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.

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/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author 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

Peter Jackson: on 5/18/20 at 18:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr Adami, Excellent analysis of the QM problem, one I've also...

Kevin Knuth: on 5/18/20 at 17:33pm UTC, wrote Somehow, my post got messed up. The gt lt symbols I used for quotes messed...

Kevin Knuth: on 5/18/20 at 17:29pm UTC, wrote Hello Chris! I really enjoyed your essay! When I read the title, I had my...

Chris Adami: on 5/17/20 at 21:48pm UTC, wrote Thank you John. I've been thinking about this for twenty years and was sure...

John Vastola: on 5/17/20 at 21:27pm UTC, wrote Wow! Most of the essays I've seen here (including mine) draw some broad...

Yutaka Shikano: on 5/4/20 at 23:19pm UTC, wrote Hi Chris, Very inspiring essay. On your notation, the origin of quantum...

James Hoover: on 5/4/20 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote Chris, Quantum uncertainty being a manifestation of the indeterminism...

Eckard Blumschein: on 5/4/20 at 5:36am UTC, wrote Irek Defee, Brukner's & Bruckner's symphonies sound highly sophisticated...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Lorraine Ford: "So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics..." in The Present State of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: On the Origin of Quantum Uncertainty by Chris Adami [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Chris Adami wrote on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 11:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

I propose that quantum uncertainty is a manifestation of the indeterminism inherent in mathematical logic.

Author Bio

Dr. Adami obtained his PhD and M.A. in theoretical physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, as well as a Diplom in Physics from Bonn University (Germany). He has pioneered the application of methods from information theory to the study of evolution, and designed the “Avida” system that launched the use of digital life as a tool for investigating basic questions in evolutionary biology. He wrote the textbook “Introduction to Artificial Life” (Springer, 1998). He was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement ofScience (AAAS) and a fellow of the American Physical Society

Download Essay PDF File
Note: This Essay PDF was replaced on 2020-04-22 15:08:19 UTC.

Bookmark and Share


David Brown wrote on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 13:37 GMT
“… connect mathematical and quantum uncertainty. It seemed that there were two ways to go about it: show that a quantum measurement really is attempting to solve the halting problem, or else to show that a classically entangled set of Turing machines looks in important ways just like a quantum system.”

Have you, or others, attempted to justify Lestone’s theory of virtual cross sections by using classically (or semi-classically) entangled sets of Turing machines?

Lestone, J. P. (2018). QED: A different perspective. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-18-29048

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jochen Szangolies wrote on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear Dr. Adami,

it's encouraging to see that the research program of investigating the connections between quantum uncertainty and mathematical undecidability appears to be gaining momentum. To the best of my knowledge, this program started with Wheeler, who proposed as his 'quantum principle' the 'undecidable propositions of mathematical logic', and nearly almost died when he got himself...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies replied on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 14:07 GMT
"To the best of my knowledge, this program started with Wheeler, who proposed as his 'quantum principle' the 'undecidable propositions of mathematical logic', and nearly almost died when he got himself thrown out of Gödel's office"

It occurs to me that I phrased this poorly. It was the research program of connecting undecidability to quantum mechanics that 'nearly almost died', not Wheeler---to the best of my knowledge, his removal from Gödel's office was not that forceful!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 21, 2020 @ 06:14 GMT
Dear Prof Chris Adami,

Your quantum Uncertainty essay great! I work mainly in Cosmology and Astrophysics, As you are Professor in astrophysics also you will have a good understanding about Cosmology too.

I was raading about Godel's law, I have few questions about it. This law is applicable to Quantum Mechanics, but will this law be applicable to COSMOLOGY.......?????.........

I never encountered any such a problem in Dynamic Universe Model in the Last 40 years, all the the other conditions mentioned in that law are applicable ok

I hope you will have CRITICAL examination of my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy".....

