Uncertainty and Time

[foodchain]

Ok I don’t really know how to frame this question all to well so if someone is confused feel free to state that and I will try to assist.

 

So on an subatomic level you have a certain amount of uncertainty, now I know in a traditional sense this is to apply strictly to say orbitals really in trying to determine both position and momentum correct?

 

Well my question I guess at this point would be purely metaphysical if even that. How do we know that uncertainty only applies to that? I mean if time for whatever that is, an example is some calling it entropy, how do we know uncertainty and time do not have any kind of a relationship. I mean even if this relationship is "weird" how do we know such does not exist? I ask this question because I am thinking of selection rules in relation to time and of course relativity.

[Fred56]

This is a question that the quantum darwinists think they can answer. They call it 'eigenselection'. Check out the wiki.

[foodchain]

This is a question that the quantum darwinists think they can answer. They call it 'eigenselection'. Check out the wiki.

 

 

 

I could not find anything on wiki about it, do you mean by chance quantum decohernnce? I found a paper or abstract of one on the net that was talking about environmental interaction and I think it used that phrase or term.

 

I also thought quantum Darwinism was a view proposed by a biologist to explain rapid extinction and speciation?

[fredrik]

> "how do we know uncertainty and time do not have any kind of a relationship"

 

I personally think it has a deep relationship.

 

For Zurek's ideas see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_darwinism

At the end, there are some arxiv papers by Zurek. Yes, Quantum darwinism is a decoherence related idea.

 

I personally think some of this thinking is interesting and possibly part of the solution, but I don't think it's the final solution alone because there are many problems Zurek's papers leaves untouched.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

Energy and time have the same uncertainty relationship as momentum and position.

[ajb]

Energy and time have the same uncertainty relationship as momentum and position.

 

True, but in quantum mechanics time is not a Hermitian operator. It is not an observable in the usual sense. It is a lot more involved as to how you can derive this relation.

[fredrik]

A personal comment... but I'm notsure if I got the question right

 

I also thought quantum Darwinism was a view proposed by a biologist to explain rapid extinction and speciation?

 

It's a supposed solution to the problem that quantum mechanics has classical "background" structures, that seem to come out of nowhere, and be classically objective. Quantum darwinism is the idea that this background structure are selected by allowing the observer beeing a subssytem that can not possible encode the information in the entire univers, to interact with the interaction, and this interaction might statistically favour formation/selection of a stable (with respect to the environment) "reference" background.

 

The basic idea is excellent, but the problem is that the explanation is only an explanation relative to a larger subsystem. The explanation itself, as posed in this approach is not IMO contained in the original system. Thus the proposed answer, is IMO, the answer to an alternative question rather than the original one, but I think the basic idea of environmentally selected references is dead on. But there might versions of it, or other similar ways to implemen the basic idea of "environmental selection". I dig this idea, but I think we need more ingredients to get a satisfactory solution. I'd like to express the selection in terms of "original learning", rather than "environmental training" although it's sort of the same thing. A difference is probably in the representation, the original learning strategy will be "less classical" but more "compact", and it can hopefully "live" in the origina system only (respecting it's limited information capacity).

 

/Fredrik

[Riogho]

You have a thermometer, however, that thermometer only will take accurate readings after 10 seconds. This thermometer is the best and fastest thermometer in the world.

 

You want to know what temperature your oven is.

 

You throw the thermometer in. It takes 10 seconds for you to get the reply.

 

You have no way of knowing the temperature when you through in the thermometer because To make any measurement time must pass, leaving what WAS uncertain.

 

All time is, is a way we measure change.

 

We cannot take a measurement without and interaction. To have any type of interaction time must pass.

 

Therefore you cannot know what happened during the passed time.

[foodchain]

Well for instance in decoherence at what point can you say you have no "entanglement" with what you are observing? I use the world entanglement vary loosely to mean interacting with, which to me always implied environment. The basic reality of universe implied environment to be honest, I mean if I am made of the same stuff then the universe found a way to look at itself even if its from a quantum scale:D That though implies something far to complicated for me to even put into a sentence let alone think about such in any form of clarity.

 

To try and reduce my head back to some sanity. To try and answer my own question I posed above I don’t think you could observe on any level a quantum system without interacting with it, which implies to me what is the end of a quantum field? I mean if at a subatomic level the sun is soaking everything in our solar system with quanta, so does that mean the entire system to some form of a wave function is interacting via decoherence? I mean if observation is a physical phenomena and all, I guess though I would be saying observation in a sense of any form of interaction. If a quantum system has to select itself, in time I would think, does that mean even the smallest single disturbance to a particle a millions light years away can have an effect on say my heart exploding. I would think that scale of decoherence then must have some form a relative basis or a field strength that diminishes in say time or space or something I guess.

 

The weird idea to me then is you can only move at C in that then right which would imply to time? Or is there something that would take the format of being say non classical information that can move faster then light in reference to wave function collapse in some field decoherence?

[Riogho]

Well for instance in decoherence at what point can you say you have no "entanglement" with what you are observing? I use the world entanglement vary loosely to mean interacting with, which to me always implied environment. The basic reality of universe implied environment to be honest, I mean if I am made of the same stuff then the universe found a way to look at itself even if its from a quantum scale:D That though implies something far to complicated for me to even put into a sentence let alone think about such in any form of clarity.

 

 

To be 'entangled' all something has to do is interact. Once it has interacted in any way shape or form, it is no longer possible to describe it NOT being relative to the other.

[Amr Morsi]

Hi All,

 

This is a widely spread wrong fact about Quantum Mechaincs since long ago. There do is a time operator. And, as already been mentioned in this thread; the hamiltonian itself is a time operator.

It is only because idea adopters sometimes get so sticked to their idea and they get away facts conflicting with their ones.

 

Thanks.

[timo]

There do is a time operator. And, as already been mentioned in this thread; the hamiltonian itself is a time operator.

What is a time operator and how does the hamiltonian fit into this description?

[foodchain]

Hi All,

 

This is a widely spread wrong fact about Quantum Mechaincs since long ago. There do is a time operator. And, as already been mentioned in this thread; the hamiltonian itself is a time operator.

It is only because idea adopters sometimes get so sticked to their idea and they get away facts conflicting with their ones.

 

Thanks.

 

My question is basically on the reality of quantum systems in an environmental tone looking at time in relation to the uncertainty principal in relation to supposed wave function collapse.

 

Now to my understanding you can have time dependent and time independent equations to use. I imagine when you say time operator you are referring to use of the time operator?

 

I am basically wondering then if the image of wave function collapse really is sort of the arrow of time then. Of course you have to deal with the idea that quantum systems are or can be modeled to my understanding as a system of aggregate systems, much like an environment of various ecosystems. So how do you model quantum interaction in context of time, going from a natural environment such as rainfall.

[thedarkshade]

An orbital is the part of space where probability of finding electron is high! But as everyone knows, deciding exactly where the electron is, is something not yet done! This comes from a very simple fact! If you want to see the electron you have to put a light on it! And putting a light on it excites the electron (gives it energy) so the electron moves to a higher energetic level, so it's impossible to see it (or decide where it is). So the idea of observing the electron, itself makes impossible observing it!