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.

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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Vladimir Fedorov**: *on* 5/18/20 at 7:39am UTC, wrote Dear Andrew, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very...

**Kwame Bennett**: *on* 5/1/20 at 20:33pm UTC, wrote There is a theoretical model that can compete with both quantum mechanics...

**Andrew Knight**: *on* 4/23/20 at 20:12pm UTC, wrote Hi Fabien, This is a fascinating reply and I had to think twice before...

**Fabien Paillusson**: *on* 4/22/20 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote Andrew, Thank you for your reply. I suppose my 2nd question was precisely...

**Andrew Knight**: *on* 4/21/20 at 15:49pm UTC, wrote Hi Fabien, Thank you for your great comments! Your first question: if my...

**Fabien Paillusson**: *on* 4/11/20 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrew, This was a nice and thought provoking essay. It seems naive...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 3/31/20 at 12:45pm UTC, wrote personally I don t understand why the majority of thinkers are in this...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 3/31/20 at 9:48am UTC, wrote I thought about the primordial fractal of spheres and the number 2 is...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Balybin Urievich**: "As for me, teaching the younger generation is one of the main tasks of..."
*in* The Present State of...

**John Cox**: "Okay. In Topology, all points on a sphere are vector positions and..."
*in* The Quantum Identity...

**Vending Ways**: "Vending Ways is a UAE-based leading distributor of Coin Operated Washing..."
*in* MCQST2021 | The universe...

**Steve Dufourny**: "David Bohm developed a method for comcrete dialogues rather than debates..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Steve Dufourny**: "One of the problems is the difficulty to unite and convice. The majority..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Thomas Ray**: "Kobi, You write as if information accumulates like physical grains of sand..."
*in* Mathematical Models of...

**Thomas Ray**: "Nicholas, Indeed. This sums up pretty much what I had in mind when I..."
*in* Mathematical Models of...

**Thomas Ray**: "I think of it this way: Just as the quality "color" is known not by the..."
*in* The Quantum Identity...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer**

A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

**Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?**

Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

**The Thermodynamic Limits of Intelligence: Q&A with David Wolpert**

Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

**Gambling Against the Second Law**

Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

**Mind and Machine: What Does It Mean to Be Sentient?**

Using neural networks to test definitions of 'autonomy.'

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

Calculating the energy needed to acquire and compute information could help explain the (in)efficiency of human brains and guide the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Using precision thermometry to make mini heat engines, that might, momentarily, bust through the thermodynamic limit.

Using neural networks to test definitions of 'autonomy.'

FQXi FORUM

May 21, 2022

CATEGORY:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020)
[back]

TOPIC: Interpreting Quantum Mechanics and Predictability in Terms of Facts About the Universe by Andrew Knight [refresh]

TOPIC: Interpreting Quantum Mechanics and Predictability in Terms of Facts About the Universe by Andrew Knight [refresh]

A potentially new interpretation of quantum mechanics posits the state of the universe as a consistent set of facts that are instantiated in the correlations among entangled objects. A fact (or event) occurs exactly when the number or density of future possibilities decreases, and a quantum superposition exists if and only if the facts of the universe are consistent with the superposition. The interpretation sheds light on both in-principle and real-world predictability of the universe.

Andrew Knight has degrees in nuclear engineering from MIT and the University of Florida as well as a law degree from Georgetown University. He is the sole inventor on 17 U.S. patents on technologies including rocket propulsion and information compression. After starting several small businesses, he retired at age 41 to pursue, full-time, fundamental understandings of physics and consciousness.

Wonderful essay Dr Andrew Knight,

Wonderful opening of the essay. That should be the spirit of any physicist. He should not be stopped by any old theory like Aristotle said that way we should go only that way in any science. You are correct in saying.....

.....It’s time to kill Laplace’s demon. And while we’re at it, let’s put to rest the age-old notion that, given enough processing time on a sufficiently large computer, it is possible, in principle, to fully predict the future. It’s not.......................

Lets kill Laplace's Demon!!! I will be with you to the last drop of my blood.

With a same spirit We proposed "Dynamic Universe Model" , Now we find that this model solves many problems that are not possible by Bigbang based cosmologies ....

I hope you will spend a little of your valuable time on my essay “A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

Best wishes for your essay.....

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Wonderful opening of the essay. That should be the spirit of any physicist. He should not be stopped by any old theory like Aristotle said that way we should go only that way in any science. You are correct in saying.....

