Uncertainty Principle 8

EPR paradox for entangled particles

Bohr was compelled to modify his understanding of the uncertainty principle after another thought experiment by Einstein. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (see EPR paradox) published an analysis of widely separated entangled particles. Measuring one particle, Einstein realized, would alter the probability distribution of the other, yet here the other particle could not possibly be disturbed. This example led Bohr to revise his understanding of the principle, concluding that the uncertainty was not caused by a direct interaction.

But Einstein came to much more far-reaching conclusions from the same thought experiment. He believed the “natural basic assumption” that a complete description of reality, would have to predict the results of experiments from “locally changing deterministic quantities”, and therefore, would have to include more information than the maximum possible allowed by the uncertainty principle.

In 1964, John Bell showed that this assumption can be falsified, since it would imply a certain inequality between the probabilities of different experiments. Experimental results confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics, ruling out Einstein’s basic assumption that led him to the suggestion of his hidden variables. Ironically this fact is one of the best pieces of evidence supporting Karl Popper’s philosophy of invalidation of a theory by falsification-experiments. That is to say, here Einstein’s “basic assumption” became falsified by experiments based on Bell’s inequalities.

While it is possible to assume that quantum mechanical predictions are due to nonlocal, hidden variables, and in fact David Bohm invented such a formulation, this resolution is not satisfactory to the vast majority of physicists. The question of whether a random outcome is predetermined by a nonlocal theory can be philosophical, and it can be potentially intractable. If the hidden variables are not constrained, they could just be a list of random digits that are used to produce the measurement outcomes.

— Wikipedia on Uncertainty principle

2017.01.18 Wednesday ACHK

Zooming out

In this morning’s dream, I had seen an ultra zooming out of the universe, where in the end the universe became a particle of a super-universe.

Perhaps the afterlife (or near-death experience) is like this kind of bizarre feeling.

— Me@2011.08.17 

It is a fractal.

— Me@2011.08.22

Note: This kind of feeling is unhealthy, since it is induced by eating too little food.

— Me@2017.01.09

Several months ago, I had another this kind of super-feeling dream, in which I could get a time traveling feeling.

— Me@2011.08.17 

2017.01.14 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

注定外傳 2.3.3

Can it be Otherwise? 2.3.3

對於未來之事,究竟注定與否,並不會指引到你,如何做決定。世事「必然」與否,對你的日常生活,不會構成影響。

彷彿是「神的旨意」一樣 — 即使有「神的旨意」,它並不能指引你,去做最佳的決定。

(問:為什麼呢?

如果知道「神的旨意」,而我又跟著「神的旨意」去行事的話,那不就是「最佳的決定」嗎?)

你試想想,你怎樣可以知道,「神的旨意」是什麼呢?

(問:如果有神明存在,神明可能透過我的靈感,去指引我。)

那樣,當你有靈機一觸的感覺時,你怎樣可能知道,那是真正的靈感(神的指示)、魔鬼的誤導、自己的創意,還是隨機的幻覺呢?

(問:如果有道理的,那就可能是「神的旨意」。

如果那些道理十分深刻,深刻到在自己在一般狀態下,也很難想到的,那就極有可能是「神的旨意」。

相反,那個所謂「靈感」,其實指示著我去做壞事,那就應視為「魔鬼的誤導」。)

在靈感有道理時,你怎樣知道,那是來自「神的指示」,還是「自己創意」呢?

依照你的講法,你是根據那個靈感想法,有沒有道理,去決定是否附諸實行,而不是那個靈感想法本身,是不是「神的旨意」;因為,你並不會在毋須任何判斷的情況下,就知道那個靈感,是不是「神的旨意」。

或者說,到頭來,你也是要根據「有沒有道理」這個原則,去判別一個想法,是不是「神的旨意」。

如果沒有「神的旨意」,你就要靠自己,判斷是非明白,決定行事策略。如果有「神的旨意」,你也要靠自己,判斷哪些意念想法,真的是「神的旨意」,應該跟隨執行。

— Me@2016-12-30 03:37:35 PM

2017.01.01 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK