Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Quantum Information Theory

Einstein was writing all this before modern quantum theory. Today we know that the Aether is the quantum vacuum filled with virtual particles that are off mass-shell i.e. E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Also contact forces are caused by off-mass shell virtual photons in the non-radiative near field including longitudinal polarizations absent in real photons on the mass shell (light cone). Action at a distance is in the Wheeler-Feynman classical sense confined to the photon mass shell (aka light cone) but including advanced back from the future destiny waves generalized to "confirmation" quantum de Broglie waves by John Cramer in his TI. This is in addition to the more familiar retarded history waves. de Broglie waves are faster than light in phase quantum information when m =/= 0 though slower than light in energy transport. nonlocal EPR correlations are explained by retrocausal advanced confirmation destiny waves in the Feynman zig zag (term coined by O Costa de Beauregard). On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote: And he said almost the same things in 1924: http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/aether.htm On 6/22/2014 7:46 PM, art wagner wrote: The Einstein Ether (1920): http://www.bonus.manualsforall.com/Educational/Albert-Einstein/Albert Einstein - Ether And The Theory Of Relativity.PDF


On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Thanks Basil for this clarification. It is true that Bohm's original motivation was a realist (as opposed to instrumentalist, Bohrian interpretation). I should have been more clear about that. But it rather quickly became a path to resolving the measurement problem -- if not for its original author(s), certainly for those who have championed it since then.
Also, regarding the quote ["What I felt to be particularly unsatisfactory was the fact that the quantum theory had no place in it for an adequate notion of an independent actuality-i.e. of an actual movement or activity by which one physical state could pass over into another".] This is a key component of the measurement problem.  Also, let me take the opportunity to note that it is not necessary to  identify a 'realist' view of qm with the existence of  'hidden variables'.  I have been proposing a realist view that does not involve hidden variables -- but it does involve an expansion of what we normally like to think of as 'real'. The usual tacit assumption is that
'real' = 'existing within spacetime'  (and that of course requires 'hidden variables' that tell us 'where' the entity lives in spacetime, or at least identifies some property compatible with spacetime existence)" (end-quote)

Me: We all seem to agree that the idea that "real" must be "local in spacetime" is false. Q is real, but it is generally not a local BIT field in 3D + 1 spacetime when there is entanglement. Oddly enough the macro-quantum coherent signal Q in spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry is local in 3D+1 but it is generally coupled to nonlocal micro-quantum "noise."

Ruth "In contrast, I think PTI provides us with a realist concept of an independent actuality -- a "movement or activity by which one physical state could pass over into another". "

Me: So does Bohm's ontological interpretation.

Ruth: "But that 'actuality' is rooted in potentiality, which is a natural view given the mathematical properties of quantum objects."

Me: Seems to me you are playing with nouns replacing one vague metaphysical notion with another. What is "potentiality"? Mathematically it's Bohm's Q - perhaps extended to Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements with advanced Wheeler-Feynman back from the future post selection in a post quantum theory with Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality". Some think that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, since it only obtains in open systems that is not so. Furthermore our actual universe, the causal diamond bounded by both the past and future horizons is an open system out of thermal equilibrium.

Ruth: "So one can give a  realist, physical account, but it is indeterministic -- involving a kind of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Given that we already have spontaneous symmetry breaking elsewhere in physics, I think we should allow for it in QM.

Thanks again for the clarification --"

Best
Ruth

Jack Sarfatti
David Bohm, Albert Einstein, Louis De Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:

    Ruth, may I make a correction to what you wrote below. Bohm '52 work was not 'originally undertaken to solve the measurement problem.' He had a different motive. I asked him to clarify, in writing, w
    ...See More
    www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk
    This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:08 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

    Ruth wrote:

    "I don't rule out that some deeper theory might eventually be found, that could help answer ultimate questions in more specific terms. But it hasn't been demonstrated, to my knowledge, that one has to have violations of Born Rule in order to explain life." (end quote)

    To the contrary, it has been demonstrated in my opinion. First start with Brian's paper "On the biological utilization of nonlocality" with the Greek physicist whose name escapes me for the moment.

    Second: Lecture 8 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

    Specifically, how the Born rule depends on violation of the generalized action-reaction (relativity) principle that Q has no sources. Q pilots matter without direct back-reaction of matter on Q.

