Odds & Sods

Is True Goodness A Reflection Of The Heart or Rather Of One's Mind?

2011-10-30T18:20:00.004-04:00

The Brain From Top To Bottom "Online Brain Encyclopedia"

In a recent dialogue in which I was engaged I concluded by stating that in terms of the human condition I’ve long found it better when it comes to such matters to attempt to empathize rather than sympathize; that being as sympathy relates to the goodness of one’s heart while empathy stems from the goodness of one’s mind. This might sound as nothing more than a philosophically based preference and I would admit that for me it’s always been primarily that.

However, it should be noted that such a hypothesis has been put forth in recent years which over the last decade to be grounded in a scientific discovery as to the nature of the brains found in humans, some primates and even birds in the study of what’s referred to as Mirror Neurons. This research appears to indicate how it is that we are able to know the mind of others. I thus offer this linked paper which synopsises the investigation of this. All this then has me to wonder, how what could be called that little voice which suggests what might be right and wrong can be better heard, or perhaps just better listened to.

Occupancy of Thought

2011-10-21T07:03:00.003-04:00

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

New Scientist in this article announces that a group of researchers have identified the one percent so many talk about and although it is found indeed powerful and concentrated not a result of intent, yet rather one of natural complex ordering. The question of course is should we mess with the invisible hand or leave it be. The answer can only be found with science in studying models which propose changes and run simulations to indicate results; and yet first of all we need to decide what we would like our world to be; this is why the occupancy of thought is more important than one of place.

What Should We Seek To Have Occupied?

2011-10-16T09:24:00.006-04:00

(Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images)

In respect to these “Occupy” protests my greatest hope is they never become a movement as found to be formed out of some individual’s or factional group’s vision for the world, yet simply remain the unified final recognition that things are in need of change and to admit each is seeking what that is while not as yet knowing what that would end up to be. So if this is truly to be the counter to being an ideology such as the Tea Party or that of any other group which presents as the same, it must be first understood the need for a true and open dialogue is what’s required and not an ordinary discussion, as to have found created not what we simply feel and think as wanted and needed, yet rather what can work to have this to be.

Just as a final thought, as perhaps as to add to the dialogue, is simply to remind that a total solution never is found with considering only 99%, even if it be greater than 1%.

"[Thought] seems to have some inertia, a tendency to continue. It seems to have a necessity that we keep on doing it. However ... we often find that we cannot easily give up the tendency to hold rigidly to patterns of thought built up over a long time. We are then caught up in what may be called absolute necessity. This kind of thought leaves no room at all intellectually for any other possibility, while emotionally and physically, it means we take a stance in our feelings, in our bodies, and indeed, in our whole culture, of holding back or resisting. This stance implies that under no circumstances whatsoever can we allow ourselves to give up certain things or change them."

-David Bohm & Mark Edwards, "Changing Consciousness"_, p. 15

"A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative."

-David Bohm & David Peat, "Science Order, and Creativity"_, p. 241

PI's Hawking Centre: Further Reflections

2011-09-22T06:42:00.004-04:00

Warning: Visiting this place can have you bent out of shape :-)

Perimeter Institute Imparts Some Wisdom

2011-09-20T05:57:00.003-04:00

This provokes the question:

How many lumps does the universe want?

Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism

2011-09-04T21:57:00.002-04:00

Just discovered this today and thus I am looking forward to getting a copy upon its release; scheduled for November 28^th. In my humble opinion I find Dr. Hemmick as having one of the strongest understandings of the matters for which a synopsis is given by the publisher Springer as found below. I’m also confident that anyone in reading it will come to the same conclusion about the author’s understanding and insights regarding these foundational issues as I have.

"Quantum theory presents a strange picture of the world, offering no real account of physical properties apart from observation. Neils Bohr felt that this reflected a core truth of nature: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract mathematical description." Among the most significant developments since Bohr’s day has been the theorem of John S. Bell. It is important to consider whether Bell’s analysis supports such a denial of microrealism. In this book, we evaluate the situation in terms of an early work of Erwin Schrödinger. Doing so, we see how Bell’s theorem is conceptually related to the Conway and Kochen Free Will theorem and also to all the major anti-realism efforts. It is easy to show that none of these analyses imply the impossibility of objective realism. We find that Schrödinger’s work leads to the derivation of a new series of theoretical proofs and potential experiments, each involving “entanglement,” the link between particles in some quantum systems."

-Springer Briefs in Physics (Description), “Bell's Theorem and Quantum Realism”

What’s the Difference between the Genuine Article & the What-A-Teas ?

2011-08-16T05:33:00.007-04:00

Source: Fortune Magazine

“I’m fearful when others are bold and bold when others are fearful.”

-Warren Buffet (his personal motto)

With recent events this begs the question, in as Buffet is so rich he has personally nothing to fear for himself, than who is he fearful for? If you answer this correctly than you will have come to understand what distinguishes those like him from the want-a teas.

