Fred56

Must have been a different incarnation of 'Fred'. This one joined up here only a couple months back...

Norman: on the way to my understanding of quantum vs 'knowledge' of quantum states, I have encountered already dozens of 'Hamiltonian' space models, and am keeping ST and things at arms length for now. My approach currently is something like: I don't need to be able to play the piano like Tschaikowsky, just being able to copy, say Elton John or Freddie is ok (but I do need to practise more), I figure there are plenty of pretty accomplished players (all over the web, who are kind enough to display their ideas), and I can think about joining an orchestra, you know, but just reading through the different scores is pretty absorbing for now. Especially if I can "get" how the conductor 'communicates' all that information -that's got to have something to do with our understanding... Anyways, on with the practising. Here's someone's take on our current models of the electron and its partner, the photon (my italics and bolds): Mr Lindner appears to run into some problems with circular argument and definition. An electron is described by its wave-function, which describes its momentum (the wave defines another wave, or it describes itself). This appears to be a self-referencing electron --which exists and has the properties it has because our brain can 'define' them into existence using their existence! We can, of course, treat electrons as point-particles (of charge), and give them zero-volume too. This 'particle' model "works" quite well in some situations (like in the semiconductor industry)... But defining things in terms of waves then leads to: what is it that "waves", or moves? What medium is pertubed by these waves? And so on.

Also current is described by Kirchoff's Law (q.v.). Ohm's Law describes voltage and resistance (ask any Physics teacher). After that there's inductance and capacitance, and so on. When you get into time-varying voltage and current, it gets more interesting...

I agree, you have spotted the odd man out. This bunch appears to be trying to describe the whole show in terms of 'design', ...er, anyway I wanted to see what their logicalism was. What brought you to the conclusion that they are saying life is a "closed sytem" btw? Can you comment on the Born rule? Chapter 2 The 'new' approach to a definition of 'information', and what is meant by 'measurement', is still somewhere off in the distance, but we already know (and have known for more than 70 years) that photons, 'light', are tiny packets of energy. Therefore any 'information' that photons carry is due to their energy -which is proportional to their frequency. The classical model of thought, and 'external information' sees two 'isolated systems', the one being observed, which contains a 'complete map' of information --except that the other system, the observer, can't access all of it easily, but otherwise it's all there, an ontological existence in and of itself. The observer 'obtains' this information and 'processes' it, which involves an electrical and biochemical system, and is therefore a energy-using process, but the 'thoughts' themselves are 'freely' available to the epistemological mind. Obviously the classical model is incorrect and we need to go back to the metaphorical drawing board. But the classical model is still useful. So we need to ensure what is intended when the term 'information' is used, especially now that quantum 'information' -an indeterminate state, has become 'available'. Assuming that information has mass and behaves like heat does, quantum information (a potential which hasn't "arrived" in the world in 'real' terms, but can be manipulated and "stored" like a memory), seems to be a new kind of resource that for the time being, refuses to accept any well-defined label. Is an entangled state a 'real' chunk of information 'mass', or not until it gets 'counted'? In which case what, if anything does an entanglement contribute? How can we 'store' something that isn't there yet? Obviously, because this is possible, then the problem is somewhere else... What's the difference between: 1. the 'information' that is 'in' my brain because of (a process that 'tracks') change in the external world (knowledge of the world or epistemology -is unstable) 2. the observed 'information' (which requires the above change in my brain) 'in' that external world (its existence or ontology -is stable) 3. an entangled quantum state which 'contains' (potential) information, (which “doesn't” exist until it is observed -and is ontically “unstable") 4. an 'observable' quantum of information -a bit or a photon (which “always” exists -has a stable ontic “form”) ?? Is brain information (our memory and learning) any different from a book, or a library, or equivalent to lots of bits in a big 'high capacity' computer of some kind? Do the individual synapes represent bit-stream channels, and are there several levels (stratification) of information, so that increasingly complex 'representation' requires complex coding 'algorithms' and efficient 'stacking' and 'queuing' of 'mind information' in whatever representation it has? Will we have 'complete' or even maximal 'observational data' on the inner workings, and develop a theory of mind that is based on something more 'concrete' (peer-reviewed and experimentally corroborated that gives us insight into ourselves as never before), than our 'recognition' of this character (sentience) in other living things? Why do animals in general, and mammals in particular (us most of all), have such a 'developed' or evolved (egressed?) functionality that allows us to contemplate not just what the universe does, but why, and why it should bother to exist, and especially why bother with (creating) conscious beings able to look at it? We appear to be in a rather fortunate set of (apparently) random coincidences. The universe (at least our bit of it), is finely tuned for the existence (hence the emergence) of life. The sun is an 'ordinary' star (not too big and hot like lots of others we can see). The planet is just inside (by about one diameter) the 'not too hot' zone. We seem to be in "just the right" position, and on a planet that is orbiting a star that has coalesced, along with a few inner rocky planets, from a mixture of heavier elements (cooked to order by a supernova or two), hydrogen and other odds and sods to get 'us', eventually. We (and the rest of the pantheon of biology) are the current model evolution has provided, and our pre-programmed task seems to be to figure out why it made us (without resorting to an external 'intelligence' that hides from us his reasons for making the universe). The anthropic principle doesn't have a simple resolution: The ability of matter to travel through space in an indeterminate way (as demonstrated by double-slit experiments with different-sized bits of matter, from electrons up to large arrays of carbon atoms -buckyballs), illustrates that measurement is a problem (or impossible) because of this. Up close, particles and atoms can be observed if they are cooled down to within a few degrees, or hundredths of a degree of absolute zero. This reduces the vibrational modes that tend to swamp the quantum signal, with random jittering and emission of IR photons. Nonetheless the cost appears to go up proportionally: Ruminations The Observable is that universe which is: either a stable condensation of objects: a mass/energy which projects the structure of its own condensation, so that it orders and binds, or attracts; a record or memory: a store of energy itself as matter. Or a cloud of unstable potential distance and mass/energy, uncountable of itself: when it collapses or condenses, change becomes observable. Observation is that universe which is: either a cloud of unstable potentiality which: orbits uncounted the condensed record and memory of imagination: the store, a mass/energy which attracts and binds, or structures the cloud. Or a stable condensation of observers, who imagine the cloud's structures so that they condense, they collapse into memory records, and are available.

