27.01.2010 - Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox IV

Gilles Kuhn: seems we are not very numerous today i will wait 5 minute then we begin

Gilles Kuhn: hello gaya

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :)

Arisia Vita: Hi Gaya

Melchizedek Blauvelt: heya Gaya

Gilles Kuhn: ok so remember gaya will log you all in the most exposed part of the web

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: right let s begin

Gaya Ethaniel: ok

Gilles Kuhn: so we have considered all the part of the epr founding article thus far and today I would like to propose a more general discussion on his implication

Gilles Kuhn: we have see what podolsky defined as criterium of reality and of scientificity (completeness of theory, full explanation of empirical data etc)

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Mitsu :)

Arisia Vita: Hi Mitsu

Mitsu Ishii: hi

Gilles Kuhn: hello mitsu

Gilles Kuhn: we have see that following his first argument (based roughly on the problem of noncommuting operator/physical quantities )

Gilles Kuhn: qm is 1 incomplete or 2 that the physical reality of a non commuting quantity when his "partner " is measured (and thus following podolsky definition existing )

Gilles Kuhn: is not a physical reality

Gilles Kuhn: we have showed at length that it was i a a consequence of heisenberg uncertainty

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Cosmo and Justine :)

Justine Rhapsody: Hello everyone :)

Cosmo Fenwitch: Greetings.

Gilles Kuhn: in the second argument podolsky show that when using independent systems that have interacted before the conclusion of the first part is contradictory if you dont take the option qm is incomplete

Gilles Kuhn: (as he show that two wave function can coexist in the same reality which entail a problem with the non commuting exclusion mentioned supra)

Gilles Kuhn: thats for a quick resume of the theoretical part

Gilles Kuhn: question remark etc thus far?

Gaya Ethaniel: ok so far ...

Gilles Kuhn: arisia as i see you are a physicist which i have not the honour to be no precision or correction?

Arisia Vita: I studied physics back when the world was flat, have forgotten most of it :)

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: well thats a quite long among of time since numenor was flooded indeed ;-)

Gilles Kuhn: amount*

Gaya Ethaniel: I think Mitsu is a physicist?

Mitsu Ishii: I studied it as an undergrad, but I know quite a bit about QM interpretation issues.

Gilles Kuhn: so ok, then we have spoke a bit too about modern experiments that confirmed in a very troubling way the epr thought experiment

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: namely aspect experiment

Mitsu Ishii: there have been quite a few others as well

Gilles Kuhn: (where the spin measure of two non more able to interact particle is show to be always correlated when they had have a relation before and not suffered any change in their quantum state before the measure

Gilles Kuhn: yes mitsu could you inform us about them?

Mitsu Ishii: I'm looking them up so I can post a couple of links

Gilles Kuhn: that would be great

Mitsu Ishii: Wheeler's delayed choice experiment was realized a few years ago in France: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/216/4

Gilles Kuhn: so we have too at lengh show that the base of all these paradox is on the famous reduction of the wave train

Gilles Kuhn: namely that if you make a measurement it collapse all the wave function even if the wave is gigantic (that was btw the base of epr paradox as explained by einstein before the publication)

Gilles Kuhn: but well i want to throw to the discussion some point :

Cosmo Fenwitch: Is time a parameter in the wave function?

Gilles Kuhn: first all the probelm exist only because special relativity is assumed to be ontologically true

Gilles Kuhn: yes but not influenced by it

Gilles Kuhn: time if i am not wrong is in schrodinger equation considered like in classical physic

Gilles Kuhn: so the wave evoluate trough time but i think (not sure) that time as an absolute not like in relativity

Gilles Kuhn: any specialist to clarify this point?

Mitsu Ishii: And here's another paradox that was recently confirmed by experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%27s_paradox

Gilles Kuhn: (remember this is a seminar so the idea is to share our knowledge and try to find out things i don't pretend to make a lecture only to introduce and animate the subject)

Mitsu Ishii: sorry just came back after looking for links. reading back

Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks Mitsu :)

Mitsu Ishii: in standard quantum mechanics space and time are assumed to exist a priori

Gilles Kuhn: look at cosmo question at 13 49 and my try in responding please mitsu

Gilles Kuhn: ok so like in classical physics

Gilles Kuhn: (phew not fcked up this time ;-)))) )

Mitsu Ishii: in fact standard QM is not even relativistic

Mitsu Ishii: the big problem has been to make quantum mechanics relativistic, which has proven extremely difficult

Mitsu Ishii: but another problem is that it seems unreasonable to presume spacetime exists a priori

Gaya Ethaniel: uh ... Gilles ... REMINDER *edit above*

Gilles Kuhn: apart of the locality paradox we are currently seeing ?

