|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Among the Fundamental Principles of the Dynamics of Elementary Action I have placed a very strong hypothesis in open contrast with an equally strong "belief" that characterizes Quantum Mechanics, one of the central elements of its weirdness. I am talking about '''the assumption that Physical Reality is local, at all levels and in all its aspects''', in contrast with the concept of non-locality which is considered an essential property by some interpretations of quantum mechanics. This hypothesis is not made here out of opposition to the weirdness of QM, nor out of deference to classical / relativistic physics and the associated "deterministic realism", which I don't agree with (as can be seen from every page of this work).
| + | Let us briefly mention a crucial aspect for understanding the strangest phenomena of Quantum Mechanics, '''locality, the subject of a heated, centuries-old debate'''. This is a '''divisive issue''', which sees on opposite sides the defense of locality in the classical / relativistic field and the acceptance of non-locality in the context of many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (a strange non-locality, to be honest, which it keeps out causality and the possibility of instantaneously transferring information). |
| | | | |
| − | What does locality mean? The common definition of locality is that "an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings". In terms of action, this means that the movement (and more generally, any state) of an object can be influenced by another object only through "physical contact" with it (no action at a distance).
| + | '''We will deal with this topic extensively in the next section''', dedicated to Dynamics (classical, quantum and the hypotheses proposed within this research project). |
| | | | |
| − | Conversely, non-locality means that an object's can be affected by another object without being in "physical contact" with it (action at a distance).
| + | Here we just say that, regarding the fundamental properties of InfoStructures, after having mentioned the themes of separability (external form), identification (unitarity of the form) and internal distribution (internal form), '''the local nature (locality) of the interactions between InfoStructure and Elementary Field and between InfoStructures follows naturally'''. |
| | | | |
| − | At this point it would be necessary to define the expression '''"physical contact"'''... In this System of Knowledge by "physical contact" we mean any transmission, interaction (inter-Action, Action-between, exchange of Information / Energy between two or more different Structures or Forms (separate individualities: independent, e.g. two free electrons, or components of larger and more complex systems, e.g. two electrons belonging to the same atom) which occurs as a result of the propagation in the "continuous" Elementary Field of a set of Elementary Events in Space and Time and of the Relations that organize them (correlations between the temporal distributions of the elementary spatial fluctuations resonant around the Planck scale).
| + | Thus, for example, if two entangled particles are hypothesized as separate, individuated, albeit with boundaries that fluctuate in the indeterminacy of the Elementary Field, not disturbed to avoid the phenomenon of decoherence (loss of correlation between the quantum states objects of observation), brought at distances that allow to exclude causal connections and transmissions / exchanges of Information (variational connections), it is evident that we can only define the dynamics of the aforementioned InfoStructures as local, and '''include locality among their properties'''. |
| − | Translated in terms of Elementary Action and its Modes / Components, by "physical contact" we mean the transfer of Elementary Action in its Components (Perturbation, Translation, Rotation:Chirality and Rotation:AxisOrientation) between different Structures and Forms in the Elementary Field by mean of the propagation of the same Elementary Action in the continuous Elementary Field. Physical contact, therefore, is provided, ensured, by the Field itself, by its continuous dynamics, by its incessant fluctuations that support the existence and essence/form of all Physical Reality.
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | Given the importance of this concept, let's try to reformulate it in yet another way... In the Evolutionary Knowledge System, and in particular in the context of the hypotheses posed in this work, "action at a distance" is not allowed as it is not compatible with the causal and variational structure of Physical Reality. This means that the Action is generated, propagated and preserved in the continuous Elementary Field. In particular, regarding the concept of "action at a distance" we refer to the propagation of the Action in the Field (in the Elementary Field or in the Derived Fields, which are specific views of the Elementary Field, e.g. gravitational, electric, magnetic field, etc).