That's what this guy says causes the different refractive properties... I think it isn't being dismissed, either, though. There's a paper about relativistic rest-mass being able to be negative, or something. I can't put my finger on it yet, but I think that he's saying there's a problem with the material mass (condensed), and the observation that a photon can acquire a rest mass (in a superconductor, e.g.)

One 'observation' that could be made about 'condensed' matter's and the photon's ability to be more than one wave function is that they are independent of one aspect of entropy (our measure of dispersal/distance), but not independent of another aspect, which results in its 'death'/decoherence. The photon is the other side of the mass/energy relation, but can be 're-quantised' to divide into two copies. Mass cannot divide like photons (except when its moving, it can 'spread out' and seemingly travel every available path), but forms a sort of blob of a single quantum state at low temp. (its entropy has to be lowered), and single atoms can entangle various quantum states (spin polarisation, magnetic phase) with neighbours, but usually only when it is 'cold'. What explains this (superposition is affected by the random, vibrational aspects of matter, but ignores the effect of this, which is the dispersal of the same matter)? Reality is out the WINDOW --look, out there... The second "Albert" is David Z. Albert, at Columbia University who is researching a many-worlds model. So, some scientists have successfully applied the Informatics concept of information -or more specifically, what communication or measurement are -in thermodynamic terms, to formulate newer versions of the earlier quantum field theories. Shannon's 'information entropy" -which should more properly be called (un)certainty, has a symmetry with our thermodynamic model of heat. Despite the perceived problems with equating the two (which are related to the observation that heat is physical and "information" isn't). Entropy, a measure or metric of disorder in some system, offers a level of uncertainty to any observer who wishes to measure it. Information in fact reduces an observers uncertainty about a system and so reduces the informational entropy (it doesn't add to it, and the thermal or physical entropy doesn't change, just knowledge of it). Measuring the state S of a system (knowing the state, or having maximal available knowledge), reduces an observer's entropic state (of knowledge), and so because the system does not, after all consist of an "external" observed, and a separate, "internal" observer, but is rather a single complementary system, our model of communication and measurement is certainly not representable as an independently available 'set'. It costs something to lower the uncertainty -and this cost is the measurement of that same 'external' thing. In this sense they are reflections of each other, or are symmetrical equivalents. The more information (the more content in any message) the more reduction (in uncertainty) occurs. Information has energy. The equations show this symmetry, so it must behave in an equivalent way... Edit: anyone reading this might spot a glaring error in the last couple of paragraphs (hint: it has to do with measurement). Can you spot it? "The Question is: What is The Question?" -John A. Wheeler

Is this all you have to say..... . . . . .?

from physicsforum.com FAQ: The speed of light in 'condensed matter' is a function of 'available states' (of vibration). Something to do with phonons (sound quanta). If there are no available vibrational states, the photon is 'absorbed' and emitted, so there is accumulation of delays. This is an explanation, or a model, of what happens (and I don't know that it can't be picked apart by someone)...

