Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Author/expert Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 8/9/11 at 20:02pm UTC, wrote Math is limited, and descriptionally accurate, to the extent that it can...

John Merryman: on 8/9/11 at 16:53pm UTC, wrote Tom, Your lack of success hasn't been in explaining your position, but of...

John Merryman: on 8/9/11 at 16:43pm UTC, wrote Tom, Does math simply model reality, or is it foundational to reality? ...

T H Ray: on 8/9/11 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Thanks, Georgina. Most things in science don't really make sense. We only...

Georgina Parry: on 8/9/11 at 13:55pm UTC, wrote Thank you Tom, for taking the time to explain.And sorry for getting your...

T H Ray: on 8/9/11 at 10:50am UTC, wrote Georgina, It seems that Ray has saved me a lot of trouble. A singularity...

T H Ray: on 8/9/11 at 10:12am UTC, wrote John, No -- you asked me if a single node were compatible with big bang...

cosmicray: on 8/9/11 at 2:30am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina, Oh - You said 'Ray' when you meant 'Thomas Ray'. I suppose...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Thanks Jonathan, and Georgi, Gary and Steve, good discussion going (pardon..." in What Is...

Gary Simpson: "All, I think I'm with Georgina on this one. Sharing ideas and having one..." in What Is...

Nishant Gaurav: "Want to get free playstation plus codes, Yes now these psn plus codes are..." in Jacob Bekenstein...

Nishant Gaurav: "The best to win among hustle for online live gaming platform, is online..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Nishant Gaurav: "When it come to paypal user look for various information and also look for..." in Retrocausality,...

Nishant Gaurav: "yes this is an appropriate blog. bingo bash nice information thanks for..." in Our Place in the...

Nishant Gaurav: "This is what I was looking for http://bingobashchips.online thanks a lot..." in Our Place in the...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. ..." in The Complexity Conundrum


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi BLOGS
December 13, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Color Me Surprised: Quantum Mechanics and Graph Theory are a Match Made in Heaven: [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Florin Moldoveanu wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 12:55 GMT
Recently I attended the “New Directions in the Foundations of Physics” organized under the guidance of FQXi member Jeffrey Bub. In a series of blog posts I will present the main new ideas, and today I want to start with a talk by Adan Cabello which fired my, and everyone else’s, imagination: “(Non-) Contextuality of Physical Theories as an Axiom.”



To set the stage, let’s go back in time to the proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem. What Kochen and Specker showed was that for some quantum systems one cannot pre-assign values for all possible measurement outcomes. For example, a spin one system has the following property called the 1-1-0 rule: measure the spin-squared on any 3 mutually orthogonal directions and you will always find the answers to be two ones and one zero on the three directions. Now it is possible, for example, to find a set of 33 directions on a sphere in such a way that all 3 orthogonal directions respect the 1-1-0 rule. In fact this has become a child’s game of coloring 33 x 2 dots with say one green (corresponding to a zero) and two reds (corresponding to a one) for all orthogonal three sets of directions. In the end it cannot be done consistently.

 

What this means is that in quantum mechanics the results of the experiments are “contextual”: they depend on the measurement context and they cannot be pre-assigned in advance as any hidden variable theory would demand.

 

Fine, but what this has to do with graph theory? Represent any experiment you can do on a quantum system by a point in a two dimensional plane. If any two experiments are incompatible, draw a line between them. This forms a graph. If the result of an experiment is true, color its dot green. Color all the other statements linked by it red. Can you color the entire graph consistently? If yes, you have a classical graph. If no, you have a quantum graph.

 

The simplest quantum graph is a pentagon (it takes too long to explain why a triangle is not the simplest case.). To color it consistently each green has to be sandwiched by reds, and each red has to be sandwiched by greens (a line switches the state between nodes). Try to do this for all 5 points. One dot will have to be both red and green.

 

So what is the big deal? This is kindergarten stuff. Well, it turns out that there is an entire community of mathematicians who are experts in graph theory. And they can define and compute three numbers for any graph: “the independence number”, “Lovasz theta number”, and the “fractional packing numbers”. And they have computer programs able to compute those numbers for any arbitrary graph.

 

And now hold on for the punch line: the three numbers correspond to the Bell limit, the Tsirelson bound, and the Popescu Rohrlich bound in quantum mechanics. As a caveat, in some cases there is an ambiguity and one of the numbers’ computational algorithm has to be modified slightly.

 

Now the two communities of physicists and mathematicians were completely unaware of each others domain, and after the shock wore off, a frantic experimental work began to double check all these new bounds in the lab. This was followed by a systematic analysis of all graphs, and the largest Bell-type inequality violation was found, as well as cases where the Tsirelson bound was the same as the PR bound.

