Post New

If you have an interest in quantum to classical existential emergence, this article is a must-read as it addresses a number of key issues. Here's an example ...

QuantaMagazine: The molecules in an apple are described by quantum mechanics, and photons of light bouncing off the surface molecules get entangled with them. Those photons carry information about the molecules to your eyes — say, about the redness of the apple’s skin, which stems from the quantum energy states of the molecules that constitute it.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/are-the-mysteries-o...

That’s been my thought for quite some time, perhaps owing to prior exposure to the thinking of Zurek and others.

It’s generally accepted that photons, the so-called ‘light particles’ that inform us of our universal environment, undergo no change between their emission and absorption events, thereby enabling them to faithfully convey the state of affairs at scales ranging from quantum to cosmic. Photons represent entanglement between emitter and receptor regardless of their spatial separation.

To my mind this raises a question as to the atemporality of experience across all scales. I regard experience of existence as ubiquitously emergent within infinite potential.

This article goes on to meaningfully clarify the nature of interactive phenomena at a quantum scale. Well worth the time and attention.

Tom

Photons represent entanglement between emitter and receptor regardless of their spatial separation.

You should probably use a different word. Quantum entanglement is a very specific thing, and is not applicable to what you're describing. The apple is red (if it is) because red photon are reflected while other colors are absorbed. Not because they have entangled with the apple skin.

I'm not blaming you. The article said it. But they were being very sloppy with their terminology, so I can't really take them seriously. Good science writers will simplify, but not confound terminology.

You should probably use a different word. Quantum entanglement is a very specific thing, and is not applicable to what you're describing. The apple is red (if it is) because red photon are reflected while other colors are absorbed. Not because they have entangled with the apple skin.

I'm not blaming you. The article said it. But they were being very sloppy with their terminology, so I can't really take them seriously. Good science writers will simplify, but not confound terminology.

You appear to have missed the substance of the article. The writer was reporting on the lifelong professional work of practiced scientists, not making something up on his own. The point is that Professor Zurek is challenging the long-standing paralysis in quantum mechanics with verifiable insights. Perhaps you too have 30 years of expertise in the field of quantum physics to validate your dismissal of his innovative work. If so, please share your well-reasoned rationale in that context.

Tom

If I had finished my thesis work, I'd have a PhD in physics. I had all the other requirements out of the way. I pivoted because I didn't want a life of publish/perish and chasing funding.

This is quantum entanglement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
(a non-intuitive concept for many, but this explains it reasonably well, I think, and isn't sloppy)

Has nothing to do with photons reflecting off of an apple.

If someone wants to shake up physics, go for it. We like that. We like having our assumptions challenged. But you can't change the meaning of a scientific term just because you feel like it. Heck, this is the foundation of the EPR experiment. We know it happens, but we still haven't figured out how. It may require new physics to explain it (i.e. how the information can travel faster than the speed of light in the experiment). Perhaps that new physics will allow QM and GR to unify.

As a physics person, it's hard for me to get past the sloppy (incorrect) use of terminology.

I doubt you even read the article. You're simply regurgitating the widely acknowledged problematic consensus that's been accepted for many decades. Your 'almost' PhD isn't exactly impressive as a credential when the subject of the article is widely respected within the real physics community. You're attacking me personally for suggesting an article about a legitimate long haul serious physicist who's challenging your commonly held beliefs.

Tom

You're attacking me personally for suggesting an article about a legitimate long haul serious physicist who's challenging your commonly held beliefs.

Nope. I never do that. I did attack the science writer for his sloppiness, and explicitly exonerated you. You were just quoting him.

I did not read every word, no. I read enough to know the science writer for that publication was sloppy, and therefore suspect. He didn't get everything wrong. In fact, he got a lot correct. It's quite possible he didn't understand the scientist (and science) he was trying to report on. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened in lay-media. I don't trust that he really understood Zurek's paper(s), and he didn't link to them that I could see.

I did not read every word, no. I read enough to know the science writer for that publication was sloppy, and therefore suspect. ... It's quite possible he didn't understand the scientist (and science) he was trying to report on. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened in lay-media. I don't trust that he really understood Zurek's paper(s), and he didn't link to them that I could see.

The article begins with a link to Zurek's book:
'Decoherence and Quantum Darwinism
From Quantum Foundations to Classical Reality'
by Wojciech Hubert Zurek, Los Alamos National Laboratory
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/decoherence-a...

As for the author, Philip Ball, he's prolific, with 28 books on a variety of topics under his belt, many related in one way or another to science.
https://philipball.co.uk/books/
One of Ball's books is entitled "BEYOND WEIRD: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Quantum Physics Is Different".
It's been named Physics World 2018 Book of the Year; an Economist Book of the Year; a Prospect Book of the Year.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-Weird-Philip-Ball/...
‘Gorgeously lucid … takes us to the edge of contemporary theorizing about the foundations of quantum mechanics. Easily the best book I’ve read on the subject.' Washington Post
'A clear and deeply researched account of what’s known about the quantum laws of nature, and how to think about what they might really mean.' Nature

So Ball has been onto this for many years.

As for myself, I make no claim to expertise in the realm of physics. I obtained a bachelor of arts degree with a major in philosophy in 1965. I have, however, sought to stay abreast of scientific developments throughout my adult life, especially regarding Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity, with a particular focus on the long-standing chasm of understanding between these two that prompted even Einstein to struggle until his death in 1955 with what he referred to as "spooky action at a distance". For decades this mystery prompted quantum physicists to admonish their peers and students to just "keep your head down and calculate".

From the article: Starting in the 1970s, [Zurek] and the physicist H. Dieter Zeh looked closely at what quantum theory itself tells us about measurements [decoherence and entanglement]. (This might have happened much sooner if researchers had not been discouraged for decades from asking questions about these foundational but unresolved issues in the theory, on the grounds that it was all just pointless philosophy.)

What I see today is a movement toward a philosophical – that is, macroscopically comprehensible – approach to this problem that's been strangling interest in quantum theory in recent years. I want to understand what Zurek is doing his best to explicate. I have some fundamental ideas about the nature of the experience of existence, but I won't be satisfied with them until they've been scientifically verified. I'd be delighted to engage with anyone sharing similar interests who's willing to explore available information with an open mind.

Tom

For decades this mystery prompted quantum physicists to admonish their peers and students to just "keep your head down and calculate".

Quibble. They tried to devise ways to prove (or, better, disprove) it. They have since been able to demonstrate it repeatably. They have also been able to counter Bell's opposition (Bell's Theorem, as I recall) by using a truly random astronomical event to trigger the EPR experiment, which then demonstrated quantum entanglement. I think I even posted that on this board a year or three ago.

We still don't know how it happens. But the math works, and it describes the reality we observe.

I'm not going to buy Zurek's book. I did some searching, and he does have a proper paper.

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevM...

At first glance, this doesn't quite sound like the Quanta author. Or maybe he tried to simplify too much. We already know that the quantum reduces to the classical on the macroscopic (and non-relativistic) scale. He seems to be describing how. BTW, he only mentions "entanglement" once in the entire paper, and not in the context of the original article.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.