[MD] Quantum Physics

[ian glendinning]

Coincidentally, I notice John Barrow was on yesterday's "In Our Time".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml
(Temporary link, moves to archives next week)

Ian

On 12/1/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Laird, Ant, et al,
>
> Barrow I've seen recommended before, but I've not read. I must do.
> Thanks for the reference Ant.
>
> I came to this area via "Mysticism and the New Physics" (Talbot)  and
> "The Tao of Physics" (Capra) - they thinked the spiritual and the
> scientific as part of a greater whole, before I'd read Pirsig. (Both
> Talbot and Capra seem to have gone off in whackier speculative
> directions since their original works.)
>
> What I would say about quantum mechanics is that it is an area where a
> little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that "standard"
> interpretations of QM post Copenhagen, remain extremely contentious.
> Worth reading original works by the likes of Heisenberg and
> Shroedinger too, before accepting received wisdom on these subjects,
> and readinh newer stuff.
>
> Some other angles anyone should follow-up here are
> (1) Einstein was right after all, what we are missing are anthropic
> effects in our quantum intepretaions. (The jury is out, I'm still
> researching.)
> (2) The fundamental components of quantum interactions are
> "information" eg QuBits. (I'm attracted to this, but my lack of
> mathematical physics skills means I'm struggling to fully understand.)
> (3) Stapp and Josephson - some interesting speculations on
> relationhsips between mental information processing and quantum
> effects, which others have taken up.
>
> Good hunting.
> Regards
> Ian
> PS Ant, do you have access to copy of the "Freshman" paper, asked for
> eslsewhere ?
>
> On 12/1/06, Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > I can't claim a study in Quantum Physics, as most of what I have
> > > gotten has come from word of mouth from folks looking for financial
> > > advice who were familiar with it, and as you say, stumbling across a
> > > little on the web.
> > >
> > > Some assumptions I have gained;
> > >
> > > There is no such thing in quantum physics as solid matter. All solid
> > > matter would be probability patterns that are hard to compress.
> > >
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > Yes, strictly speaking. Though probabilistic quanta can emerge as a
> > representation we think of as solid matter... quantum collapse into our
> > 3 dimensions. They're challenging our deterministic yes/no type
> > descriptions.
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > The same micro particles which pass through us pass through all of us,
> > > the trees and the moon I point at ;),
> > >
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > Now this is an interesting one. Is this suggesting that the quanta that
> > make up our atomic particles interchange rather freely
> > (probabilistically), but the atomic structures we experience remain
> > stable (at least to the limit of atomic decay?)
> >
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > The atom is made up of empty space, with nothing we could call solid,
> > > as the protons and neutrons are sometimes particles and sometimes
> > > waves, and as far as we can know, sometimes nothing. The vastness of
> > > this space compared to the size of the proton offers nothing in the
> > > way of a material substance.
> > >
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > Oh yes. Even in the classical atomic model there's such an amazingly
> > massive void, not only within, but also between attached particles.
> > Quantum theory explains this interestingly - Preserving the electron
> > energy levels from classic particle physics for the moment (so I can
> > explain it), we observe that when two atoms come into contact, their
> > outer energy levels cannot cross dimensionally past each other, even if
> > only one electron exists in the ridiculously vast surface of the energy
> > level. Classical physics sees this as a mystery, sometimes passed-off as
> > an electromagnetic force field effect, but with no feasible energy
> > source (and not much care for the second law of thermodynamics). Quantum
> > theory says that the electron is everywhere across the energy level's
> > probabilistic field at the same time, and that only when the surface of
> > the energy field is "prodded" by another atom does the electron's
> > quantum state collapse into a definitive point in 3D space (conveniently
> > at the 'right' point, blocking the unwelcome intrusion).
> >
> > Interesting that the sci-fi idea of a "force field" is inherent in
> > quantum physics!
> >
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > One interesting thought I came across which is a better theory of
> > > creation than anything else I have heard. Electrons rubbing together
> > > (friction) created gravity, and gravity pulled the gasses into what we
> > > now know as planets and stars. With Hawking Radiation from the Black
> > > Holes, this may be more re-creation than creation, as the universe can
> > > only be described as infinite.
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > Entanglement. I haven't read enough yet, but I'm sure somebody somewhere
> > has put together a theory describing a "critical mass" of entanglement -
> > that once so many quanta become entangled, they eventually freak out, do
> > some crazy stuff, and untangle.
> >
> > So imagine all quanta except one are entangled. That one last straggler
> > entangles with the rest. There's only one possible change for the quanta
> > to experience, since they're all hooked to everything everywhere. Boom!
> > They detangle, and in our 3D (+time) terms we call it the Big Bang. The
> > quanta immediately start entangling again in countless little strings
> > and webs (patterns!). And in a matter of (a LOT of) time they'll all
> > entangle again and go Boom! Recreation, indeed. I like it. VERY much
> > Scott Adams' "God's Debris" analogy, but much more palatable as quanta
> > than as particles of God.
> >
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > Quantum physics is complicated, but more so, it questions what I have
> > > called our predetermined prejudices, and one of the predetermined
> > > prejudices it questions is SOM, such as in A cannot be both B and not
> > > B (shortened) – something cannot come from nothing – and there must be
> > > a cause.
> > >
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > It's interesting seeing the myriad different approaches that scientists
> > are taking to quantum physics. They're all seeing the world in a
> > slightly different way, and all catching a sideways glance of something
> > kinda missing, and all trying different approaches to resolve it.
> > Slowly, all of our assumptions are being questioned, especially SOM. The
> > fundamental concepts of quantum theory not only dismiss SOM, but (to use
> > SOM's own determinism) "prove" SOM incomplete and flawed. But
> > mass-understanding and acceptance is a long way off. Just look at all
> > the "Children of Abraham" for an idea on timescales. :)
> >
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > What we think we know, we may not. Einstein said, "Common sense is the
> > > collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen," but then when it
> > > came to making something out of nothing, the instruments he and Bohr
> > > were using appeared to be measuring themselves, it seems his own
> > > common sense got in the way.
> > >
> > > But, when Bohr brought his findings to the US, they seemed to work,
> > > and Hiroshima would be proof. I don't know science is value free, at
> > > least not the scientists, because all two of the physicists I have had
> > > the honor to meet were quite concerned with how their work would be
> > > used. Saying politics is value free might fit a bit better. ;o)
> > >
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > Ah, SOM is value-free. Science can, is, and will continue to slowly
> > transcend SOM, as quantum theory has shown. Since ideas have not yet
> > evolved to self-sustaining, self-changing states (they're still a bit
> > dependent on us to 'think'), we'll see the SOM evacuation start with the
> > scientists. :)
> >
> > Politics are ALL value, it's just such a huge melting-pot of value that
> > nothing but brown sludge can come out. :P  But it's too easy for us to
> > piss on politics (largely a social endeavor) when 'looking down' on it
> > from the intellectual level.
> >
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > I know, such brilliance has probably left you speechless. I tried to
> > > tone it down some, but it's hard to get something this complicated
> > > down to a Tenth Grade Level (most definitely pun intended;)
> > >
> > [Laird]
> >  From the sudden pause of messages on the list, it looks like it left a
> > lot of people speechless! ;o) Hell, it's hard to think through these
> > ideas... abstractions of abstractions of abstractions of ab..... Some
> > dumbing down helps us keep perspective of how our discussions can
> > connect with the 'real world' around us.
> >
> >
> > > [Chin]
> > > Will Rogers once said something to the nature of the most ignorant
> > > individual is an educated man outside the field in which he was
> > > educated. I may resemble that remark ;),
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > [Laird]
> > And that's why I still scream play calls at the television on Sundays.
> > Nobody can hear me but the neighbors, and I'm sure my play calls would
> > be crap (but they can't be any worse than what the Buccaneers coaches
> > are calling)... We have a relentless desire to expand our experience and
> > I can't fault anybody for trying, even if no one else notices. :)
> >
> > -Laird
> >
> > >
> > >> [Laird]
> > >> I found the intro link I was looking for. It's an attempt to
> > >> describe
> > >> Hilbert space in terms a non-quantum-physicist can grasp. Despite
> > >> the
> > >> title, it still requires a fairly strong command of mathematic
> > >> principles.
> > >> http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/hilberts.html
> > >>
> > >> After I read this the first time, I stared at the ceiling for
> > >> quite some
> > >> time. As my imagination wandered, I got the sensation that some
> > >> 'crystallization' was taking place. First I was imagining the
> > >> orthogonal
> > >> dimensions of Hilbert space unfolding into a 3D (euclidian) visual
> > >> representations, then further into nonlinear dimension morphing.
> > >> Excited, I tried to write down something describing my imaginings,
> > >> but
> > >> nothing intelligible came out.
> > >>
> > >> The link is actually a portion of a larger quantum mechanics
> > >> discussion
> > >> circa 1996 (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq.html). It sounds
> > >> really
> > >> interesting, but it's way over my head. I'm currently searching
> > >> for a
> > >> normal-person-friendly definition of "quantum collapse", but it's
> > >> evading me. These Q-people are ruthless with their lingo!
> > >>
> > >> Skipping ahead to page 3
> > >> (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq3.html) it
> > >> looks like they're discussing quantum interaction between ideas
> > >> and the
> > >> physical brain. Lots of mention of William James too. My head
> > >> hurts just
> > >> glancing over it, but it sounds intriguing. Anybody have any
> > >> insight on
> > >> this stuff?
> > >>
> > >> -Laird
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>