Quantum Fractals are out...

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Following my promise, here is an extract revealing some of my thoughts:

242 Quantum Fractals: From Heisenberg's Uncertainty to Barnsley's Fractality

4.4 Event Enhanced Quantum Theory

It is a common belief of quantum physicists and of other enthusiasts of quantum theory that "everything is quantum". And if it not yet, „it should be quantized". Why? Because, they say, everything is build of atoms, and atoms belong to the quantum world and obey quantum laws. That is what they say.

But let us examine this logic. While it is true that quantum theory applies to atoms, and it does with an amazing success, it does not follow that `everything about atoms" must be quantum. Protons, electrons, they have their masses and electric charges. Is the unit of the electric charge fluctuating?

Is it random? Indeterminate? Did we ever notice „complementarity" between the electric charge and some other quantity? The answer is „no". It seems to be constant.

We are not able, today, to explain this constancy. It seems that we have a conservation law here, a law that can be related to some deeper symmetry, „gauge symmetry" as we call it, yet invoking this symmetry does not help us in understanding the deeper nature, or a „mechanism" that works behind the scenes. We are not able to „compute" the electric charge starting from some first principles. We are also not able to calculate from such principles the value of the dimensionless „fine structure constant" that is related to charge e, speed of light c; and Planck constant h. Quantum theory is of no help here. And yet these are distinct properties of the quantum world.

Quantum waves are known for their interference e effects. The two-slit experiment, with electrons emitted one after another, as in Tonomura's and earlier experiments, is an example here. We are now able to get similar effects with huge molecules consisting of hundred of atoms, yet we do not see such e effects with tables and chairs and cats. These eff ects occur in very special experimental arrangements.

Quantum effects would be impossible without first setting up proper conditions that are described in terms of classical concepts. Quantum theory without classical logic, classical concepts, classical language, is meaningless.

We do have macroscopic quantum e effects, like in supersensitive quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) used for measuring of ultra-weak magnetic fields. Yet in these quantum devices, together with superconducting elements obeying quantum laws, we have also classical electric circuits, without which SQUID's would be useless (see Fig. 4.11, p. 252).

SQUID.gif


With time we will probably discover more and more macroscopic quantum phenomena, perhaps even on a cosmic scale. Yet they will occur within the classical framework. We, human beings, are partly quantum and partly classical. Why should we deny this observation?

In a sense quantum theory „explains" why it is so difficult to have quantum phenomena on a macroscopic scale. But is it a real explanation when quantum theory itself remains unexplained? As Richard Feynman succinctly puts it: „Nobody understands quantum theory".

Usually quantum physicists blame the „environment" for the fact that quantum phenomena are not a part of our everyday experience. But what exactly is this „environment"? Splitting the universe into „a system under observation" and „environment" is subjective. Attempts to make it objective have failed, and they must fail, because the very concept of a „hard splitting" is classical. Why not accept this fact from the very beginning?

Talking about the system and its environment may be useful, may be even good FAPP („for all practical purposes"), but it does not belong to „fundamental physics". It has nothing to do with „Laws of Nature", it has everything to do with what is convenient. It is certainly not in the spirit of, as the French philosopher Bernard d'Espagnat terms it, „objectizing physics". Therefore why not try the "Columbus solution"?

Christopher Columbus, when challenged with the problem of how to make an egg stand vertically, the problem that others could not solve despite their e efforts, simply broke the shell from one end - the simple and bold idea that did not occur to others, but which was still within the unspoken rules of the game. Therefore, in simple terms: Not all is quantum.

While the future is uncertain and may need quantum description,the past is rather well set and can be described in classical terms. Even if the past can be partly erased, nevertheless it belongs to the classical world. Facts and events are classical, and their formal description should be based on classical concepts. Possibilities (or „propensities") belong to the quantum world.

The past is evidently coupled to the future. Past events can influence future possibilities and probabilities. Probabilities, when they actualize, create events that form the past. EEQT, the Event Enhanced Quantum Theory, is a mathematical model that describes such a coupling through equations and algorithms. Equations describe the continuous time evolution of statistical averages. Algorithms describe creation of histories which then can be statically averaged over.
 

Gawan

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Congratulations Ark for your new publication and I hope it will become a (at least physics) bestseller :rockon:!
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
ark said:
While the future is uncertain and may need quantum description,the past is rather well set and can be described in classical terms. Even if the past can be partly erased, nevertheless it belongs to the classical world. Facts and events are classical, and their formal description should be based on classical concepts. Possibilities (or „propensities") belong to the quantum world.

Can this idea be scaled up to the human level? In other words, our past actions are classical, but our future possibilities are 'quantum'? It seems a common-sense view of reality that the past is set in stone, but the future is open. We think things like, "Well, I could do it this way, or I could do it that way. But this way seems better for these reasons." Then, after I act: "Well, I could've done it differently, but I didn't. I can't change the past, but I can change the way I behave in the future." The future doesn't seem deterministic, as if there's only one possible outcome. Even if we're not aware of all the possibilities open to us in any moment, and even if our choices are largely influenced by things of which we are not aware, there still seems to be more than one option available to us. So, could there be an analogy between the actualization of a quantum possibility on the atomic scale, and the actualization of a possibility on the human scale, as the 'choice' of one option among several?

p.s. Thank you for posting the excerpt! Even though I won't understand the math, I look forward to reading the parts in English when the book is released. :)
 

Hesper

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Congratulations on another accomplishment Ark! I'll buy it for the 25% I might understand, for the beautiful pictures, and of course for support :)

Approaching Infinity said:
In other words, our past actions are classical, but our future possibilities are 'quantum'?

That is a very interesting way of thinking about it! I like that. Even if it doesn't scale, it does provoke the interesting puzzle of what about when the classical past is a quantum future-chosen life?
 

rs

Dagobah Resident
Well, I just placed my order. Hopefully I will be able to understand what I am reading. (I am an electrical engineer, so I "have a clue" about math and science in general, but one would be surprised to discover how little of my college education is used in my day-to-day job.)
 

davey72

The Living Force
First of all i would like to say congratualtions. :D

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but how do the laws of quarks differ from atomic laws, and does the saying "as above, so below" apply to either of these, and the macro world in general? If not, what differs?
 
D

Deleted member 8431

Guest
Toutes mes félicitations Monsieur Jadczyk!

(Congratulations Mr. Jadczyk!)

:thup:
 
Top Bottom