| + | The connection that seems to exist between the two structures, which seems necessary to justify the probabilities of the outcomes of the measurements, '''must be apparent''', and the reasons for the strange behavior must be sought elsewhere. Here it is hypothesized that such behavior is due to the '''coupled interaction of preparation of the entangled state, indeterminacy and correlation of the internal distributions of the Elementary Action (correlation of the internal form), of the dynamic processes of the correlated event points / portions of the two Structures of Information'''. |
| − | | + | |
| − | The propagation of Action is represented by the propagation of the Variations (deformations) in a continuous Field (the Elementary Field and all the Derived Field, which are specific views of the Elementary Field), Variations produced by the Action of a Causal Agent (a Force). This propagation (at each point of the continuous trajectory) implies the progressive variation of the Action components of the temporal distributions of the elementary spatial variations at the Planck scale. The propagation can occur at a speed limit specific to each point in space and instant in time, a "local" value distributed around the universal speed limit of the absolute vacuum (theoretical speed since the Universe is full of matter and energy, therefore very far from the absolute vacuum). | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This model of propagation of Physical Action in the Field / Fields can be called: Contiguous Action (transmission or exercise of the Action between two distant Structures / Shapes / objects not in contact through a continuous propagation of variations in the Field).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This chapter provides examples of InfoStructure phenomena and dynamics that illustrate what is stated here.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | This is a fundamental concept, which strongly characterizes this System of Knowledge and all the models of physical phenomena that are hypothesized in it. Locality is a concept that has an ontological aspect, it is a founding concept of this System and deriving from the very nature of the Elemental Field, one of the two fundamental sub-entities that constitute the Source of Reality). In my opinion, accepting the fact that non-local phenomena can exist, that remote action is possible, is equivalent to accepting that ghosts, unicorns and good fairies exist. It denotes an imaginative (supernatural, superstitious?) vision that science abhors so much, to the point of rejecting traditional knowledge systems altogether. I would dare say a non-scientific vision of Reality, which cannot be combined with the much claimed rigor of the scientific method.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Physical Reality is local, '''there are no rooms for a "spooky action at a distance"''' out of a rigid expression of Physical Causality.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In this work, '''we hypothesize that all non-local effects / phenomena are apparent'''. Further investigations are required to grasp the real nature of the quantum objects involved, their dynamics and their interactions. Here we adopt a concept of "realism" different from the one commonly adopted especially in the controversies that pitted Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (deterministic realism), where in addition to abhorring the idea of non-locality, the idea that Physical Reality by nature at its foundations is intrinsically indeterminate and requires a statistical/probabilistic approach.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Let's hypothesize a different realism, which we call '''"local indeterministic realism"''' (yes to uncertainty at the very basis of Reality, no to non-locality as absurd and implausible). Yes to the weirdness of the quantum world (with uncertainty, superposition, etc.), no to non-locality.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I know, "absurd and implausible" is not a scientific fact, a proof. It is a personal judgement, an opinion, an impression, perhaps a hope, a desire... But I repeat that, in my opinion, surrendering to non-locality means declaring our ignorance and unknowability of Physical Reality. We must not give up. The non-locality may only be apparent. This idea, as well as from the lack of knowledge of quantum objects, could have arisen from a misunderstanding, from a basic confusion. A damned confusion between direct Reality (quantum objects, waves, particles) and correlation of their quantum states. Another fundamental point concerns, as already mentioned, the non-point-like, spatially extended nature of particles and waves, their shape in terms of Elementary Action and its Modes/Components, the distributed nature of Mass, Charge and Spin (each point event of the Elementary Field that supports the InfoStructure that we call particle has a fraction of the Mass, Motion, Charge and Spin of the entire particle, whose dynamics is the result of the dynamics of all the point events that support it.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Summing up:
| + | |
| − | *Relativity -> local deterministic realism
| + | |
| − | *Quantum Mechanics -> non-local indeterministic realism
| + | |
| − | *evKnowledge (the new approach proposed and hypothesized in this work as part of this research project) -> '''local indeterministic realism'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In a certain sense, the relativistic framework can hold on to locality, but must give in on the aspect of indeterminacy (if we want to put it naively, God somehow plays dice, but within strict rules).
| + | |
| − | Quantum Mechanics can hold on to indeterminacy and all its implications that make it so bizarre, but it must give in on the aspect of non-locality (God plays dice, but he is not a magician and cannot cheat).
| + | |
| − | Two mutual concessions which effectively eliminate the main obstacle to a rapprochement of these two fundamental theories.
| + | |
| − | Yes, it's true, the problem of entanglement remains, which in this approach (local indeterministic realism) seems to remain absolutely inexplicable.
| + | |
| − | But maybe that's not really the case... let's try to look at things from a different and broader point of view.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To explain the (apparent) non-local phenomena it is necessary to investigate more deeply, to abandon preconceptions and beliefs that limit the scientific research and confine it to a narrow space, full of constraints and dogmas. This makes it impossible to get out of the impasse. We must not, we cannot giving up understanding, describing, imagining what really happens in "realistic" terms, representable in the spatial and temporal foundations that constitute the fabric of Physical Reality.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A few words on entanglement and then some notes on the reasons that in my mind are at the basis of the gigantic misunderstanding that makes this phenomenon so cryptic, absurd, damned difficult to understand and accept. So divisive and generator of infinite entropy on a theoretical level, to the point of pushing a large part of the academic community to renounce to the knowability / comprehensibility of Reality and the "plausibility" of physical theories and models.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Entanglement''' | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Let's try to explain in a few words what entanglement is according to current (conventional) physics and '''why it seems to violate the locality principle'''.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Quantum entanglement is considered a bizarre and counterintuitive phenomenon in which two subatomic particles, such as a pair of photons or electrons, are believed to be intimately linked to each other, even if separated by immense space. All the evidence collected experimentally has led the scientific community to believe that, despite their great separation, a change induced in one of the entangled particles instantly affects the other. A (spooky) action at a distance, as the particles seemed to communicate faster than light. The entangled particles appear to act not as individual particles but as an inseparable whole. They appear to remain connected even when separated by large distances, and their quantum states cannot be factored as a product of the states of its local constituents. If the state of one particle is measured, the other immediately assumes a correlated state. This profoundly challenges classical notions of space and time.