Gilles Kuhn: lol gaya that was a typo obviously ;-))

Gaya Ethaniel: yeah ... ^^;;;

Mitsu Ishii: well, the problem is that it is very difficult to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics

Gilles Kuhn: because the big problem for relativity and thus for einstein was the "action at a distance" which violated speed of light absolute limit

Mitsu Ishii: yes, that is one problem, although standard QM doesn't allow information to travel faster than light, only correlations

Gilles Kuhn: but i presume the usage of qm of space time as in classical physic must give a lot of others problems as well?

Gilles Kuhn: yes indeed

Gilles Kuhn: what show epr and aspect

Gaya Ethaniel: What do you mean by 'standard' QM?

Gilles Kuhn: copenhaguen interpretation i presume mitsu?

Mitsu Ishii: I just mean QM as it was originally formulated

Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok

Gilles Kuhn: which can include others interpretation as well thus

Mitsu Ishii: yes, there are many interpretations

Gilles Kuhn: well and as i said the problem is the problem of locality in epr for einstein and co its a demo of the incompleteness of qm but the problem is that empirical evidence give reason to qm

Mitsu Ishii: The consequence of EPR is that it cannot be the case that quantum systems have a "real" defined value for an observable prior to observation, which is local

Gilles Kuhn: so seems to contradict (even falsify...) special relativity

Gilles Kuhn: ah ok but that only of you take sr as an article of faith if as for example in cartesian physic you consider speed of light to be infinite the problem is no more

Cosmo Fenwitch: How does it do that Gilles? Does special relativity demand that the quantum system has a real value prior to observation?

Gilles Kuhn: even if we know that it is not the case as michelson morley experiment showed for all referentials

Mitsu Ishii: well, the biggest problem is that quantum mechanics creates fundamental uncertainty in the structure of spacetime

Gilles Kuhn: no that is demanded by podolsky reality and completeness criterium of scientificality

Mitsu Ishii: because due to uncertainty, there ought to be mini black holes everywhere

Mitsu Ishii: and that blows up the equations of general relativity

Gilles Kuhn: if you take a instrumentalist or relativist view that dont ask completness of theory the problem is marginal

Mitsu Ishii: you can combine special relativity and qm in what is called quantum field theory

Mitsu Ishii: but it ignores the problem of spacetime curvature

Gilles Kuhn: mmmh do you say mitsu that heisenberg fluctuation at very very small scale imply the generation of singularities

Mitsu Ishii: yes

Mitsu Ishii: and this is an unsolved problem. however, there's been an exciting recent development!

Gilles Kuhn: but these singularities are theoretical no?

Gilles Kuhn: i mean those predicted by qm

Gilles Kuhn: which development mitsu?

Mitsu Ishii: the recent development is Verlinde's theory of entropic gravity

Mitsu Ishii: but that's probably getting way ahead of things

Mitsu Ishii: it might be better to go step by step :)

Mitsu Ishii: I'll just say my friends are jumping up and down because of Verlinde

Gilles Kuhn: ouch look interesting but indeed we are making a big quantum leap there i think ;-)

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Gilles Kuhn: can you share again a link or ref about that mitsu perhaps we can focus on the subject for another seminar

Mitsu Ishii: have you discussed various ways of interpreting the quantum paradoxes?

Gilles Kuhn: we were beginning to do that and i was trying to put that on the table indeed

Gilles Kuhn: we have had a debate about the problem of ontological realism that is assumed by the epr article

Mitsu Ishii: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html

Mitsu Ishii: the thing about EPR is that it depends on what you think constitutes "reality"

Gilles Kuhn: but for example we have not still discussed bohm interpretation

Gilles Kuhn: exactly

Mitsu Ishii: if reality = observable values, then there is a paradox

Mitsu Ishii: but there are other possibilities.

Gilles Kuhn: yes but observable value depend of the theory and thus that definition of reality subject the reality to a predetermined theoretical set

Gaya Ethaniel: Hence various versions of 'reality' co-existing ... that's how I see it.

Gilles Kuhn: the epr paradox not only take a very big realist assumption in philo of science but too imply that relativity is true ontologically of the world

Mitsu Ishii: well, there's Copenhagen, Everett, Bohm, transactional, and Penrose --- those I think are the big five categories of interpretations

Gilles Kuhn: well the definition of reality is tricky copenhaguen interpretation dont even enter in that

Gaya Ethaniel: ok

Gilles Kuhn: i am familiar with the first three, copenhaguen was already discussed here, everett is the multi world that i personally discard for occamian reason, transactionnal i have no idea and penrose i dont remember

Gilles Kuhn: bohm system if i remember well assume non locality

Mitsu Ishii: I am a fan of Everett and I'd say most cosmology-oriented physicists are also. It actually is one of the simplest interpretations, in fact.