.....It’s time to kill Laplace’s demon. And while we’re at it, let’s put to rest the age-old notion that, given enough processing time on a sufficiently large computer, it is possible, in principle, to fully predict the future. It’s not.......................

Lets kill Laplace's Demon!!! I will be with you to the last drop of my blood.

With a same spirit We proposed "Dynamic Universe Model" , Now we find that this model solves many problems that are not possible by Bigbang based cosmologies ....

I hope you will spend a little of your valuable time on my essay “A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

Best wishes for your essay.....

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

You did a very good analysis using quantum Mechanics principles for questions like....

“Will the bullet from a rifle hit a certain target?”

“Will it rain on our wedding day?”

“What will the stock market look like next month?” and

“When and where will the next pandemic begin?”

Answering these questions depends heavily on two features of the universe: chaos; and amplification of quantum events.

And finally your conclusion: "it is a foregone conclusion that every chaotic system – weather, populations, markets – is inherently unpredictable."

I am giving highest appreciation to your essay...!!!

But some predictions are possible in some other field of science Like cosmology. We used "Dynamic Universe Model" for predictions, and thy came true after 8 or 9 years in some cases. You can have a look at my essay....

Best

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

“Will the bullet from a rifle hit a certain target?”

“Will it rain on our wedding day?”

“What will the stock market look like next month?” and

“When and where will the next pandemic begin?”

Answering these questions depends heavily on two features of the universe: chaos; and amplification of quantum events.

And finally your conclusion: "it is a foregone conclusion that every chaotic system – weather, populations, markets – is inherently unpredictable."

I am giving highest appreciation to your essay...!!!

But some predictions are possible in some other field of science Like cosmology. We used "Dynamic Universe Model" for predictions, and thy came true after 8 or 9 years in some cases. You can have a look at my essay....

Best

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew,

Your essay is well written and engaging, and draws the reader in from the start (after all, who doesn't want to be a demon slayer!). You start by rehearsing some familiar history of quantum mechanics to set the scene. I'm not totally on board with citing Heisenberg's thought experiment as the origin of the uncertainty principle---these days, it's generally recognized that...

view entire post

Your essay is well written and engaging, and draws the reader in from the start (after all, who doesn't want to be a demon slayer!). You start by rehearsing some familiar history of quantum mechanics to set the scene. I'm not totally on board with citing Heisenberg's thought experiment as the origin of the uncertainty principle---these days, it's generally recognized that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jochen,

Thank you for your very thorough and well-thought-out comments. It is a compliment and honor to receive such attention.

First, let me address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even though this is not what the essay is about, my characterization of it was very intentional. I very strongly disagree with you that uncertainty is caused by QM algebra or wave mechanics. ...

view entire post

Thank you for your very thorough and well-thought-out comments. It is a compliment and honor to receive such attention.

First, let me address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even though this is not what the essay is about, my characterization of it was very intentional. I very strongly disagree with you that uncertainty is caused by QM algebra or wave mechanics. ...

view entire post

Hi Andrew,

in his paper "On the quantum-mechanical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations", in Zeitschrift für Physik, 1925, Heisenberg stresses: "This question [of discretisation] has nothing to do with electrodynamics, but is, and this is important to us, of a purely kinematic nature." And in his 1927 'indeterminancy' paper, his emphasis is on pointing to the 'Anschaulichkeit' (intuitivity) of this 'kinematic'.

Doesn't he say that quantum-mechanical indeterminancy is not a physical theory, but an (actually the only!) a priori means for the qualification of QM measurement outcomes? So, I agree with you that 'indeterminancy' is to be regarded as an assertion in the context of physics, but not that it describes some physical reality whatsoever. At this point in time (1927), in my opinion, everything that can reasonably be said about quantum mechanics had been said.

Heinz

report post as inappropriate

in his paper "On the quantum-mechanical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations", in Zeitschrift für Physik, 1925, Heisenberg stresses: "This question [of discretisation] has nothing to do with electrodynamics, but is, and this is important to us, of a purely kinematic nature." And in his 1927 'indeterminancy' paper, his emphasis is on pointing to the 'Anschaulichkeit' (intuitivity) of this 'kinematic'.