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 03:17 GMT
Dear Chris Adami,

You claimed having made Gold while I see myself a bit in the role of a Tschirnhaus. In other words it is not by chance that almost nobody took issue, commented on your essay and rated it. Of course, I have to criticize that cos +i sin but not cos + sin is fundamental to QM (due vote 1). On the other hand (my vote 10) you might be in principle correct with putting attention to a very basic issue at the heart of point set theory. I prefer boldly calling Cantor’s paradise rather a dot set theory.

Common sense has it: Who is dying is still alive. The cat cannot be dead and alive at a time. Precisely measured elapsed time is strictly speaking either positive or negative with no state in between. Einstein’s blur “past, present, and future” mingles different categories.

Mathematicians will further down-vote my essay which humbly suggests being careful: Do calculate just as if Cantor-Hilbert space and denial of causality were adequate mirrors of reality. Actually, even the best map is not the territory, and mathematics must not be reduced merely to countable numbers. Already the Greeks were aware of this. Kronecker and Brouwer failed. Notice: Intuitionism is named after the Urintuition of counting.

You got it by pointing out that densities may vanish. Why not reminding that division by zero yields nonsense too?

Thank you,

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Chris Adami wrote on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 15:08 GMT
Chris Adami re-uploaded the file Adami_FQXi_Essay.pdf for the essay entitled "On the Origin of Quantum Uncertainty" on 2020-04-22 15:08:19 UTC.

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Irek Defee wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 08:30 GMT
There is missing one highly relevant reference.

At present even the assumption of "time evolution of a quantum system is deterministic" is not obvious and is subject to investigation as the temporal order might in principle be entangled.

When invoking Turing machines in the QM context one has to resist temptation that QM is like a computer and 'computing'. In QM dealing with qubits there are indeed computations going one and quantum computers are possible. But this is trivial QM as the real QM is inherently infinitely dimensional and the really real QM is quantum field theory.

Best regards,

Irek

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 05:36 GMT
Irek Defee,

Brukner's & Bruckner's symphonies sound highly sophisticated to me. Do you agree on that a functioning as promised quantum computer will provide the final accord despite of dissonances by McEachern, Kadin, and Klingman? Being undecided so far, I hope that the really real QM does not need the complex FT, in priciple, while the use of complex FT is, of course, utterly useful in practice.

Incidentally, I wonder why after so many decades, Cantor's transfinite alephs did obviously not yet find application in engineering.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 16:48 GMT
Chris,

Quantum uncertainty being a manifestation of the indeterminism inherent in mathematical logic is, of course, a theoretical embodiment. My concept of the quantum world is quite vague and based on a non-math perspective, but I tend to reject the Copenhagen interpretation. Nevertheless, your view is well crafted logically, and as near as I can tell mathematically. I find your suggestion of a quantum classical presence by insinuation as interesting. I find studies of bridging the classical and quantum worlds quite interesting and cite a study by US and Austrian physicists (https://phys.org/news/2020-01-strange-metals.html) in my essay, as I find studies in quantum biology of interest too. It mentions the quantum entanglement nature of quantum criticality. I hope you will visit my essay as well: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396.

Regards,

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yutaka Shikano wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 23:19 GMT
Hi Chris,

Very inspiring essay. On your notation, the origin of quantum uncertainty implicitly assumes more than two-bits. Is this true? If so, what do you consider the uncertainty of the output from quantum devices as pointed in my essay?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Joseph Vastola wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 21:27 GMT
Wow! Most of the essays I've seen here (including mine) draw some broad links between uncertainty in its various forms and undecidability/uncomputability, but yours is the first I've seen that draws a convincing direct link. Very interesting central idea about the relationship between quantum measurement and the halting problem. I like also your point about how the distinction between 'system' and 'measuring device' is artificial, and really just for our own convenience.

