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

Lorraine Ford: on 1/12/22 at 22:00pm UTC, wrote Steve, I would like to point out that physics says that the world and...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/6/22 at 10:44am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, the laws of nature are what they are and we are limited in...

Lorraine Ford: on 1/5/22 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Steve, Re Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 24, 2021 @ 12:01 GMT: I’m...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/24/21 at 12:01pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, you know that I am not a religious, I believe like ienstein a...

Lorraine Ford: on 12/24/21 at 3:34am UTC, wrote Steve, According to your quasi-religious beliefs about the nature of the...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/23/21 at 21:29pm UTC, wrote Hello Lorraine, I wish you a merry christmass and happy new year. Friendly

Lorraine Ford: on 12/21/21 at 23:12pm UTC, wrote Physics/ mathematics is the activity where men move symbols and fiddle with...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/21/21 at 14:05pm UTC, wrote Hi , it is a very good question indeed, We need to better understand this...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Existence is different from a model of it built using received information,..." in Quantum Physics and the...

Georgina Woodward: "http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0138 The entangled particles do not need telling..." in Quantum Physics and the...

umair zaheer: "Travel is the movement of people between distant geographical locations...." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

robin 435: "rsvsfascxseaczcfadv" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

David Vognar: "Electron Doping? by David Vognar I think it helps to visualize physics so..." in The Present State of...

Nick Fury: "Hi, when you get older there is not a single part of your body that is..." in Quantum Measurement and...

Lady Zecharia: "Can physics address - at least in principle - the truly deep questions of..." in The Present State of...

john hele: "There are many freelancers who offer to write your dissertation for a very..." in Causal Discovery in the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Entropic Price of Building the Perfect Clock: Q&A with Natalia Ares
Experiments investigating the thermodynamics of clocks can teach us about the origin of time's arrow.

Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality
Physicists lay out blueprints for running a 'Wigner's Friend' experiment using an artificial intelligence, built on a quantum computer, as an 'observer.'

Expanding the Mind (Literally): Q&A with Karim Jerbi and Jordan O'Byrne
Using a brain-computer interface to create a consciousness 'add-on' to help test Integrated Information Theory.

Quanthoven's Fifth
A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

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.


FQXi BLOGS
November 29, 2022

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: How does an Isolated Quantum System Relax by Jörg Schmiedmayer [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Josh Hoffman wrote on Dec. 8, 2021 @ 19:07 GMT
Jörg Schmiedmayer (Physics, Vienna University of Technology) How does an Isolated Quantum System Relax



Keywords: #IAF #Information_As_Fuel #Schmiedmayer #Quantum #Quantum_Thermodynamics #Quantum_Systems #Thermodynamics #Thermalization #Quantum_Isolated_Systems

Bookmark and Share


This forum thread is open to the public.


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 12, 2021 @ 13:52 GMT
Hi Professor Schmiedmayer,

The non equilibrium systems indeed are essential and important to take into account like the de coherences. So indeed why they relax. The gibbs ensembles could be extrapolated with the statistics and informations with the works of von neumann too and if we consider 3 main systems merging to create our actual QM, so the thermodynamics can be better undertood with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 15, 2021 @ 00:06 GMT
But Jörg Schmiedmayer, what is a SYSTEM?

Answer: The world (the universe) is the only truly standalone system, and every other so-called “system” is merely a non-standalone subsystem of the one and only true system.

Every subsystem only works in the context of the one and only truly standalone system.

This is what makes the world a truly standalone system:

(1) A system differentiates itself. A differentiated world necessarily differentiates, i.e. discerns difference in, (what we would represent by) its own equations, variables and numbers. This logically necessary “discerning of difference” aspect can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols, just like in a computer program.

(2) A system moves itself. E.g. the world jumps (what we would represent by) its own numbers. But the experimentally found passive law of nature relationships (represented by passive equations, despite the delta symbols) are clearly NOT the active elements which jump the numbers. Quantum number jumping can only be symbolically represented as the assignment of new numbers to variables, in response to a situation. This logically necessary “assignment of numbers in response to a situation” aspect can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols, just like in a computer program.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 15, 2021 @ 21:41 GMT
When will physicists, mathematicians and philosophers twig that the equations, that represent the experimentally found law of nature relationships, can never ever, by themselves, represent a SYSTEM?

