RE: Ou and quantum mechanics
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your blog. I have the same question as posed by Stan. Does your MQED model give the same results as QED about presently available experimental results? As far as I can tell, there is no known disagreement of QED with experimental data. Modern QM (QED) experiments are usually done with lasers and optics. So they would have noticed discrepancy if it existed. Are you relying on future experiments to tell the difference?
Density matrix (DM) formalism is used very often, especially by condense matter and theoretical chemists. If I understand, this makes approximate calculations doable while exact calculations may be impossible. Do you know of an example where DM calculation gives different results from Schrodinger eq. calculation when doable?
Consciousness is very hard problem for science. Some people may say that it is not relevant to the present investigations in physics which deal with matter and energy. So I am not sure what you mean by applying MQED to such areas.
I hope you do not mind such criticisms. I think, disagreements are always good for science in the long term.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:paul....@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 11:52 AM
To: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>;
George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ou and quantum mechanics
Thanks, Joe!
Your name came across quite clear.
Some of the posts were a bit off topic, so I hope you don't mind that I focused on those which I hope would be most intelligible to the readers.
It is an interesting way to do focused dialogue. Maybe I should do further posts, more suited to the core issues of consciousness, which in my view are not really related to the red herrings introduced by quantum measurement formalisms.
The Liebnitz/Newton dialogue is a whole other subject, complex enough in itself. I have seen in mainstream history texts that Liebnitz was a disenchanted official in the Rosicrucian Order, who decided to simplify and go public, in resentment at what he saw as excessive secrecy -- putting Newton in a rather awkward position.
But maybe such details and ancient history go beyond what modern audiences rightly care about in most cases...
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul,
I just left a brief comment on your blog, but did not know how to identify myself as the writer.
joe
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Stan!
As I think about all the confusions which can result from unstructured email discussions, with people at different levels of prior knowledge, I decided this morning to put together a blog post,
http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2017/09/childs-history-of-reality-in-physics.html, putting things in context.
It gets around to explaining what a huge change it makes when we think in terms of density matrices, not wave functions... and exactly why THAT CHANGE is what got rid of metaphysical observers long ago in empirically-oriented quantum mechanics. The logic really should be quite clear to those whose minds are not already set in concrete or even in stone.
Best of luck,
Paul
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Paul, Indeed the density matrix (DM) is by far the best way to understand this aspect of quantum mechanics. There are four very clear steps to the evolution of DM. I gave a talk on this last Thursday.
Step 1: DM has strong off-diagonal components. This is the wavy part.
Step 2: DMbecomes FAPP (for all practical purposes) diagonal by interactions with environment.
Step 3: DM becomes diagonal (probabilities) when the state is "type1" observed.
Step 4: DM becomes a point on diagonal when the final "type2" observation takes place.
The after Step 4 one goes back to step 1. The DM is a nice way of viewing it.
Steps 3&4 are called the measurement process. The humongous problem with the above is that, as Feynman often pointed out, it makes no sense. Many people, like Penrose, Werbos, etc. have tried modifying QM to get it to make more sense. Their modifications have run into problems with experimental data. So I wish Penrose with gravity & Webos with MQED good luck when your proposed experiments get done. .
Stan
I should add that the above 4 steps are truly wonderful for me with my DUALITY license plate that I've had for 40 years. I love there being lots of ways of looking at our awesome reality.
Stan
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
First, I must apologize that when Vinod asked a question about measurement objects in the early universe, I sent too long of a response, trying to address the very serious but tricky technical issues involved in that question.
I cannot locate his long reply right now, but again, I apologize if the complexity caused some confusion and misunderstanding about what I was saying.
Above all, Vinod disagree with the claim that Ou disagrees with quantum mechanics.
Let me emphasize that I did not make that claim!!!
However, when he asked about 'tHooft, I noted that 'tHooft was not the first to jettison or downplay the whole idea of metaphysical observers in quantum mechanics.
For example, the classic ;paper by Clauser and Shimony, the first serious review of the Bell's Theorem experiments, shows how they modeled the "collapse of the wave function" in polarizers by a simple model of the polarizer as a macroscopic object. THAT DID NOT MEAN rejection of quantum mechanics in general; it merely illustrates how to do correct quantum mechanical calculations without ever even using the concept of metaphysical observer.