Nerd's For Hope: Join Today!

2011-08-13T10:12:00.002-04:00

With all the pessimism projected in the press lately I thought it time for some nerd inspired confidence reflecting hope.

Just Desserts?

2011-08-11T07:21:00.005-04:00

Photo: Delayed Reaction Lounge

In wondering about the concerns regarding a double-dip recession, as being so worried it could have us to miss our scoop of expansion in between, thinking perhaps it might be best to consider giving up deserts altogether and rather ask our political leaders, captains of industry and financiers:

“where’s the beef” !

Incidentally, I did mean deserts and not desserts; that is at least for all practical purposes ;-)

There are also Fathers of Invention

2011-06-19T06:41:00.002-04:00

I’m reminded as today being Father’s day that true motivation is not simply based on personal satisfaction or curiosity alone, yet upon things greater than one’s self.

“How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving...”

-Albert Einstein, "Mein Weltbild"(My World View),-1931

When is a Duck to be Found as to being a Duck?

2011-06-04T16:48:00.017-04:00

Since yesterday’s release of a paper entitled “Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer”, authored by Aephraim Steinberg et al, in the journal Science, there has been quite a stir. However the stir was not the normal one, where the Web picks up on a science story to have it sensationalized and misinterpreted; which is normally the case. No this time it was the self appointed experts who rushed in to fend off the consequences of what they anticipated as such an occurrence.

The only problem being is that many such experts agreed in only one thing, and that’s what the experiment revealed simply could not be what it appeared to have revealed. For instance Prof. Chad Orzel at “Uncertain principles” remarked "This is an extremely cool example of the art of experimental physics, and a spectacular demonstration of the power of weak measurements, but it's not that revolutionary. Though, as I said above, I confidently predict that there will be no shortage of crazy people trying to claim this as conclusive proof for their particular favourite interpretation of quantum theory.”

In the journal Nature, Prof. David Deutsch echoed pretty much the same in saying "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics...Experiments are only relevant in science when they are crucial tests between at least two good explanatory theories, Here, there was only one, namely that the equations of quantum mechanics really do describe reality."

The most definitive and critical of these was published by Ars Technica, a technical news provider. where physicist Chis Lee remarks “It's important to realize that these are not the trajectories of individual photons—instead they are more like probability clouds that tell you where photons are most likely to be found. And what do you know? Half the photons appear to have gone through one slit and half go through the other. But, in fact, this is a lie. That photon still has to have gone through both slits. It is important to realize that a measurement has to produce a result. It is always going to find that the photon is somewhere, and that tells us very little about where it came from or where it is going to.” He finishes by saying “With that knowledge, it is hard to say what this experiment tells us that we didn't know before. The only difference is that now we have both data and theory saying the same thing, which is important.”

However to be fair, I did find among them all ‘Physics World’ a publication of the Institute of Physics to be a notable exception with at least quoting the principle physicist associated with the paper with the following:

“This weak momentum measurement does not appreciably disturb the system, and interference is still observed. Both measurements had to be repeated on a large ensemble of particles in order to gain enough information for the whole system, but we did not disturb the outcome at all.” explains Steinberg. "Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie,"

Now on the other hand , the great unwashed, known as the general press, didn’t come to such a conclusion, yet rather choose to report it factually even to the point of not expressing what the experimentalist’s views had been. One typical example being the BBC, who quoted Marlan Scully of Texas A&M University as saying, “This paper is probably the first that has really put this weak measurement idea into a real experimental realisation, and it also gave us the trajectories." He said that the work would - inevitably - raise philosophical issues as well. "The exact way to think about what they're doing will be researched for some time, and the weak measurement concept itself will be a matter of controversy - but now we have a very pretty experiment with these weak measurements."

For me this all serves to drive home a point first made by the late physicist John Stewart Bell, when he expressed similar misgivings as follows:

“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in a paper by David Bohm (5). ....... But why then had Born not told me of this ‘pilot wave’? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing ‘‘impossibility’’ proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? . When Pauli, Rosenberg and Heinsenberg, could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm’s version than to brand it as “metaphysical” and “idealogical”. Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?

-John Stewart Bell, “On The Impossibility of The Pilot Wave”, CERN, Geneva, Ref.Th.3315-CERN (1982)

So I will simply finish in asking the same as Bell, that is when are the majority of the physicists going to stop insisting that the vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are forced upon us by experimental facts, but rather by deliberate theoretical choice? Perhaps it is only when they themselves are taken through one of two definitive slits to then be carried along by an unseen yet irresistible potential to be slammed up against a screen. Then again perhaps David Deutsch may not, as in insisting that such an occurrence happened to only a particular version of himself among the infinite multitude of many worlds :-)

"when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”

-James Whitcomb Riley

Fate or Destiny?

