time, the interaction of quantum paradoxes and other amusing little animals
Ok, since a respectable public (although it’s not written for the public) is a brief description so important, then it will be a message looking for the answer to the questions: (1) is there a time in the theoretical-physical picture of the world? (2) Is there room for interaction? (3) Can a formal description in general capture such phenomena? The text will be boring, impossible to read, difficult to read. Better not read. Then do not write in the comments that did not warn
OK. My knowledge of physics is limited. It so happened that I did not go to the Faculty of Physics in my time, but chose mathematics. Therefore, I cannot assert that the following statements are true in general for all physics, but I have mastered the fundamental books. This space, time, matter 'G. Weyl - a wonderful book, I recommend to everyone. And 'Weinberg's quantum field theory'.
So, what does the general theory of relativity and quantum physics described in these books use? They describe the world in terms of functions of time. Something like x (t) = sin (t), and we have a wobble. Even in terrible and terrible (really terrible for the brain, and those physicists who invented all this - geniuses and deserve admiration) quantum field theory, which selflessly operates with symmetry groups, five-dimensional integrals of operator expressions, Minkowski space and other high-tech mathematical tools, The basis is a modest notion of function.
')
Because groups are groups of symmetries in which the properties of operators must be preserved, and operators work on the space of wave functions. Integrals are considered along paths in fields, and a vector field is also something that has the form A (t). So what if A is a capital letter?
The curvature of space-time? So this is also a function, at each point (x, y, z, t) having a certain value.
But then the question arises, and what of the fact that this is a function of time from t? Well, its argument is called this remarkable letter, but this function does not change its mathematical meaning, which is that the function f: M -> N, mapping the elements of the set M to the elements of the set N, is 'just' a set of pairs ( m, n), such that m is from M, n is from N, with the property that, in this set there are no two such pairs, in which the n-components are the same, and the m-components are different.
But ... And where is the time here? Where is the dynamics and change? Where is all the wonderful mobility? Can not see. In general, it may be thought that, well, normal, even you can live like this, the mobility of everything is like in a movie. The tape with a bunch of pictures is pulled through the lamp, we are able to see only one picture, from here and the effect ... But who stretches the universe for ... for every living being personally? Or for all sentient beings combined? What is a tape drive mechanism.
In addition, we know that information theory works in this real world. And, as is known, the measure of information requires the presence of a channel, the state of which may vary. Hmm ... But such a channel is again impossible to construct in a multidimensional and static set without a tape drive mechanism. The minimum that is needed is a certain border creeping along this set, describing what should be considered a channel. But what trajectory should it crawl in? By predetermined and static?
Actually, this is the reason for the second part of my personal cognitive dissonance. Because if these descriptions are correct, then you can easily change the direction of the flow of time and believe that time travel is possible. Why? After all, nothing stops, except for the vague intuitive feeling that solutions with negative t are physically wrong.
What is actually explored in theoretical physics? Static sets are similar, we can see only in the history of processes. In the tracks. We ourselves recreate the physical laws according to the results of experiments, according to the history of what happened. But now is the time to show simple focus.
Suppose we observe a random process that takes values of 0 or 1. Suppose that we can only observe the process itself, what will we see? Nothing, chaos and the average is not clear that. But if we see not only the head of the process, but also the previous two values, it doesn't matter how, do we remember them, or do not remember, but simply see, due to our special perception of time, and what will we see?
For example, if we remember 01, then the set of the following possible perceived states for us is limited to two values 10 and 11. That is, there is a certain regularity observed in a random process if we decide to memorize its values.
Hm It's interesting, huh? Law for the random process. Including time arises, like a certain change of states.
Does this bring the mind closer to the perception of the concept of Tao, which was defined as something moving and informal, in which forms and objects were determined only through perception? In my opinion - definitely.
At the same time, in quantum physics there is something similar to a similar process - this is the collapse of the wave function. When the system takes one of the possible states for no apparent reason, and without any visible flow of time ... But, unfortunately, instead of building a theory around what it means and how it relates to the concept of time, physics, in the main mass they are trying to express this process through the tool and unitary evolution already familiar to them (well, we can say that through the function of time, the value of which has a wave function, the same set of pairs, but not numerical ones). Hmm ... here. This is the theory of superselection. As far as I know, it is not generally accepted yet, but nevertheless, work is intensively underway.