    In other words, orthodox quantum theory treats matter beables as test particles! - clearly an approximation.

    Obviously signal nonlocality violating no-signaling theorems has a Darwinian advantage. Indeed, without it, entanglement appears as static noise locally. Imagine that Alice and Bob's minds are represented each by a giant macroscopic coherent entangled quantum potential Q(A,B). It would obviously be a survival advantage for Alice and Bob to directly send messages to each other at a distance like the Austraiian aborigines do in the Outback. Now use scale invariance. It's obviously an advantage for separate nerve cells in our brains to do so. Also in terms of morphological development of the organisim - signal nonlocality is an obvious plus, which I think is part of Brian Josephson's message in that paper.

    Third:

    Subquantum Information and Computation
    Antony Valentini
    (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
    It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
    Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
    Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
    Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
    DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
    Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
    Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
    (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:
OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).
This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.
BJH.
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:

    Ruth,

    My work on the ideas that Bohm and I summarised in "The Undivided Universe" have moved on considerably over the last decade. But even in our book, we were suggesting that the particle could have a complex and subtle structure (UU p. 37) which could be represented as a point-like object only above the level of say 10^-8 cm. This comment, taken together with point 2 in our list of key points on p. 29 implies that we are not dealing with 'small billiard balls'. There could be an interesting and subtle structure that we have not explored-indeed we can't explore with the formalism in common use, i.e. the wave function and the Schrödinger equation. This is my reason for exploring a very different approach based on a process philosophy (See my paper arXiv: 1211.2098).

    In the case of the electron, we made a partial attempt to discuss the Dirac particle in our book (UU chapter 12). The presentation there (section12.2) only scratched the surface since we had no place for the quantum potential. However we showed in arXiv: 1011.4033 that if we explored the role of the Clifford algebra more throughly, we could provide a more detailed picture which included a quantum potential. We could then provide a relativistic version of what I call the Bohm model or, more recently, Bohmian non-commuting dynamics to distinguish it from a number of other variants of the model.

    In our approach all fermions could then be treated by one formalism which in the classical limit produced our 'rock-like' point classical particles. Bosons had to be treated differently, after all we do not have a 'rock-like' classical limit of a photon. Rather we have a coherent field. Massive bosons have to be treated in a differently way, but I won't go into that here.

    reference? I have been struggling with that in my dreams.

    We noted the difference between bosons and fermions in the UU and treated bosons as excited states of a field. In this case it was the field that became the beable and it was the field that was organised by what we called a 'super quantum potential'. In this picture the energy of say an emitted photon spread into the total field and did not exist as a localised entity. Yes, a rather different view from that usually accepted, but after all that was the way Planck himself pictured the situation. John Bell immediately asked, "What about the photon?" so we put an extra section in the UU (sec. 11.7). The photon concept arises because the level structure of the atom. It is the non-locality and non-linearity of the super quantum potential that sweeps the right amount of energy out of the field to excite the atom.

    Since the photon is no longer to be thought of as a particle, merely an excitation of the field, there is no difficulty with the coherent state. It is simply the state of the field whose energy does not consist of a definite number of a given hν. A high energy coherent field is the classical limit of the field, so there is no problem there either.

    All of this is discussed in detail in "The Undivided Universe".

    Hope this clarifies our take on these questions.

    Basil.
  • Jack Sarfatti The Brown-Wallace is an interesting paper, but I do not agree with its conclusions. Of course, this is exactly what you would expect me to say! What is needed is a careful response which I don't have time to go into here, so let me be brief. The sentence that rang alarm bells in their paper was "Our concern rather is with the fact that for Bohm it is the entered wave packet that determines the outcome; the role of the hidden variable, or apparatus corpuscle, is merely to pick or select from amongst all the other packets in the configuration space associated with the final state of the joint object-apparatus system." (See top of p. 5 of arXiv:quant-ph/0403094v1). As soon as I saw that sentence, I knew the conclusion they were going to reach. It gives the impression that it is the wave packet that is the essential real feature of the description and there need be nothing else. For us the 'wave packet' was merely short hand which was meant to signify the quantum potential that would be required to describe the subsequent behaviour of the particle. For us it was the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation that was THE dynamical equation. The Schrödinger equation was merely an part of an algorithm for calculating the probable outcomes of a given experimental arrangement. ( Yes it's Bohr!) But for us THERE IS an underlying dynamics which is a generalisation of the classical dynamics. Indeed my recent paper (arXiv 1211.2098) shows exactly how the classical HJ equation emerges from the richer quantum dynamics. The term 'wave packet' was merely short hand. There is no wave! This is why we introduced the notion of active information which is universally ignored.