2011-05-18T03:51:00.013-04:00

Some say the Universe will end in a crunch

While others claim it will die being torn

Most fear it will fade with a whimper

But the wise know potential has it reborn

A Leader’s Actions; Thoughts & Perspectives

2011-05-04T05:44:00.018-04:00

-Bay News 9

In as Barack Obama is an admitted student of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, I then can only suppose he has come to the conclusion that the people he leads, although self proclaimed and oft times demonstrated as being brave, are not yet ready to explore its greatest depths.

However, I am most heartened and hopeful, prompted by his decided action, in placing himself and his own at greater risk than other options presented as being available and therein minimizing the risk to those in a land of which it was carried out. This then should have it known to the world, that is at least for those who consider things more deeply than a headline, to then perhaps find him and many of his people as still being brave; even if not as yet able and quite prepared to being the bravest.

" If the people are not ready for the exercise of the non-violence of the brave, they must be ready for the use of force in self-defense. There should be no camouflage... It must never be secret. "

-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

“Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence.....non-violence presuppose the ability to strike.”

-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

“ A non-violent man or woman will and should die without retaliation,anger or malice, in self-defense or in defending the honour of their womenfolk. This is the highest form of bravery. If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow this great law of life, retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desire revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defence for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women.”

-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Deciding with Metrics :-)

2011-04-30T16:40:00.009-04:00

With Canadian’s going to the polls this coming Monday, many are still confused about for whom to vote. In as all the leaders will say whatever it is you wish to hear, or rather say nothing at all , I thought we be more scientific as to have this decided on something they can’t change to your liking; that being their own innate talent. So based solely on musical aptitude which leader would you prefer (a) Stephen Harper (Conservative),(b) Jack Layton (NDP), (c) Michael Ignatieff (Liberal) or (d) Elizabeth May (Green Party).

I must admit that at first I wasn’t going to have Elizabeth May given as an option. That is not as the network did in leaving her out of the televised national debate without giving proper reason. No rather it was in this case not being able to find something where her voice could be distinguished from the others. Here she is found being the second person from the left. However, upon giving it further thought, that as to how much the Greens believe in the value of harmony I have included her here as well.

Of course the true metric which will have this decided are the eligible voters themselves as George Bernard Shaw reminded:

"Democracy is a device which assures we shall be governed no better than we deserve" :-)

Quantum Corrections

2010-12-31T09:02:00.013-05:00

http://qsd.physics.ox.ac.uk/metrology

When making a comment on a blog I follow regularly, where Schrödinger's Cat was brought to my attention, it had me to wonder, how the quantum reality has changed our view of the world? For instance the old saying is “Curiosity killed the cat” which was to mean that the cat’s curiosity can be its undoing. Now of course with the revelations of Quantum Theory it is the observer's curiosity which can kill the cat, rather than its own. This had me to imagine what other famous quotes could be so altered by this new reality with the one found below coming to mind.

”Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practice to deceive!”

-Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

Now today this would have to be changed to read:

”Oh what an entangled web we unweave,

When first we practice to perceive!”

-Phil Warnell, Quantum Quote Corrections (2010)- all rights conserved

I wish all a Happy New Year and Paradigm Shift! :-)

Is There Trouble in The Forest?

2010-11-29T07:38:00.004-05:00

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

-The Trees, by Rush ( Hemispheres) 1987

Will Artificial Intelligence Ever be Able to Discern the Truth?

2010-09-26T14:04:00.008-04:00

as per http://www.cs.umb.edu/~marc/cs271/

The following is simply a comment I first attempted to post in response to a piece written in the blog Dialogos of Eide. However it appears that as has happened one time before with another blog the comment was automatically rejected by the anti-spam filter which is now a standard component of Blogger. Although this leaves me somewhat frustrated it indicates to me that the dream of creating artificial intelligence is of yet to be realized if not impossible.

Hi Plato,

As you say in Plato’s conception the guardians would be deemed being so solely on the basis of ‘merit’, which would have this employment of meritocracy to form the bases of both governance and general guidance. However it has always been a question for me what Plato thought ‘merit’ to be, that is as it is now mostly considered in the west or rather as it is thought of in the eastern conception.

I consider this important as I find if the former be the case, than ultimately the lie if revealed would be to find that the components of society have no compassion at all, yet strictly having all as self serving; although indiscernible with only the use of metrics. However if merit is held to be as in the eastern conception, then the lines between self and others blur to the point of having no meaning, in which case compassion born of empathy need not be an act dependant on a lie, yet one necessitated by truth.

The thing being that Plato as revealed in his writings never referenced to anything being known as the “noble lie” and therefore I find it interesting to wonder if he was simply the first ‘’ objectivist or rather did consider quality as being inseparable from good. With all I’ve read of him I’m almost certain it be the last to be true, as otherwise the rest of his teachings would become illogical and if nothing else I find him certainly to be logical.