Gaya Ethaniel: What does 'occamian' mean btw?

Gilles Kuhn: refer to occam razor gaya non entia multiplicanda praeter necessitatem : you will not multiply entities if not necessary

Gaya Ethaniel: Hugh Everett III?

Mitsu Ishii: The problem with Copenhagen is, as George Weissmann likes to point out, it is incomplete, because there is no definition of what an "observer" is or what causes a wave function to "collapse"

Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok

Mitsu Ishii: it's essentially a pragmatic interpretation

Gilles Kuhn: yes thats the basis of instrumentalism

Gaya Ethaniel: ah rofl

Mitsu Ishii: but what is an observer? What is the physical basis for observation? that is left undetermined by Copenhagen.

Gilles Kuhn: you assume the instrument and the measure btw big influence of neo positivism logic there

Mitsu Ishii: right.

Mitsu Ishii: however, it just leaves these terms without a physical theory. the observer becomes a mysterious undefined process

Gilles Kuhn: well you dont define that in copenhaguen its only instrument that make coincide markers with jauge etc

Gaya Ethaniel thought QM is a settled thing, how wrong I was!

Gilles Kuhn: and indeed that put the problem of the final observer at bay

Mitsu Ishii: yes, but as Schrodinger points out, you can't simply talk about instruments

Gilles Kuhn: BUT all physical theory do so too

Mitsu Ishii: because the instrument itself can exist in quantum superposition, and so on.

Gilles Kuhn: well the cat is a n instrument ....

Gilles Kuhn: indeed

Mitsu Ishii: so there is an infinite regress, and always the same problem.

Mitsu Ishii: Everett attempts to solve the problem by saying that the observation is just a correlation between a mind state and an observable.

Gilles Kuhn: the problem in fact is the eternal problem of observation that was already hinted by Aristotle

Mitsu Ishii: however, he also doesn't define how this correlation occurs or what it is, but it eliminates the philosophical problem of the observer seeming to change reality

Gilles Kuhn: right but then the mind state is not included in the description of the world ?

Mitsu Ishii: that is correct

Gilles Kuhn: so we are back to case one

Mitsu Ishii: not exactly, I have a solution!

Gilles Kuhn: wow ! speak gaya register and call nobel committee ;-))))

Mitsu Ishii: my friend Jonathan Tash and I came up with it. we presented it at a Kira summer school a while ago

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Mitsu Ishii: transactional interpretation is the idea that quantum results come from interactions with waves from the distant future going backwards in time

Mitsu Ishii: "retarded waves" they are called

Mitsu Ishii: though it sounds strange it is a legitimate interpretation

Gilles Kuhn: well but how is it predictive and testable?

Mitsu Ishii: Bohm's idea is that observables are determined, but they change due to a hidden "potential" which causes particles to behave very strangely. Thus everything in the universe in his interpretation could be affected by everything else no matter how distance in space or time.

Gilles Kuhn: (thats the problem when we enter the domain of interpretation we can fall easily in metaphysics)

Mitsu Ishii: most of these interpretations are just ways of understanding quantum predictions

Mitsu Ishii: distant

Gilles Kuhn: yes and so are they legitimate as science ?

Mitsu Ishii: finally Penrose believes that wave functions collapse when they reach a certain energy

Gilles Kuhn: because the instrumentalist just dont take that in consideration and it work well for us but there i hint at my relativism and epistemological pessimism

Mitsu Ishii: well, my belief is that which interpretation you choose will make predictions when you try to combine it with relativity.

Gilles Kuhn: right thus we can have a empirical test

Gaya Ethaniel: That yields results that are observed/measured ... hence not part of 'reality'? Are we going around in circle?

Gilles Kuhn: or interpretation are to be judged in their adequation to relativity only in theoretical ground and so giving relativity a sort of a priori status

Gaya Ethaniel: I see so, or 'partly' real in certain conditions.

Mitsu Ishii: it's not that relativity is a priori, it's that it makes predictions which have been amply verified.

Mitsu Ishii: so any complete theory must include relativity and quantum mechanics - yet such a theory has yet to be devised.

Gilles Kuhn: yes but so it is too with qm

Gilles Kuhn: well perhaps what we need is what my homonym thomas kuhn call a paradigm change

Cosmo Fenwitch: Must it be a non-local theory?

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Mitsu Ishii: it would have to correspond with the nonlocal predictions of quantum mechanics

Gilles Kuhn: we have two very successful theories that for lot of reason seems difficult to reconcile

Mitsu Ishii: have you guys discussed the Bell inequality?