Doesn't he say that quantum-mechanical indeterminancy is not a physical theory, but an (actually the only!) a priori means for the qualification of QM measurement outcomes? So, I agree with you that 'indeterminancy' is to be regarded as an assertion in the context of physics, but not that it describes some physical reality whatsoever. At this point in time (1927), in my opinion, everything that can reasonably be said about quantum mechanics had been said.

Heinz

report post as inappropriate

Hi Heinz,

Thank you for your comments! I think you are probably right that very little (or perhaps even nothing new) has been said about the mathematical formalism of QM and its predictions since 1927. My first reaction when I read that was to object and mention the violation of Bell's inequality, but then again that's really just a test of the nonlocality of entanglement, and entanglement is an inherent feature of the QM formalism.

Andrew

Thank you for your comments! I think you are probably right that very little (or perhaps even nothing new) has been said about the mathematical formalism of QM and its predictions since 1927. My first reaction when I read that was to object and mention the violation of Bell's inequality, but then again that's really just a test of the nonlocality of entanglement, and entanglement is an inherent feature of the QM formalism.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

i like your attempt to interpret QM in terms of consistent facts. A similar line of reasoning brought me to write an essay in - i think it was in 2012.

You wrote

"Further, the characterization of a superposition as the absence of a relevant fact may help to explain why we never observe superpositions: we cannot observe the lack of a fact."

In my current essay I infer a similar conclusion. Nonetheless the absence of a superposition is also a fact, independent of whether or not in the future there may be experiments that can bring about some macroscopical superpositions.

report post as inappropriate

i like your attempt to interpret QM in terms of consistent facts. A similar line of reasoning brought me to write an essay in - i think it was in 2012.

You wrote

"Further, the characterization of a superposition as the absence of a relevant fact may help to explain why we never observe superpositions: we cannot observe the lack of a fact."

In my current essay I infer a similar conclusion. Nonetheless the absence of a superposition is also a fact, independent of whether or not in the future there may be experiments that can bring about some macroscopical superpositions.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Andrew,

I was particularly interested in your concept of a fact being required for a QM system to develop. It supports observer based reality. The information change you discuss makes this more specific and meaningful.

Your statement regarding FAPP required some research. Apparently it refers to “For All Practical Purposes” and specifically means that a wave function for a...

view entire post

I was particularly interested in your concept of a fact being required for a QM system to develop. It supports observer based reality. The information change you discuss makes this more specific and meaningful.

Your statement regarding FAPP required some research. Apparently it refers to “For All Practical Purposes” and specifically means that a wave function for a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Mr Knight,

A very relevant general essay I must say, one my favorites also.

You tell "In fact, this assumption underlies the very foundation of wave mechanics. Note that for any ? = ??(), ℏ ? = ℏ?? = ?? only if ? = ℏ?. It was realized that the mathematical operation −?ℏ could be defined as the momentum operator ? (in one dimension) and utilized on its own. If ? acts on eigenstate ? then it yields eigenvalue ? = ℏ? multiplied by ?, which is another way of saying that ? has a distinct momentum, while the superposition in equation (1) may not. 4 The fact that the quantum state of a system can be described in configuration space is often ignored in the typical textbook “proof” of HUP. In fact, given the assumptions that an object is fully described by a wave and that the momentum wave packet of a particular quantum state is equal to the Fourier transform of the position wave packet for the same state, HUP is a mathematical tautology that provides no further information"

When you tell us "in one dimension", what is it really because if the informations are particles coded and that the Waves are just due to fact that these particles oscilate and imply fields and Waves in a kind of superfluid vacuum in contact of particles , in my model, 3D spheres in motions oscillations and if the 1D is just a mathematical extrapolation not really existing, and that the strings and the 1D main field are not real, so how can we really understand that all is Waves instead of particles ? The problem seems philosophical about the main causes of our reality and its geonetries, topologies and properties of matters, if we take the strings or geonetrodynamics , so we have strings or points at this planck scale and a 1D Cosmic field, but if all is made of particles and that the codes are inside the particles, how can we be sure about the main philosophical essence of our universe?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

A very relevant general essay I must say, one my favorites also.

