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

Quantum classical logic

Mixed states, 2 | Eigenstates 4

.

— This is my guess. —

If the position is indefinite, you can express it in terms of a pure quantum state[1] (of a superposition of position eigenstates);

if the quantum state is indefinite, you can express it in terms of a mixed state;

if the mixed state is indefinite, you can express it in terms of a “mixed mixed state”[2]; etc. until definite.

At that level, you can start to use classical logic.

.

If you cannot get certainty, you can get certain uncertainty.

.

[1]: Me@2019-03-21 11:08:59 PM: This line of not correct. The uncertainty may not be quantum uncertainty. It may be classical.

[2]: Me@2019-03-22 02:56:21 PM: This concept may be useless, because a so-called “mixed mixed state” is just another mixed state.

For example, the mixture of mixed states

\displaystyle{p |\psi_1 \rangle \langle \psi_1 | + (1-p) |\psi_2 \rangle \langle \psi_2 |}

and

\displaystyle{q |\phi_1 \rangle \langle \phi_1 | + (1-q) |\phi_2 \rangle \langle \phi_2 |}

is

.

\displaystyle{\begin{aligned}  &w \bigg[ p |\psi_1 \rangle \langle \psi_1 |+ (1-p) |\psi_2 \rangle \langle \psi_2 | \bigg] +  (1-w) \bigg[ q |\phi_1 \rangle \langle \phi_1 | + (1-q) |\phi_2 \rangle \langle \phi_1 | \bigg] \\  &= w p |\psi_1 \rangle \langle \psi_1 | + w (1-p) |\psi_2 \rangle \langle \psi_2 | +  (1-w) q |\phi_1 \rangle \langle \phi_1 | + (1-w) (1-q) |\phi_2 \rangle \langle \phi_1 | \\  \end{aligned}}

— This is my guess. —

— Me@2012.04.15

.

.

2019.03.22 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The Door 1.1

The following contains spoilers on a fictional work.

In Westworld season 2, last episode, when a person/host X passed through “the door”, he got copied, almost perfectly, into a virtual world. Since the door was adjacent to a cliff, just after passing through it, the original copy (the physical body) fell off the cliff and then died.

Did X still exist after passing through the door?

Existence or non-existence of X is not a property of X itself. So in order for the question “does X exist” to be meaningful, we have to specify “with respect to whom”.

In other words, instead of “does X exist”, we should ask

With respect to the observer Y, does X exist?

.

There are 3 categories of possible observers (who were observing X passing through the door):

  1. the original person (X1)
    .
    X_1 == X

  2. the copied person (X2) in the virtual world
    .
    For simplicity, assume that X2 is a perfect copy of X.

  3. other people (Y)

— Me@2019-02-09 1:09 PM

.

.

2019.02.28 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 7

When we imagine that we know and keep track of all the exact information about the physical system – which, in practice, we can only do for small microscopic physical systems – the microscopic laws are time-reversal-symmetric (or at least CPT-symmetric) and we don’t see any arrow. There is a one-to-one unitary map between the states at times “t1” and “t2” and it doesn’t matter which of them is the past and which of them is the future.

A problem is that with this microscopic description where everything is exact, no thermodynamic concepts such as the entropy “emerge” at all. You might say that the entropy is zero if the pure state is exactly known all the time – at any rate, a definition of the entropy that would make it identically zero would be completely useless, too. By “entropy”, I never mean a quantity that is allowed to be zero for macroscopic systems at room temperature.

But whenever we deal with incomplete information, this one-to-one map inevitably disappears and the simple rules break down. Macroscopic laws of physics are irreversible. If friction brings your car to a halt and you wait for days, you won’t be able to say when the car stopped. The information disappears: it dissipates.

— The arrow of time: understood for 100 years

— Lubos Motl

.

If there is a god-view, there is no time arrow.

Time arrow only exists from a macroscopic point of view. Microscopically, there is no time arrow.

If there is a god-view that can observe all the pieces of the exact information, including the microscopic ones, there is no time arrow.

Also, if there is a god-view, there will be paradoxes, such as the black hole information paradox.

Black hole complementarity is a conjectured solution to the black hole information paradox, proposed by Leonard Susskind, Larus Thorlacius, and Gerard ‘t Hooft.

Leonard Susskind proposed a radical resolution to this problem by claiming that the information is both reflected at the event horizon and passes through the event horizon and cannot escape, with the catch being no observer can confirm both stories simultaneously.

— Wikipedia on Black hole complementarity

The spirit of black hole complementarity is that there is no god-view. Instead, physics is always about what an observer can observe.

— Me@2018-06-21 01:09:05 PM

.

.