Best,

Phil

Mothers

2010-05-09T10:30:00.009-04:00

On this day thoughts of our mothers come to mind, which lends a sense of gratitude for those who are responsible for each of us finding ourselves in the world; that in it holding so much meaning as to what is born out of a hopeful continuance of existence and purpose. So I would like to thank all the mothers of the world today, along with the one who has them best represented of all; being the Mother of Invention.

http://www.imaginenationstudios.com/index.php?Ice-Sculpture

From Where Springs Hope?

2010-03-20T06:57:00.003-04:00

I so love spring, as with it comes the promise and demonstration of renewal. That as it marking the time for us to leave our fortresses of safety and solitude, as to venture out once again in search of the joy found only in discovery. It has often been reminded that hope springs eternal, yet so often forgotten that spring itself is the harbinger of hope, with having us all as its harvesters to benefit.

Taking a Swing at How to Improve Science

2009-07-04T16:12:00.032-04:00

The following is in response to a post made by a commenter on the blog Backreaction. It was inspired by a proposal made by another of its commenters. I post this as being somewhat of an experiment, but mostly as to not clog up the aforementioned blog with my spontaneous and arguably simply whimsical thoughts:-)

h ttp://www.londonergolfclub-bkk.com/

Hi Andrei,

This may seem as to be a silly response for one such as you, yet it is resultant of finding I had a little time on my hands, which allowed me to read more carefully the exchange you had with Bee and some others. What confuses me in all this, is that you haven’t actually addressed the central tenet and concern expressed by Dr.Charlton. That was of course how we might identify those few individuals he considers being the ones more likely to make ground breaking discoveries, when nurtured properly and afforded a more suitable environment. What you seemed to have actually addressed is what constitutes to being good scientific direction and citing our current one not representing as being such.

There was some reference made to Kuhn and alike, who addressed the historical aspects of discovery in science, yet not so much the characteristics of those who are the most successful at it. In the end however I see both concerns having simply little relevance, as long as what’s defined as being science hasn’t changed too drastically since the time when Bacon and Descartes first outlined as to what this actually is. I myself have not found anything particularly different in modern times, from those of its beginnings, where of the theories proposed, the only ones accepted as true extensions of our understanding of the physical world, would be those supported by experiment, which corresponds to prediction. . For instance I’m not aware of any theory of quantum gravity developed having been accepted in such a context.

Instead of you addressing the question at hand, you changed the focus to raising your own contention, being that sciences suffers due to the researchers being pampered and cared for too much, with this in turn lowering their ambition and quality; leaving most content as being comfortably sustained, while only achieving mediocrity at best. I however find more reason to agree with Bee's perspective on this and yet would go further still . So, what's found in following being what that might entail. This I will attempt to explain with the aid of an analogy, which I find to be appropriate. This analogy is to compare how golf was improved by way of its golfers, through changes in it structure and organization, with how to improve science by way of its scientists with the same. I know it may sound unrelated, yet bare with me.

So to begin, if we look at the history of golf we find it had its beginning as simply a game, created to be enjoyed in the context of improving one’s own ability, in the background of competition. Later their where prizes offered for the winners of some of the games, first individual matches and then tournaments, for which the rule then was only to the victors go the spoils. However, as time progressed it was realized there was interest growing in this by a increasing sector of the populous and as such money to be made. Therefore, to optimize this potential it would be necessary to increase the number of skilled golfers and raise the level of competition. To accomplish this, a more effective method needed to found, which today in North America is the one created and administered by what became the PGA.

Subsequently, this body created a predefined number of assured tournament eligible spots, for which to be awarded one it is required to learn the basic skills, followed by both improving and proving yourself through some layers of advancement confirmed by test and competition.. These spots however are not made permanent and require one to maintain and improve ones level of skill, measured in terms of how successful one is from year to year that would entitle one to maintain being eligible.

Next, it was decided that through the course of the season it’s no longer the rule that the winner of each tournament is the only one to receive a reward, yet it is divided such that the winner receives the largest and most significant share, followed by a progressively diminishing portions, decided according to torunament placement, some going to all players who had made the cut for each tournament. What it amounts to is that although the best of all the players make the most money, nearly all who maintain their status as a player make what many would consider as being a very good living. The end result is the skill and performance of the players today is at an extremely high level. Also, the game over time has improved and continues to improve rapidly, which in turn has increased public interest allowing for further growth.

So you might ask, what does this all have to do with the success of science, by way of its scientists, in regards to its own corresponding structure and control? I think it can be already recognized there are many parallels between golf and science, starting from its beginning as something that was first only pursued from a personal gratification/growth perspective, progressing to where it is now a professional endeavour. The recruitment, training and placement also have much in common, as is the number of positions available and what’s required to assure and maintain one. The only exception to this is the practice and awarding of tenure, which has been argued is something to be perhaps only reserved for those who teach as well as add to the discipline..

The question to ask then is, why it that while golf and science appear as having so much in common, relating to its beginning and development, golf has enjoyed so much more relative success? Some might suggest as reason, that there are only certain heights one can reach and perhaps these are already being approached in science. However, the same could be said for golf yet it continues to grow. I would further contend if science has neared the limit, it certainly hasn’t yet delivered what we all thought it capable of or expect, so that’ can’t be it.