 

So the low hanging fruits were already taken. Now it begins the work of making sense of why those numbers have a quantum mechanics meaning. In other words, what is the Lovasz number and why is this relevant for nature? In the end maybe we would get a deepened understanding of quantum mechanics.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 17:10 GMT
Hey guys,

Do I need to explain the Bell, Tsirelson, and PR limits in the post? I wrote this post in a hurry because this topic is the talk of the town and time was critical to let FQXi be the first one to disseminate those ideas to the interesting physicists and the public at large.

Please let me know where you would like to see more information and I can provide an updated version later on.

Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 09:03 GMT
Hi Florin,

Interesting post. More informations shall be well...

you say "This was followed by a systematic analysis of all graphs, and the largest Bell-type inequality violation was found, as well as cases where the Tsirelson bound was the same as the PR bound."

Have we concrete proofs, or is it just speculations of violations?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
In for a penny, in for a pound. :-) Bring it on.

Personally, I am more excited every day at the mushrooming growth of information theory applications to fundamental physics. Great job, Florin.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 01:01 GMT
Thanks Tom,

I will revisit the post after I will take care of more pressing matters. I finalized an argument against Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem and I am writing it up. I hope to upload it on the archive in a week or so.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
an argument? of course Florin of course.we wait all this argument of decoherences( and not incoherences isn't it Tom?)

Good luck

Steve

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 21:57 GMT
I think that the further away theoretical physics ventures from unity, i.e., correctness of the fundamentals, the more it finds refuge in strange mathematical offshoots. The stranger theory becomes, the stranger the math necessary to fit it. The prior existence of strange math is not in any way a verification of the strange theory that appears to fit it. Reality is not strange. Reality makes sense. This fact is demonstrated by our existence and our intelligence. Reality gives unstrange results.

Our theoretical representation of it is very strange. The conclusion must be that strange theory requires strange mathematics because strangeness attracts strangeness. What does this have to do with reality? Einstein's theory of relativity opened the door to the obvious error of strange physicality as demonstrated by introducing the necessity of strange mathematics. I am not familiar with the kindergarten levelness of graph theory since it appears to be important to physics theory.

"So the low hanging fruits were already taken. Now it begins the work of making sense of why those numbers have a quantum mechanics meaning. In other words, what is the Lovasz number and why is this relevant for nature? In the end maybe we would get a deepened understanding of quantum mechanics."

Perhaps:

Or perhaps theoretical physics has gone further out on its error filled theoretical limb. I prefer corrections that pertain to the fundamentals before we accept colorful pentagons to represent colorful multi-directional, perhaps the pentagon represents multi-dimensional, theory. Information theory has nothing to offer so long as it rejects original information.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 4, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
Tom,

My last sentence in my above message was intended for you or anyone who thinks that information theory, you know like 'information entropy' whatever that is in reality, is relevant to reality. There can be no such thing as information without intelligence. This is not a chicken and egge senario. There is either intelligence first of there is no egg of information. Events are not information unless there is intelligence to discern meaning from it. Color me unsurprised.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 4, 2011 @ 23:20 GMT
I think that 'foundational physics' should address its foundations. For example: What is the justification for making mass an indefinable property?

James

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 10:54 GMT
I second your reasoning James. What is the continued justification for making mass an indefinable property?

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 23:31 GMT
"So the low hanging fruits were already taken. Now it begins the work of making sense of why those numbers have a quantum mechanics meaning. In other words, what is the Lovasz number and why is this relevant for nature?"

I do not see that agreement between strange theory and strange mathematics represents low hanging fruits except for theoretical purposes.

"In other words, what is the Lovasz number and why is this relevant for nature?"

I would be interested in this answer.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 00:01 GMT
"For them, the answer is no, my actions are not predetermined. Their theorem, which was originally set out in 2006, purports to be the first logical proof demonstrating that if humans have free will, then the laws that govern the behaviour of subatomic particles cannot be deterministic."

This is true only if one excludes the possibility that the first cause had meaning so that intelligence, represented theoretically by the first cause, could discern it already included in its effects.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 14:51 GMT
And if "first cause" doesn't exist, where does that leave your argument?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 15:19 GMT
Tom,

"And if "first cause" doesn't exist, where does that leave your argument?"