OK. The next problem is that in physics there is no model of perception. Moreover, the best observer model in physics is a point observer in the theory of relativity. I am very interested to imagine how this is so? A spot observer capable of tracking the photon's travel in light hours? Einstein was definitely a genius, since he thought of such a thought experiment.
Perception could easily be determined through interaction, but interaction is also tight. The best that is today is the concept of the exchange of mediators between elementary particles (electrons interact with each other through a constant exchange of photons). Hmm ... And again hmm ... Because, it is really non-trivial: a point particle, which does not have a specific location in space-time, changes its state when another point particle with an indefinite place of residence approaches it ... At the same time, change in principle is impossible , or perhaps, but predetermined. Logical horror, if you try to apply all this to mobile and changeable systems ... In my opinion.
At the same time, from a mathematical point of view, everything is very simple: a photon has probabilities of being in a certain area of space-time, an electron also has its own area with its own probabilities, interaction is possible with some probability at the intersection of these areas. And the theory can in these terms predict the results of experiments ... But. But ... And yet again. To do all this you need a mathematician. What makes us believe that electrons really exist?
OK. Well ... Now a little about quantum mechanics. And not unknown (popularized, in particular, in Quantum Psychology) experiment with ERP-pairs. The essence of the experiment (mental, proposed by Einstein) is this. Suppose we have a system of two photons that is in the same quantum state. Now, without measuring this quantum state, we separate these photons at an arbitrary distance, measure one of the photons in a pair, we get a random value (with some probability this or that), but that the most entertaining, unmeasured photon also takes a certain state, such which would have to occupy in a general quantum state, if another photon occupied the state in which it was measured.
Many spears were broken about the interpretation of this experiment, which was actually carried out. How is it all of a sudden? Do photons know each other instantly? It does not happen. Let it be so that we don’t think that our dimension changes our past - they say hot heads. Let's give up common sense - they say.
Hm OK. Now imagine such an experiment: someone takes two balls, one black, the other white, with mixed eyes mixes and sends to two different cities. And then he sits and waits for a call from his friends to tell him what color they received the balls. From Yekaterinburg they call and say to him: Marya Petrovna (let's observe the equality of the sexes), and here we have a black ball. They call from Zelenograd and say: we have white. Hmm ... And Marya Petrovna is surprised - how can this be so !? How did the Ekaterinburg ball find out about the Zelenogradsk ball?
At the same time, which is amusing, for gauges, in Zelenograd, Yekaterinburg and Marya Ivanovna herself from Dnepropetrovsk, any ball sent by mail had an uncertain condition before it was measured. In the world there was no information about (well, we believe in the honesty of postal workers), what kind of ball where it flies, therefore, they could only be discussed in terms of wave functions. But such wave behavior is the fruit of the conditions of the experiment.
What photons are different from balls? Many insist that all. But personally, I do not understand. This experiment with ERP is just a sophisticated way to convey to oneself and so, in advance, a well-known fact: two photons in a tangled ERP pair will be in different states. Two balls will be painted in a different color ...
The rhetorical question is, if the information obtained during the measurement would not get into one place, where it would be compared and surprised at how the photons behave, then who would be surprised at this experiment? The behavior of photons determines not a variable past, nor what is counter-factual and anti-intuitiveness (rather, this all refers to classical descriptions of physical systems in the form of trajectories, material points and complex vector connectives over complex smooth manifolds), and not to the obvious facts that the behavior of all in the form of photons, it is determined by our method of observing and processing information, that is, by the experiment itself.
At the same time, the experiment is always finite in time and space, its history is finite, therefore we can reason about its symmetries, trajectories and other phenomena on which modern theoretical physics is built. But how does nature work where there is no synchrophasatron?
Hmm ... here. That is, it is quite possible that electrons, photons, protons, and so on - these are really just models. Terms that appear when applying a certain configuration of equipment to the Universe, a configuration that limits the options for the behavior of the universe, which allows you to memorize something, and thus formulate the law ... Hmm, I probably am not right about this, but it does not occur to anyone.
And this does not contradict our success in engineering. Using the concepts of symmetry of various finite forms in the Universe, the behavior obtained in the experimental setup we can scale, expand, rotate, stretch, shake, twist, and so on, and get a transistor. But does this mean that there are holes in the transistor? In general, does our ability to observe the existence of the observable mean? Or is it a feature of our observation?
And finally, the interaction. In physics, with the interaction of tight. For me at least. Is there a formal system in which the interaction is obvious? Do not be lazy, download Game of Life Conway. Preferably, the version that is equipped with a collection of various configurations, including spacecraft. www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns here you can see the cherished enjoy life button in the upper left corner.
So here. What is interesting about her? With all its detachment from the world of complex numbers, with all the simplicity of the rules in it: (1) there are obviously structures that, while maintaining their devices, can move with a certain speed - spacecraft (spaceships). At the same time, this structure does not consist of building blocks, it does not consist of the cells themselves, which evolve, it consists of the properties of these cells. Just a bunch of elements repainted in black. (2) the simplest structure capable of moving is known - glider. You can push two spaceships and look at the explosion.
Interaction on the face. And for this interaction, Calabi-Yau spaces are not needed. It is only necessary to accept a very simple installation — the existing one is only a persistent feature of an evolving group of cells (directly as a persisting property in the axioms of natural numbers, in the last axiom of induction). When the two properties come together, they will begin to change and form new properties. Because the cells themselves are changeable, like a changeable Tao.
It's simple. But then again ... Difficulty with math. This game was not mathematically analyzed, Conway himself tried, and in the process even invented wonderful surreal numbers, but ... no significant significant conclusions were found. Another nail pinning to the wall is the inscription that mathematics alone is not able to cope with mobile systems. To analyze them, you need a person, or a computer. Accordingly, it is quite possible that this refutes Penrose’s hypothesis that intelligence requires some mysterious quantum effects traveling from the future to the past. For the existence of intelligence, dynamics are needed - this is an alternative thesis. Naturally, no Turing machine has any dynamics. This is only a sequence of states, always determined by the initial state of the tape and the machine itself ... But everything changes when, during the calculation process, a machine is able to receive data independent of its internal state — a machine with an input / output register. This thing, quite possibly, is quite dynamic. The computer, of course, is just such a machine.
Okay. One more note. If in Life we take an empty space without any deviations from symmetry, and then build an installation around it, then it is quite possible that, for example, gliders (glidergun exist) will arise within this space with time. Thus, we can say that the emerging glider is not an element of the universe, but an element of the experiment. Although, this structure can exist and arise anywhere, but it is not necessary that it exists everywhere, for example, between two electrons in a molecule. It does not exist until we go there with our experiment, or with our measurement.
But why only we should have this right? That's what the problem is. A modern mathematical picture says exactly that. To push two electrons together, a person is needed to indicate to electrons how to absorb photons, a person is needed. They themselves do not know how. More precisely, they are able, but we do not have a qualitative description of the process. Perhaps it will never appear, because the possibilities of mathematics are limited, but the existence of the formal Game of Life gives hope that this is not so.
In fact, this all closely overlaps with quantum field theory, which works in accelerators.
Therefore, in my opinion, now physicists need not to build LHC, not to generate black holes and rangelets, but to try to understand what they are doing in their theories. What are they going to. Introduce, finally, neatly the concepts of interaction and the concept of time. Or show that it is impossible to do. But of the very impossibility of doing this, interesting results will follow, for sure. Quantum theory teaches us this - the result of an experiment depends on what can be measured.
Perhaps, in general, you need to start speaking in the language of information. Because in an ERP experiment, the flow of information has a certain structure, and in all other quantum experiments, if we accept a particle as something that carries information that is divided into parts does not make sense, then many paradoxes cease to be so.
And in the end - the general theory of everything to which physicists strive is a purely informational theory. When, nothing is needed except symbols written in pen to explain all the wealth of the universe. And only information has the property that the carrier is not important to it, the only thing that is important is that the carrier is capable of accepting various states. And information can form entities, as Game of Life and many other cellular automata show.
Perhaps this can bring consciousness to an understanding of what the universe is built from. And perhaps this is a way to get closer to understanding what Tao is. But most likely - it's just the fluctuations that my mind caught from where, and decided to make public. Promulgated, calmed down and now can calmly return to socially useful activities in the form of programming.
Here, I hope, this porridge will not bother me more.
OK. My knowledge of physics is limited. It so happened that I did not go to the Faculty of Physics in my time, but chose mathematics. Therefore, I cannot assert that the following statements are true in general for all physics, but I have mastered the fundamental books. This space, time, matter 'G. Weyl - a wonderful book, I recommend to everyone. And 'Weinberg's quantum field theory'.
So, what does the general theory of relativity and quantum physics described in these books use? They describe the world in terms of functions of time. Something like x (t) = sin (t), and we have a wobble. Even in terrible and terrible (really terrible for the brain, and those physicists who invented all this - geniuses and deserve admiration) quantum field theory, which selflessly operates with symmetry groups, five-dimensional integrals of operator expressions, Minkowski space and other high-tech mathematical tools, The basis is a modest notion of function.
')
Because groups are groups of symmetries in which the properties of operators must be preserved, and operators work on the space of wave functions. Integrals are considered along paths in fields, and a vector field is also something that has the form A (t). So what if A is a capital letter?
The curvature of space-time? So this is also a function, at each point (x, y, z, t) having a certain value.
But then the question arises, and what of the fact that this is a function of time from t? Well, its argument is called this remarkable letter, but this function does not change its mathematical meaning, which is that the function f: M -> N, mapping the elements of the set M to the elements of the set N, is 'just' a set of pairs ( m, n), such that m is from M, n is from N, with the property that, in this set there are no two such pairs, in which the n-components are the same, and the m-components are different.
But ... And where is the time here? Where is the dynamics and change? Where is all the wonderful mobility? Can not see. In general, it may be thought that, well, normal, even you can live like this, the mobility of everything is like in a movie. The tape with a bunch of pictures is pulled through the lamp, we are able to see only one picture, from here and the effect ... But who stretches the universe for ... for every living being personally? Or for all sentient beings combined? What is a tape drive mechanism.
In addition, we know that information theory works in this real world. And, as is known, the measure of information requires the presence of a channel, the state of which may vary. Hmm ... But such a channel is again impossible to construct in a multidimensional and static set without a tape drive mechanism. The minimum that is needed is a certain border creeping along this set, describing what should be considered a channel. But what trajectory should it crawl in? By predetermined and static?
Actually, this is the reason for the second part of my personal cognitive dissonance. Because if these descriptions are correct, then you can easily change the direction of the flow of time and believe that time travel is possible. Why? After all, nothing stops, except for the vague intuitive feeling that solutions with negative t are physically wrong.
What is actually explored in theoretical physics? Static sets are similar, we can see only in the history of processes. In the tracks. We ourselves recreate the physical laws according to the results of experiments, according to the history of what happened. But now is the time to show simple focus.
Suppose we observe a random process that takes values of 0 or 1. Suppose that we can only observe the process itself, what will we see? Nothing, chaos and the average is not clear that. But if we see not only the head of the process, but also the previous two values, it doesn't matter how, do we remember them, or do not remember, but simply see, due to our special perception of time, and what will we see?
For example, if we remember 01, then the set of the following possible perceived states for us is limited to two values 10 and 11. That is, there is a certain regularity observed in a random process if we decide to memorize its values.
Hm It's interesting, huh? Law for the random process. Including time arises, like a certain change of states.
Does this bring the mind closer to the perception of the concept of Tao, which was defined as something moving and informal, in which forms and objects were determined only through perception? In my opinion - definitely.
At the same time, in quantum physics there is something similar to a similar process - this is the collapse of the wave function. When the system takes one of the possible states for no apparent reason, and without any visible flow of time ... But, unfortunately, instead of building a theory around what it means and how it relates to the concept of time, physics, in the main mass they are trying to express this process through the tool and unitary evolution already familiar to them (well, we can say that through the function of time, the value of which has a wave function, the same set of pairs, but not numerical ones). Hmm ... here. This is the theory of superselection. As far as I know, it is not generally accepted yet, but nevertheless, work is intensively underway.
