dirac's classic "The principles of Quantum mechanics" called

 

"The principle of superposition"

-- http://books.google.se/books?id=XehUpGiM6FIC&pg=PA1&dq=principles+of+quantum+mechanics&psp=1&source=gbs_toc_s&cad=1&sig=ACfU3U3u6e4LsWZuzUEz57qh4_1VtxMGSg

 

If that doesn't work just google "principles of quantum mechanics" and it's probably the first hit you get from google books.

 

The point is that the first introductory chapter is in plain english, except in the last pages where he introduces the bra and ket notation.

 

/Fredrik

 

I just don’t understand where uncertainty, superposition and measurement happen to differentiate. I don’t buy the observer effect for the simple concept that we are in relation to the quantum world more of the same that makes up the universe right? I mean i know that we are different then say some slab of concrete but none the less we would still just be environment to any quantum system right? if some quantum system is always in a superposition of possible states to some extent, and this is universal for say anything quantum, then my big leap is to conclude that quantum systems are in a perpetual state of measurement, with variance.

 

So to me I don’t see uncertainty being an observer effect unless you mean that from a math point, such as its because of the math used the uncertainty principal exists, or for superposition or what not. If the uncertainty principal is a fundamental constant of nature in regards to nature on that scale, why does it differ from superposition if a state has to be described by such in conjunction with the uncertainty principal?

 

I mean if experiments can be set up to aid in controlling superposition or its effects such as with a quantum computer, does this not then apply always to the uncertainty principal also being effected by such? I know uncertainty principal applies to measurement or observation, and all of such constantly, but why or how else could this exist outside of superposition which to me basically denotes the nature of how quantum things behave? Such as a photon has possible polarizations right, that can be changed according to say interference, will this would be a constant in regards to quantum interference regardless of source correct? So then I would think that interference or measurement cannot ever go past uncertainty or remove superposition as a constant of something quantum.

[fredrik]

Here are some more pesonal coments...

 

I wonder if you are confusing different kinds of uncertainty?

 

There is the uncertainty that is due to that quantum mehanics is indeterministic on event level, and that determinism is recovered at probability level.

 

So in that sense one can talk about the uncertainty even in a classical probability distribution. Say like in thermodynamics. But this has nothing to do with QM.

 

But then we have the heisenbergs uncertainty principle which is a different story. It states a RELATION between how accurate we can konw the answer to two different questions at a time.

 

IF we measure x and p, then HUP does not say that we can not konw x exactly, or p exactly. IT says that we can not know both exactly at the same time. This is a different type of uncertainty! This is an uncertainty relation, between different informations.

 

It specifically gives a relation between the standard deviations of the probability distributions of x and p. This originates from a postulated relation between two measurement operators. IE. the two measures are related and this relation constrains their independence.

 

I just don’t understand where uncertainty, superposition and measurement happen to differentiate. I don’t buy the observer effect for the simple concept that we are in relation to the quantum world more of the same that makes up the universe right? I mean i know that we are different then say some slab of concrete but none the less we would still just be environment to any quantum system right? if some quantum system is always in a superposition of possible states to some extent, and this is universal for say anything quantum, then my big leap is to conclude that quantum systems are in a perpetual state of measurement, with variance.

 

One of the core ideas of QM, is that the state of a system, as observed by an observer can be represented as a vector or wavefunction in a hilbert vector space.

 

Why this is so, is not fundamentally clear beyond the fact that it's a postulate of QM and QM has been proven a extremely succesful theory.

 

As per rovelli's relational QM interpretation, this wavefunction is to be thought of as a relation between the observer and observed. Therefore there is no clear observer invariant notion of state of the system. The state of a system has meaning only relative to an observer.

 

But of course, in a certain sense, the different views of the different observers must be "consistent". Just like the different time and lenght measurements made in different reference frames in relativity while differing, are consistent. The consistency is recovered by the theory.

 

This is how I would try to illustrate the meaning of superposition.

