#quantum theory

Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information

Vladko Vedral

See this George dude GETS IT!!

I should look him up

There's literally no way to account for all of the variables of each individual human being and the properties of each of their individual experiences to manipulate a specific outcome

And probability math has a threshold of the level of influence that can be calculated or predicted because of it

Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information

- Vladko Vedral

I'm going to have to continue to write out my thoughts every time I read a paragraph of this book because otherwise my brain simply won't process the information as quickly and let me actually finish reading it

The snippet above gets me thinking about the idea of relative thresholds, if thats even a thing (maybe it is and its just not the right name for it)? How would I describe it in an understandable way?

I guess if we decide to consider an atom a living thing for a moment; consider that an atom, something like a snail, and a human being are all going to perceive time differently because of their perspective (it might help)

At each of their "levels" the rules of how these types of influences are going to effect each object differently

Perhaps a simpler idea to consider would be that the mass density of an object is going to be affected by gravity differently

This idea of the same thing affecting different things in different ways and producing different results is relative to the composition of the object

In living beings the composition of an object could be considered its knowledge, experiences, and the resulting ability to comprehend a situation it encounters

While a simple set of objects like an asteroid, a moon, and a planet may be affected by Gravity in a particular way, and therefore able to be predicted, when you apply the same pattern analysis to a single being, or a group of them, you will not be able to make the same level of accuracy in predicting the outcome due to the number of variables that remain unseen from each individual within a group

The way that atoms are able to be influenced in the manner which is described above may be able to be used to a certain extent on "higher levels", but it does not guarantee the outcome of North and South, hence the existence of a threshold of the level of influence able to be exerted

The main aspect of what an Atom and something much more complex like a Human being actually have in common is not that they are able to be polarised, but that they will always individually seek their own stable equilibrium

While a human beings decision making process is capable of being 'influenced', the Brain is also constantly adapting to avoid manipulation that it does not find rewarding to its own need for survival

The threshold I mentioned earlier is the point where an object is no longer beholden to the external influence as it has found a way to adapt against it, where the level of being able to predict the outcome, the determistic factor, loses its cohesion and turns back into chaos and randomness

On a graph this would be the very top of the curve before it turns back on itself and heads back down the other side, and since a living being cannot, and will not act like a simple object, its actions are unable to be predicted using the same mathematics

Each threshold may have a similar set of base patterns, but the outcomes of each are still capable of giving wildly different results

Consider that each individual on this planet is capable of using and being tracked on the internet by algorithms designed to create intimate and completely individual profiles of billions of people, and that each and every single one of those profiles are going to be completely unique from each other........

.......the idea that one set of algorithmic math could take into account the number of variables that remain completely unknown in order to control what they do, is somewhat of a mind numbingly idiotic thought to me

I would argue that the atoms inside a magnet aren't aligning to create polarity, it's that they are aligning in the same way due to a common interest, purpose, or necessity, which is funnily enough something you do see more complex beings like Humans do in the interest of preservation of their own lives, and in the act of protecting others

The entire purpose of creating the North and South polarity is to give its centre a stable equilibrium

Heisenberg: Quantum Theory and Philosophy - with some excerpts.

Quantum Mechanics and a Conversation with Einstein (p. 31)

"I thought," I asked in astonishment, "that you of all people had made this very idea the foundation of your theory of relativity? You had emphasized that one cannot speak of absolute time, since this absolute time cannot be observed. Only the readings of clocks, whether in a moving or a stationary frame of reference, are decisive for determining time."

"Perhaps I have used this kind of philosophy," Einstein replied, "but it is nonetheless nonsense. Or, to put it more cautiously, it may be of heuristic value to remember what one actually observes. But from a fundamental standpoint, it is quite wrong to want to base a theory solely on observable quantities. For in reality, it is precisely the other way around. Only theory determines what can be observed. You see, observation is generally a very complicated process." The process to be observed triggers certain events in our measuring apparatus. As a consequence, further processes then occur in this apparatus, which ultimately, indirectly, produce the sensory impression and the fixation of the result in our consciousness. On this entire long path from the process to its fixation in our consciousness, we must know how nature works; we must at least practically understand the laws of nature if we want to claim that we have observed something. Only theory, that is, knowledge of the laws of nature, allows us to infer the underlying process from the sensory impression. If one claims that one has observed something—

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory (p. 45)

The probability function can only be linked to reality if an essential condition is met: namely, if a new measurement or observation is made to determine a specific property of the system. Only then does the probability function allow us to calculate the probable result of the new measurement. The result of the measurement is then expressed in terms of classical physics.