2019.02.11 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Quantum logic, 3

The more common view regarding quantum logic, however, is that it provides a formalism for relating observables, system preparation filters and states.^\text{[citation needed]} In this view, the quantum logic approach resembles more closely the C*-algebraic approach to quantum mechanics. The similarities of the quantum logic formalism to a system of deductive logic may then be regarded more as a curiosity than as a fact of fundamental philosophical importance. A more modern approach to the structure of quantum logic is to assume that it is a diagram – in the sense of category theory – of classical logics (see David Edwards).

— Wikipedia on Quantum logic

.

.

2019.01.26 Saturday ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.4

The source of the macroscopic time asymmetry, aka the second law of thermodynamics, is the difference of prediction and retrodiction.

In a prediction, the deduction direction is the same as the physical/observer time direction.

In a retrodiction, the deduction direction is opposite to the physical/observer time direction.

.

— guess —

If a retrodiction is done by a time-opposite observer, he will see the entropy increasing. For him, he is really doing a prediction.

— guess —

.

— Me@2013-10-25 3:33 AM

.

The existence of the so-called “the paradox of the arrow of time” is fundamentally due to the fact that some people insist that physics is about an observer-independent objective truth of reality.

However, it is not the case. Physics is not about “objective” reality.  Instead, physics is always about what an observer would observe.

— Lubos Motl

— paraphrased

— Me@2019-01-19 10:25:15 PM

.

.

2019.01.19 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Relational quantum mechanics

EPR paradox, 10

.

Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint, and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists. It is inspired by the key idea behind special relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.

,,,

Relational solution

In RQM, an interaction between a system and an observer is necessary for the system to have clearly defined properties relative to that observer. Since the two measurement events take place at spacelike separation, they do not lie in the intersection of Alice’s and Bob’s light cones. Indeed, there is no observer who can instantaneously measure both electrons’ spin.

The key to the RQM analysis is to remember that the results obtained on each “wing” of the experiment only become determinate for a given observer once that observer has interacted with the other observer involved. As far as Alice is concerned, the specific results obtained on Bob’s wing of the experiment are indeterminate for her, although she will know that Bob has a definite result. In order to find out what result Bob has, she has to interact with him at some time {\displaystyle t_{3}} in their future light cones, through ordinary classical information channels.

The question then becomes one of whether the expected correlations in results will appear: will the two particles behave in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics? Let us denote by {\displaystyle M_{A}(\alpha )} the idea that the observer {\displaystyle A} (Alice) measures the state of the system {\displaystyle \alpha} (Alice’s particle).

So, at time {\displaystyle t_{2}}, Alice knows the value of {\displaystyle M_{A}(\alpha )}: the spin of her particle, relative to herself. But, since the particles are in a singlet state, she knows that

{\displaystyle M_{A}(\alpha )+M_{A}(\beta )=0,}

and so if she measures her particle’s spin to be {\displaystyle \sigma }, she can predict that Bob’s particle ( {\displaystyle \beta } ) will have spin {\displaystyle -\sigma }. All this follows from standard quantum mechanics, and there is no “spooky action at a distance” yet. From the “coherence-operator” discussed above, Alice also knows that if at {\displaystyle t_{3}} she measures Bob’s particle and then measures Bob (that is asks him what result he got) — or vice versa — the results will be consistent:

{\displaystyle M_{A}(B)=M_{A}(\beta )}

Finally, if a third observer (Charles, say) comes along and measures Alice, Bob, and their respective particles, he will find that everyone still agrees, because his own “coherence-operator” demands that

{\displaystyle M_{C}(A)=M_{C}(\alpha )} and {\displaystyle M_{C}(B)=M_{C}(\beta )}

while knowledge that the particles were in a singlet state tells him that

{\displaystyle M_{C}(\alpha )+M_{C}(\beta )=0.}

Thus the relational interpretation, by shedding the notion of an “absolute state” of the system, allows for an analysis of the EPR paradox which neither violates traditional locality constraints, nor implies superluminal information transfer, since we can assume that all observers are moving at comfortable sub-light velocities. And, most importantly, the results of every observer are in full accordance with those expected by conventional quantum mechanics.

— Wikipedia on Relational quantum mechanics

.

.

2018.10.22 Monday ACHK

Pointer state

Eigenstates 3

.

In quantum Darwinism and similar theories, pointer states are quantum states 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.

— Wikipedia on Pointer state

.

In calculation, if a quantum state is in a superposition, that superposition is a superposition of eigenstates.

However, real superposition does not just includes states that make macroscopic senses.

.

That is the major mistake of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

— Me@2017-12-30 10:24 AM

— Me@2018-07-03 07:24 PM

.

.

2018.07.03 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Block spacetime, 9

motohagiography 42 days ago [-]

I once saw a fridge magnet that said “time is natures way of making sure everything doesn’t happen all at once,” and it’s stuck with me.

The concept of time not being “real,” can be useful as an exercise for modelling problems where to fully explore the problem space, you need to decouple your solutions from needing them to occur in an order or sequence.

From an engineering perspective, “removing” time means you can model problems abstractly by stepping back from a problem and asking, what are all possible states of the mechanism, then which ones are we implementing, and finally, in what order. This is different from the relatively stochastic approach most people take of “given X, what is the necessary next step to get to desired endstate.”

More simply, as a tool, time helps us apprehend the states of a system by reducing the scope of our perception of them to sets of serial, ordered phenomena.

Whether it is “real,” or an artifact of our perception is sort of immaterial when you can choose to reason about things with it, or without it. A friend once joked that math is what you get when you remove time from physics.

I look forward to the author’s new book.

— Gödel and the unreality of time

— Hacker News

.

.

2018.06.26 Tuesday ACHK

Eigenstates 2.3.2

.

eigenstates

~ classical states

~ definite states

— Me@2012-04-15 11:42:10 PM

.

The concept of eigenstate is relative.

.

First, you have to specify the eigenstate is of which physical observable.

A physical system can be at an eigenstate of one observable but at a superposition state of another observable.

.

Second, you have to specify the state of that observable is eigen with respect to which observer.

— Me@2018-06-16 7:27 AM

.

eigenstates

~ of which observable?

~ with respect to which observer?

— Me@2018-06-19 10:54:54 AM

.

.

2018.06.19 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The Sixth Sense, 3

Mirror selves, 2 | Anatta 3.2 | 無我 3.2

.

You cannot feel your own existence or non-existence. You can feel the existence or non-existence of (such as) your hair, your hands, etc.

But you cannot feel the existence or non-existence of _you_.

— Me@2018-03-17 5:12 PM

.

Only OTHER people or beings can feel your existence or non-existence.

— Me@2018-04-30 11:29:08 AM

.

.

2018.04.30 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.3

“Time’s arrow” is only meaningful when considering with respect to an observer.

.

c.f. the second law of thermodynamics

The direction of time is direction of losing microscopic information… by whom?

.

“Time’s arrow” is only meaningful when considering with respect to an observer.

— Me@2018-01-01 6:14 PM

.

.

2018.04.09 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.2

Source of time asymmetry in macroscopic physical systems

Second law of thermodynamics

.

.

Physics is not about reality, but about what one can say about reality.

— Bohr

— paraphrased

.

.

Physics should deduce what an observer would observe,

not what it really is, for that would be impossible.

— Me@2018-02-02 12:15:38 AM

.

.

1. Physics is about what an observer can observe about reality.

2. Whatever an observer can observe is a consistent history.

observer ~ a consistent story

observing ~ gathering a consistent story from the quantum reality

3. Physics [relativity and quantum mechanics] is also about the consistency of results of any two observers _when_, but not before, they compare those results, observational or experimental.

4. That consistency is guaranteed because the comparison of results itself can be regarded as a physical event, which can be observed by a third observer, aka a meta observer.

Since whenever an observer can observe is consistent, the meta-observer would see that the two observers have consistent observational results.

5. Either original observers is one of the possible meta-observers, since it certainly would be witnessing the comparison process of the observation data.

— Me@2018-02-02 10:25:05 PM

.

.

.

2018.02.03 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Superposition always exist

A Non-classical Feature, 2

superposition ~ linear overlapping

~ f(ax + by) = a f(x) + b f(y)

Reality is a linear overlapping of potential realities, although different components may have different weightings.

Superposition always exists, if it exists at the beginning of a process.

So the expression “the wave function collapses and the superposition ceases to exist” does not make sense. 

Superposition always exist; interference (pattern) does not.

For a superposition to have an interference pattern, the two (for example) component eigenstates need to have a constant phase difference.

In other words, they have to be coherent.

superposition without an interference pattern

~ microscopically decoherent component states

~ macroscopically a classical state

— Me@2016-09-01 4:42 AM

2016.11.27 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Black hole complementarity 3

Raphael nicely avoids many of the confusions by introducing a refined version of the complementarity principle, the so-called observer complementarity… If I add some “foundations of quantum mechanics” flavor to the principle, it says:

Quantum mechanics is a set of rules that allows an observer to predict, explain, and/or verify observations (and especially their mutual relationships) that he has access to.

An observer has access to a causal diamond – the intersection of the future light cone of the initial moment of his world line and the past light cone of the final moment of his world line (the latter, the final moment before which one must be able to collect the data, is more important in this discussion).

No observer can detect inconsistencies within the causal diamonds. However, inconsistencies between “stories” as told by different observers with different causal diamonds are allowed (and mildly encouraged) in general (as long as there is no observer who could incorporate all the data needed to see an inconsistency).

Bohr has said that physics is about the right things we can say about the real world, not about objective reality, and it has to be internally consistent. However, in the context of general relativity, the internal consistency doesn’t imply that there has to be a “global viewpoint” or “objective reality” that is valid for everyone.

— Raphael Bousso is right about firewalls

— Lubos Motl

2016.07.27 Wednesday ACHK