How deep into the sack has he reached already? Rene's in there somewhere, possibly Kant or Hegel, who knows? But I'm leaving if he finds Neitzche, or that Karl dude...

Proicati sibi, nullus et omnium, fini continati sunt. Aliqui qu omnis disco numquam discebo. Omni didic, omnes parum, disc_untur et discebo. Non haec dedecus est modestia. All Latin, especially spoken Latin, has a rhythm to it (like any language). But putting together almost any sentence, although word order is 'unimportant', seems to somehow go a certain way that demands it follow the common metres used in earlier times. Anapaest, iambus, and pentameter, and spondyls, dontch's just love it? Diaresis, the pause after a phrase which keeps the rhythm 'going', was adopted (as was most of the rest) straight from Greek. The usual way to say something in Latin was to have an introductory phrase, then perhaps a bit of exposition, then the punch line at the end. For instance, the (noun) phrase: "Proicatia sibi" - "their own projection (note the 'a' at the end of -catia, is barely spoken, the first example above elides it, which was common)"; is followed by a slight diaresis, then: "nullus et omnium" - "nothing and everything"; this is the 'middle bit', and represents the main subject. Finally, the 'point' is made: "fini continati sunt." - "of end, of continuation are." (notice the translation 'requires' a comma). This feature allows Latin a certain poetic perspective that is harder to find in the Anglische language...

Do you want to buy some of these quantum peas, then? Fritz-Albert's book should be a good place to start...

Respond to which change of opinion, or point of view, exactly? What has anyone (including me) managed to say about it (change, time, life, death), so far on this thread? Hmm? We project 3 dimensions to measure distance (we assign 3 measurements to distance), but we can also make do with just 2, or 1, to analyse motion, say. No problems with projecting or assigning more dimensions (even an infinite number), as long as we remember, along with remembering the measurements, that that's what we're doing -assigning or mapping numbers to distance, or space. What the riddle is is why does the universe need time when it has change (or it is change)? WE sure need to measure change, or we are bound to observe it because we are changing too. But it's a number, for god's sake. If it was real we would be able to put it in a clock (or take it out). But what we do is use something that changes (regularly) to measure change itself. Because we have a 'solid state' camera with a really good playback, we can measure the change (between changes -different events) pretty accurately (without writing it down, even) but, come on, its all change, we just call it different stuff (symbols) and write down lots of words and use it all in formulas, but ultimately it all exists because we 'observe' it (into existence). The existence of time is ontological because of observers (its something they 'have'). The universe 'has' it in the sense that the observers it contains have it, but what did it do while it was waiting for 'us' to 'happen'? Will the universe stop if observers disappear?

OK, I guess I stuck with the 'simplified' a bit, but effectively, even though photons still travel at c, in a dense medium (near condensed matter) isn't it 'true' that they have a further distance because space is more curved? Also, solids are a quantised state, rather than a collection of individual bits of matter, I remember reading somewhere. It's spread out a bit unless it's affected by strong electric fields etc, I thought. BECs don't fit any of the other descriptions of matter, do they (or what)?

There's a joke (probably already told in this forum) about a string theorist whose wife catches him out with a young female grad.; he says: "Wait, I can explain everything..." Seriously though, I haven't seen materials scientists or chip makers really considering using string-models instead of the QH and other metrics (the quantum fields), usually EM models are seen in such papers. The quantum Hall-effect is a hotly pursued interaction, and they seem to be about to be able to use photons as a reliable channel between quantum information and transistor-level information ('real' bits). It's all fairly heady stuff, and getting a grip on what they are on about possibly requires adv. math concepts (postgrad courses in topology and quantum fields, say), but it depends how much detail, I guess, you personally want to see

Well, I wouldn't like to say really. Perhaps we are all affected to some extent (maybe it was all that DDT).