Hiding behind the obviously fallible argument of 'self'-organization is for those who just do not want to hear about a first cause. The universe is filled with effects. There either is a cause separate from the effects or the effects are their own cause. That's a good one isn't it. The effects are their own cause. Now if we wish to be scientific instead of ideologues, then we look for a first cause. We will not learn its nature in the low level study of patterns of changes of velocity. The study of changes of velocity is for cosmic mechanics. Mechanical analysis cannot help us to understand why the first cause does what it does or where it came from. However, its existence can be demonstrated by revealing that all effects are the result of a single cause. Unity requires and will reveal the existence of a first cause. At some future time the nature of that cause will be revealed by analysis of the origin and development of intelligent life. That vital study for understanding the operation of the universe is currently unscientifically blocked by the invention of current theoretical physics. Dumbness cannot be the source of intelligence.

James

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 03:16 GMT
The 24 vectors in the KS theorem, which have an isomorphism to the 24-cell. There are 9 out of 24 vectors, or sets of vectors in the in the KS system with an observable at a unit, where the other values are zero. This results in a contradiction and so this is similar to the color “quantum graph” problem you outline here. There are correspondences between this and the 24-cell or F_4 exceptional group. Unfortunately I caught this a bit late and a too tired to break this out in any great detail. However, this does have some bearing on my program where the logical structure of quantum mechanics and that of quantum theory share a categorical equivalency.

I will have to refresh my memory on the Tsirelson and Popescu-Rohrlich bounds in quantum mechanics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 10:16 GMT
Bell bound: maximum limit achieved by hidden variable theory

Tsirelson bound: maximum limit achieved by quantum mechanics

PR-bound: maximum limit achieved by a non-signaling theory

For the EPR experiment, Bell is 2, Tsirelson is 2sqrt(2), and PR is 4

The original KS graph had 117 points

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 01:27 GMT
There is an interesting paper which connects the Kochen-Specker theorem with the F_4 group, or the 24 cell. The 117 projectors with the original KS theorem in 3-dim Hilbert space is simplified by considering a four dimensional Hilbert space, or a system of 4 qubits. This involves only 18 projector operators. The space 24-cells is a system of root vectors for the F_4 group. Each root vector is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 01:32 GMT
I used a backwards carrot sign which screwed things up above from the projector operator to the short exact sequence for the F_4 group. sorry!

-------------

P_i = |ψ_i)(ψ_i|

P_i are are Hermitian operators with three eigenvlaues of 0 and one of 1. They can be considered as observables and we could set up an experimental system where we prepare states and measure...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
I must be just short, because I can't reach that fruit. Too ADD to figure out Rubik's Cube. Though I think of it as not obsessive-compulsive enough.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 10:16 GMT
John,

There are 3 easy ways. 1. If you are good at memorizing sequences of instructions, available on the Internet, its easy to learn but time consuming, requires practice. 2. Pull the cube apart and reassemble, seen this done but I would be afraid of damaging the cube. 3. Peal off the little stickers and put them all back again, my father's solution. It might not look as good as new but why waste all that time? Actually 4. Don't pick it up!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
Georgina,

I remember being far more interested in how they managed to work the mechanics of it, than how to unravel it. For me, obsessive complexity of this sort is a bit of a Gordian Knot and I liked Alexander the Great's approach. I'm quite aware there is an infinite amount of complexity involved in every moment of every event and our ability to unravel it is often necessary for particular purposes, but I think a big part of this unraveling is the function of editing out what you can, because it takes time away from what you must deal with. As I mentioned to Tom earlier, you can no more be a professional physicist without a firm grasp of the mathematics involved, than you could be an architect or banker, without understanding the math of those fields, but that it doesn't necessarily require a degree to see when large mistakes are being made. Sometimes those mistakes can be the result being too focused on the details and ignoring the larger reality. It's my contention that modern physics is reaching such an impasse. They are going to the extremes of the very large and very small, because the middle ground is too complex, yet these extremes yield only extremely reductionistic views that give very distorted impressions of what is happening.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 12:11 GMT
Alexander did not solve the Gordian Knot problem. He, like you, denied that there is any such problem. No, it doesn't take a degree to understand the mistakes in a particular field -- physics or any other -- it does, however, require knowledge of the problems which that field attempts to solve, and why the experts consider them problems. No slashing allowed.

To this question of "reality," a scientific treatment makes no a priori assumption of what reality has to be, or what "makes sense," despite your personal notions (or anyone else's personal beliefs or any shared belief among a mass of people). Another participant recently suggested to me that my knowledge of the details of general relativity keeps me from seeing the bigger picture. Fact is, because relativity (the special and the general theory) is mathematically complete, it consists of _nothing but_ details; there is no "something else" that requires "outside the box" thinking -- all the consequences follow smoothly from the assumptions. Relativity (classical physics in general) contrasts with the theory of quantum mechanics, in which interpretation plays a role, because the foundation of QM is operational rather than mathematically complete. That is, QM attempts to explain an observed phenomenon (2-slit experiment) with a mathematical precision in which probability measure obviates measure by continuous functions (classical physics).