No, rather I find it rests with three subtle, yet distinct differences. First being the money that scientists can make by those that contribute (discover) the most, is nothing compared with what one receives via the victories of golf and more so those that are the backbone of it all make far less than the average tour player.. Second, when you compare the general interest in golf, with that of science, again golf is far ahead in this regard , which in turn results in increasing the number of golfers, swelling the pool from which to select for the professional ranks; as well as generating additional revenues for the ones that do become professionals. Finally, the public recognition of a professional golfer to that of a scientist is again not even comparable and as such this has the scientist’s true value downplayed from what it should be in the greater view.

So it is clear to me several things are required to change this for the better. The first being we need to substantially raise the general awareness and interest in science, as to have it seen as a valuable, challenging and rewarding (monetarily and or personally) human endeavour. Next, we must strengthen the ranks of the professionals by greatly increasing their remuneration and program funding, with more for those that prove successful, reaching levels that would seem almost unimaginable when compared to the current ones (books and personal appearances not included) :-) . This would include as in golf having the average professional financially sustained at a level that properly defines their place and necessity in the whole scheme of things; with it consequently being something seen as to encourage them to work hard to maintain, while in turn having greater room for improvement.

In addition, the time periods would have to be adjusted to afford a reasonable period in which to achieve result(s).. Considering that a PGA player gets another year if they only stays within his current predefined range and further given two years for winning one single tournament. Therefore, with all things considered, I don’t see why a researcher's initial contract shouldn’t be three years, with any significant result fetching an immediate five year extension. When it comes to heads of faculties, if required at all, I think this concept should be diminished or altered as to emphasise the importance of result, over that of seniority or long past achievement This would serve to have things remain dynamic, instead of becoming static. In the end however, it is the change in perception all this brings that is the central difference maker and therein somewhat ironic in it being something most scientists otherwise would dismiss out of hand, being considered as merely subjective:-)

To conclude you might say why didn’t I use a team sport as an analogy or corporate structure? The reason being I still would contend that even today, true significant advances and breakthroughs are the product of a final push by individuals or sometimes perhaps small groups. Yes, they are dependent on their peers, for direction, new concepts and inspiration, yet it’s that push, composite of their own intelligence, effort and fortitude(and yes at times a little luck) that in the end has them succeed .

Best,

Phil

Quantum Mechanics for Beginners

2008-07-11T05:48:00.009-04:00

(image as posted in Wikipedia)

This is a response to a query a fellow made on BackReaction which I’ve taken the liberty to address here rather then clog up the space as it is in regards to an unrelated matter to the mentioned post. However, in as my interest in the question supersedes what I perceive as the true motivation for the query I offer the following.

Dany asks:

“Please suggest sequence of three books (time ordered) best suitable for the beginner to grasp QM (independent or tutored learning)”

For basic (non relativistic) QM, disregarding the math prerequisites, I would say perhaps the following:

(1) The Feynman Lectures on Physics-Volume III (Feynman-Leighton-Sands)

(2) Quantum Mechanics and Experience (David Z. Albert)

(3) The Undivided Universe (David Bohm and Basil Hiley)

If on the other hand one only wants the whole thing as just the facts and nothing but the facts, you can simply read Bohm’s initial primer on the whole subject - Quantum Theory. However, since just after writing this book Bohm was prompted to come up with a clearer explanation I view this book more from of a historical perspective rather than an explanative one.

Time, Mind, Body & Soul

2008-01-02T00:06:00.001-05:00

As a consequence of recently being exposed to a wonderful blog, written by couple of married (to each other) physicists, I was lead to an interesting group of discussions pointing out changes of mind that certain contemporary intellectuals have had recently. In reading them I came across two, that not only interested me, yet also seemed to correlate as to my present way of thinking, from both my own scientific and philosophical perspectives. What you find here is as it is to be found as a comment I left on this blog and continues as follows (I take the liberty here to clean up a few mistakes I originally made):

The articles you point to on the changes of mind, truly are both interesting and indeed thought provoking. Two in particular now will have me go into one of my own protracted wonder modes. The first is a quote taken from that of Lee Smolin, who of course is one of Perimeters Institute's leading and founding researchers. He is referring here to his change of mind as to time being merely an illusion. He sums up his thoughts as follows:

“It is becoming clear to me that the mystery of the nature of time is connected with other fundamental questions such as the nature of truth in mathematics and whether there must be timeless laws of nature. Rather than being an illusion, time may be the only aspect of our present understanding of nature that is not temporary and emergent.”

I must admit that I share Smolin’s thoughts in regards to this. That is not that I should be compared as to fully having his depth of understanding on the matter. Einstein himself wrestled with this and once when asked if he thought that it could be simply as Smolin first thought said (I have paraphrased):

“It all could be an illusion, yet if so, it is a stubbornly persistent one.”