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Even if scientists still debate how this strange phenomenon arises, what its intimate nature is, they consider it a real principle, corroborated by infinite tests, a completely natural phenomenon, not at all spooky. All composite ordinary / visible matter, molecules for example, con be seen as organized nets of subsystems, atoms of electrons and nuclei. Molecules appear to be entangled states of the electrons and nuclei that compose them (mutual positions, quantum states, etc.).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The incessant mutual push and attraction of the particles produces a sort of "tuning" (correlation, entanglement) of their quantum states and their dynamics. Placing them close enough together, their quantum states can overlap, share, making it impossible to distinguish the quantum state of one particle from that of the other.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | If nothing disturbs those particles, this "tuning" is preserved even at relevant distances (maintenance of coherence). Entangled particles stop existing as independent, separate particles, but begin to act as a system, a quantum system. If collisions with other particles, forces, interactions with their surrounding environment disturb this "tuning", it is lost (de-coherence) and the quantum states or their dynamics become dis-entangled. Pre-entangled particles return to exist as independent, separate particles, with independent quantum states. Entanglement is lost.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Quantum states, which appear to be indeterminate until their measurement, both for non-entangled particles, as is natural, and for the entangled ones, which is surprising when coupled with the predictability of entangled states (for example, spin up for a particle and spin down for the other one). Nothing about the quantum states of the two individual entangled particles can be stated with certainty, but the global state of the two particles whose quantum states are correlated can be stated with certainty. Really strange!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Some problems, which actually seem like headaches!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The entangled particles appear to communicate instantaneously, but this communication does not allow information to be transferred at superluminal speeds. It seems really strange. Remote action on quantum states at infinite speed is hypothesized (which would imply a sort of instantaneous quantum causality), but at the same time it does not seem possible to cause or inform the other entangled particle (to act causally or transfer information at infinite speed betwwen the entangled particles). Quantum entanglement can cause particles to collapse at zero time over long distances, but we can't transport information instantaneously. A real mystery.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Communication / Action between entangled particles even if separated by a huge distance: an event (an interaction, a measurement, ...) on one quantum particle in an entanglement system impacts all other entangled particles. The most accredited interpretations have solved this problem "simply" by renouncing a truly important principle, that of locality. I definitely disagree with this approach!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Reasons for the locality / non-locality dispute''' | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In general, I believe that the reason why the phenomenon of entanglement has led to the renunciation of locality, to the acceptance of a sort of strange action at a distance and to the renunciation of a "plausible" realism is to be found in the substantial lack of knowledge in regarding the nature, shape and dynamics of quantum objects (waves and particles), and related phenomena, interactions, etc. This stance opened a never-ending dispute with a more classical vision, linked to Relativity. As already said, I do not agree with either view, for the reasons expressed above.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | But let's try to go into more detail:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Nature and shape of quantum objects''': the fact that the nature of particles and waves (quantum objects) is not understood and explained in terms of something more basic in concrete terms (events, relationships, processes, space, time, action, energy/information, etc.), but with general reference to "excitations of quantum fields". The fact that waves are conceived as something distributed in space, while particles are seen as point-like or almost point-like objects. The fact that waves and particles are substantially thought of as very different entities, and not sharing the same profound nature, even if with different shapes. The lack of understanding of the nature, shape and dynamics of emission, propagation and absorption of waves, and in particular of the single cycle wave, what is called a photon and assimilated to a particle, here too generating a lot of misunderstandings. All these aspects and many others, in my opinion, have produced a series of misunderstandings that have spread throughout the history of physics from the first decades of the 1900s to the present day, and will continue to cast their sinister shadow on the scientific research of the future.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Localization: position and extention in space''': related to all this is the lack of understanding of the spatio-temporal significance of the position of a wave and a particle. In particular, for particles: the nature distributed in space (no point like particles), the virtually infinite but effectively finite extension, the spatial profile of the mass, charge and spin, their dynamics over time, the variable point positions of the center of mass and charge, the orientation of the spin axis, the nature of the inertia and its distribution over the entire extension of the particle. All these aspects, not understood, have weighed on the vision of Physical Reality, on the lack of or incorrect understanding of quantum phenomena, and therefore determined this dispute and the renunciation of plausible realism.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Quantum states''': in light of these aspects, here is the superposition (the ability of quantum objects to be in different quantum states of conjugated quantities at the same time), the relative collapse of the wave function (the collapse leads to the definition of the quantum state, which gives superposed / probabilistic becomes defined / certain) in the measurement process (a process not understood which has produced disturbing interpretations and unleashed a sort of quantum mysticism) have led to a "magical" vision of quantum states and the impossibility of describing their nature and the dynamics.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Correlation and entaglement''': as if that wasn't enough, to all this confusion and misunderstanding, a truly strange phenomenon has been added, perhaps the true strangeness of quantum physics. Let's talk about entanglement. A sort of correlation that can be created between two or more quantum objects that exhibit "correlated" quantum layers that appear to evolve coherently (collective wave function) until an event, called decoherence, which breaks this correlation. Correlation that is preserved (unless decoherence, in fact) even at great distances and times, and for this reason it has unleashed this idea (absurd for me) of a connection between entangled entities at distances that can become such as to imply instantaneous communication, therefore at superlunal speeds. However, this connection does not allow the transfer of information. What about causality? In a sense this instantaneous connection seems to enable transmission of causality, action at a distance so to speak (determining the quantum state of the second entangled object following measurement of the quantum state of the first, for example). The situation is very confusing and actually lends itself to endless misunderstandings.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''A step foward'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Quantum states of individual particles in an entagled system and the correlation between such particles are completely different things!