Is there some history of related ideas? In particular, do there exist models where people try to describe (ideally in some level of microscopic detail) the interaction between a 'system' and 'measuring device' from both directions: by treating the 'measuring device' as doing the measurement, and by treating the 'system' as doing the measurement? This is the first time I've heard about this, and it seems like an important thing to think about in trying to understand the measurement problem.

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Chris Adami replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 21:48 GMT
Thank you John. I've been thinking about this for twenty years and was sure that somebody would have had the same idea somewhere, at some time. This could still be the case, but I have yet to find it.

Bookmark and Share


Member Kevin H Knuth wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 17:29 GMT
Hello Chris!

I really enjoyed your essay!

When I read the title, I had my doubts. But your presentation is very clear and your arguments are simple and convincing. Clearly, you have been thinking about this for twenty years, as you say. And while I call your arguments "simple and convincing", it is going to take me a while to really internalize this work!

I must say that I was delighted to read your treatment of the measurement process with the target and detector as a joint system. So often, it seems, that people do not understand that the measurement occurs via symmetric interaction. And people often forget that the phase is randomized after a measurement. My friend John Skilling and I are especially sensitive to this since we used this fact to help derive the Born rule in .

Although we have a cleaner derivation in the paper we are working on now.

It is fascinating how you demonstrate that this randomization of the phase is due to the joint target-detector system being asked to measure itself.

Do I understand that correctly?

In a paper we are currently writing, we write:

>

We use this as justification for the Pair Postulate which states that two numbers are needed to describe an object:

>

We then go on to use symmetries, such as associativity and distributivity (as I describe in my essay), to derive the Feynman rules.

One could imagine performing a measurement on the probe/detector to try to determine its state (in an attempt to remove the uncertainty). But then the second detector one uses to measure the state of the first detector would have an associated uncertainty. And we get ourselves into a state of infinite regress.

I am wondering how you might interpret the perspective I present above in terms of uncomputability?

Thank you again for sharing your wonderful insights and essay!!!

Take care,

Kevin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Member Kevin H Knuth replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 17:33 GMT
Somehow, my post got messed up. The gt lt symbols I used for quotes messed things up.

So here goes again!

Hello Chris!

I really enjoyed your essay!

When I read the title, I had my doubts. But your presentation is very clear and your arguments are simple and convincing. Clearly, you have been thinking about this for twenty years, as you say. And while I call your...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear Dr Adami,

Excellent analysis of the QM problem, one I've also grappled with for decades. I agree. Well done. But how are you with analysing solutions? I think you may, rarely, be able. Let's see;

Our pairs retain the pre-splitter axis angle, so one 'leads' with +, one - . A,B Polariser electrons at random angles absorb and re-emit, interacting at some surface tangent point angle 'of Latitude' (0-90o) from it's own nearest pole.

Now study the momentum vectors on a Poincare sphere; Only 'Curl' (as Maxwells) at the poles, but only linear (up/down) at the equator. Now THAT is a bit 'new' and missed by Bohr! What's more they BOTH change (from 0-1) inversely, and by the COSINE OF THE ANGLE OF LATITUDE!

Now just do some vector additions for momentum exchange in 3D, What you get is actually a new polarisation ellipticity, (in 3D of course) so major and minor axes amplitudes ('intensity') at 90o. Now BOTH hit the photomulipler channels, but only the MAJOR axis can trip one. (The 2nd interaction squaring the intensity Cos value). Where it's near circular we get 50:50 uncertainty.

An independent computer plot has shown that 'discrete field' model ('DFM') sequence violates Bells inequalities perfectly nicely, and does just what Bell predicted. No 'non-locality' nonsense required as A & B change their results independently, but still in the same proportions.

I touch on that this year, and reference the fuller description and experimental proof in last years essay, and the 'Trail' code & plot.

To stop Quantum Physicists running away in panic it seems it needs some nice complicated mathematical formulation which, if you can understand it, I'd like to recruit your collaboration on. First you'd better see if you can get your head round it!

Best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
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.