The second one is that of the change of mind of Todd Feinberg (Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the US). Here is expressing his change of mind as to whether a human being possessed a soul. As taken from the article, he previously believed that the notion of a soul was a fanciful religious invention. However, he has had a change of heart in saying:

“I have come to believe that an individual consciousness represents an entity that is so personal and ontologically unique that it qualifies as something that we might as well call ‘a soul’.”

Although he has come to this new way of thinking, he qualifies this in adding, that although convinced that the brain and the mind could be regarded as separate, though dependent, entities. He reminds that the soul dies with the body. This also is something that from a scientific and philosophical perspective I have also struggled with for years. My current line of thinking, although not exactly the same as his, runs pretty close.

The interesting thing for me is that Dr. Feinsberg’s position could be slightly modified by that of Dr. Smolin’s. That modification would be that time, if truly one aspect of nature proven not to lose its status as being a true aspect of reality and that reality is that of Einstein’s, insisting that time being a dimension. Then any one part of this dimension would also have permanence of sorts (as any part of a dimension would have). In this way, Dr. Feinsberg’s soul, although not immortal in the usual sense, could be at least permanent in the context in which Dr. Smolin suggests. I know all this is mere conjecture and a conjecture as science considers is nothing until empirically supported. It is however interesting to imagine that this too one day may also be decided.

Christmas Bohmian Style

2007-12-26T13:18:00.001-05:00

In the spirit of the season I have recently come across a “conventional quantum” explanation of Santa’s delivery of presents to children on Christmas morning and how this in a quantum sense could all be done in the space of one night. Below find this explanation written by Sean Smeltzer, Croydon, Surrey; published in the journal New Scientist, January 16, 1999:

"QUANTUM CHRISTMAS"

I have recently received a number of distinctly unfestive emails pointing out the impossibility of Santa Claus delivering presents to all the children in the world in just one night.

We are all aware of the flaws in the conventional Santa Claus theory, but seem to accept it quite readily. Children are not quite so gullible and require a more rigorous proof of his existence. The answer to this problem lies in quantum theory.

Consider this: On Christmas night, Santa is in a superposition of quantum states, smeared out all the way around the planet, and each quantum state delivers presents to a single child. This explains why is is so important that children are asleep, because if just one child sees Santa, he immediately collapses into a single state, in accordance with Heisenberg. This would mean that no other children would receive presents that Christmas. This theory elegantly avoids all the flaws in the conventional theory. The only problem is that you will have to explain quantum theory to your children before you tell them about Santa.

After reading the above, I thought to myself; how could this all be looked at from a Bohmian’s perspective? I therfore offer the following:

A Bohmian’s Quantum Christmas

Santa delivering presents is a “quantum potential”, not merely just a possibility. A quantum potential is not realized, yet rather actualized without the need for observation. Many children accept this aspect of potential and thus it is actualized for them. I also would wager that children and others could more readily understand how all this works, as opposed to the quantum algorithm (lest I say fairytale)

As one can see this is by far a more straight forward and consistent explanation as opposed to the first and as I maintained could be actually understood. It also has the advantage that observation plays no role in the actualization of the event at all and better explains why, no single, or any child’s observation of Santa has ever spoiled Christmas:-)

Quantum Potential when considered as Information

2007-12-08T09:31:00.000-05:00

In my last post I was discussing the relation between potential and information. What was discovered with this analysis was that “ordered” information could be equated with what is thought of as potential in classical mechanics. We also spoke about how entropy plays a role in disordering this information and as such the eventual elimination of the potential it describes. It was also proposed that ordering of this information was attributable to the wave as viewed in Bohmian Mechanics. Now that I’ve had further time to contemplate this, another thought has come to mind. That thought is about what is referred to as the “quantum potential” as it is found in the original formalism of Bohm’s pilot wave theory. This potential is viewed by the contemporary followers of Bohm as sort of an optional term and is only found if the theory is formulated to be what is referred to as a second order theory. This is as opposed to the way it is commonly formulated today as a first order one. What this means in approximation , is that the rate of change of positions of the particles is what is considered fundamental to the theory. In the Bohm’s second order treatment, particles are thought of as acting under the influence of forces, where the source of one of these forces is described as being resultant of what is called the quantum potential. This potential is related directly as an attribute of the wave and not that of the particle.

What we will do here, as we did with “Classical Potential”, is to consider this “Quantum Potential” as a “beable”. As you recall classical potential was realized to diminish when the effect of entropy was considered. That is the ordering of the particles was diminished by its action. Now what about this “quantum potential” is it so affected? In an attempt to find out let’s again ask the Bell question in this regard which is, “information about what”? In this case we will say it is information about quantum potential. Now as before what we must remember here is that as in classical potential what we are referring to is the ordering of information. So as before it is the ordering of information that begs explanation.

