Compare results

Within a universe, any two observers can, at least in principle, compare results.

When they compare, they will have consistent results for any observables/measurables.

— Me@2018-02-06 08:48:24 PM

.

being entangled ~ being consistent, with respect to any two observers, when they compare the results

— Me@2018-02-05 10:11:45 PM

.

.

2020.01.04 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Two dimensional time 5.2.3

The first time direction is uncontrollable; the second is controlled by making choices, traveling through different realities. Future is a set of parallel universes.

— Me@2017-12-15 10:59:49 AM

.

The first time direction, which is along the timeline, is uncontrollable, because one can only travel from the past to the future, not the opposite.

The second direction, which is across different timelines, is controlled by making choices, forming different realities.

— Me@2019-12-21 11:03:23 PM

.

.

2019.12.22 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Two dimensional time 5.2.2

time direction ~ direction of change

multiple time directions ~ multiple directions of change

— Me@2019-12-22 04:38:47 PM

.

the first dimension of time ~ direction of change

the second dimension of time ~ direction of change of changes

— Me@2019-12-22 04:46:47 PM

.

.

2019.12.22 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Classical physics

Quantum Mechanics 6

.

As Gene and Sidney Coleman have pointed out, the term “interpretation of quantum mechanics” is a misnomer encouraging its users to generate logical fallacies. Why? It’s because we should always use a theory, or a more accurate, complete, and universal theory, to interpret its special cases, to interpret its approximations, to interpret the limits, and to interpret the phenomena it explains.

However, there’s no language “deeper than quantum mechanics” that could be used to interpret quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, what the “interpretation of quantum mechanics” ends up with is an attempt to find a hypothetical “deeper classical description” underneath the basic wheels and gears of quantum mechanics. But there’s demonstrably none. Instead, what makes sense is an “interpretation of classical physics” in terms of quantum mechanics. And that’s exactly what I am going to focus in this text.

Plan of this blog entry

After a very short summary of the rules of quantum mechanics, I present the widely taught “mathematical limit” based on the smallness of Planck’s constant. However, that doesn’t really fully explain why the world seems classical to us. I will discuss two somewhat different situations which however cover almost every example of a classical logic emerging from the quantum starting point:

  1. Classical coherent fields (e.g. light waves) appearing as a state of many particles (photons)

  2. Decoherence which makes us interpret absorbed particles as point-like objects and which makes generic superpositions of macroscopic objects unfit for well-defined questions about classical facts

— How classical fields, particles emerge from quantum theory

— Lubos Motl

.

There is no interpretation problem for quantum mechanics. Instead, if there is a problem, it should be the interpretation of classical mechanics problem.

— Lubos Motl

— paraphrased

— Me@2011.07.28

.

.

2019.12.14 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Introduction to Differential Equations

llamaz 1 hour ago [-]

I think the calculus of variations might be a better approach to introducing ODEs in first year.

You can show that by generalizing calculus so the values are functions rather than real numbers, then trying to find a max/min using the functional version of \displaystyle{\frac{dy}{dx} = 0}, you end up with an ODE (viz. the Euler-Lagrange equation).

This also motivates Lagrange multipliers which are usually taught around the same time as ODEs. They are similar to the Hamiltonian, which is a synonym for energy and is derived from the Euler-Lagrange equations of a system.

Of course you would brush over most of this mechanics stuff in a single lecture (60 min). But now you’ve motivated ODEs and given the students a reason to solve ODEs with constant coefficients.

— Hacker News

.

.

2019.10.02 Wednesday ACHK

Problem 13.6b

A First Course in String Theory | Topology, 2 | Manifold, 2

.