Mandel and Ou were among the first to do modern, more precise "Bell" experiments
using lasers and nonlinear crystals. There was a Scientific American story reviewing that, decades ago. What struck me hard in reading that review was the statement that "We do not actually need to observe anything to get these effects. It is enough that we 'THREATEN' to observe them." In other words, the set of objects like polarizers is enough to generate the effects.
Strictly speaking, people who have been really tracking modern quantum optics already know that Heisenberg's version does not work. It yields the wrong predictions. In the original Heisenberg version of quantum mechanics, we encode our knowledge into a "wave function", which embodies all we know. It is assumed that the dynamical equation for the wave function fully describes how knowledge is marched forwards in time. When I was part of the team at NSF overseeing evaluation of proposals from theorists offering to build quantum computers ASSUMING THAT VERSION of quantum mechanics, they were almost always rejected, since researchers who really understood the quantum optics knew that the designs would not work, because of an incorrect representation of knowledge.
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.1234, my ;paper in IJTP which described that experience (and of course passed serious peer review).
Folks who understand real-world empirical quantum optics understand that we need to use an entire DENSITY MATRIX rho to properly characterize our uncertainty.
They also know that "collapse" type phenomena -- changes in rank of density matrix -- occurs all the time inside of solid state objects and other controlled environments, without any need for metaphysical observers, whether cats or humans. Every modern master equation used in quantum optics describes this kind of more general evolution of knowledge.
To see that this is tfrue, you don't need to take my word for it. For example, I cited the classic seminal book by Walls and M ilburn. Similar master equations abound in Carmichael, and Born and Wolff and even Scully and Zubairy,
But no, the blogs of pure theoreticians and philosophers often assume unitary evolution through macroscopic objects. Those who do not try to test and make them work do often take imaginary shortcuts.
Paul Werbos
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your blog. I have the same question as posed by Stan. Does your MQED model give the same results as QED about presently available experimental results?
As far as I can tell, there is no known disagreement of QED with experimental data. Modern QM (QED) experiments are usually done with lasers and optics. So they would have noticed discrepancy if it existed. Are you relying on future experiments to tell the difference?
Density matrix (DM) formalism is used very often, especially by condense matter and theoretical chemists. If I understand, this makes approximate calculations doable while exact calculations may be impossible. Do you know of an example where DM calculation gives different results from Schrodinger eq. calculation when doable?
Consciousness is very hard problem for science. Some people may say that it is not relevant to the present investigations in physics which deal with matter and energy. So I am not sure what you mean by applying MQED to such areas.
I hope you do not mind such criticisms. I think, disagreements are always good for science in the long term.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Thanks Paul. It will be fine if you mention my name on your blog. Good luck with the experiments you want to be performed.
Best Regards.
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:paul....@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Ou and quantum mechanics
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Stanley A. KLEIN
Hi Stan,
Thanks for linking your very interesting article : USING PSYCHIC PHENOMENA TO CONNECT MIND TO BRAIN AND TO REVISE QUANTUM MECHANICS.
Has anyone studied the psychon concept in detail?
Also I would not worry about
“The major challenge to the introduction of a new particle is that it could easily mess up the super accurate calculations that have presently been made for things like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.”. There is still some room for a small contribution given by exchange of some particles such as supersymmetric particles. In fact if my memory serves right there are attempts to increase the experimental accuracy of magnetic moments of both electron and muon to see if there is genuine disagreement at some very high number after the decimal point!!
Best regards.
Kashyap
From: Stanley A. KLEIN [mailto:skl...@berkeley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 6:30 PM
To: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Cc: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; ccochran ccochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Ou and quantum mechanics
Hi Paul again,
I have another quite recent article that appeared in the AIP (American Institute of Physics) journal.
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4982778
The first part of the article gives relevant definitions of some of the words I'm using. In part (c) of Introduction I say three steps rather than 4 because I was lumping the FAPP diagonal density matrix together with the standard QED amplitudes. So step 2 would be the truly diagonal DM not just FAPP diagonal. So I'll be interested in whether you think these are okay definitions of the three steps of QM. So my question about your MQM (MQED) is whether your violation of Born rule is in going to probability or is it going to actuality. But since as I recall you may have a hidden variable approach, then there isn't really a probability step. You would go straight from amplitude to actuality. Is that what you are doing for the Born rule violation?
The following is from that ariticle I mentioned above.
c) Three steps in quantum measurement: Many foundational arguments in quantum mechanics concern the placement of the measurement cut. The measurement cut refers to the conceptual distinction between a measuring agency (above the cut) and the system that agency will measure (below the cut). In his Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, von Neumann gave a proof that the cut is movable. He showed it is possible to have a late (high) placement, involving a sentient observer. For this to be possible it is useful to divide QM into three repeating steps: i) the mathematics for calculating amplitudes; ii) probability (mixture), the square of the amplitude erases phase information; and iii) actualization. The last two phases are the measurement process and are often (incorrectly) treated as a single event.
d) Two aspects of the Born rule: The Born rule governs the two transitions between the three steps. Transition 1: Going from step (i) to (ii) the probability as the square of the amplitude. Transition 2: Going from the probability of step (ii) to the actuality of step (iii) is a totally random event.
Stan
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Ahhh, Paul, I'm finally starting to understand what you are talking about. You are using "QED" to mean what most people I talk to are calling QM. So you are including the two transitions as part of QED.
Transition A goes from FAPP probability to true probability where the density matrix (DM) is only on the diagonal.
Transition B goes from probability to actuality, where DM is now a teensy point.
Your use of QED to mean including all the measurement complexities really confused me a lot. I think for clarity it is better to say QM.
For transition A and B the BIG assumption has always been the invoking of the Born rule whereby the probability between A and B is given by the square of the QED amplitude. And furthermore, the actuality from transition B obeys the probability!
So your MQED is really a critique of the Born rule. It would have greatly helped me in understanding your MQM (what you called MQED) if you would have said that you are modifying the Born rule. That modified Born rule is what I discussed in
https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/603/1045
Also for a discussion of the 14 interpretations of QM you could look at:
https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/596/1019
All these interpretations of QM are complex but they all intend to make identical predictions (of course Penrose and GRW are different but they are included in the table because of their familiarity).Some of those interpretations have the Born rule come out automatically and some simply assume it. One of the shocking aspect is that they only discuss Transform A going from amplitude to probability (diagonal of density matrix). Only the hidden variables interpretations and MQM (what you call MQED) have a mechanism for the collapse to actuality. When you look at the Interpretations of QM those tend to be the ones that have "yes" in the Determinism column. You can go to our article mentioned above for those discussions.
Paul, I look forward to your comments.
best,
Stan
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Stan!
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi Paul,
. But I'm totally with you that QED is the thing to discuss on this group. There are several participants in this group who believe in psychic phenomena, and QED should be plenty sufficient for that realm. I love QED. Feynman is my hero and had a very strong influence on me when I got started in physics.
Understood. We are grappling with many complex issues, and I tried to avoid the psychic aspects in this post, because the issues here are already complex enough.
By the way, Julian Schwinger was my main teacher in QFT. Strictly speaking, my very first course in QFT was his course in which he explained why he was unhappy with the earlier version which won him the Nobel Prize, and why he was working to try to develop a new version.
Towards the end of that blog post, I explain that I see a corrected version of QED as the most important task before all of physics, in part because it is the STARTING POINT for any further theories of physics (aside from general relativity and its classical competitors). I am deeply interested in where we go from there, especially since I don't think I have the option to just start doing the quantum optics experiments in my own basement (but I am starting to wonder...), but our choices do depend on the choice for QED.
In your postings you seem to be claiming that the 13 very different interpretations of QM/QED have different predictions. Could you give an example.
As this starts to be a focused thread (which is appropriate for this kind of thing), I applaud Joe's idea that a lot of this should be moved to the comment section of the blog post itself. Kashyap -- I hope it is OK that I moved your questions there, without attribution. (My wife says to always refrain from attribution, except with specific permission. It could be reposted easily and the old version deleted, if you choose to post your questions as you.)
The example which impressed me most was what we saw in the NSF reviews, which I discussed in my responses to Kashyap in the blog comment section.
My responses did NOT refer to your list of 13, but to the old Heisenberg version (from when it was QM not QED). But for the future, I would prefer to start with KQED, which actually did constitute a breakthrough not only in prediction but in greater consistency of definition.
Incidentally, I say QM/QED because QED is just step 1 of the four steps of QM.
No problem, this is just a matter of semantics. To me "a QED" is a COMPLETE recipe for making predictions, like KQED. That's what won the Nobel Prize, after all. The second quantization has often been described as "from QM to QFT" by many authors, like Schwinger himself. The essence of the second quantization was modeling of FIELDS (F), not just particles like electrons. Before QED, the electromagnetic field was modeled like the classical field in all practical QM predictions, such as the historic breakthrough in predicting the spectrum of helium, arguably the most important success of Heisenberg's original QM.
But yes, I suppose both of us could benefit in principle from a joint effort at a more comprehensive and fine-grained taxonomy here.
THIS BLOG POST was mainly motivated by the need to be more explicit about two things: (1) why metaphysical observers are obsolete for ALL "practical" versions of QED, the versions which model solid objects in the modern way using on density matrices; and (2) why I tend to believe that density matrices are ENOUGH, even if we accept the modern canonical "Schrodinger equation" (normal product form of Maxwell-Dirac over Fock-Hilbert space) as a description of the real dynamics at the level of QED. Having studied Clauser and Shimony very closely, I knew long ago that he modeled the POLARIZER as an object which performed a collapse of the wave function. The experiments to compare KQED versus MQED involved the MODERN form of KQED; in effect, it is a comparison between TWO models of collapse of the wave function in a polarizer, with no use of metaphysical observers in EITHER version. The modern version is what Clauser used to make correct predictions of the Bell experiment.
The other three steps fall into the measurement aspect . All 13 of the the measurement interpretations (simply google Interpretations of QM for details) are very different from each other, but they give same predictions for all possible experiments. That is why it is so important to do the experiments you are proposing since that will kill present QED if your hoped for outcomes are true.. But keep in mind that QED isn't sufficient to fully discuss any experiment, One also need additional 3 steps of QM making a total of the 4 steps of QM.
Interesting. Besides KQED and MQED, my vixra paper on MQED also briefly reviews a number of other practical alternatives, all of which assume something different for the DYNAMICS for step 1!!! KQED differs from MQED only in the measurement aspect.
Best regards,
Paul
Vasavada, Kashyap V
C. S. Morrison
Dear Kashyap and Stan
I'd be grateful if someone could summarize the motivation for introducing a psychon concept. Is it to account for psychic phenomena? Is it to explain wave function collapse? Or is it to account for human consciousness?
If it is only the latter, I wonder if there is any need for it. We already have countless other particles whose ontological nature remains an open question as Eddington pointed out long ago. Why can't one of these serve as the psychon for human consciousness?
If it is to account for psychic phenomena, I'd be grateful if someone could tell me where I might find strong grounds for belief in such phenomena. Although Radin I think claims to have such results, I know of other researchers who have tried and failed to find such evidence. These researchers may of course be wrong (or perhaps keen not to rock the boat). However, my main misgivings come from the much more powerful argument that if such phenomena existed., why haven't they been harnessed by all human brains? I suppose you could say that maybe they were and that some have learned to do without them (like flightless birds). But with humans we are talking about pretty much a single species of organism. Remote viewing, and spoon bending, would to my mind have conferred a considerable advantage on our ancestors (especially in the light of the popularity attained by those who profess to have such skills). So why are we not now all capable of such feats?
I am very open to the idea that we are some novel particle. But if so, that would to my mind only support the view that other particles of matter are also consciousnesses. And given the accuracy of QED it is much more likely that we are one of the particles that this extremely successful theory is known to entail. Given that the brain needs to constantly encode large amounts of sensory data in whatever we happen to constitute, it is surely more likely that we are something that is known to interact with the particles the brain is made of than something exotic whose interaction needs nee experimental precision to detect.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/6f1332db9e51467f86e5c8b655e511e7%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
deepak ranade
Thanks Paul. It will be fine if you mention my name on your blog. Good luck with the experiments you want to be performed.
Best Regards.
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:paul....@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Ou and quantum mechanics
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.cfxccxtxx. d z d ty