 

Classicall if an observer doesn't know exatly if the state of the system relative to himeself is A or B, but the observer knows that it's either or.

 

Then the state(S) of the system can be said to be

 

S = A or B

 

Where the or operator simply means that we make a classical superposition of the probability distributions A or B, and renormalise.

 

P(A or B) ~ P(A) + P(B)

 

But this only makes sense of A and B are statistically independent.

 

In QM, this rules doesn' work, or rather the operator or, does have different properties.

 

In QM one can also think in terms of

 

S = A or B, but here or is what's called the superposition and it does not have the same rule for combining probabilities.

 

And of course, in a measurement. we get NEW information which may collapse A or B to A.

 

A or B -> A

 

The exact logic WHY the superposition rule is here, is something that IMO is not yet satisfactory understood. Books on QM does not explain this, and hardly even argue in favour it in any deeper sense. It's postulated. And the support is experimental.

 

I am however working on trying to find a way to show how the logic of QM, is emergent as a result of self-organisation but I'm not successful yet. But there are I think reasons to think that there is a deepper reason for the superposition principle, that can be understood in terms of fitness of the observer. This will remotely connect to your interests of biology, since there may be game theoric angles to this, where one can argue that the quantum logic are expected to develop in a world of random logic. There are several papers that find that quantum games are in a certain sense more efficient than classical games.

 

But as far as I know, noone has satisfactory "explained" this. The standard procedure is to postulate it. And then the motivation is experimental support for the constructed theory.

 

So IMO the superposition principle is the OR operator of adding information. The question is the why it has the properties it has. IE what is the logic of the quantum logic?

 

Not sure if that helps though? I think sometimes it's easier to understand something, once you realize that noone else really understands 100% it either

 

To understand what QM says and does, and learn howto use it is one thing.

 

But to understand why this is plausible is much harder!

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

So to me I don’t see uncertainty being an observer effect

 

The uncertainty principle is not an observer effect. That's a common misconception.

[foodchain]

Here are some more pesonal coments...

 

I wonder if you are confusing different kinds of uncertainty?

 

There is the uncertainty that is due to that quantum mehanics is indeterministic on event level, and that determinism is recovered at probability level.

 

So in that sense one can talk about the uncertainty even in a classical probability distribution. Say like in thermodynamics. But this has nothing to do with QM.

 

But then we have the heisenbergs uncertainty principle which is a different story. It states a RELATION between how accurate we can konw the answer to two different questions at a time.

 

IF we measure x and p, then HUP does not say that we can not konw x exactly, or p exactly. IT says that we can not know both exactly at the same time. This is a different type of uncertainty! This is an uncertainty relation, between different informations.

 

It specifically gives a relation between the standard deviations of the probability distributions of x and p. This originates from a postulated relation between two measurement operators. IE. the two measures are related and this relation constrains their independence.

 

 

 

One of the core ideas of QM, is that the state of a system, as observed by an observer can be represented as a vector or wavefunction in a hilbert vector space.

 

Why this is so, is not fundamentally clear beyond the fact that it's a postulate of QM and QM has been proven a extremely succesful theory.

 

As per rovelli's relational QM interpretation, this wavefunction is to be thought of as a relation between the observer and observed. Therefore there is no clear observer invariant notion of state of the system. The state of a system has meaning only relative to an observer.

 

But of course, in a certain sense, the different views of the different observers must be "consistent". Just like the different time and lenght measurements made in different reference frames in relativity while differing, are consistent. The consistency is recovered by the theory.

 

This is how I would try to illustrate the meaning of superposition.

 

Classicall if an observer doesn't know exatly if the state of the system relative to himeself is A or B, but the observer knows that it's either or.

 

Then the state(S) of the system can be said to be

 

S = A or B

 

Where the or operator simply means that we make a classical superposition of the probability distributions A or B, and renormalise.

 

P(A or B) ~ P(A) + P(B)

 

But this only makes sense of A and B are statistically independent.