13.6 Orientifold Op-planes

~~~

In the mathematical disciplines of topology, geometry, and geometric group theory, an orbifold (for “orbit-manifold”) is a generalization of a manifold. It is a topological space (called the underlying space) with an orbifold structure.

The underlying space locally looks like the quotient space of a Euclidean space under the linear action of a finite group.

.

In string theory, the word “orbifold” has a slightly new meaning. For mathematicians, an orbifold is a generalization of the notion of manifold that allows the presence of the points whose neighborhood is diffeomorphic to a quotient of \displaystyle{\mathbf{R}^n} by a finite group, i.e. \displaystyle{\mathbf{R}^n/\Gamma}. In physics, the notion of an orbifold usually describes an object that can be globally written as an orbit space \displaystyle{M/G} where \displaystyle{M} is a manifold (or a theory), and \displaystyle{G} is a group of its isometries (or symmetries) — not necessarily all of them. In string theory, these symmetries do not have to have a geometric interpretation.

— Wikipedia on Orbifold

.

In mathematics, a manifold is a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space near each point. More precisely, each point of an \displaystyle{n}-dimensional manifold has a neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of dimension \displaystyle{n}.

— Wikipedia on Manifold

.

In topology and related branches of mathematics, a topological space may be defined as a set of points, along with a set of neighbourhoods for each point, satisfying a set of axioms relating points and neighbourhoods. The definition of a topological space relies only upon set theory and is the most general notion of a mathematical space that allows for the definition of concepts such as continuity, connectedness, and convergence. Other spaces, such as manifolds and metric spaces, are specializations of topological spaces with extra structures or constraints.

— Wikipedia on Topological space

.

.

2019.09.26 Thursday ACHK

Pointer state, 2

Eigenstates 3.2

.

Microscopically, a state can be definite or indefinite. Even if it is indefinite, the overlapping of superpositions of states of a lot of particles, or the superposition of a lot of system-microstates gives a definite macrostate.

If a state is definite, it is corresponding to one single system-macrostate directly.

I am referring to the physical definition, not the mathematical definition.

— Me@2012-12-31 09:28:08 AM

.

If a microstate is definite, it is called an “eigenstate”. It is corresponding to one single system-macrostate directly.

However, the microstate is NOT the macrostate. The microstate is just corresponding to that macrostate.

— Me@2019-09-20 07:02:10 AM

.

In quantum Darwinism and similar theories, pointer states are quantum states, sometimes of a measuring apparatus, if present, that are less perturbed by decoherence than other states, and are the quantum equivalents of the classical states of the system after decoherence has occurred through interaction with the environment. ‘Pointer’ refers to the reading of a recording or measuring device, which in old analog versions would often have a gauge or pointer display.

— Wikipedia on Pointer state

.

In quantum mechanics, einselections, short for environment-induced superselection, is a name coined by Wojciech H. Zurek for a process which is claimed to explain the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the emergence of classical descriptions of reality from quantum descriptions.

In this approach, classicality is described as an emergent property induced in open quantum systems by their environments. Due to the interaction with the environment, the vast majority of states in the Hilbert space of a quantum open system become highly unstable due to entangling interaction with the environment, which in effect monitors selected observables of the system.

After a decoherence time, which for macroscopic objects is typically many orders of magnitude shorter than any other dynamical timescale, a generic quantum state decays into an uncertain [in the sense of classical probability] state which can be decomposed into a mixture of simple pointer states. In this way the environment induces effective superselection rules. Thus, einselection precludes stable existence of pure superpositions of pointer states. These ‘pointer states’ are stable despite environmental interaction. The einselected states lack coherence, and therefore do not exhibit the quantum behaviours of entanglement and superposition.

Advocates of this approach argue that since only quasi-local, essentially classical states survive the decoherence process, einselection can in many ways explain the emergence of a (seemingly) classical reality in a fundamentally quantum universe (at least to local observers). However, the basic program has been criticized as relying on a circular argument (e.g. R. E. Kastner). So the question of whether the ‘einselection’ account can really explain the phenomenon of wave function collapse remains unsettled.

— Wikipedia on Einselection

.

Here I simply review the basic approach to ‘deriving’ einselection via decoherence, and point to a key step in the derivation that makes it a circular one.

— Ruth E. Kastner

.

We should not derive einselection via decoherence. Instead, they should be regarded as different parts or different presentations of the same theory.

In other words, “einselection” and “decoherence” are synonyms.

— Me@2019-09-21 05:53:53 PM

.

There has been significant work on correctly identifying the pointer states in the case of a massive particle decohered by collisions with a fluid environment, often known as collisional decoherence. In particular, Busse and Hornberger have identified certain solitonic wavepackets as being unusually stable in the presence of such decoherence.

— Wikipedia on Einselection

.

.

2019.09.22 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

事件實在論,更正

Event Realism | 事件實在論 6.1

.

exist = can be found

無後果,就不再存在。

— Me@2013.09.25

.

If the consequences of an event cannot be found anymore, that event no longer exists.

— Me@2019.09.05

.

The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that “no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon”, which is a very radical position. Wheeler famously said that the “past has no existence except as recorded in the present“, and that the Universe does not “exist, out there independent of all acts of observation”.