We now move on to the next Bell like question “ordering of what”? In this case, as was revealed in my last post, it is the ordering of the wave. Now ordering of a wave, how does this differ from the ordering of particles? With the ordering of particles it was their individual positions and different aspects of momentum in relation to each other that defined the ordering. In other words the information was not to be found in one single particle but rather can only be considered as the sum total of all related. Now what about the wave? With a wave we have a totally different physical entity primarily because it has no parts. That is it is a holistic entity and cannot be defined in terms of separation but rather defined in terms of its shape. How is shape of a wave defined? The way it is usually defined is in terms of its amplitude (height) and its length at points of repetition or repeated occurrences of its shape in this regard. Then there is a third way it is described and that is in terms of frequency, which is often related to its speed. However, I must warn this is a tricky thing. What it truly refers to is the rate of change in regards to its shape (the other two things) within one arbitrarily selected point in space. I could go more into this aspect of a wave but I think many of you know that in say as in the case of sound waves for instance, the medium of the wave which is air does not move in the direction of travel but rather the influence (force or energy) of the wave is what is so moving. As an (classical) example, a surfer moves forward as a result of this influence as in the case of water waves and yet he leaves the water behind.

To continue, can these waves lose this ordering as it was in the particle case? In the case of the particles it was found that this ordering can only be referenced as the sum total of all those considered as to their relative positions and velocities. Now in the case of waves we find that the information contained (the ordering) not in terms of separated entities but rather the shape and rate of change of a holistic one. In this case there is no true separation to speak of and velocity is related not to motion but rather the rate of change of the shape. In essence it has no velocity at all as it is classically described. It is then not evident how such an entity could be affected by entropy as it is currently understood.

To conclude then, unlike classical potential which does diminish with time as assigned to the effects of entropy, it appears that this quantum potential of Bohm’s cannot and thus could be considered as a “beable” (aspect of reality) as it is the true source of this ordering of information. In other words classical (temporary) potential owes itself to the quantum (permanent) potential. For me this also lends a better understanding of why particles cannot be expected to be observed in any predetermined state of position or velocity since these are not decided by something inherent of their own nature yet rather inherent of something attributable to nature of the wave. So uncertainty, as it is considered in quantum mechanics, should not be thought of as particles existing at best as only the sum total of their possible states (position and velocity) or only as figments of perception of a collapsed wave state. They are simply where they are mandated to be and at velocities determined by the region of the wave in which they are found to be influenced. As a crude analogy, would it be reasonable to say a surfer does not have (at any one instant) a velocity or position because they (or for that matter anyone) doesn’t know how exactly to determine this or that the surfer only exists if observed? I’ll let you decide.

Potential when considered as Information

2007-12-02T10:01:00.000-05:00

I have recently had some exchanges with a physicist about the misunderstandings of Bell’s ideas within the physics community in general. In thinking about this my mind wandered back to a proposal he made about a year ago. That proposition was the elevation of “potential” as a “beable” ("The beables of the theory are those elements which might correspond to elements of reality, to things which exist. Their existence does not depend on 'observation'). That is, would it be of any use to give it status above that of being merely considered as a linking element within physical description? Then I thought how one could conceptualize potential, as say potential energy like in electric or gravitational potential as being an actual aspect of reality.

One way to do this is to consider potential as being effected by change, at the fundamental level. Now as we know, entropy in terms of its action is one of the most rudimentary concepts in all physical theory when considering change. Imagine a crossbow being cocked with an arrow set in it (elastic potential). In this model the flight of the arrow is thought of as the realization of this potential. Next, if we simply allow time to pass, what then transpires? If left for instance in our earthly environment, the bow’s latch may simply corrode and have its potential realized. Now what if we moved this setup to deep space? According to our current understanding the tension and thereby this potential of the bow will relax (diminish) over a period of time, to the point where it is gone entirely. This of course is related to the role entropy has in this regard.

To continue, entropy has recently been connected with "information”, such as in Hawking’s view. It could therefore be stated, that entropy has acted to eliminate (dissipate) this potential. In this way, potential could be simply considered as the sum total of information as it is ordered. So, following this down, potential can be considered as a consequence of the presence and ordering of information. We now ask J.S. Bell’s question when confronted with this “all is information” concept as to what is the physical world. This question is “information about what”? The answer then suggested would be it is information about potential. Of course the thing that can’t be neglected here is the “order” of information. That is, without the ordering, there is no real information and thereby no potential to be realized. The point here of course, is that information, on its own, is not a fundamental entity, rather ordered information is. Then we continue with how I would suppose Bell would by asking, “ordering of what”? This is where the concept gets stuck since there is nothing considered real outside what is called information which as demonstrated is actually ordered information. It must be reminded here that in this example we are not dealing with what would be generally considered as physical at all in that what is so described is potential.