Therefore, the theoretical interpretation of an experiment requires three clearly distinct steps. In the first, the initial experimental situation is translated into a probability function. In the second, this function is computationally tracked over time. In the third, a new measurement is performed on the system, the expected result of which can then be calculated from the probability function. For the first step, the validity of the uncertainty principle is a necessary precondition. The second step cannot be described in terms of classical physics. It is impossible to specify what happens to the system between the initial observation and the next measurement. Only in the third step can the transition from the possible to the actual be completed.

We will illustrate these three steps with a simple thought experiment. It has already been stated that the atom consists of an atomic nucleus and electrons that move around this nucleus. It has also already been established that the concept of an electron orbit is somewhat problematic.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory (p. 50)

...can give rise to contradictions. The duality between the two complementary pictures—the wave picture and the particle picture—is also clearly evident in the flexibility of the mathematical formalism. This formalism is usually formulated in a way that resembles Newtonian mechanics—that is, using equations of motion for the coordinates and velocities of the particles. However, through a simple transformation, it can be rewritten as a wave equation for three-dimensional matter waves; yet these waves, too, possess the character of matrices or operators rather than simple field quantities. Consequently, the possibility of playing with the various complementary pictures—and their mathematical formalisms—does not lead to any difficulties within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.

An obstacle to understanding this interpretation invariably arises, however, when one asks the familiar question: "But what is actually happening during an atomic process?" It has already been stated that measurement and the results of observation must always be described in the terms of classical physics. Yet what is derived from the observation is a probability function—a mathematical expression combining statements about possibilities or "tendencies" with statements regarding our knowledge of facts. Therefore, we cannot fully objectify the result of an observation. We cannot describe what occurs between one observation and the next. At first glance, it appears as though ... we have introduced a subjective element into the theory—as if to say that what happens depends on how we observe the event, or at least on the fact that we observe it. Before discussing this objection, it is necessary to explain precisely why one would encounter immense difficulties in attempting to describe what occurs between two successive observations.

It is useful here to consider the following thought experiment. Let us assume that a small monochromatic light source emits light onto a black screen containing two small apertures. The diameters of the apertures need not be much larger than the wavelength of the light, but the distance between them should be significantly greater. A photographic plate is placed at some distance behind the screen to capture the incident light. If this experiment is described in terms of the wave model, one says that the primary wave passes through the two apertures. This results in two secondary spherical waves originating from the apertures and interfering with each other. The interference produces a pattern of varying intensities—known as interference fringes—on the photographic plate.

The blackening of the photographic plate is a chemical process triggered by individual light quanta; therefore, the experiment must also be described in terms of light quanta. If it were permissible to discuss what happens to the individual light quantum between its emission from the light source...

Quantum Mechanics and Kantian Philosophy (p. 67)

"Nature thus informs us that the disputed determining factors do not exist at all—that our knowledge is already complete without them."

"But that is terrible," said Grete Hermann. "On the one hand, you say our knowledge of the Radium B atom is incomplete because we do not know when or in what direction the electron will be emitted; on the other hand, you say the knowledge is complete because, if there were further determining factors, we would run into contradictions with certain other experiments.

But surely our knowledge cannot be both complete and incomplete at the same time. That is simply nonsense."

Carl Friedrich then began to analyze the premises of Kantian philosophy somewhat more closely: "The apparent contradiction here," he said, "arises because, in what we say, we act as if one could speak of a Radium B atom *in itself*. But that is not self-evident, and strictly speaking, it is not correct either. Even for Kant, the 'thing-in-itself' is a problematic concept. Kant knows that nothing can be asserted about the 'thing-in-itself'; we are given only objects of perception. Yet Kant assumes that these objects of perception can be linked or ordered, so to speak, according to the model of a thing-in-itself. He thus presupposes—as given *a priori*—that structure of experience to which we have become accustomed in daily life and which, in precise form, constitutes the foundation of classical physics. According to this view, the world consists of..."