I don't apologize for being a reductionist. What we find today, though, is hardly an "impasse" in physical theory -- rather, we see that reduction to complexity leads to a whole new playing field where quantum information, geometry and topology, complex systems science and more are coming together in a unprecedented interdisciplinary fashion. Whatever the outcome, even if the outcome is just a continuum of steps asymptotically approaching "reality," the future of theoretical physics is not endangered.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


uncle Tom wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
Florin,

1)The electric and magnetic fields are made of virtual photons. The electromagnetic interaction is mediated by the constant exchange of photons from one charged object to another. .

2)Each photon is a discrete packet of electromagnetic energy, or the oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

Thus, the electromagnetic fields are made of virtual photons and the virtual photons are made of electromagnetic fields. It is absurd!

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 5, 2011 @ 21:35 GMT
uncle Tom,

It is not absurd. Your statements are slightly incorrect. The electromagnetic field is just that: the electromagnetic field. The quanta of electromgentc field is a photon. There are however anharmonic effects and they are represented and calculated by Feynman diagrams. The most important one is a 3-leg diagram, and the strength of the interaction is smaller than 1 in natural units. So every time you have this recursive picture you are describing, the effective correction is smaller than the prior ones (kind of adding 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... In the end the answer is 2) If the final answers are always finite, the theory is called "renormalizable". Quantum electrodynamics is a renormalizable theory and its mathematical predictions agree extremely well with experiments.

In the end, you have to remember that what you describe is just a convergent mathematical series, and the ontological meaning of each term is nothing but the ontological meaning of the ink marks on paper. 2 is just 2, (and electromagnetism is just electromagnetism). 1,1/2,1/4 (and virtual photons) have no special ontological meaning. Virtual photons are called "virtual" for a reason.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 22:33 GMT
uncle Tom,

I have a brain teaser for you (and anybody else). An accelerated electron radiates energy according to Maxwell's equations. Locally, acceleration is equivalent with gravity (Einstein's equivalence principle from general relativity).

Now hang an electron from the ceiling. The electron is not moving relative to you, does not radiate any energy, and is not loosing any energy. However, the electron experiences Earth's gravity (and your virtual photons are falling towards the Earth). Equivalenly, the electron is accelerated in a zero gravity frame and emits radiation. So which one is it? Is the electron radiating or not?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 22:45 GMT
"Is the electron radiating or not?"

Assuming ideal conditions: No it is not radiating. It will radiate only when it is accelerating with respect to local conditions. If the local parameters are not the 'very most' significant contributors to its conditions, then the question can have a different answer. That different answer would have to do with the strength of the force which a radiated electron may exert on another charged particle locally speaking.

James

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT
One more proof of C-field announced yesterday:

"The longest-running project in NASA's history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing."

"Other experiments had already confirmed this "frame-dragging" effect, predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

re castel replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 02:17 GMT
Eugene,

Just to let you know, I sort of blasted you in Florin's "Clothes" blog. Nothing personal, Eugene. I am merely arguing for the ideas.

Kind regards,

Rafael

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 02:23 GMT
Rafael,

I did not take it personally. You also said some positive things. I appreciate your comments, and expect you to defend your own theory. I'm happy that we overlap in some aspects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 11:10 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thanks for the information about the Gravity Probe B experiments, I'm just reading-up now so that I'm up-to-date on what's going on. I'm totally skeptical that the results "confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around", it just means that there's an ambiguity in the Earth's grvaitational field. The graviton model of the Earth's gravitational field is still equally as viable from a viewpoint of an abstract simulation modeller.

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 7, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Hi Florin,

Thanks for the very interesting article and the quick posting on FQXi for us all to contemplate. I've only just read it for the first time and was intrigued by the diagram. It reminded me of my own current work into the 'coaxial cable' or 'kernmantle rope' model of the quark torus. I'm working on this idea day-by-day and will try and reconcile it with these latest findings. Thanks again,

Alan

attachments: kermantle_rope.jpg, coaxial_cable.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 7, 2011 @ 19:33 GMT
Hi Alan,

Thank you for your kind words.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 17:25 GMT
you are welcome ahahaha no but frankly you make sciences or sciences fiction.

Readers...please study the rationalists and not the pseudo rationalists.

I love this platform.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


re castel wrote on May. 7, 2011 @ 14:16 GMT
Eugene,

Incidentally, according to the kinematic interpretation, frame-dragging would be an effect on the kinematic continuum, since I let space just sit there.