You tell "In fact, this assumption underlies the very foundation of wave mechanics. Note that for any ? = ??(), ℏ ? = ℏ?? = ?? only if ? = ℏ?. It was realized that the mathematical operation −?ℏ could be defined as the momentum operator ? (in one dimension) and utilized on its own. If ? acts on eigenstate ? then it yields eigenvalue ? = ℏ? multiplied by ?, which is another way of saying that ? has a distinct momentum, while the superposition in equation (1) may not. 4 The fact that the quantum state of a system can be described in configuration space is often ignored in the typical textbook “proof” of HUP. In fact, given the assumptions that an object is fully described by a wave and that the momentum wave packet of a particular quantum state is equal to the Fourier transform of the position wave packet for the same state, HUP is a mathematical tautology that provides no further information"

When you tell us "in one dimension", what is it really because if the informations are particles coded and that the Waves are just due to fact that these particles oscilate and imply fields and Waves in a kind of superfluid vacuum in contact of particles , in my model, 3D spheres in motions oscillations and if the 1D is just a mathematical extrapolation not really existing, and that the strings and the 1D main field are not real, so how can we really understand that all is Waves instead of particles ? The problem seems philosophical about the main causes of our reality and its geonetries, topologies and properties of matters, if we take the strings or geonetrodynamics , so we have strings or points at this planck scale and a 1D Cosmic field, but if all is made of particles and that the codes are inside the particles, how can we be sure about the main philosophical essence of our universe?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the comments. I'll take a look at your essay. It is an interesting question of whether waves by themselves describe the ontology of the universe. QFT asserts this, and Art Hobson in his excellent recent book (Tales of the Quantum) makes a very strong case that there are only waves, no particles. Best of luck in the contest!

Andrew

Thanks for the comments. I'll take a look at your essay. It is an interesting question of whether waves by themselves describe the ontology of the universe. QFT asserts this, and Art Hobson in his excellent recent book (Tales of the Quantum) makes a very strong case that there are only waves, no particles. Best of luck in the contest!

Andrew

Hello,

You are welcome. I am not sure that I will do this essay s Contest, my English is not perfect and I have difficulties to resume also.

Thanks for sharing also about the bool of Art Hobson, maybe I will read it. But if I can, I beleive that we cannot prove what is the main cause, I prefer personally the particles but it is just my opinion of course. It is logic :)

I...

view entire post

You are welcome. I am not sure that I will do this essay s Contest, my English is not perfect and I have difficulties to resume also.

Thanks for sharing also about the bool of Art Hobson, maybe I will read it. But if I can, I beleive that we cannot prove what is the main cause, I prefer personally the particles but it is just my opinion of course. It is logic :)

I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Andrew I enjoyed your essay. Thanks for presenting a different viewpoint of QM and their fit within the universe. I especially enjoyed your pointing out - there is currently “no apriori” explanation of QM My essay is an attempt to provide that explanation. What you may find interesting is that I was able to “map” most of the major points of your new interpretation of QM to my new SSC model of creation. Three examples —1. your facts correspond to stable SSCUs and their progeny 2. a consistent set of facts (SSCUs) become the physical universe. 3. QM is an emergent phenomena from an underlying ontology- note the C*s to SSCU transformation described in the appendix of my essay. I think you will find it interesting how the SSC mathematical model can show how your ideas can be quantized and related to the measurements of Planck’s constants, H atoms (atomic structures), the galaxies and the universe. Hope you find the essay useful. I would appreciate your comments. John Crowell

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Andrew:

A very engaging and thought-provoking essay; I enjoyed reading it gave it high marks.

Interesting to know your MIT background; when were you there? I finished my Sc.D. in mechanical engineering there in 1974.

You correctly point to the fundamental deficiency in QM interpretations in that - "...If our intuition is correct that predictability of an

object depends on its description in phase space, but if

the state of an object is entirely specified in

configuration space, then the information necessary to

predict the object simply does not exist. On this basis

alone, many argue that the universe is fundamentally

unpredictable."

You may be interested in my essay - "Unravelling the Missing Physics behind Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability" by Avtar Singh, wherein I point to the fact that uncertainty and unpreditability are artifacts of measuring or predicting an inherently relativistic (V~C) phenomenon in classical fixed space-time coordinates.

I would deeply appreciate your feedback comments/rating on my essay integrating the relativistic effects into the well-known DeBroglie and HUP equations. Then, the universe also could be predicted as described in my referenced papers (see attached pdf files) in the essay.

Looking forward to hear your feedback,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: 2_Published_Paper_in_Phy_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_2_4Singh.pdf, 2_Published_Paper_in_Physics_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_1_14Singh.pdf

report post as inappropriate

A very engaging and thought-provoking essay; I enjoyed reading it gave it high marks.