On the Responsibility of the Researcher (p. 89)

...know how the individual ought to conduct himself when placed within the machinery of a humanity shaped by conflicting ideas—a humanity at the mercy of its own passions and delusions, yet interested in technical progress. We have learned too little about this so far.

"We have at least come to understand," I attempted to reply, "that for the individual whom scientific or technical progress has confronted with an important task, it is not enough to think only of that task. He must view the solution as part of a broad development—one he evidently affirms, given that he is working on such problems in the first place. He will arrive at the right decisions more easily if he takes these broader contexts into account."

"That would presumably mean he must also strive for a connection with public life and seek to influence state administration if he wishes not only to conceive the right course of action but also to carry it out and bring about results. Yet such a connection is perhaps not unreasonable. It fits well with the general trend we were trying to visualize earlier. As scientific and technical progress becomes increasingly important to the public at large, the influence of those driving this progress on public life could also grow. Of course, one cannot assume that physicists and engineers would be better at making important political decisions than politicians are. However, through their scientific work, they have learned better how to think objectively, factually, and—most importantly—in terms of broad contexts. They may..."

The Beauty in Exact Natural Science (p. 102)

... as exemplified by Newtonian mechanics, hardly needs explaining. The parts are the individual mechanical processes; those we carefully isolate with apparatus, as well as those that unfold inextricably before us in the colorful interplay of phenomena. And the whole is precisely the unifying principle of form that Newton has established in a simple system, to which all these processes have been mathematically defined by axioms. One and the same. But the fact that in such unity and simplicity, the One is contrasted with the many, that the many are united within it, is nevertheless perceived as simple and beautiful. The significance of this, which we also recognize and emphasize as the One for discovering truth, naturally follows. The Latin motto, "simplex sigillum veri," "Simplicity is the seal of truth," is inscribed in large letters in the physics lecture hall at the University of Göttingen as a reminder to those who wish to discover new things. The other Latin motto, "pulchritudo splendor veritatis," "Beauty is the splendor of truth," can also be interpreted as meaning that the researcher first recognizes truth by this splendor, by its radiance.

Twice more in the history of exact science, this illumination of the grand narrative has become the decisive signal for significant progress. I am thinking here of two events in 20th-century physics: the development of the theory of relativity and quantum theory. In both cases, a bewildering abundance of details was almost suddenly ordered after years of fruitless efforts at understanding, when a connection, admittedly quite abstract, but ultimately simple in its substance, emerged, which, through its coherence and abstract beauty, immediately convinced all those who can stand and speak.

But we do not want to trace the historical course of events further now, but rather ask quite directly: What is illuminating here? How is it that the grand connection becomes recognizable in this illumination of beauty in exact natural science, and can it still be rationally proven? What is its illuminance before it is understood in its details, and what effect does it have on the further course of science?

Perhaps we should first recall a phenomenon that can be called the unfolding of abstract structures. This can be explained using the example of number theory, which was mentioned at the beginning, but one can also point to comparable processes in the development of art. For the mathematical foundation of arithmetic, the study of numbers, a few simple axioms suffice, which essentially only define precisely what counting means. But with these few axioms, the entire range of forms that only entered the consciousness of mathematicians over the course of a long history is already established: the doctrine of prime numbers, of quadratic residues, of numerical congruences, and so on. One can say that the abstract structures established by counting only became apparent later.

The single most annoying thing about trying to read this book is not that it's a hard read or difficult to comprehend, because honestly it's neither of those things. It's actually a brilliant example of a gateway into a very niche subject

It's that every time I read a couple of pages my brain starts sparking off in a billion different ways, and I can no longer concentrate on what I'm trying to read which makes the whole process of actually reading it slower because my brain is attempting to link it with situations I've previously encountered to help it make sense

Every act of religion or spirituality (or rejection of such) is an attempt to understand how quanta function. Some get it better than others depending on their angle of focus.