 

In QM, this rules doesn' work, or rather the operator or, does have different properties.

 

In QM one can also think in terms of

 

S = A or B, but here or is what's called the superposition and it does not have the same rule for combining probabilities.

 

And of course, in a measurement. we get NEW information which may collapse A or B to A.

 

A or B -> A

 

The exact logic WHY the superposition rule is here, is something that IMO is not yet satisfactory understood. Books on QM does not explain this, and hardly even argue in favour it in any deeper sense. It's postulated. And the support is experimental.

 

I am however working on trying to find a way to show how the logic of QM, is emergent as a result of self-organisation but I'm not successful yet. But there are I think reasons to think that there is a deepper reason for the superposition principle, that can be understood in terms of fitness of the observer. This will remotely connect to your interests of biology, since there may be game theoric angles to this, where one can argue that the quantum logic are expected to develop in a world of random logic. There are several papers that find that quantum games are in a certain sense more efficient than classical games.

 

But as far as I know, noone has satisfactory "explained" this. The standard procedure is to postulate it. And then the motivation is experimental support for the constructed theory.

 

So IMO the superposition principle is the OR operator of adding information. The question is the why it has the properties it has. IE what is the logic of the quantum logic?

 

Not sure if that helps though? I think sometimes it's easier to understand something, once you realize that noone else really understands 100% it either

 

To understand what QM says and does, and learn howto use it is one thing.

 

But to understand why this is plausible is much harder!

 

/Fredrik

 

 

I got interested in QM because I got this idea that it could be what is required to understand how life originated. This is why I am so interested in decoherence and einselection for possible aid in chemistry things. To be honest I did not know what QM was really say less then a year ago, I mean I knew it existed just did not know anything about it.

 

Also if I get a part of your post is that the why of uncertainty and superposition or entanglement is really not taking much past being math? Or that to answer my threads main question is in the realm of interpretation overall?

[fredrik]

I got interested in QM because I got this idea that it could be what is required to understand how life originated. This is why I am so interested in decoherence and einselection for possible aid in chemistry things. To be honest I did not know what QM was really say less then a year ago, I mean I knew it existed just did not know anything about it.

 

Also if I get a part of your post is that the why of uncertainty and superposition or entanglement is really not taking much past being math? Or that to answer my threads main question is in the realm of interpretation overall?

 

Most introductory books on QM tend to provide some setting that makes the introduction of QM plausible. But there exists no foolproof deduction of it. If one is looking for that, one is going to face dissapointment. There is no mathematical proof of quantum mechanics.

 

To provide the setting that makes QM plausible depends on where you come from, but traditionally most QM students know all classical mechanics. At minimum newtons mechanics, but often also lagrange and hamiltons formulations. Then the usual motivation is by historical development, photoelectric effects and spectra lines for example. Many such experimental facts, that appear perplexing in a classical mechanics settings. This sure provides the motivation for something new.

 

Then, usually the formalisms is introduced tentatively or axiomatically, and it's show that the new formalism reduces to classical mechanics is the respective limits.

 

But there sure are things that are not really crystal clear. From a pragmatic engineering point, one could argue that why the theory works is not important. But that depends on your perspective.

 

To explain life, I assume you are not satisfied with just natural selection? I guess first it's reduced to molecular biology and chemistry, which reduces to physics which reduces to fundamental laws. Are you seeking to understand the origin of laws? There are several people who are asking questions like what is the logic and origin of physical law.

 

Indeed I think there is some essence of self-organisation that transcends nature at all scales, even down to the notion of physical law.

 

I consider those questions to belong to a domain of foundations of science, logic and some philsopohy, but while the meaning of the question may be a part interpretational I think it's also simply questions which noone can answer yet.

 

If this is what you are looking for, plain QM will not answer them. You need to go beyond that, the foundations of QM, and the foundations of science to refine the questions.