| + | |
| − | Quantum states of single non entagled particles can be seen as two roulettes wheels, by definition with indipendent random outcomes, with no correlations between them.
| + | |
| − | Quantum states of individual particles in an entangled system could be seen as two roulettes wheels, where their randomness correlated, their random dynamics "tuned", as it were. Until an event disrupts this correlation of their random dynamics (decoherence), their random outcomes are correlated, following a correlated probability distribution.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Put like that, it seems easy. It would be too nice. In fact, it can't work that way. Randomness cannot be correlated, otherwise it would not be truly random. We need to go a step further. Or rather, further down, deep inside, and imagine what can happen at deeper levels of Physical Reality. It is necessary to return to the hypotheses underlying the peculiar vision of InfoStructures proposed by this Research Project.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | A key concept: the dynamics of quantum objects and their quantum states are random but not that random! If it were completely random, quantum objects (InfoStructures: Waves, Particles and their Interactions) would not exist!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To address the theme of locality and action at a distance, it is necessary to redefine some key concepts (or better "define", given the substantial difficulty of conventional physics in providing plausible definitions for these aspects / phenomena):
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Quantum objects''': InfoStructures - type: Waves, Vortices / Particles, Interactions, etc. Structures of Information, more or less temporally stable, more or less spatially extended, patterns of organization of Physical Processes at the level of the Elementary Field (Relationships between Events), schemes of the correlations between the temporal distributions of the spatial fluctuations of the Elementary Field with resonance at the Planck scale.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Space-time physical form of quantum objects''': as we have seen in the previous sections of this chapter, all InfoStructures, even those that make up visible / ordinary matter (Waves and Vortices / Particles) have non-zero spatial extension (no point particles) and finite or infinite duration (proper lifetime distributed around the mean lifetime for the specific type of particle). For brevity we limit ourselves here to considering Vortices / Particles type InfoStructures. This means that the total mass and charge of the particle, as seen previously, are distributed over a "virtually infinite, but effectively finite" volume (the boundary is defined by the indeterminacy in the "basic" dynamics of the Elementary Field -> quantum vacuum energy -> elementary spatial fluctuations resonant at the Planck scale). The distribution of mass and charge within this volume with fluctuating and to some extent undefined boundaries is itself fluctuating and to some extent undefined. The position of the center of mass and the center of charge themselves are fluctuating and to some extent undefined. The whole Structure and its form are to some extent fluctuating and undefined. Unless there is a certain amount of indeterminacy, and the incessant fluctuation of the spatial extension, of the temporal duration, of the shape of the Structure, of the distribution of the Mass and of the position of the center of Mass, of the direction and quantity of the Motion (inertia), of the Charge and the position of the Charge center, the orientation of the Spin axis, etc., for an InfoStructure / Particle in a state of rest with respect to the Elementary Field (in inertial motion, not subject to gravitational, electrical, magnetic, etc.) the total mass, the total charge, the total spin, the total kinetic energy (better, the amount of total kinetic action -> Translation), etc. they are defined. The shape, distribution (in the spatial volume occupied from time to time by the InfoStructure) of this Mass, Motion (quantity of kinetic energy or momentum), Charge, Spin (spatial orientation) are fluctuating and to some extent indeterminate, the result of punctual processes (the dynamics of each event point of the Elementary Field that from time to time supports the Structure is partly stochastically independent - Elementary Action of the natural dynamics of the Elementary Field and partly dependent - Information that gives shape to the Structure) partly determined partly random, and can therefore only be expressed with statistical quantities, with probabilistic quantities. This is how probabilities enter and take the scene of the quantum world, undermining the certainties of the determined physical quantities of classical / relativistic physics.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Quantum properties''': attributes, characteristics, ways of expressions, qualities and quantities referring to InfoStructures (Position, Momentum, Polarization, Spin, etc.). Electron spin seems to be the most intuitive example, although a very complex phenomenon. What was said in the previous point regarding the variability of the shape and dynamics of quantum objects applies. The variability, the incessant fluctuation of the fundamental quantities that characterize, for example, Vortex-type InfoStructures, namely massive Particles, depends on that variability. Mass, Motion (inertia), Charge and Spin. Furthermore, given that the shape and dynamics of a Particle depends on the dynamics of the Events of each point event of the Elementary Field (in the volume of space time by time occupied by the InfoStructure under observation) and on the set of Relations between such Events, therefore from 'Elementary Action in its Modes / Components that such Events produce and by the Information that such Relations configure.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Quantum state''': in light of what has already been said previously regarding the concept of "state". States do not actually exist, they are snapshots that we use to represent the Reality that is incessantly formed before our eyes/instruments, an unstoppable flow of creation of existence and evolution of essence/form. Snapshots that allow us to compare, measure, an elusive flow of Action, of an eternal present that escapes us in the act of observing, perceiving, measuring, a possible future that becomes a certain past, an intersection between potential and actual. Having said that, what do we mean by quantum states? Simply, a snapshot of a quantum object or system, of a microscopic InfoStructure of visible/ordinary matter. I do not agree with the definition provided by conventional physics "a mathematical entity that embodies the knowledge of a quantum system". Mathematical representation is a way (an excellent way because it allows you to make accurate predictions) of representing this snapshot. But it is a derivative, indirect representation. The first representation of a quantum state is observation, perception, measurement, which we will then express in physical quantities, in mathematical terms.