Just in case you think no-one's got any understanding of the new quantum world: ...And still bouncing

This means the velocity must decrease, according to E=hf (f is actually nu, it looks a bit like a v for velocity). The idea that light (photons) 'hops' from atom to atom at c is a common misperception. Ahem. The misperception is possibly due to the 'naive' model of a solid as a collection of little spheres all packed together (like many Sciencey teachers still probably instruct their minions). This model is past its use-by date, because BECs tell us that matter can be all three (a gas/liquid/solid), so this casts a bit of doubt on the "balss-and-stickstogethu-bits" idea...

Not having a start or a finish sounds an awful lot like something infinite. Right, this is Lynd, already on to him...

Norman, your 'free' electron model uses Kerr and KG math. I came across similar math in a PDF but about condensed states and bound electrons, but they are using the same math approach (I guess), I have had a go at finding this again, but unfortunately, even though it was in the last week, I have opened hundreds of PDFs... It was definitely materials science and I think to do with surface polarisation of the electric field, maybe.

Molecular transistors "(Nanowerk Spotlight) Transistors are the fundamental building blocks of our everyday modern electronics; they are the tiny switches that process the ones and zeroes that make up our digital world. Transistors control the flow of electricity by switching current on or off and by amplifying electrical signals in the circuitry that governs the operation of our computers, cellular phones, iPods and any other electronic device you can think of. The first transistor used in commercial applications was in the Regency TR-1 transistor radio, which went on sale in 1954 for $49.95, that's over $375 in today's dollars ...While the first transistors were over 1 centimeter in diameter, the smallest transistors today are just 30 nanometers thick - three million times smaller. This feat would be equivalent to shrinking the 509-meter tall Taipei 101 Tower, currently the tallest building in the world, to the size of a 1.6 millimeter tall grain of rice. The 32nm microprocessor Intel plans to introduce in 2009 will pack a whopping 1.9 billion transistors. However, current microprocessor technology is quickly approaching a physical barrier. Switching the current by raising and lowering the electron energy barrier generates heat, which becomes a huge problem as device densities approach the atomic limit. An intriguing - and technologically daunting - alternative would be to exploit the wave nature of the electron, rather than its particle properties, to control current flow on the nanoscale. Such a device, called the Quantum Interference Effect Transistor (QuIET), has been proposed by researchers in Arizona. This device could be as small as a single benzene molecule, and would produce much less heat than a conventional field effect transistor. Notwithstanding the incredibly shrinking transistor, nanometer-size transistors work on the same principles as much larger ones: current flows into the base (the gate controller) from one electrode (the collector) and out through another (the emitter). The base switches the current on and off by raising and lowering an electrical potential barrier gate that prevents the flow of electrons. Unfortunately, this type of switching requires a lot of power. As more and more transistors are crammed into the same space, the power density, and with it heat dissipation, becomes an overriding issue. At the current rate of miniaturization, by the end of the decade, you might as well be feeling a rocket nozzle than touching a chip; and soon after 2010, computer chips could feel like the bubbly hot surface of the sun itself. " -nanowerk.com Sep 2007

Part of the problem (IMO) is that no country is a single place or people. America (the US) has several distinct geographically and culturally separated regions. The NE Atlantic region (Chicago-NY and the industrial states), is quite different say, from the area further south. People living in the mid-west have quite different outlooks and attitudes (and are generally more 'religious'), and so on. I don't think you can find a single 'country' that is a single culture. So the idea of them all trading on an 'equal footing' has to deal with this fact of life, but it doesn't. Instead the 'rich' people/subculture do well from the schema, but people who are 'disadvantaged' tend to be more so.

I know some aren't going to like this, bit isn't the Pres. copying what other 'leaders' in the past have done to ensure their grip on both the 'vox populi', and then the reins of real political and military power (there do seem to be some parallels)? Like a certain German guy, or those Russian dudes, and that Serbian idiot...

Has anyone seen that new theory about time requiring 2 dimensions? Itzhak Bars' idea of "Hypertime", which he has a paper on in Phy. Review Let. D v74 p085019...

"For a stationary object, if [change] does not exist, there is no separation of the states. Thus there is no change."

If you exchange 'time' with 'change', it makes (some) more (kind of) sense. Time exists as a requirement for observers to 'remember' the world, but the universe came first (presumably). Time wasn't around, if you will, until life was.