Rafael

report post as inappropriate


B^2 wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
I like graph theory but I'm a little confused by the article. It mentions the 1-1-0 rule, but the article referenced on free will mentions -1, 0, 1 as the possible measured values. A graph with chromatic number 2 is a classical graph? A graph that is not colorable with 2 colors is a quantum graph?

I only mention this because -1, 0, 1 seems to be three colors in this context (if color is a possible measurement) and the peterson graph listed has chromatic number 3 so it is colorable...but that would make it a classical graph.

Let me put this another way:

Are the number of colors (green and red) the possible mutually exclusive outcomes of the measurement?

Is the cardinality of the graph the number of experiments performed?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 11:56 GMT
B^2

One measures the absolute values, and -1 becomes +1. A line in the graph indicates mutual exclusiveness. If there is no mutual exclusiveness, do not draw any line. The number of dots are the dimesionality of the projectors for that state preparation (assume a preferred basis and select a linear independent number of projectors in that basis). Each dot corrrespond to a particular experiment which can be performed on the system.

report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on May. 10, 2011 @ 08:16 GMT
Thank you

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 15, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
Florin,

John Baez has done some interesting things with octonions. Recently he has found a connection to supersymmetry. Octonions are the crazy guys in the Cayley number sequence. However, I agree the physical interpretation of them is not really understood. The connection with string theory is with the heterotic string sector with E_8xE_8. The physics interpretation is often in the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 04:55 GMT
Lawrence,

I am aware of both Octonion paper by Baez and of his recent supersymmetry work. I am also familiar with Hopf fibrations. Where I am lost is in non-associativity because I am not aware of any procedure to systematically disambiguate the order of multiplication. Yes, there are a lot of pieces of the puzzle which look like they belong in guantum gravity, but I am both lost and skeptical. I simply do not yet have a good intuition about this area and threfore I am afraid to comment on it. However, I do enjoy your posts very much.

At the last conference, the last talk was from string theory. I have to say that I understood much more about string theory from this talk than from any other prior material. I will present a summary of it in one of my future blogs.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 11:54 GMT
:) you are still in the strings and octonions dear "Baezian stringy thinkers." Have you forget the rationalities for the universe. The computing is different you know. You can compute Universes, with a s, that won't change our laws. Now Let's be concrete. MrBaez has some interesting ideas for the ctaegorications of volumes and thus the encoding and the sortings. It is interesting for the codes of informations I agree. But please don't say me that these strings and their forms are thye reality of our universe. A computer is a computer, don't forget the universal continuity please.

But you make a good job for strings theorists and some universities and some friends, it is well , but the natural sciences are the natural sciences dear thinkers. That is the reality , rational and deterministic.

We can understand that it is frustrating and that some people have jobs, but the sciences have a responsability, and thus the sorting is essential for the real publications accepted by the initernational language and its systems of mesures and unities.The categorification you say, ok and fortunally furthermore.

Cheers

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
A hole in the black hole complementarity is with black holes that are composed of a few Planck units of mass, say less than 10^3M_p. For black holes of this scale the event horizon is probably not a well defined null surface, but is quantum mechanically blurred. The radius of the event horizon classically determines the mass of the BH R = 2M, but quantum mechanically there is an uncertainty...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on May. 16, 2011 @ 16:53 GMT
In fact I am not surprised that even quantum physics is trying to explain itself graphically, wasn't it already PLATO who described the world of his era with his PLATONIC SOLIDS, and guess what his DODECAHEDRON was the solid 12 regular PENTAGONAL faces contained all the four other the Cube , the Icosahedron, the Octahedron and the Tetrahedron, which represented together all the elements of the earth, it was his Theorie of Everything, mankind needs illustrations to undertstand his ideas.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT
Florin,

I read a couple of Christian’s articles. I got the feeling with this morphism you are talking about is that he was ultimately equating probabilities with the states. It has been quite a while since I have read his stuff, but I definitely got a HV sense of things, which frankly I am not terribly interested in.

I think the existence of a classical structure has implications...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 04:24 GMT
Lawrence,

You touched on many topics. I do not see what many worlds has anything to do with the landscape. In my oppinion, many worlds is an invalid interpretation. First, a non-pure quantum state has many possible decompositions. Why would a decomposition be singled out by many worlds (preferred basis)? Decoherence answers this clearly, and why would many worlds splitting happen only after decoherence and not before? There are other counter-arguments but there is not enough space to present them here.