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Conjugate or complementary quantum quantities / variables''': two variables are said to be complementary if knowledge of one does not imply any knowledge of the other, like position and momentum. This means that some pairs of complementary properties cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously with infinite precision. This concept is closely related to the Uncertainty Principle. In my opinion, the element of Reality that determines this "complementarity of uncertainty", so to speak, is Time. Except for errors, all pairs of complementary variables are characterized by the presence of Time in one of the variables. Example, position (Space) and momentum (Mass times linear velocity, in turn Space divided by Time, in fact). The Process of Formation of Reality is incessant, it cannot be stopped (fortunately). Time continues to flow (in a variable, relative, not absolute way, as seen) as new Elementary Events are always produced by the inner interaction of the two aspects of the Source of Reality, the Fundamental Force that exercises its Action on the Elementary Field. It is therefore not possible to acquire true "states", true instantaneous values of the variables that describe the physical dynamics. If we want to measure with infinite precision the position and velocity of an object in space-time, some factors prevent us from doing so. With resonance at the Planck scale and at even smaller spatial and temporal dimensions, Space distances fluctuate over Time (behavior described by the Uncertainty Principle). It is precisely the frequency, the rapidity of these spatial fluctuations that determines the flow of Time at a local level (and therefore also the speed of propagation of Causality, Action and Information in the Field). The position of an object, however small, or even more so if it is small, is never fixed (and then, fixed with respect to what? In the Elementary Field there are no fixed reference points, therefore... And then, let's imagine wanting to measure the position and speed of a car speeding in front of us. Assuming we find a "fixed" reference point outside the car, to measure the position with infinite precision we would have to stop the car in a literal sense or photograph it to an infinitely short time. The same thing for an electron. Even more so for an even smaller object. This is the point. To measure the position with infinite precision we must observe it for an infinitesimal time. To measure speed, we must measure two positions separated by a time, the larger it is, the more precision it provides us. But the position will have changed in the meantime. Goodbye to the precision in the measurement of position. The two measurements cannot be conducted simultaneously with infinite precision, due to the indeterminate nature of Reality and the incompatibility of two measurements, one of which is spatial and the other temporal (or where a temporal element exists): position (space), velocity (space divided by "time"). similar reasoning for other pairs of conjugate/complementary quantities/variables.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Superposition''': in quantum mechanics, technically, superposition is a fundamental principle of that states that combinations of solutions to the Schrödinger equation are also solutions of the Schrödinger equation. The problem is that quantum measurements always give defined outcomes, not a superposition of them as predicted by the Schrödinger equation. This strange situation, combined with the essentially indeterminate nature of reality at quantum level, is at the heart of the measurement problem, however you want to look at it and explain it. In an attempt to explain this weirdness, various interpretations of QM have been developed, none of which seems to satisfy the form of realism proposed here (local indeterministic realism). In fact, in my opinion, the representation of quantum objects and dynamic properties that are called quantum states is really wrong. Let's take a particle, for example an electron. It is considered an elementary particle, not further divisible. And indeed it is, no further divisible. But its structure is not punctiform, or extended, but monolithic, homogeneous, etc. I repeat. Despite its fame, the electron is a complex object, not in the sense that it is composed of parts, but in the sense that it is neither a point-like object (without spatial extension) nor a homogeneous object spread over a volume of space. Mass, Motion, Charge, Spin (Energy / Information), and even better Perturbation, Translation, Rotation:Chirality and Rotation:AxisOrientation (Modes of Elementary Action) are not uniformly distributed in the volume of space that time by time supports existence and the Essence / Form of the Vortex / Particle type InfoStructure. I repeat. Despite its fame, the electron is a complex object, not in the sense that it is composed of parts, but in the sense that it is neither a point-like object (without spatial extension) nor a homogeneous object spread over a volume of space. Mass, Motion, Charge, Spin (Energy / Information), and even better Perturbation, Translation, Rotation:Chirality and Rotation:AxisOrientation (Modes of Elementary Action) are not uniformly distributed in the volume of space that time by time supports existence and the Essence / Form of the Vortex / Particle type InfoStructure. The vortex structure provides a distribution with a peculiar profile, with a center (which corresponds to the mass center, to the charge center, through which the Spin axis passes, intrinsic rotation / angular momentum of the structure) and with a surrounding distribution of the Mass and Charge (Perturbation and Rotation:Chirality) which follows a distance square law. Approximately. Basically. Since indeterminacy also exists here. And a sea of turbulence. In and out of the electron. And in this sea of turbulence, the correlation between the Elementary Events that we describe with the Elementary Action in its Modes / Components represents the organization, what we call Information, which constitutes the form and Energy of the Structure (a vortex in this case). The form of the Structure is incessantly changing, floating freely around an ideal form, a chaotic attractor around which the correlations of Perturbation, Translation, Rotation:Chirality and Rotation:AxisOrientation incessantly self-organize on the thin edge between disequilibrium and dynamic equilibrium which ensures causal permanence to the Structure itself. Each event point of the Field in the volume of space that supports the Structure follows/executes its own peculiar chaotic process. A process that is partly chaotic and partly ordered, or rather partly indeterminate and partly determined, an