Gilles Kuhn: the very successful theories have too internal problem like the nature of the observer (btw relativity has the same only it jump not so quickly at your face)

Gilles Kuhn: it was my intention to begin to discuss bell next seminar mitsu

Mitsu Ishii: yes, the nature of the observer is the problem my friend and I think we have the solution for :) though it is mostly just an idea.

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Dali :)

Arisia Vita: Hi dali

Dali Waverider: Hello Gaya, all. Sorry to be late.

Mitsu Ishii: we haven't worked out the mathematics

Gilles Kuhn: you refer to your transactional idea mitsu?

Mitsu Ishii: no

Mitsu Ishii: transactional is not my idea

Gilles Kuhn: sorry mixed that up then

Gaya Ethaniel: Would be nice to a link for that Mitsu if possible.

Mitsu Ishii: Jonathan and I build on Everett and provide the beginning of an explanation for the central missing piece.

Gaya Ethaniel: Retarded wave I think Mitsu said from the future ... ta da

Mitsu Ishii: transactional: http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/

Gilles Kuhn: yes retarded wave was thinking mitsu called that transactional my mistake

Mitsu Ishii: the idea relies on extrapolating from Gregory Bateson's classical ideas of mind function and places them in a quantum context

Gilles Kuhn raise hear

Gaya Ethaniel: ?

Mitsu Ishii: I can talk about them some other time if there is interest.

Gilles Kuhn: there is !!!

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Mitsu Ishii: I highly recommend Bateson's Mind and Nature

Mitsu Ishii: if you haven't read it

Mitsu Ishii: it's not quantum but it is very, very interesting

Gilles Kuhn: if you would accept i would invite you to explain that in detail in a future seminar

Mitsu Ishii: sure

Gilles Kuhn: very nice

Gaya Ethaniel: :)

Mitsu Ishii: it also happens to lead to what is essentially very similar to a co-dependent arising theory of mind/reality a la Buddhist epistemology.

Mitsu Ishii: that is a side effect

Mitsu Ishii: or you could call it similar to Kantian ideas

Gilles Kuhn: so you assume an independent reality of the mind

Mitsu Ishii: no

Gilles Kuhn: ah that i can swallow easier ;-)

Mitsu Ishii: mind does not preexist

Mitsu Ishii: in our picture

Mitsu Ishii: Buddhist co-dependent arising is actually a lot cleaner than Kant's ideas

Mitsu Ishii: Kant has all these things like a priori notions and so on which I think are unnecessary

Gaya Ethaniel agrees ... even I could understand it okish.

Gilles Kuhn: well kant only make epistemology speak of the condition of possibility and the limits of knowledge

Mitsu Ishii: I am not an expert at Kant so I only speak from some general familiarity with his ideas.

Gilles Kuhn: and you can very well have a "kantian " like epistemology without the need for intellectual monster like synthetic a priorising space and time

Mitsu Ishii: but the Buddhist notion is pretty simple and straightforward by comparison: it's just the idea that mind and world co-arise

Gilles Kuhn: well world is a creation a concept created by the epistemic subject at my opinion

Mitsu Ishii: right. what Jonathan and I propose is that mind and world co-arise on top of a fundamental ground which has structure but not preexisting space and time either in terms of mind or in terms of physical reality

Gilles Kuhn: but indeed the self reflexion of the epistemic subject make him immediately create the notion of mind : cartesain like way

Mitsu Ishii: our hypothesis is that awareness requires spacetime and we hope to be able to even derive dimensionality from it

Gilles Kuhn: i am curious about the "nature" of the fundamental ground you refer to?

Mitsu Ishii: that is to say, we think that 3 dimensions of space may be a natural consequence of awareness (hard to explain why we can talk about that another time but it is mathematical)

Gilles Kuhn: that i can go for as the 3 dimensionality are related to our intuitive perception

Mitsu Ishii: well, not only for humans but any aware systems, like amoebas for example

Gilles Kuhn: well any aware system is quite a big assumption

Mitsu Ishii: yes, it would take a while to explain our reasoning

Mitsu Ishii: just sort of giving some of the results :)

Gilles Kuhn: well i hope we will have the occasion to come at it bottom up asswell

Mitsu Ishii: sure

Mitsu Ishii: it was a pleasure meeting you all!

Gilles Kuhn: but now as official coordinated time has pass i will close the formal part of the seminar i will advise if there will be one next week as i had to travel

Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks :)

Dali Waverider: wb Gaya

Gilles Kuhn: in two week they will be probably none as i will not be at home Mitsu Ishii: hi again Gaya

Gilles Kuhn: i will gaya no worries

Mitsu Ishii: and bye

Gilles Kuhn: well this was very interesting!

Gaya Ethaniel: Yes I am sorry I crashed and missed it.

Cosmo Fenwitch: Until we meet again...

Cosmo Fenwitch: Fairwell

Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Cosmo :)