Now the question, from whence came the order? Bohm’s reply would be that it is a fundamental aspect and thereby consequence of the wave. Looked at this way then “actualization” of information or its potential is the “particle” (i.e. ones and zeros) aspect of reality, while the ordering is the “wave” (i.e. program) aspect. This suggests, as Bohm and his proponents have insisted, that there must be a dual ontology to nature. Now what should be considered as a reasonable explanation of reality? “Information” ordered by “what”, or “particles” guided by “waves”.

Wave or Particle, Old or New?

2007-11-25T08:03:00.000-05:00

I have been in some way, quite amused, as to how many consider this particle or wave debate in quantum physics as something new as in that quantum realities such as non-locality as that being a recent concern. That is, if you count recent as being within the last hundred years or so. Truly this debate has persisted for millenniums, more so then just in the last century. It actually all began with the concept of Atomic Theory first proposed in India in the 6th Century B.C.E. and then again about a hundred years later in ancient Greece with the first notions of the concept. Most notably within what is considered the era of modern science, the debate has continued as to what constitutes action and physicality in nature.

This is most poignantly demonstrated in terms of the nature of light. As we know, Newton considered light to be a particle phenomena and published a theory in support of it. Then enters Thomas Young who in the early 1800’s, with his famous two slit experiment demonstrates the wave nature of light. During the same period Augustin Fresnel, who as I have often found to ironically have being born in Broglie France, came up with a complete wave theory of light. This theory was challenged by Simeon Poisson in a proposed experiment suggested by results he calculated from the formalism of Fresnel’s theory. What the theory indicated, by Poisson’s calculation, is that if a narrow beam of light was cast onto a small round object, the effects of wave interference produced would have light bend around the disk to form a bright spot within the middle of the shadow cast. This Poisson (a Newton supporter) claimed to be absurd and set up a experiment to show Fresnel the error of his ways. Unfortunately for Poisson, but fortunate for Fresnel, the bright spot in the centre of the shadow appeared exactly as the theory had predicated. Thus Poisson was embarrassed and Fresnel won a prize in relation to this along with being elected to the French academy of science and then after made a fellow of the Royal Society. Ironically this phenomena ever since has been referred to as Poisson’s spot as apposed to Fresnel’s.

Then in 1905, Albert Einstein was to reverse this all again, with his paper on the photoelectric effect, where only a particle explanation would satisfy the results of then recent experiments. This resolved what was called the ultra-violet catastrophe, yet in turn only served to broadened the mystery, for now it appears as nature acts sometimes as a particle and in other situations as a wave. Then in the early 1920's this was to be all reversed once more, with the birth of Quantum Mechanics, first with what came to be known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. This was the result of the combined contributions of Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrodinger. In this theory all again was attributed to a wave or more appropriately the function or action of a wave, where particle phenomena is said to be the collapse of such only upon observation. This as to say that particles are not so much, more or less, figments of our imaginations, yet rather figments of our perception.

Now as to the non-local aspect of the issue. This also is often taken as something relatively new, beginning with Einstein’s objection and culminating with the experimentally demonstrated results of John Bell's theory. However, where I would say the whole thing began was with Pierre de Fermat when in the mid 1600’s he proposed “the actual path between two points taken by a beam of light is the one which is traversed in the least time”. This became known as Fermat’s Least Action Principle and was criticized not for its inability to predict outcome, yet rather for its inference as to how nature behaves. In truth, this action as it relates to the economy of nature, is still used and considered in physics and forms the base of Lagrangian mechanics, developed by Joseph Louis Lagrange. However, at the time it was largely scoffed at for what it appeared to infer. In fact it was first immediately rebuffed by Claude Closely (a optics expert at the time) as he said, “Fermat's principle can not be the cause, for otherwise we would be attributing knowledge to nature: and here, by nature, we understand only that order and lawfulness in the world, such as it is, which acts without foreknowledge, without choice, but by a necessary determination.”

In the the contemporary context what we are referring to with this aspect of the debate is if nature behaves at some level as non-local? Thst as in instantaneous or faster then light, at the quantum level?. At this juncture, I recall reading that when Richard Feynman was first presented with this contention of Fermat’s, by his high school teacher, he thought it equally absurd. Later he would go on to develop his “Sum Over Histories” approach to quantum mechanics. I have often wondered how this served as a resolution to Fermat’s conjecture? That is I never was able to fathom where all these histories were to happen and then be free to cancel themselves to the allowed paths. That is unless one subscribes to Many Worlds or John Crammer’s ideas.

Alas in the end, one should not dispair, as there has been, despite the perceived paradox existed a fully consistent explanation of this for all to see for quite some time. And that is Bohmian Mechanics, better described as the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave theory. It’s only that many have chosen not to look. With this I am reminded as in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave that still many refuse to look at the light to see what it may truly be. That is except for Bohm and even now his mostly ridiculed disciples, who have come to find, as Bohm discovered and Bell reminded, that it is not “particle or wave”, but rather “particle and wave”. This all has taken a little less then three thousand years. Let us hope the rest will not take as long.