evolution that can be described by a partly stochastic and partly deterministic dynamic process. The indeterminate part represents the dynamic component of the Field in the absence of Structure (Elementary Events), the determined part represents the dynamics of the Structure (Relationships between Events), which takes shape in the evolution of the set of Relations between the Elementary Events, in correlations between the Modes of Elementary Action that creates the Structure in the Field. Turbulence within turbulence, with a breath of order, in a delicate organizational balance, which gives and maintains the shape of the Structure. And all this changes incessantly over time, as mentioned. Infinite stochastic/deterministic processes that change partly independently and partly dependently, perpetuating themselves over time with more or less stability (conservation of shape as fluctuation of the real shape around the ideal shape, shape attractor). All this while the Structure, the electron in question, moves in the Elemental Field, in a sea of turbulence, with its internal and external turbulence, interacting more or less intensely perhaps with other Structures of visible Matter (nucleons, other electrons, photons arriving from everywhere, ...) or more weakly with Dark Matter Structures. And all this produces an incessant fluctuation of the electron's shape around the ideal shape (the chaotic shape attractor). To all this we add that not only the interactions, but also the Motion (inertial or accelerated) produces variations in the shape and physical quantities associated with the Structure (Mass, Spin, etc.). So when we observe or carry out a measurement on an electron, in reality, we interact with an extremely complex quantum object (a Vortex / Particle type InfoStructure), with an incessantly changing shape, and an equally changing dynamics. Always the same electron, but always different. In this context, it appears clear that different parts of the same Structure, of the same electron in the example we follow, can be in different states. The rotation of the Spin axis in space with respect to the direction of motion (helicity?) due to the effect of a magnetic field, for example, is not instantaneous over the entire structure. The total rotation of the orientation of the Spin axis, although fast (we are talking about times much lower than an Attosecond), is not instantaneous. If we could take a true snapshot, at zero time, we would see a particular situation, like a microscopic wave of arms describing a wave. We would see a reorientation of the Spin axis passing through the electron. At an external limit of the volume occupied by the electron we would already see the expected final orientation, based on the lines of force of the applied magnetic field, orientation 30 degrees up for example, at the center of the electron still an incomplete orientation e.g. 10 degrees down, and at the opposite end even further back in the reorientation process, 50 degrees down. If we take for granted a significant resonance at the Planck scale (spatial distance about 10^−35) and an electron diameter of about 10^-15, we are talking about 20 orders of magnitude. With an absolutely approximate calculation, we can say that in terms of volume, we could describe the electron as a semi-turbulent quantum object, describable as a chaos/order process, dynamic process with stochastic/deterministic components, result of the interaction of 10^20 * 10^20 * 10^20 = 10^60 stochastic / deterministic processes, organized by a dynamic network of correlations which ensures the dynamic permanence (with distributions of evolving fluctuations according to the Schrödinger equation) of the form (extension and distribution in the Space) and properties (Mass, Motion, Charge, Spin, etc.). An extremely complex, turbulent, fluctuating, dynamic situation, which can only be treated with statistical quantities in Space and Time. So when we talk about quantum states and superposition, it's all this complexity that we're talking about. Indeed, in compliance with the ideal form of the Structure, the conservation of the associated physical quantities, parts of the same Structure are in different quantum states and evolve partly independently (due to the natural indeterminate dynamics of the Elementary Field), partly dependently (due to the dynamics of Information, the organization scheme between the correlations between the dynamic processes of all those 10^60 event points that support the Structure we are talking about). Turbulence within turbulence. Complexity within complexity. Of course, to describe a "simple" electron, with its properties and associated physical quantities, and predict its quantum behavior, we cannot imagine having to compute 10^60 stochastic/deterministic processes and the dynamic matrix of correlations between all these variables partially independent and partially dependent. Not to mention the "simple interaction between two electrons (10^60 stochastic / deterministic processes of electron A for 10^60 processes of electron B and the product of the respective dynamic matrices of correlations describing the two structures), between a photon and a electron, etc. Even if it were possible from a computational point of view, and I don't think it is, we must resort to a global "probabilistic" statistical description (electron particle as excitation of the associated quantum field) and a high-level computation (equation Schrödinger, etc.). "Probabilistic" in quotes. This is a crucial point. Probabilities of measurements correspond to superpositions of quantum states actually in Space, with an arrow telling us that the Spin is up or down. Each point of the Field "occupied" by the electron has its own Spin orientation that fluctuates incessantly around a value that can be more or less correlated to the dynamics. of the other points, according to the shape and position of that point of the Structure. The spin of the electron is the result of the interaction of the dynamics of all points. The orientation of the Spin axis (and therefore of the component of the angular momentum in this direction) changes incessantly according to a law of evolution and on the basis of the natural indeterminate dynamics of the Field and the interactions with other structures. And it can be different (and most of the time it is) in different parts of the Structure. Therefore at a certain instant a part of the electron will have spin orientations attributable to Spin up and the other part to Spin down. At any moment we should say that a part (with a statistical indicator of composition, in percentage, or rather with a number between 0 and 1, as probabilities are expressed) has an orientation of the rotation axis (Rotation:AxisOrientation) compatible with Spin up and another part (1's complement) has orientation compatible with Spin down. Soon we will see what a measurement produces, for example of the spin of an electron and why the measurement produces what is called wave function collapse, resolution of the superposition of quantum states to a single state.