It is necessary to use steps (represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols, just like in a computer program) in order to convert the equations into something representing a system.

These Boolean and algorithmic symbols represent a completely different aspect of the world-system to the aspect of the world-system represented by equations.

These Boolean and algorithmic symbols represent an aspect of the world that is just as necessary as the aspect of the world represented by equations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 16, 2021 @ 21:25 GMT
Re: What are SYSTEMS?

Systems move, systems take steps, but where are the steps?

1. Equations:

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not imply that the world is, at its foundations, systematically performing algorithmic steps to solve equations.

The equations that represent the experimentally verified laws of nature merely represent static relationships that have been found to exist between categories (categories like mass or position).

These equations are strings of manmade symbols that symbolically represent naturally occurring relationships, so the equations are not the actual relationships. Solving equations, i.e. discerning difference in, and manipulating, manmade symbols, is something that human beings do; people are performing algorithmic steps. But the world, at its foundations, is not performing algorithmic steps to solve equations.

2. Algorithmic steps:

However, the world IS performing steps that can only be represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols: individual occurrences of quantum number jumping, in response to situations, is something that can only be symbolically represented as the assignment of numbers to variables in response to situations, via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

As opposed to passive relationships (i.e. the laws of nature, which can only be represented by equations), an active moving SYSTEM can only be represented via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

However, as opposed to the equations which represent actual deterministic relationships, these Boolean and algorithmic symbols do not necessarily represent actual deterministic steps: the Boolean and algorithmic symbols can only symbolically represent the TYPE of steps that occur.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 17, 2021 @ 20:31 GMT
The ONLY way one can symbolically represent an individual occurrence of quantum “randomness” is as the deliberate assignment of a number to a variable.

I repeat, the ONLY way one can symbolically represent an individual occurrence of quantum “randomness” is as the deliberate assignment of a number to a variable.

Because quantum “randomness” is NOT about numbers: quantum “randomness” is about BOTH numbers and variables.

There’s nothing random about assigning numbers to variables. (What we would represent as) the assignment of a number to a variable is a deliberate act by a primitive agent.

But (mainly male) physicists have certain beliefs about the way they think the world SHOULD be. The beliefs of (mainly male) physicists about the nature of the world have resulted in a deliberate act being labelled as “random”.

I repeat, (mainly male) physicists have certain beliefs about the way they think the world SHOULD be. The beliefs of (mainly male) physicists about the nature of the world have resulted in a deliberate act being labelled as “random”.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 18, 2021 @ 22:10 GMT
There is no such thing as genuine quantum “randomness”, where individual nano-level outcomes have no actual cause, or a “random” cause. Every individual nano-level outcome has a genuine cause. But physicists assume that the only possible cause of quantum “randomness” could be thus-far-unknown laws of nature involving known variables and/or thus-far-hidden variables; these thus-far-unknown laws of nature or other mathematical contortions would presumably explain the individual nano-level numbers.

But actually, quantum “randomness” is NOT about numbers: quantum “randomness” is about both numbers and variables. You can only symbolically represent an individual nano-level occurrence of quantum “randomness” as the assignment of a number to a variable. There is nothing random about assigning a number to a variable: assigning a number to a variable is a deliberate act.

Clearly, the CAUSE of individual nano-level quantum outcomes, is the deliberate (what we would represent as) assignment of numbers to variables by nano-level entities. But physicists (mainly male), because of their quasi-religious beliefs about the nature of the world, won’t countenance such an affront to their strongly held beliefs about the nature of the world.

Even at the macro-level, physicists can’t believe that people (as opposed to the laws of nature) could genuinely and deliberately act, that people could be genuinely responsible for anything, e.g. that people could be genuinely responsible for flying planes into the twin towers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 19, 2021 @ 23:49 GMT
To clarify:

Physicists believe that people were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers in exactly the same sense that a ball, placed at the top of an incline, is responsible for moving down the incline.

In other words, physicists don’t believe that people were genuinely responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers.