— Wikipedia on Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment

.

「事件」並不完全「實在」。

實在 ~ 堅實地存在

仍然有後果的事件,才為之「仍然存在」。

永久地有後果的事件,才為之「實在」。

— Me@2019-09-05 09:08:41 PM

.

.

2019.09.05 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Quantum observer 2

Consistent histories, 6.2 | Relational quantum mechanics, 2 | Eigenstates 2.3.2.2

.

Would an observer see itself being in a superposition?

In a sense, tautologically, an observer is not a superposition of itself, because “an observer” can be defined as “a consistent history”.

an observer ~ a consistent history

.

Because “state” is expressed in RQM as the correlation between two systems, there can be no meaning to “self-measurement”.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

.

Would an observer see itself being in a superposition?

When we say that “before observation, observable B is in a superposition of some eigenstates”, you have to specify

  1. it is a superposition of what?

  2. it is a superposition with respect to what apparatuses or experimental setups?

— Me@2018-02-05 12:45 AM

.

.

2019.09.03 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Physical laws are low-energy approximations to reality, 1.6

d_2019_01_31__23_13_36_PM_a

QM GR

too many particles

when you cool down the system, you see something that your equations cannot predict

only by experiment, you discover that you can go to there

the system state goes from one local minimum to another

.

Since each theory is valid only when near a particular energy local minimum, we cannot use it to predict other local minima (other physical realities). That’s why we need to keep doing experiments that are designed for stress-testing existing theories. For example, one experiment can put a system in extreme high pressure. Another experiment can put a system in extreme high temperature.

Once a theory breaks down in one of those experiments, we see phenomena that we have never seen before. From there, we construct new theories to explain those phenomena.

d_2019_01_31__23_13_36_PM_b

Once a theory breaks down in one of those experiments, we see phenomena that we have never seen before. In this sense, experimental physics is much richer.

Computational physics goes further in only one direction. Only experiments let you try randomly.

— Me@2019-08-18 07:51:05 PM

.

.

2019.08.18 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

From classical to quantum

From this viewpoint, the move from a classical to a quantum mechanical system is not a move from a comutative to a non-commutative algebra \displaystyle{\mathcal{A}} of a real-valued observables, but, instead, a move from a commutative algebra to a partial commutative algebra of observables.

Of course, every non-commutative algebra determines an underlying partial commutative algebra and also its diagram of commutative subalgebras.

That fact that assuming the structure of a non-commutative algebra is the wrong assumption has already been observed in the literature (see, for example, [19]),

but it is often replaced by another wrong assumption, namely that of assuming the structure of a Jordan algebra.

These differing assumptions on the structure of \displaystyle{\mathcal A} affect the size of its automorphisum group and, hence, of the allowable symmetries of the system (the weaker the assumed structure on \displaystyle{\mathcal A}, the larger is its automorphism group).

— The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

— David A. Edwards

.

.

2019.06.18 Tuesday ACHK

Unitarity (physics)

Unitarity means that if a future state, F, of a system is unique, the corresponding past point, P,  is also unique, provided that there is no information lost on the transition from P to F.

— Me@2019-05-22 11:06:48 PM

.

In quantum physics, unitarity means that the future point is unique, and the past point is unique. If no information gets lost on the transition from one configuration to another[,] it is unique. If a law exists on how to go forward, one can find a reverse law to it.[1] It is a restriction on the allowed evolution of quantum systems that ensures the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes of any event always equals 1.

Since unitarity of a theory is necessary for its consistency (it is a very natural assumption, although recently questioned[2]), the term is sometimes also used as a synonym for consistency, and is sometimes used for other necessary conditions for consistency, especially the condition that the Hamiltonian is bounded from below. This means that there is a state of minimal energy (called the ground state or vacuum state). This is needed for the third law of thermodynamics to hold.

— Wikipedia on Unitarity (physics)

.

.

2019.05.23 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Multiverse

A physics statement is meaningful only if it is with respect to an observer. So the many-world theory is meaningless.

— Me@2018-08-31 12:55:54 PM

— Me@2019-05-11 09:41:55 PM

.

Answer me the following yes/no question:

In your multi-universe theory, is it possible, at least in principle, for an observer in one universe to interact with any of the other universes?

If no, then it is equivalent to say that those other universes do not exist.

If yes, then those other universes are not “other” universes at all, but actually just other parts of the same universe.

— Me@2019-05-11 09:43:40 PM

.

.

2019.05.11 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Classical probability, 7

Classical probability is macroscopic superposition.

— Me@2012.04.23

.

That is not correct, except in some special senses.

— Me@2019-05-02

.

That is not correct, if the “superposition” means quantum superposition.

— Me@2019-05-03 08:44:11 PM

.

The difference of the classical probability and quantum probability is the difference of a mixed state and a pure superposition state.

In classical probability, the relationship between mutually exclusive possible measurement results, before measurement, is OR.

In quantum probability, if the quantum system is in quantum superposition, the relationship between mutually exclusive possible measurement results, before measurement, is neither OR nor AND.

— Me@2019-05-03 06:04:27 PM

.

.

2019.05.03 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK