wolframscience.com

A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > Applied NKS > Modelling the act of observation, not the result
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

You say

"what nobody has is any plausible physical model of said non locality (aka immediate action at a distance etc), that still reproduces the full range of QM phenomena at the phenomenal level, in a straightforward way."

My one question dealt specifically with the universal speed limit.

If what I've said is well known, it should be well known that length contraction is attainable without any universal speed limit.

You didn't comment on that.

The reason it is important is because if there is a model of particle physics without a speed limit, you can have particles moving faster than photons, perhaps millions of times faster, giving the appearance of immedaiate action at a distance to observers whose stimuli is electromagnetic.

So my quesiton still is, a model of the universe as a system of unobservable values can allow for particles faster than photons and still be consistent with physics, right?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-09-2005 06:37 PM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712


Real non locality plus hidden variables are consistent with known physics. So is "something is conserved". It isn't saying much.

We aren't discussing NKS, which is what this site is for. I've given you suggestions for things to look at if you are actually interested in learning about the subject. If you just want to peddle your own ideas, use your own site please, not ours.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-09-2005 09:03 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

My claim is that modeling the universe with computer programs leads to a relativistic universe without a speed limit.

I think I've explained why, and I think it is obvious how that relates to A New Kind of Science.

You've got some nerve telling me this discussion is not welcome on your site.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-10-2005 03:18 PM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

Your posts are here. We've all heard it. You asked for opinions, you can't object when you get them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-10-2005 03:47 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shane


Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 1

I don't understand. How can you use unobervable value's to predict observable ones?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 06-16-2005 02:57 AM
Shane is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Shane Click here to Send Shane a Private Message Click Here to Email Shane Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Jason Cawley
Wolfram Science Group
Phoenix, AZ USA

Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 712

You posit (guess) any underlying variable's existence and some formal way it behaves (e.g. an unobservable state vector and a wave equation), with some relation, potentially quite complicated or "lossy", to any overlying observable or set of them (e.g. some probabilistic map from state vectors to phenomenal states of detectors or event counters, perhaps sensitive to phase). Then you formally deduce within your model what the underlying variable does (solve underlying equations in some situation). It predicts sets (e.g. sequences perhaps) of observables (event counts e.g., and how they vary with distances or energies).

Then you look at real sets or sequences of observables and see if they "track". If they don't, you deduce something was wrong with your guess and guess again. If they do, you can't be sure but stick with your guess until something better comes along. We say, you have related one set of observables (system parameters you solved your equation for, meaning physical sources, positions of detectors, etc) and another set of observables (event counts) via a hidden variable model (state vectors and phases nobody has ever touched or seen, just posited) - updating in this formally defined way, aka according to this law.

When we speak of a hidden variable model in the specific context of QM, we usually mean in addition, some theory about underlying real constituents or relations that cause the "many-valuedness" seen in results of QM experiments. That is, we set up what we think is the same experiment, and get a dispersion of results rather than the same thing every time. You might think that is some objective chance function in the underlying law. Or you might think there is an additional hidden variable differentiating between the cases that come out A and the cases that come out B. The latter is then a hidden variable explanation of the remaining many-valued-ness of the (previous) theory.

There are theorems that show no classically local (no action at a distance) hidden variable theory is consistent with QM observations. Which means hidden variable explanations of the remaining variance are possible, if and only if they give up classical locality as a model property.

In other words, some QM effects can't have a hidden *local* cause (meaning, all effects of that cause are restricted in space and time to the distance a light signal could travel from one observed result to another), but they can have a hidden cause. Indeed, since these instances typically arise from entanglements where both observables depend on a prior event, it is natural to think of both observations as "symptoms" of some underlying common fact. The set of things casually dependent on that fact just can't be localized in space. It is intrinsically extended.

The alternative is simply to view QM transitions (or world to world transitions for many-worlds QMers, which just shifts the problem without explaining it) as inherently multivalued or objectively random. They still aren't independent - non-local correlations (if not causes) still appear - that is observable, so no theory can get rid of that degree of non-locality.

Probably more than you meant to ask about. FWIW.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 06-16-2005 06:06 PM
Jason Cawley is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Jason Cawley Click here to Send Jason Cawley a Private Message Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
MikeHelland


Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 181

Shane,

The method I'm describing is completely different from what Jason is describing (yet he will not acknowledge that I have anything worth talking about here).

Science currently creates models that say "when observed, this will be the result".

In other words, the observer of the modeled experiment exists independently of the model. We know from relativity and quantum mechanics that the observer is intricately involved in the results of an experiment, yet our theories don't completely reflect that yet.

What I'm suggesting is that our model say "this is the researcher observing an experiment."

In other words, within the rules and initial conditions of our model, for example a model of particle physics, the particles in the models must arrange into a neural network along with sensory gear capable of providing stimuli to that neural network.

The neural network will be observing the model from inside the model.

We know from neurophysics that the brain does not observe the world as it actually is, but can only guess about what is "out there".

If that is the case, the the world our modeled observer thinks he knows, is really different from the model itself.

We need to look past the model, and into the mind of a modeled observer.

Though the numeric values of the model will be of little use to us, if we can use them to extrapolate the knowledge of an observer who's existence is defined entirely by the rules and initial conditions of the model, we should be able to interpret that knowledge as the observables of the model, despite the rules and values of the model being unobservable themselves.

Again, Jason has claimed that this is all old hat, but I haven't seen him cite anything along these lines.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 06-28-2005 10:04 PM
MikeHelland is offline Click Here to See the Profile for MikeHelland Click here to Send MikeHelland a Private Message Visit MikeHelland's homepage! Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread


 

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  Wolfram|Alpha  |  Wolfram Science Summer School  |  web resources  |  contact us

Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research

© 2004-14 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. | Disclaimer | Archives