    On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    Thank you Basil, but what about other particles? E.g. photons and quanta of other fields. -RK

    On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    Well my main concern re photons is coherent states where there isn't a definite number of quanta. Perhaps this has
    been addressed in the Bohmian picture -- if so I'd be happy to see a reference. However I still think that TI provides
    a better account of measurement since it gives an exact physical basis for the Born Rule rather than a statistical one,
    and also the critique of Brown and Wallace that I mentioned earlier is a significant challenge for Bohmian approach. What
    B & W point out is that it is not at all clear that the presence of a particle in one 'channel' of a WF serves as an effective reason for collapse of the WF.

    RK

    From: adastra1@me.com
    Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
    Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:13:10 -0700
    To: rekastner

    Never a problem for boson fields just look at undivided universe book now online

    Sent from my iPhone

    Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
    From: b.hiley
    Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:10:39 +0100
    CC: adastra1@me.com

    On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:

    OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).

    Basil: This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.

    BJH.

    RK

    > Subject: Reality of possibility
    > From: adastra1@me.com
    > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:14:42 -0700
    >
    > To: rekastne
    >
    > Yes
    > That's what i mean when I say that Bohm's Q is physically real.
    >
    > Sent from my iPhone
    •  
    •  
       
      Fifth FQXi Essay Contest: It From Bit, or Bit From It?
      lnkd.in
      The Fifth essay contest from the Foundational Questions Institute is now underway. The topic is about whether information is more fundamental than material objects. The subject is similar to the co...
    • Jack Sarfatti IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT = Conscious Universe as a John Archibald Wheeler Self-Excited Self-Organizing Circuit.
    • Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
      en.wikipedia.org
      John Archibald Wheeler (July 9, 1911 – April 13, 2008) was an Americantheoretica...See More
    • Jack Sarfatti Michael Towler wrote about my theory: "Living matter and back-action
      In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:
      • Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia.
      • Equate
      the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the
      particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave.
      OK, who cares, except..
      • ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization.
      Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.
      • In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to
      set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration,
      which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..
      • Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides
      the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated.
      Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines
      initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to
      characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems
      that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.
      Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!
      [see p.346, Bohm and Hiley’s Undivided Universe).]
    • Jack Sarfatti Towler continued: "Two-way traffic
      Important to note that pilot-wave theory does not take into account any effect of
      individual particle on its own quantum field (though Bohm and Hiley briefly sketch
      some ideas about how this might happen, see e.g. Und
      ivided Universe pp. 345-346).
      • Idea that particles collectively affect quantum field of a single particle is contained in the standard
      notion that shape of quantum field of a particle is determined by shape of environment (which
      consists of many particles, and is part of the boundary conditions put into the Schr¨odinger equation
      before solving it, even in conventional QM).
      • Celebrity nutjob Jack Sarfatti (see e.g., er.. www.stardrive.org) in particular has emphasized
      the need for an explanation of how the individual particle influences its own field and has proposed
      mechanisms for such ‘back-action’, also emphasizing its importance in understanding the mindmatter
      relationship and how consciousness arises (see earlier slide).
      • Assuming that notion of such an influence of the particle on its field can be coherently developed,
      we can then have two-way traffic between the mental and the physical levels without reducing one
      to the other. Role of Bohm’s model of the quantum system then would be that it provides a kind of
      prototype that defines a more general class of systems in which a field of information is connected
      with a material body by a two-way relationship.
      • Quantum theory is currently our most fundamental theory of matter and Bohm suggests that, when
      ontologically interpreted, it reveals a proto-mental aspect of matter. This is the quantum field,
      described mathematically by the wave function, which is governed by the Schr¨odinger equation.
      Bohm’s suggestion is known as panprotopsychism.. so at least you learned a new word today..!"
      stardrive.org
      Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
       
      Jack Sarfatti You are 100% correct on this Chris.
      However, I think the FX version will allow comments on their website. If that is really so, then you and others should post your comments on the submissions as well submit an essay. I will try to work on one myself -
      though I will be in London, Paris, South of France etc. during April & May.