 

/Fredrik

[foodchain]

To explain life, I assume you are not satisfied with just natural selection? I guess first it's reduced to molecular biology and chemistry, which reduces to physics which reduces to fundamental laws. Are you seeking to understand the origin of laws? There are several people who are asking questions like what is the logic and origin of physical law.

 

Indeed I think there is some essence of self-organisation that transcends nature at all scales, even down to the notion of physical law.

 

I consider those questions to belong to a domain of foundations of science, logic and some philsopohy, but while the meaning of the question may be a part interpretational I think it's also simply questions which noone can answer yet.

 

If this is what you are looking for, plain QM will not answer them. You need to go beyond that, the foundations of QM, and the foundations of science to refine the questions.

 

/Fredrik

 

If you don’t mind my shameless speculation plug its not really so much about the evolution of life per say, but its more in regards to just the origin. I think if you can say apply QM in terms of things like decoherence, that such could be used in conjunction possibly to understand origin of life, or that such understanding might be required more heavily to understand how such occurred. Pre-biotic chemistry gave rise to life, in a sense with the environment, so how did this happen? I just don’t see how such a question could be solved without QM, and I think from what I understand that facets of such like decoherence, and again einselection could be useful.

 

The only other ideas I get is that for vision to work, adaptation must be able to work with QM in some regard, that any maybe facets of mutation and related ideas like them occurring or the molecular clock might be do in some small part to variation in however the chemical aspect might be working in a cell or organism, or that its a fault or mutation by reality of how all the molecules are interacting at a QM level.

 

*I got the mutation via QM concept from reading about the no-cloning theorem.

Edited June 27, 2008 by foodchain
*

[fredrik]

If you don’t mind my shameless speculation plug its not really so much about the evolution of life per say, but its more in regards to just the origin. I think if you can say apply QM in terms of things like decoherence, that such could be used in conjunction possibly to understand origin of life, or that such understanding might be required more heavily to understand how such occurred. Pre-biotic chemistry gave rise to life, in a sense with the environment, so how did this happen? I just don’t see how such a question could be solved without QM, and I think from what I understand that facets of such like decoherence, and again einselection could be useful.

 

The only other ideas I get is that for vision to work, adaptation must be able to work with QM in some regard, that any maybe facets of mutation and related ideas like them occurring or the molecular clock might be do in some small part to variation in however the chemical aspect might be working in a cell or organism, or that its a fault or mutation by reality of how all the molecules are interacting at a QM level.

 

*I got the mutation via QM concept from reading about the no-cloning theorem.

 

I think I walked a different path than you. Originally I had little interest in biology, mainly because I considered it an application of chemistry, and later the history repeated itself and I realised that the interesting parts in chemistry are the laws, which is really reducible to the laws of physics. But then I realized that there is fundamental wrong with using such statistical approaches to explain everything. Ie that the observational level is explained in terms of statistics of a higher resolutional microstructure. It is easy to explain something by averaging out degrees of freedom, but that is not how life works! Life doesn't reduce information, life creates new information. It's really the other way that is more interesting. That lead me to recover interest in biology and complex systems.

 

So my idea of understanding the world is not to find the smallest possible componetns and then apply statistics on that to "explain" my observations.

 

Rather there is an element of guessing, that is critical to life as I see it. Life is a game, and all I need to know is what my strategy of playing is, and how this strategy is revised.

 

The way I can understand your questions is to first try to see what it really means that You are asking these questions, and if you are looking for a "possible answer", or if you are trying to find "alll possible answers" and rate them?

 

I think zurek's ideas are interesting but they along can not solve the problem as I see. He sometimes argues that the environment selects local systems. While this from his perspective is correct I think - the question is wrong. The one asking the question is the local observer looking out into the unkonwn - not the giant environment as an observer zooming into an atom in his rear.

 

Or rather I think we need both perspectives! I think particle physics vs cosmology requies two different logics, because normal statistics works different in the large scale.

 

In a particle experiment, environment as an observer really does seem plausible. But turn that around and consider the small system beeing the experimentalist asking a question about his own environment, now that's a challange, because then the construction of the questions themselves are severly constrained!