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Probability of outcomes of observations vs compositional statistical representation of quantum states''': let's take back what was said above and try to clarify further. In Quantum Mechanics, extensive use is made of probabilities, because QM is not a descriptive theory, but rather a methodology for predicting the results of observations, measurements and experiments. Probability of the occurrence of events, of the occurrence of correlations between events, and so on. If we want to try to find explanations for the oddities of QM we must make hypotheses about the phenomena, about the forms, about what can actually happen. We must contradict the first commandment of the QM: "shut up and calculate!". As described above for superposition, we must imagine the actual situation of the quantum objects that produce those probabilities of observation outcomes. And precisely superposition allows us to hypothesize that at the underlying level (what we do not see, since we can only see the results of the observations, and not what really happens to quantum objects, inside them, in their interactions with the Field and with the other Structures) we must not express the phenomena through probability, but we must describe the objects and their dynamics through composition indicators, also between 0 and 1, but conceptually different instruments. It is different to say that the probability of observing the Spin Up quantum state is 0.3, it is different to say that the object that produces that observational outcome, at a particular instant in an evolutionary dynamic for 0.3 (30%) of its volume has an orientation compatible with the Spin up quantum state. This means that in case of observation / measurement at that instant, 0.3 of the volume of the electron will contribute to the production of the overall Spin of the InfoStructure for a Spin up. The complement to 1, the rest of the volume of the electron (0.7) will contribute to the production of a Spin down. In this case, the Spin will be down. We will then see how the act of measuring produces the alignment of the Spin of all the event points of the Structure to the overall Spin (thus producing the infamous collapse of the wave function). In short, the temporal evolution of the spatial distribution of the quantum states of the single point events in the volume that supports the Structure (except for the ever-present indeterminacy) determines the complessive quantum state of the quantum object.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Quantum measurement''': in general, a measurement is an interaction. It is not possible to distinguish a "measurement" interaction from an "ordinary" interaction. We call measurement an interaction where the acquired information is used to characterize an Event, a Relationship, a Process, a Phenomenon or quantify a Property or physical quantity. A quantum measurement is a measurement in which one or more quantum objects are involved: any interaction between one or more quantum objects and the Elemental Field, itself or themselves, or other quantum objects. Interaction means that Action is exchanged, that all quantum objects involved give up and acquire information. Their quantum states change, are modified by the interaction. Even when it seems that the state of a quantum object is not modified by the interaction, by the measurement carried out, something changes. Under certain conditions, for certain types and intensities of interaction, the overall quantum state of the quantum object can remain unchanged, but the states of part of the event points that support the object, of part of the volume of space time by time occupied by the object, change, are influenced by interaction / measurement. These variations in the partial states (of part) of the object, as mentioned, may not be sufficient to determine a change in the overall state, but they can add to other subsequent partial variations which can ultimately produce a variation in the overall quantum state.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Correlation of quantum states''': this is a truly fundamental point. Much of the difficulty in understanding the strangeness of the quantum world comes from a misunderstanding, from not understanding the difference between the state of a quantum object and the correlation of quantum states. Even better, on the difference between the Physical Space in which quantum objects exist (the InfoStructures of visible/ordinary matter) and the space of quantum states (Hilbert space). When we talk about "states", as already said several times, we are talking about a "virtual" concept, about snapshots of the flow of Reality in which we artificially imagine stopping Time, which is obviously not possible. Instead of the term "state", we should use "dynamics" or "process". The state of the Process at time x. In this sense, we can reformulate the distinction between the two types of space mentioned above: physical space, where quantum objects exist and evolve, quantum state space, where representations exist and evolve (which we call quantum states, or rather we should call dynamics or quantum processes). In physical space we can say that two "entangled" quantum objects, up to an event that causes decoherence, co-evolve, their overall dynamics is correlated since the dynamics of the corresponding event points in the Elementary Field have correlated dynamics (unless indeterminacy of the natural spontaneous dynamics of the Elementary Field, each pair of corresponding event points of the two entangled objects is in turn entangled). Therefore, two quantum objects, for example two suitably prepared electrons, are and remain entangled if all the corresponding points (or portions / partial volumes) of the two InfoStructures are entangled, have correlated dynamics, coevolve.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Quantum decoherence''': in light of what has been said regarding the correlation between quantum objects (correlation between the dynamics, between the processes of evolution of the quantum states of different InfoStructures), overall correlation determined by the partial correlation of the event points, or parts of the entire Structures, it is evident that decoherence (loss of correlation) can only be linked to events / interactions that affect one or more entangled particles, or portions of them, which determine the variation of overall quantum states of at least one of the previously entangled objects. In essence, one or more entangled quantum objects, or portions thereof, undergo variations in their quantum state (or dynamics) due to interaction with the Elementary Field and/or with other InfoStructures.