OK. The next problem is that in physics there is no model of perception. Moreover, the best observer model in physics is a point observer in the theory of relativity. I am very interested to imagine how this is so? A spot observer capable of tracking the photon's travel in light hours? Einstein was definitely a genius, since he thought of such a thought experiment.
Perception could easily be determined through interaction, but interaction is also tight. The best that is today is the concept of the exchange of mediators between elementary particles (electrons interact with each other through a constant exchange of photons). Hmm ... And again hmm ... Because, it is really non-trivial: a point particle, which does not have a specific location in space-time, changes its state when another point particle with an indefinite place of residence approaches it ... At the same time, change in principle is impossible , or perhaps, but predetermined. Logical horror, if you try to apply all this to mobile and changeable systems ... In my opinion.
At the same time, from a mathematical point of view, everything is very simple: a photon has probabilities of being in a certain area of space-time, an electron also has its own area with its own probabilities, interaction is possible with some probability at the intersection of these areas. And the theory can in these terms predict the results of experiments ... But. But ... And yet again. To do all this you need a mathematician. What makes us believe that electrons really exist?
OK. Well ... Now a little about quantum mechanics. And not unknown (popularized, in particular, in Quantum Psychology) experiment with ERP-pairs. The essence of the experiment (mental, proposed by Einstein) is this. Suppose we have a system of two photons that is in the same quantum state. Now, without measuring this quantum state, we separate these photons at an arbitrary distance, measure one of the photons in a pair, we get a random value (with some probability this or that), but that the most entertaining, unmeasured photon also takes a certain state, such which would have to occupy in a general quantum state, if another photon occupied the state in which it was measured.
Many spears were broken about the interpretation of this experiment, which was actually carried out. How is it all of a sudden? Do photons know each other instantly? It does not happen. Let it be so that we don’t think that our dimension changes our past - they say hot heads. Let's give up common sense - they say.
Hm OK. Now imagine such an experiment: someone takes two balls, one black, the other white, with mixed eyes mixes and sends to two different cities. And then he sits and waits for a call from his friends to tell him what color they received the balls. From Yekaterinburg they call and say to him: Marya Petrovna (let's observe the equality of the sexes), and here we have a black ball. They call from Zelenograd and say: we have white. Hmm ... And Marya Petrovna is surprised - how can this be so !? How did the Ekaterinburg ball find out about the Zelenogradsk ball?
At the same time, which is amusing, for gauges, in Zelenograd, Yekaterinburg and Marya Ivanovna herself from Dnepropetrovsk, any ball sent by mail had an uncertain condition before it was measured. In the world there was no information about (well, we believe in the honesty of postal workers), what kind of ball where it flies, therefore, they could only be discussed in terms of wave functions. But such wave behavior is the fruit of the conditions of the experiment.
What photons are different from balls? Many insist that all. But personally, I do not understand. This experiment with ERP is just a sophisticated way to convey to oneself and so, in advance, a well-known fact: two photons in a tangled ERP pair will be in different states. Two balls will be painted in a different color ...
The rhetorical question is, if the information obtained during the measurement would not get into one place, where it would be compared and surprised at how the photons behave, then who would be surprised at this experiment? The behavior of photons determines not a variable past, nor what is counter-factual and anti-intuitiveness (rather, this all refers to classical descriptions of physical systems in the form of trajectories, material points and complex vector connectives over complex smooth manifolds), and not to the obvious facts that the behavior of all in the form of photons, it is determined by our method of observing and processing information, that is, by the experiment itself.
At the same time, the experiment is always finite in time and space, its history is finite, therefore we can reason about its symmetries, trajectories and other phenomena on which modern theoretical physics is built. But how does nature work where there is no synchrophasatron?
Hmm ... here. That is, it is quite possible that electrons, photons, protons, and so on - these are really just models. Terms that appear when applying a certain configuration of equipment to the Universe, a configuration that limits the options for the behavior of the universe, which allows you to memorize something, and thus formulate the law ... Hmm, I probably am not right about this, but it does not occur to anyone.
And this does not contradict our success in engineering. Using the concepts of symmetry of various finite forms in the Universe, the behavior obtained in the experimental setup we can scale, expand, rotate, stretch, shake, twist, and so on, and get a transistor. But does this mean that there are holes in the transistor? In general, does our ability to observe the existence of the observable mean? Or is it a feature of our observation?
And finally, the interaction. In physics, with the interaction of tight. For me at least. Is there a formal system in which the interaction is obvious? Do not be lazy, download Game of Life Conway. Preferably, the version that is equipped with a collection of various configurations, including spacecraft. www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns here you can see the cherished enjoy life button in the upper left corner.
So here. What is interesting about her? With all its detachment from the world of complex numbers, with all the simplicity of the rules in it: (1) there are obviously structures that, while maintaining their devices, can move with a certain speed - spacecraft (spaceships). At the same time, this structure does not consist of building blocks, it does not consist of the cells themselves, which evolve, it consists of the properties of these cells. Just a bunch of elements repainted in black. (2) the simplest structure capable of moving is known - glider. You can push two spaceships and look at the explosion.
Interaction on the face. And for this interaction, Calabi-Yau spaces are not needed. It is only necessary to accept a very simple installation — the existing one is only a persistent feature of an evolving group of cells (directly as a persisting property in the axioms of natural numbers, in the last axiom of induction). When the two properties come together, they will begin to change and form new properties. Because the cells themselves are changeable, like a changeable Tao.
It's simple. But then again ... Difficulty with math. This game was not mathematically analyzed, Conway himself tried, and in the process even invented wonderful surreal numbers, but ... no significant significant conclusions were found. Another nail pinning to the wall is the inscription that mathematics alone is not able to cope with mobile systems. To analyze them, you need a person, or a computer. Accordingly, it is quite possible that this refutes Penrose’s hypothesis that intelligence requires some mysterious quantum effects traveling from the future to the past. For the existence of intelligence, dynamics are needed - this is an alternative thesis. Naturally, no Turing machine has any dynamics. This is only a sequence of states, always determined by the initial state of the tape and the machine itself ... But everything changes when, during the calculation process, a machine is able to receive data independent of its internal state — a machine with an input / output register. This thing, quite possibly, is quite dynamic. The computer, of course, is just such a machine.
Okay. One more note. If in Life we take an empty space without any deviations from symmetry, and then build an installation around it, then it is quite possible that, for example, gliders (glidergun exist) will arise within this space with time. Thus, we can say that the emerging glider is not an element of the universe, but an element of the experiment. Although, this structure can exist and arise anywhere, but it is not necessary that it exists everywhere, for example, between two electrons in a molecule. It does not exist until we go there with our experiment, or with our measurement.
But why only we should have this right? That's what the problem is. A modern mathematical picture says exactly that. To push two electrons together, a person is needed to indicate to electrons how to absorb photons, a person is needed. They themselves do not know how. More precisely, they are able, but we do not have a qualitative description of the process. Perhaps it will never appear, because the possibilities of mathematics are limited, but the existence of the formal Game of Life gives hope that this is not so.
In fact, this all closely overlaps with quantum field theory, which works in accelerators.
Therefore, in my opinion, now physicists need not to build LHC, not to generate black holes and rangelets, but to try to understand what they are doing in their theories. What are they going to. Introduce, finally, neatly the concepts of interaction and the concept of time. Or show that it is impossible to do. But of the very impossibility of doing this, interesting results will follow, for sure. Quantum theory teaches us this - the result of an experiment depends on what can be measured.
Perhaps, in general, you need to start speaking in the language of information. Because in an ERP experiment, the flow of information has a certain structure, and in all other quantum experiments, if we accept a particle as something that carries information that is divided into parts does not make sense, then many paradoxes cease to be so.
And in the end - the general theory of everything to which physicists strive is a purely informational theory. When, nothing is needed except symbols written in pen to explain all the wealth of the universe. And only information has the property that the carrier is not important to it, the only thing that is important is that the carrier is capable of accepting various states. And information can form entities, as Game of Life and many other cellular automata show.
Perhaps this can bring consciousness to an understanding of what the universe is built from. And perhaps this is a way to get closer to understanding what Tao is. But most likely - it's just the fluctuations that my mind caught from where, and decided to make public. Promulgated, calmed down and now can calmly return to socially useful activities in the form of programming.
Here, I hope, this porridge will not bother me more.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/14877/
All Articles