 

What I'm trying to see is how these two views can be united. The plain decoherence doesn't do this.

 

So I think a large emphasis should be put on the notion of questions. Who is firing the question? We firing a question down deen into an atom, from a fairly controlled environment is one thing, but we firing a question into an object in space, both us and the object, embedded in far less controlled environment is a different thing.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

Most introductory books on QM tend to provide some setting that makes the introduction of QM plausible. But there exists no foolproof deduction of it. If one is looking for that, one is going to face dissapointment. There is no mathematical proof of quantum mechanics.

 

But then, there's no formal mathematical proof of Maxwell's equations or Newton's laws, etc. either. The behavior of nature is deduced from empirical observation, not formal mathematical proof.

 

*I got the mutation via QM concept from reading about the no-cloning theorem.

 

Can you explain the no-cloning theorem, and what this might have to do with mutation or abiogenesis?

[foodchain]

So my idea of understanding the world is not to find the smallest possible componetns and then apply statistics on that to "explain" my observations.

 

Rather there is an element of guessing, that is critical to life as I see it. Life is a game, and all I need to know is what my strategy of playing is, and how this strategy is revised.

 

The way I can understand your questions is to first try to see what it really means that You are asking these questions, and if you are looking for a "possible answer", or if you are trying to find "alll possible answers" and rate them?

 

I think zurek's ideas are interesting but they along can not solve the problem as I see. He sometimes argues that the environment selects local systems. While this from his perspective is correct I think - the question is wrong. The one asking the question is the local observer looking out into the unkonwn - not the giant environment as an observer zooming into an atom in his rear.

 

Or rather I think we need both perspectives! I think particle physics vs cosmology requies two different logics, because normal statistics works different in the large scale.

 

In a particle experiment, environment as an observer really does seem plausible. But turn that around and consider the small system beeing the experimentalist asking a question about his own environment, now that's a challange, because then the construction of the questions themselves are severly constrained!

 

What I'm trying to see is how these two views can be united. The plain decoherence doesn't do this.

 

So I think a large emphasis should be put on the notion of questions. Who is firing the question? We firing a question down deen into an atom, from a fairly controlled environment is one thing, but we firing a question into an object in space, both us and the object, embedded in far less controlled environment is a different thing.

 

/Fredrik

 

Physical laws that govern the universe should transcend human scientific classifications. Maybe a microbe is not a planet, but obviously a star going nova can interfere with both. So to me, I am looking for the basement. Giving what I understand about reality via science, I cannot view such in a context lacking any form of an environment, or a bunch of things interacting with each other I guess would be a more barren description.

 

Simply put I advocate the trusting math as some mechanism that will grant all knowing power to be viewed with serious doubt, really I don’t think you could do that, for you would have to be doing some serious cloning to say see the future for instance, if time exists in such a form anyways as in having a future.

 

So my view of QM basically has it as the base reality of stuff, or the universe. So really I like the MWI, but I think that really MWI might be the future for the universe, constantly. Such as say you have one total universe, for sack of thought, why cant in time such come to represent something like MWI with just one world?

 

So I think of things in the universe and wonder how could QM produce such, would that offer any understanding to how it works, what would QM reveal about biological function, such as how enzymes might function, to really its possible role in the origin of life giving QMs use in chemistry.

 

Decoherence I like because of this. I think it would be neat to say study pointers in relation to application on reaction mechanisms. More so in context with environment. Sadly this really would probably require a quantum computer to have occur really at any decent pace. With that said what is a quantum computer exactly? They have to control so much to get something like a bit to even exist, but when it is up and running what will it be? Could you view something like a quantum computer to be a controlled environment, and have that view actually capable of representing what a quantum computer is?

[fredrik]

But then, there's no formal mathematical proof of Maxwell's equations or Newton's laws, etc. either.