Interesting to know your MIT background; when were you there? I finished my Sc.D. in mechanical engineering there in 1974.

You correctly point to the fundamental deficiency in QM interpretations in that - "...If our intuition is correct that predictability of an

object depends on its description in phase space, but if

the state of an object is entirely specified in

configuration space, then the information necessary to

predict the object simply does not exist. On this basis

alone, many argue that the universe is fundamentally

unpredictable."

You may be interested in my essay - "Unravelling the Missing Physics behind Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability" by Avtar Singh, wherein I point to the fact that uncertainty and unpreditability are artifacts of measuring or predicting an inherently relativistic (V~C) phenomenon in classical fixed space-time coordinates.

I would deeply appreciate your feedback comments/rating on my essay integrating the relativistic effects into the well-known DeBroglie and HUP equations. Then, the universe also could be predicted as described in my referenced papers (see attached pdf files) in the essay.

Looking forward to hear your feedback,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: 2_Published_Paper_in_Phy_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_2_4Singh.pdf, 2_Published_Paper_in_Physics_Essays_Origin_of_Motion_Part_1_14Singh.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew,

This was a nice and thought provoking essay.

It seems naive but I really liked your definition of a fact!

I would have a couple of questions though, as it seems that some things are escaping my understanding:

- First, it is not clear to me what really constitutes a superposition. From the example you gave I do not see the difference between superposition (with possibility of interference) and simply not knowing all facts (tossing a coin). Can you please clarify on this?

- Second, at the very end you discuss the fact "it rained yesterday" and the various traces that would follow even many years after. I appreciate that this is a microscopic world view but what of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

- Third. It is more a comment but your definition of fact and the following detailed example with particles reminded me of simulation method called Event Driven Molecular Dynamics (https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article/doi/10.1143/PTPS.178.

5/1869834) which literally implements what you describe in your essay. Are you familiar with this method? Do you see any way of using it to emulate the kind of things (e.g. entanglement, superposition) in your essay?

Many thanks.

Best,

Fabien

report post as inappropriate

This was a nice and thought provoking essay.

It seems naive but I really liked your definition of a fact!

I would have a couple of questions though, as it seems that some things are escaping my understanding:

- First, it is not clear to me what really constitutes a superposition. From the example you gave I do not see the difference between superposition (with possibility of interference) and simply not knowing all facts (tossing a coin). Can you please clarify on this?

- Second, at the very end you discuss the fact "it rained yesterday" and the various traces that would follow even many years after. I appreciate that this is a microscopic world view but what of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

- Third. It is more a comment but your definition of fact and the following detailed example with particles reminded me of simulation method called Event Driven Molecular Dynamics (https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article/doi/10.1143/PTPS.178.

5/1869834) which literally implements what you describe in your essay. Are you familiar with this method? Do you see any way of using it to emulate the kind of things (e.g. entanglement, superposition) in your essay?

Many thanks.

Best,

Fabien

report post as inappropriate

Hi Fabien,

Thank you for your great comments!

Your first question: if my paper is right, then a superposition exists when a fact does not exist, unrelated to knowledge. When an event occurs, then there is no longer a superposition. When I toss a coin but don’t look at the result, there is still a fact about the result, a fact that is embedded in correlations with other facts about the universe. But that is different from the lack of a fact.

Not sure I get your second question. The 2nd law is not actually a “law” in the sense that classical processes are in principle reversible, so the increase in entropy appears as a statistical result. Whereas if there is a fact that “it rained yesterday” then this fact will be embedded in correlations with photons that speed outward to the night sky and can never, even in principle, be caught and “uncorrelated” to reverse the fact.

Third – THANK YOU!! I just downloaded the paper and am extremely excited to read it. One of my goals in writing and submitting this essay was precisely to see if anyone had done related research.

Thank you again for your notes and thoughts!

Andrew

Thank you for your great comments!

Your first question: if my paper is right, then a superposition exists when a fact does not exist, unrelated to knowledge. When an event occurs, then there is no longer a superposition. When I toss a coin but don’t look at the result, there is still a fact about the result, a fact that is embedded in correlations with other facts about the universe. But that is different from the lack of a fact.