Christian's result is mathematically sound, but his interpretation is wrong. Still, it does suggest an interesting problem: his beables are non-commuting objects (bivectors representing rotations). He obtaines a factorizable model and he achieves Tsirelson's bound. Still, if one tries to do this in practice with classical resources only, the best limit is Bell's. Why is that? Imagine I use gears like in a mechanical clock. Those gears can model rotations and if relativity would permit rigid bodies, then one would be able to achieve Tsirelson's bound with a mechanical contraption. Commutative beables yieds Bell's limit. Can we prove the converse? Would beable's commutativity be required if the best we can do (classically) is Bell's limit? Also can one prove the impossibility of non-commutative beables using relativity only?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 12:28 GMT
The MWI is pretty “hip” these days, and a lot of people are into this. You are right in a sense that MWI can’t be correct. In fact I think all quantum interpretations are wrong on some level. I have not thought of any theorem to prove this. The problem with MWI you might have touched on. The einselected basis in the splitting off of worlds is due to the contextuality of an experiment. However, there is a funny bit here, for QM is noncontextual, and in a full MWI perspective the experimental system is ultimately quantum mechanical. So the contextual aspects of the einselection of basis is imposed “by hand” in an ad hoc manner. This is really a subtle form of “cut” similar to the classical-quantum dichotomy in the Copenhagen interpretation.

The Tsirelson bound, which defines the domain of no-signalling, extends beyond the Bell inequality violation bound. The bound with the sqrt{2} and so forth comes from effectively circumscribing a circle defining the QM region of Bell inequalities with a square. The classical region is then a square inscribed by that circle. Now imposing noncommutative structure on the beables appears to my mind to be a form of pre-quantization or the imposition of a line bundle on a sympletic space which makes this pseudo-complex structure Kahler. I think, or as I recall from Christian’s papers, this is how this morphism between a topological space and the Hilbert space works. Christian then goes about to say this means there is an underlying Bell inequality which holds. This then means there is a classical realism underlying QM.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 4, 2011 @ 20:59 GMT
Lawrence,

I agree with you that "all quantum interpretations are wrong on some level" and I also agree with your interpretation of Christian that "there is a classical realism underlying QM." Your presentation of your ideas (in the above comments) is fascinating.

Florin,

Thank you for confirming that Joy Christian's mathematics are sound. That was my conclusion, but I am very happy that you made the effort to check his math.

I would like to ask you a simple question: If Bell's analysis had yielded Tsirelson's limit, would local realism have been ruled out?

The 'quantum information industry' that has grown up around this issue tends to obscure the simple fact that the whole question of local realism boils down to whether or not one accepts Bell's analysis as both correct and appropriate.

Can you, without obscuring the issue with irrelevant details, answer this simple question?

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 08:08 GMT
If an Alcubierre drive could be built and made functional as an FTL transport, would it leave any trace signature such as gamma rays? If it did, we would be able to track anyone who was using it for transportation. There is actually not enough information to answer this question. Eventually, with the right physics model, we would be able to exactly predict what kind of particles and/or gamma ray spectra that an FTL transport would leave behind.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 20:53 GMT
New evidence of "particle AND wave' versus 'particle OR wave':

On several threads I posted Seven Step Logic claiming that reality is based on 'particles AND waves' instead of the standard QM interpretation: 'particles OR waves'.

It appears that a new two-slit experiment based on Aharonov's 'weak measurements' suggest that I am right on this:

From the article:

Explains Steinberg. "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"

"The double slit experiment heavily influenced the principle of complementarity devised by Niels Bohr. Complementarity states that observing complementary variables, such as the particle-like trajectories and the wave-like interference in the double-slit experiment, depends on the type of measurement made -- the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously."

"Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case -- the system can behave as both."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Jun. 5, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
Invisible and visible, remember?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 9, 2011 @ 19:10 GMT
My comment on Steinberg's article (see blog uncertainty) gave just two reasons. Let me add two more:

The shown symmetric "measurement" would exhibit not just the smaller wavelength between two ripples but also a larger wavelength, i.e. a lower frequency. Look at the unilaterally extended figure I gave in my essays.

I also wonder why no physicist so far objected against a traveling wave packet without an origin.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 10, 2011 @ 20:28 GMT
Eckard

I didn't see your previous questions. I ran your comments above through the DFM 'sausage machine' and can tell you what emerged.

If I assume you refer to the two mirror 'directions', the 'recoil' motion would not produce a wave, only compression beyond a compressibility limit (first proposed by Planck in the late 1800's) produces anything at all. I understood the frequency was low anyway? - i.e. below the visible (Microwave). And additionally, all secondary wavelengths should combine (superpose) to give the primary reading. Or was the proposed cause different?

There is also and origin, though, as you say, not according to the 17th century physics some still use. It may be seen as the opposite of annihilation, as 'pair production', or in other terms, but the source draws on the biggest energy asset there is! the 73% not yet in 'matter' phase.