 

Yes, agreed. I didn't mean to suggest that QM is an exception, just to point out that progress of science (or life for what matter) doesn't work like deductive processes, as a statement about the nature of theories.

 

The behavior of nature is deduced from empirical observation, not formal mathematical proof.

 

I for sure agree that the behaviour of nature are not emergent by formal proof or axiomatisations, but the reason I said QM isn't prooved is that I generally disagree on calling scientific progress "deductions" (like mathematical proofs deduce things).

 

My suggested focus on the questions foodchain asked is exactly the process of formulating new questions, and thereby increasing our knowledge. I think of this as a inductive process, where "scientific conclusions" are more like educated guesses based on experience, rather than deductions where the premises are experience.

 

So I agree that QM is induced/suggested (on good grounds indeed) from empirical observations, but not _deduced_ which is stronger. It may seem like nitpicking but I think from the conceptual view there is a important difference.

 

Once that view is accepted, my focus goes to the emergent logic of inductive reasoning (ie educated guessing), where the step to probability distrubutions are not far, like when Jaynes calls probability theory: the logic of science.

 

So to understnad QM, perhaps what we need to understand is the scientific process, which I also think is very parallell to physical processes.

 

That was my point point.

 

/Fredrik

[pioneer]

There is a way to address uncertainty with only one assumption. It has to do with making time a type of potential. The uncertainty affect can be simulated using a camera and motion blur. This is done when the shutter speed is too slow to capture the motion speed. The uncertainty in distance or distance blur, is related to time, with excess time potential left in the photo, creating the uncertainty in distance. This is not an artifact of experimental measurement being to slow. The uncertainty is due to extra time potential inherent with the object.

 

If we change the experiment, adjust the shutter speed to match the motion or time element of the object, we lose the uncertainty and get a sharp picture. The time potential is balanced. If we use the same picture to photograph it twice we will get what appears to be the same object in two places similar to a quantum jump. This is also extra time potential with the shutter reset analogous to the slow shutter speed. We can combine these affects to create uncertainty between quantum states.

 

In terms of chaos and determinism; if we could go from the initial to the final determined state as fast as is theoretically possible it would take x amount of time. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to building a puzzle using the fastest most organized approach. In the real world there will be much more trial and error so it takes longer. Chaos reflects more time potential having to be processed before it will reaches the final state. This can involve both quantum and uncertainty. This directly related to system energy with more energy often allowing more uncertainty.

 

If we look at a photon, we observe wavelength and frequency. The frequency has a time or clock feature. So if we could hypothetically remove the wavelength aspect of energy, from energy, and leave just the frequency aspect to move at C, it would no longer act exactly like a wave, because it would move in a discontinuous way, with wave breaks. In chaotic systems the wave addition is not really symmetrical for long.

 

Statistics implies excess time potential. For example, is we throw a coin it will come up 50/50 head-tails over time. But it will not do this every two tosses continuously. There will be a time delay between reaching that magic 50/50 number even though it is determined to happen.

 

The universe has too much time potential on its hands.

[swansont]

"Time potentials" should be discussed in their own thread, and only there.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32384

[Pete]

Right and a state I assume is to correspond to a physical observable right, such as position or momentum, but a person or whatever that is performing a measurement I am to understand cannot be 100% accurate as to know exact position or momentum at the same time for a giving quantum thing.

No. It is possible to measure both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time with arbitrary precision (but not with exactness). Uncertainty is related to an inherent property of the state itself. A different state will have different values of, say, the uncertainty in position. Uncertainty is determine solely by what state the system is in. It is a statistical quantity. An individual measurement has nothing to do with uncertainty. I.e. you can't reduce the uncertainty in position by using more precise instruments. The only way to reduces uncertainty is to utilize a different quantum state, one for which the position is more localized.

 

Consider a spin-1/2 system which is in a superposition of the spin-up and spin-down states. Even though the spin itself can be measured with exact results (there are only two possible values that can be measured) the uncertainty in the spin is not zero.

 

Pete