Not sure I get your second question. The 2nd law is not actually a “law” in the sense that classical processes are in principle reversible, so the increase in entropy appears as a statistical result. Whereas if there is a fact that “it rained yesterday” then this fact will be embedded in correlations with photons that speed outward to the night sky and can never, even in principle, be caught and “uncorrelated” to reverse the fact.

Third – THANK YOU!! I just downloaded the paper and am extremely excited to read it. One of my goals in writing and submitting this essay was precisely to see if anyone had done related research.

Thank you again for your notes and thoughts!

Andrew

Andrew,

Thank you for your reply.

I suppose my 2nd question was precisely on the blatant incompatibility between the reversibility of the microphysical laws (based on Hamiltonian mechanics) and the irreversibility of macrfphysical observables such as "raining".

This is not at all an original question. It reminds me of the objection from Loschmidt to Boltzmann's H theorem relying on uncorrelated velocities where Loschmidt observed that you could in principle reverse all velocities and the entropy should decrease accordingly (since it was increasing with time for the "forward process"). Boltzmann would have allegedly replied "go on reverse the particles velocities".

What I am saying is that I am not convinced that, even in principle, events leave measurable traces of their happening at all later times.

Even a three body problem is already not reversible even when people try hard (https://www.sciencealert.com/three-black-holes-orbiting-eac

h-other-can-t-always-go-backwards-in-time).

This is just a thought if you think that can help you improve upon your argument against this concern.

Cheers.

Fabien

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your reply.

I suppose my 2nd question was precisely on the blatant incompatibility between the reversibility of the microphysical laws (based on Hamiltonian mechanics) and the irreversibility of macrfphysical observables such as "raining".

This is not at all an original question. It reminds me of the objection from Loschmidt to Boltzmann's H theorem relying on uncorrelated velocities where Loschmidt observed that you could in principle reverse all velocities and the entropy should decrease accordingly (since it was increasing with time for the "forward process"). Boltzmann would have allegedly replied "go on reverse the particles velocities".

What I am saying is that I am not convinced that, even in principle, events leave measurable traces of their happening at all later times.

Even a three body problem is already not reversible even when people try hard (https://www.sciencealert.com/three-black-holes-orbiting-eac

h-other-can-t-always-go-backwards-in-time).

This is just a thought if you think that can help you improve upon your argument against this concern.

Cheers.

Fabien

report post as inappropriate

Hi Fabien,

This is a fascinating reply and I had to think twice before replying.

First, I think that every event MUST leave traces/evidence of their happening and I base this on the quantum eraser experiments. Are you familiar with them? I had originally discussed them in my essay but I had to cut it out to keep the length within the requirements.

Second, reversibility is not the same as events leaving traces. Yes, if an event is reversible, then it obviously must leave traces, but not the other way around. If an event leaves traces, it may or may not be reversible. For example, if some of the evidence of an event is in a correlated photon moving toward the black night sky... it is not retrievable in principle and therefore the event is irreversible.

Thanks for the reference to the article... I'll look at it now!

And thanks again for your comments... please let me know if you have more or if you disagree with my reply.

Andrew

This is a fascinating reply and I had to think twice before replying.

First, I think that every event MUST leave traces/evidence of their happening and I base this on the quantum eraser experiments. Are you familiar with them? I had originally discussed them in my essay but I had to cut it out to keep the length within the requirements.

Second, reversibility is not the same as events leaving traces. Yes, if an event is reversible, then it obviously must leave traces, but not the other way around. If an event leaves traces, it may or may not be reversible. For example, if some of the evidence of an event is in a correlated photon moving toward the black night sky... it is not retrievable in principle and therefore the event is irreversible.

Thanks for the reference to the article... I'll look at it now!

And thanks again for your comments... please let me know if you have more or if you disagree with my reply.

Andrew

There is a theoretical model that can compete with both quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics

Please take a look at my essay A grand Introduction to Darwinian mechanic

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3549

report post as inappropriate

Please take a look at my essay A grand Introduction to Darwinian mechanic

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3549

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew,

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"A fact (or event) occurs exactly when the number or density of future possibilities decreases, and a quantum superposition exists if and only if the facts of the universe are consistent with the superposition. The interpretation sheds light on both in-principle and real-world predictability of the universe".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"A fact (or event) occurs exactly when the number or density of future possibilities decreases, and a quantum superposition exists if and only if the facts of the universe are consistent with the superposition. The interpretation sheds light on both in-principle and real-world predictability of the universe".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.