It also predicted the motion would change, initially being in the frame of the mirror, then changing to c/n with respect to the lab frame. try that for size!!

I'm sure most will disagree, but that is consistent with the rest of the jigsaw puzzle. I just 'read it off!'

How did it sound from your parallel world?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Bashir Yusuf wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene klingman

I think you are one of most rational thinkers in current physics society.

I read your essay and saw your discussion in some threads including "breaking the universe speed limit". I would like to read that Seven Step Logic you posted claiming that reality is based on 'particles AND waves' instead of the standard QM interpretation: 'particles OR waves'.please tell me which thread or copy to here.

I realy appreciate the way you and very few friends think about the nature and the reality. I laso discussed with Eckard and pointed out some important basic problems.

The case of the duality, I believe that the photon is a particle and the light is the wave due to the particle's garavitatial force (two different terms).

For more, you can find my essay at: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Best wishes.

Bashir

report post as inappropriate


Dan T Benedict wrote on Aug. 2, 2011 @ 23:50 GMT
Ray,

You wrote above: "Perhaps such a 'TOE' could unify quantum (sic) and gravity, but introduce new paradoxes that we haven't yet considered (because a self-similar 'TOE' model of reality cannot be 'complete' by definition, and must therefore contain paradoxes)."

I was curious about this statement. Are all TOEs incomplete or just self-similar ones? Is this due to Godel, Heisenberg uncertainty, chaos, all the above, or something else entirely? Wouldn't a self-similar TOE be self-referential, thereby minimizing the incompleteness? If you would expand on your statement, it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 3, 2011 @ 00:24 GMT
Hi Dan,

I agree with "Wouldn't a self-similar TOE be self-referential, thereby minimizing the incompleteness?"

In my opinion, that is the point of modeling reality with Scales - to find the most accurate 'approximation' without having to appeal to 10^500 parameters. It seems to me that Scale Relativity and an 'infinite' Big Bang implies the existence of an infinite Multiverse. If the Multiverse is truly infinite, then I do not expect to understand everything by, say, understanding a Hyperverse Scale consisting of Octonions or E8's and their decay products.

There may be 'higher order' correction effects. For example, the 'cosmological constant' requires a vacuum correction of order ~10^(-123). This is too finely tuned to be an accident. It is either directly related to a geometrical power of Dirac's Large Number, ~10^(123)~(10^41)^(-3), or it is 'leakage' from a scale of greater complexity-energy (using Laurent Notalle's 'complexergy' term ties together concepts such as Information Theory and Thermodynamics).

These may be the sort of 'paradoxes' that would need to be addressed in a model-consistent ad-hoc manner.

report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Aug. 3, 2011 @ 03:27 GMT
Hi Ray,

Thanks for your clarification. I tend to agree with Tom, that the cosmos is bounded in space and unbounded in time. It seems more than reasonable that our bounded space then resides in a Multiverse that is self-similar to our own. Likewise, our cosmos would also contain a multitude of self-similar universes as subset spacetimes to our own, bounded by event horizons.

It again seems more than reasonable, in fact it seems definite, that there exists rational questions that lie beyond what any TOE can ever answer and thus any TOE would be incomplete. However, I still have an uncomfortable tolerance for any physical infinity, even an infinite Multiverse, although I can imagine no reasonable alternative. I guess that's why we need philosophers as well as scientists.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 3, 2011 @ 16:25 GMT
Dan, Ray, you confound all, stop to imply confusions for the public and for rationalists please, your extrapolations are falses. In fact you like paradoxs, decoherences, irrationalities, bizare things ...and tom says what he is a rationalist in maths, yes of course he is a deterministic axiomatizer, no but we dream there. It's time to return at rational reason there ?

Dirac large number, infinity, finite groups, bounded, unbounded and a serie here, a convergence there....no but we dream where are your rationalities, answer anywhere!!!You mix and confound all....then your conclusions are more falses than your hypothesis....I don't see equations furthermore, just a repetition of some mixs.And a publicity for some friends who are falses also.I don't understand this kind of comportment, it's not logic simply.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Aug. 3, 2011 @ 14:23 GMT
Dear All,

I would like to introduce myself in quantum terminology and share the truth that I have experienced with you. who am I?

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I superpositioned myself to be me, to disentangle reality from virtuality and reveal the absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
Dear Florin,

I don't know what to make of this graph theory. Other than it is a curiosity. Though I do like visual information. Thank you for sharing it here. It might become clearer to me in time. I have not forgotten our conversation about socks and really appreciated your patience.