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Connection between entangled quantum objects''': So, what are these "phantom" connections that would occur between entangled particles? Connections that would appear to configure zero-time remote actions at sidereal distances that are not randomly connected or that would imply communications at super-luminal speeds. Connections capable of influencing the quantum state of entangled particles, but not of transferring information. Are these physical connections (and then they would be causal connections, immediate actions at a distance, which would allow the transfer of information/energy at zero time) or "logical" connections (shared configurations of the "internal organization" of the InfoStructures involved, of the dynamics of the event points that support them, which remain so until any decoherence, non-causal connections)? I would choose the latter, given the results of the experiments. Logical connections, correlation connections. But wouldn't it be more correct to simply call them "correlations" and abandon this term "connections" which makes one think of physical connections, with all their implications? First of all, non-locality, and instant action at a distance... Correlations ab origine, established instantly, in the process of preparing the entangled particles. Correlations not only between the overall quantum states of each particle involved, but correlations between the dynamics of the corresponding event points of the Elementary Field (Elementary Action in its Modes / Components), of the various portions of the Structures. Portions, not parts! I think this is the key to understanding quantum entanglement without hypothesizing strange instantaneous connections, non-local actions, etc. The union of indeterminacy, elementary particles with non-homogeneous internal distributions (not point-like, nor homogeneous over volumes of space, but with organization of the Elementary Action in each event point), and correlation between the quantum states of the corresponding event points. This combination of hypotheses leads us to think of entanglement as a complex correlation between Structures with correlated "internal portions" dynamics, in a context of partially indeterminate processes (the dynamics of the Elementary Field) and partially determined processes (the Information that gives shape to the InfoStructures). Overall correlation of the Structure resulting from the interaction of the internal punctual correlations of the Structures involved. Complexity within complexity. Indeterminacy within indeterminacy. Punctual (or of portions) correlation in the overall correlation. Let us remember that if the form of the InfoStructures hypothesized here is true (dynamics of an electron produced by the interaction of mixed, stochastic and deterministic processes, relating to approximately 10^60 event points), then the entanglement of two "simple" electrons is a phenomenon of a monstrous complexity, the result of the correlation, partly indeterminate and partly determinate, of the dynamics of about 10^60 event points of the Elementary Field with that of other 10^60 event points. Faced with the incessant unfolding of this immense mass of dynamic processes, we see the results of apparently banal experiments (e.g. the Stern-Gerlach experiment, electrons that in a magnetic field go up or down according to their Spin, which we assume is up or down). But we hypothesized that Spin up or down is a statistical evaluation of an immense underlying complexity, we could say that the two entangled electrons, each by itself, are carrying out immense quantum calculations in response to a magnetic field to decide whether they are called Spin up or Spin down. No communication. Somehow they had agreed before, when the entangled state was created. What can I say... The explanation of this phenomenon cannot lie in simplicity. For me it certainly lies in complexity, in a monstrous and (unfortunately) really hard to fathom complexity.
| + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − | *'''Action''' (instant physical action at a distance -> not possible, it would imply zero-time causality, superluminal speeds; instant logical action at a distance, what does it mean)
| + | |
| − | Difference: Elementary Action - Derived Action .. Action of the Field (unstructured) - Action in the Field (structured)
| + | |
| − | -> Locality has to do with events, continuous (meaning) connection (conn-action, action with, shared action: link, association, relation, correspondence, etc.), no action at a distance because correlation not physical action, we are in the world of relations not events, information not action...
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *'''Meaning of the Schrodinger Equation''': -> probability (uncertainty or lack of info) -> certain state (snapshot) -> the particle going on with its dynamics influenced by the measurement -> try to draw a time line (before measurement, measurement interval / interaction, after measurement i.e
| + | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | {{Template:PaperPages1}} | | {{Template:PaperPages1}} |
Let us briefly mention a crucial aspect for understanding the strangest phenomena of Quantum Mechanics, locality, the subject of a heated, centuries-old debate. This is a divisive issue, which sees on opposite sides the defense of locality in the classical / relativistic field and the acceptance of non-locality in the context of many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (a strange non-locality, to be honest, which it keeps out causality and the possibility of instantaneously transferring information).
Here we just say that, regarding the fundamental properties of InfoStructures, after having mentioned the themes of separability (external form), identification (unitarity of the form) and internal distribution (internal form), the local nature (locality) of the interactions between InfoStructure and Elementary Field and between InfoStructures follows naturally.
Thus, for example, if two entangled particles are hypothesized as separate, individuated, albeit with boundaries that fluctuate in the indeterminacy of the Elementary Field, not disturbed to avoid the phenomenon of decoherence (loss of correlation between the quantum states objects of observation), brought at distances that allow to exclude causal connections and transmissions / exchanges of Information (variational connections), it is evident that we can only define the dynamics of the aforementioned InfoStructures as local, and include locality among their properties.
The connection that seems to exist between the two structures, which seems necessary to justify the probabilities of the outcomes of the measurements, must be apparent, and the reasons for the strange behavior must be sought elsewhere. Here it is hypothesized that such behavior is due to the coupled interaction of preparation of the entangled state, indeterminacy and correlation of the internal distributions of the Elementary Action (correlation of the internal form), of the dynamic processes of the correlated event points / portions of the two Structures of Information.