      On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Chris Langan <cml325@gmail.com> wrote:

      Of course, everyone is aware that SciAm and Templeton are markedly slanted in their approaches.
      Speaking just for myself, past experience suggests that if one deviates in any way from their preferred viewpoints - respectively, atheistic physicalism and "humility theology", which essentially holds that theological truth is inaccessible and should be abandoned in favor of religious syncretism and mere "reconciliation" between science and religion - then one has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of winning the competition. (If your name has ever been mentioned by anyone at all in the same breath as, say, Intelligent Design, then your chances are somewhat worse.)
      On the other hand, if one's ideas already fall within those guidelines, then one may do just fine.

      On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
      I think its same one as fx?

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:04 AM, David Mathes <davidmathes8@yahoo.com> wrote:

      Jack

      John Templeton Foundation sponsors an interesting essay contest that just opened up...closes in

      http://fqxi.org/community/essay

      Topical: The theme for this Essay Contest is: "It from Bit or Bit from It?"
      The past century in fundamental physics has shown a steady progression away from thinking about physics, at its deepest level, as a description of material objects and their interactions, and towards physics as a description of the evolution of information about and in the physical world. Moreover, recent years have shown an explosion of interest at the nexus of physics and information, driven by the "information age" in which we live, and more importantly by developments in quantum information theory and computer science.

      We must ask the question, though, is information truly fundamental or not?
      Yes.
      Can we realize John Wheeler’s dream,

      Yes.
      or is it unattainable?

      No.
      We ask: ”It From Bit or Bit From It?”

      False dichotomy. It's both forming a creative self-organizing "self-excited circuit" of conscious intent.

      Michael Towler brilliantly describes my proposal on this in his Lecture 8 http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

      Possible topics or sub-questions include, but are not limited to:
      What IS information?
      That's an easy one: the Bohm quantum potential Q in particle mechanics and its generalization to field theory.

      John Leslie reviews 'The Undivided Universe' by David Bohm ...
      www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n09/john-leslie/the-absolute-now
      The Absolute Now. John Leslie. The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory by David Bohm, translated by Basil Hiley Routledge ...
      The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation ... - Amazon.ca
      www.amazon.ca › ... › New & Used Textbooks › Humanities › Philosophy
      In the The Undivided Universe, David Bohn and Basil Hiley present a ... Review. ' This is a brilliant book, of great depth and originality. Every physicist and ...
      One must also look at the pixelated cosmological horizons both past and future in which their area-entropies A may be the projective hologram screens where

      N = A/Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^123 asymptotically into the far future

      L = 3D voxel scale (quantum of volume of the hologram image)

      We are inside these past and future cosmological 2D anyonic topological computing horizons at the exact center always at each point along our world line.

      Tamara Davis, Ph.D. Fig 1.1c http://dark.nbi.ku.dk/people/tamara/
      What is its relation to “Reality”?

      Depends what you mean by the word. If one means the totality of possible measurement patterns, then if one believes that the world is a quantum bit hologram image simulation, then matter is the hologram image projected both ways in time from our observer-dependent past particle and future de Sitter dark energy cosmological horizons inside the light speed limited "causal diamond" of our subjective observable universe.

      The hardware hologram screens are the horizons where g00 = 0 in the static LNIF representation of the cosmological metric.

      For example, for static LNIF observers with proper accelerations

      g(r) ~ c^2g00^-1/2dg00/dr

      g00 ~ 1 - r^2/A

      where WE are always at r = 0

      How does nature (the universe and the things therein) “store” and “process” information?
      How does understanding information help us understand physics, and vice-versa?
      (Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of whether information or “material” objects are more fundamental.)

      Additionally, to be consonant with FQXi's scope and goals, essays should be primarily concerned with physics (mainly quantum physics, high energy 'fundamental' physics, and gravity), cosmology (mainly of the early universe), or closely related fields (such as astrophysics, astrobiology, biophysics, mathematics, complexity and emergence, and philosophy of physics), insofar as they bear directly on questions in physics or cosmology.
      Foundational: This Contest is limited to works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

      Submission: Essays and accompanying material must be submitted online using the webform between the dates of March 25, 2013, and June 28, 2013 (until 11:59PM Eastern Time). Applicants must provide accurate contact information, an abstract of their essay, a brief biographical statement, and their essay.

      D