Physicists believe that the laws of nature were responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Monika Součková wrote on Dec. 21, 2021 @ 11:40 GMT
How did life evolve from nonliving matter?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 21, 2021 @ 14:05 GMT
Hi , it is a very good question indeed, We need to better understand this in fact and due to what . Probably we have deeper parameters to superimpose to our standard model. Personally I beleive that the space vacuum is the main answer and we need to better understand it . Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 21, 2021 @ 23:12 GMT
Physics/ mathematics is the activity where men move symbols and fiddle with symbols. And then tell themselves that the thing represented by the symbols would move all by itself if the physicists and mathematicians weren’t there.

In fact, the equations that represent the experimentally verified laws of nature merely represent category relationships; despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature don’t symbolically represent number movement; the equations that represent the laws of nature don’t represent a standalone system where the numbers move.

The equations that represent the laws of nature don’t represent a perpetual motion machine that moves the universe. The equations that represent the laws of nature represent the limited consequence IF someone or something assigns new numbers to some of the categories in the relationship.

Quantum number jumping is the missing part of the system: the bit that moves the system; the bit that equations can’t represent; the bit where the system, or elements of the system, assign new numbers to some of the categories.

To represent a complete, standalone world, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to:

(1) Represent the system differentiating itself. It is logically necessary that the system or parts of the system discerns difference in (what we would represent as) its own equations, variables and numbers.

(2) Represent the system moving itself. It is logically necessary that the system or parts of the system assigns (what we would represent as) new numbers to its own variables.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 23, 2021 @ 21:29 GMT
Hello Lorraine, I wish you a merry christmass and happy new year. Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Dec. 24, 2021 @ 03:34 GMT
Steve,

According to your quasi-religious beliefs about the nature of the world, some matter (called “Steve”) deliberately wished me a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in exactly the same sense that some matter (called “a ball”), placed at the top of an incline, deliberately rolled down the incline.

In other words, according to your quasi-religious beliefs about the nature of the world, it’s 100% the laws of nature that caused the above post wishing me a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Could you please explain how you, and what you say and do, is in any way different to other routine, deterministic outcomes of the laws of nature?

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Lorraine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 24, 2021 @ 12:01 GMT
Lorraine, you know that I am not a religious, I believe like ienstein a kind of god of spinoza, I just consider an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D creating the universe, a thing that we cannot define. The sciences community is divided but many consider and considered this like borh, einstein, heisenberg, schrodinger, newton,lorentz,Galilei,....I just wish a merry christmass like a habit and a feast. So have a good feast in familly, my familly to me is not on earth . Ps the laws of nature can come from this infinity eternal , in fact we cannot affirm but something seems to code and transform the energy, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 5, 2022 @ 21:55 GMT
Steve,

Re Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 24, 2021 @ 12:01 GMT:

I’m waiting for you to explain how you, and what you say and do, is in any way different to other routine, deterministic outcomes of the laws of nature, e.g. a ball, which rolls down an incline.

According to physics, you, and what you say and do, is no different to other routine, deterministic outcomes of the laws of nature, when you look at it closely.

According to physics, you, and what you say and do, is no different to a ball which rolls down an incline.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 6, 2022 @ 10:44 GMT
Hi Lorraine, the laws of nature are what they are and we are limited in philosophy about the origin of this universe and about the foundamental objects, in fact nobody knows the truth , a person persuaded lack of wisdom and humility, we know some equations, laws, axioms in maths and physics but these limitations are a reality. The universe seems deterministic but this determinism is limited too. The ball is in your hand Lorraine , they turn so they are lol

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 12, 2022 @ 22:00 GMT
Steve,

I would like to point out that physics says that the world and everything in it, including human beings and what they do, is no different to a ball that rolls down an incline, when you look at it closely.

I would like to point out that physics says that human beings, and what they do, are no different to every other routine deterministic outcome of the laws of nature.

Clearly, the physics view of the world is a quasi-religious view of the world. Is it wrong to ask people to analyse themselves and what they do, and to justify their beliefs that it was themselves, and not the laws of nature, that seemed to wish me a Merry Christmas?

Of course, I personally do not believe that the world and everything in it, including human beings and what they do, is like a ball that rolls down an incline, and I can justify my beliefs.

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.