I still think that the objects/particles have -actual- reality in unobserved space, rather than quasi reality. Really there like Richard Feynman's steak. Modeling with probability waves has been a necessity due to our inability to observe objects at such a tiny scale and form a space-time image reality simulation of them. They do not exist imo with comparable reality in space-time. Which makes it difficult to correlate the two. Rather than space-time being the really real reality external to the observing organism it is an unobserved uni-temporal space that is there.

The manifestation observed is a space-time patchwork, generated from received data from the environment and reconstructed into a seeming likeness in "imaginary space". How it is done I do not know but perhaps there is/are some algorithms used by the brain to form the observed complex simulation. Which functions to allow the organism to navigate but is not identical to the space external to the organism which is uni-temporal rather than space-time and the objects that exist there are not the product of a signal subject to transmission delay. So now non locality makes sense to me.

Space-time and unobserved space occupied by actual matter and particles are not different versions of the same thing or just different scales but fundamentally different.It is my conjecture that mathematical space-time is based upon experienced space-time and "verified" through observation which is necessarily of the space-time experienced simulation.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 02:34 GMT
So the space-time is the map and the unobserved space is the territory.It is not possible to put the territory -as it is- onto the map due to the sensory limitations and the signal transmission delay within the unobserved environment. Giving the problem of non locality.

The way that the territory is mapped is probably via the sensory data input to a mathematical algorithm or number of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 07:10 GMT
There are therefore several predictions to be made.

Firstly this can be done and so eventually will, (perhaps in a simpler version to begin with).It can be predicted that if done it will produce mathematical algorithm/s highly unlikely to be produced/discovered another way. (Whether those algorithms can in practice be taken and used to simulate the virtual environment is less certain. They may be too difficult to identify, extract and apply to another use from the original generating program but they may not. Some trial and error may initially be required as in gene sequencing. Splicing the algorithmic code and finding what each bit does. Until the code is easily identified/recognized. Though they could be far simpler to identify, extract and reapply than anticipated. I do not have the IT/maths know how to be certain.

Secondly It can be predicted that the anticipated algorithmic result will be capable of being used to produce a simulation showing significant similarity to the original virtual environment in some clearly identifiable respect.

Thirdly it can be predicted that one of the differences should relate to the delay between production of data in the environment and its interception by the virtual creature, giving a simulated output having similarity demonstrating spread across the sequence of iterations of the original virtual environment. IE showing correlation to the space-time time dimension.

Which would give evidence in support of the space-time observed reality, to which the mathematical space-time relates, being a simulation of the uni-temporal unobserved Object Universe which is undergoing continuous sequential iteration and change.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 21:49 GMT
What do you think? Anyone? Any comments/feedback appreciated.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Gravity, invisible and visible, is key to distance in/of space.

Distance in/of space, in keeping with electromagnetic/gravitational/inertial equivalency and balancing, is key.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 15:52 GMT
The ultimate understanding of physics combines and includes opposites.

F=ma ultimately proves this as well. Balance and completeness.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Some basics of quantum gravity:

1) Inertial and gravitational equivalency in keeping with balanced attraction and repulsion.

2) Combining and including larger and smaller space in keeping with enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space.

3) Space manifesting as inertial/gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

report post as inappropriate


AUTHOR FRANK MARTIN DI MEGLIO wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
The very basics in physics need to be understood first. You all are at Z (you think) without really being at a, b, or c. Accordingly, physical understanding is, and involves, what is unnatural, diminished, detached, skewed, and distegrated/fragmented/incomplete.

WAKE UP TIME BOYS, SORRY.

report post as inappropriate


AUTHOR FRANK MARTIN DI MEGLIO wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
I'VE FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFIED PHYSICS. YOU NEED TO STOP LYING/EVADING.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 6, 2011 @ 21:01 GMT
Instantaneity requires a balance of opposites -- no resistance. Larger and smaller space.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 6, 2011 @ 21:07 GMT
Ignoring so much fundamental truth keeps the maximum amount of money and lies (and incompetent players) in physics.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 6, 2011 @ 21:17 GMT
FQXi.org, can you really continue to ignore all of my ideas? You are so wide open on all of this. Your credibility is seriously lacking. It is obvious.

Physics is lost in space with what is unnatural and fragmented/distorted.

Reality/truth is what is natural FQXi.org -- not TV, and not "deep space" astronomical observations. Dreams and waking = real = truth. The truth is simple; but first, you need to be able to truly think.

I'm not finished with your lessons FQXi.org.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 7, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
The [linked] extensiveness of thought (in general) is necessarily evidenced by, and in conjunction with, any fundamental unification of physics.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.