MythOfUncertainty

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

A true random number generator is not construcable. It is an unsolvable problem, although a "good" solution has been identified recently, it is overly complex. Such complexity arises from very simple systems or rules, like the Mandelbrot set.

In is not unexpected that information is lost at greater complexity. The presumption of uncertanty by the arguments of the arguments of Peres, t'Hooft, Mead, Einstein, Schroedinger, Bell, Bohm, and Cramer etc. makes it clear that the presumption of uncertainty is unscientific. Missing information accounts for the information loss manifesting our local uncertainty.

Locality is different than was assumed, it is emergent. Reality becomes that which is dicriminated. That which is not discriminated is not simply uncertain, it is simply not manifest period, in our locality, it may exist in other localities in which case it may be communicated and certain after all.

Uncertainty is never manifest as far as we can measure, only discrete quantum state and elastic, lossless interactions. The vacuum interactions, however, are necessarily uncertain, as they are mostly low energy differences propagation of unknown origin from the early universe in random directions. Too much information is noise and we can never predict the background due to it's complexity. This is distinct from inherent randomness in that all the communications are deterministic, but cannot be determined. It would be in principle possibles to share information and develop specific details of the early universe based on these events in aggragate, statistically, since the actual events are in fact deterministic.


Gerard t' Hooft also supports the deterministic view:

"Contrary to common belief, it is not difficult to construct deterministic models where stochastic behavior is correctly described by quantum mechanical amplitudes, in precise accordance with the Copenhagen-Bohr-Bohm doctrine. ...Beneath Quantum Mechanics, there may be a deterministic theory with (local) information loss. ... Theories of this kind would not only be appealing from a philosophical point of view, but may also be essential for understanding causality at Planckian distance scales."


The Nobel Laureate, Carver Mead, is a bit more outspoken about it.

"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... All this mysticism seems out of place in a discipline as objective as physics, so there must be more to the story. Einstein and Schroedinger both made central contributions to the emerging quantum discipline, but never bought into the orthodoxy of Bohr's Copenhagen clan. There was no disagreement about the numbers the equations gave for the hydrogen energy levels; the dissent was over the conceptual interpretation of the theory. ... I am, in fact, firmly convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this theory operates with an incomplete description of physical systems. .... Hindsight is a wonderful thing: We can start at a different place, go at the subject in a completely different way, and build a much clearer and simpler conceptual base. The difficult step with hindsight is to go back far enough to get a really fresh start. I have found it necessary to start not just before the quantum theory, but before electromagnetic theory as it has come to be taught.


Perez says it well.


  Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Shannon

Authors: Asher Peres <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Peres_A/0/1/0/all/0/1> Comments: submitted to Found. Phys

  The EPR paradox (1935) is reexamined in the light of Shannon's
  information theory (1948). The EPR argument did not take into
  account that the observers' information was localized, like any
  other physical object.

... "When Alice measures her spin,

the information she gets is localized at her position, and will remain so until she decides to broadcast it.

Absolutely nothing happens at Bob's location.

From Bob's point of view, all spin directions are equally probable, as can be verified experimentally by repeating the experiment many times with a large number of singlets without taking in consideration Alice's results.

Thus, after each one of her measurements, Alice assigns a definite pure state to Bob?s particle, while from Bob's point of view the state is completely random (rho is proportional to the unit matrix).

It is only if and when Alice informs Bob of the result she got (by mail, telephone, radio, or by means of any other material carrier, which is naturally restricted to the speed of light) that Bob realizes that his particle has a definite pure state.

Until then, the two observers can legitimately ascribe different quantum states to the same system.

For Bob, the state of his particle suddenly changes, not because anything happens to that particle, but because Bob receives information about a distant event.

Quantum states are not physical objects: they exist only in our imagination.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310010


So, while I contend that science can indeed answer these issues, and quantum theory can be used effectively without invoking weird interpretations, I must admit that you are correct, Lee, than nobody has all the answers yet. Feynman's assertion that "nobody understands" the quantum may still be true. For about 40 years I've been saying to myself, last week I thought I understood the quantum, but now I see it more clearly, last week I did not really understand it.

It seem clear, that all we need do is to is toss out our preconceived notion of locality in a continuum, forget particles and waves, an accept the nature of alternating differences measurement reveals. Then we can see easily how our three dimensional classical illusion emerges from the semi-fractal hologram manifest by a sparsely populated finite world of propagating differences (two dimensional, parallel or anti-parallel only) that manifest space, time, matter and energy as we know it. Our world is not different from the quantum. Quantum events manifest everything. There is nothing else. It is our world that is fuzzy and statistical, however, not the quantum, where all propagations are perfectly exact. As Mead put it so well, "We are not viewing a fuzzy quantum world through clear glasses, but are viewing a clear quantum world through fuzzy glasses."

The key to understanding the quantum, I believe, is the equivalence of the Plank action and the binary discrimination, as shown by Zurig and Zeiglinger, in a world that turns our to be constrained logically, not physically. We have no means of knowing what the differences propagating today were originally differences in. They have been propagating perfectly since the beginning of time and will continue to do so forever if quantum theory is correct. How participants perceive the differences of nature is by accident of perspective. How participants propagate the differences received determines how they will be perceived in the future. The information about what they once manifest is lost, by degrees, as the information we receive becomes now re purposed to manifest ourselves in the future.

See: DiscreteRelativity, MythOfTheContinuum

Personal tools