Correspondence Principle vs Emergence

[Varon]

There is this so called Correspondence Principle which wiki mentions "used more generally, to represent the idea that a new theory should reproduce the results of older well-established theories in those domains where the old theories work." But how do you tie up Correspondence Principle with Emergence??

For example. Is it possible to get a new degree of freedom after discovery of quantum gravity such that someday United Parcel Service can just teleport the entire package from say Europe to United States in a sec without transfering quantum states but the object itself? Is this is possible in any beyond the standard model. When how does Correpondence Principle cut in. I mean. In Newtonian physics. We can't teleport objects.. however, in Newtonian physics.. we can't transfer quantum state either. So how to tell what is the limits that can be crossed and those that is totally impossible between Correspondence Principle and Emergence? Any rule?

 

[SpectraCat]

There is this so called Correspondence Principle which wiki mentions "used more generally, to represent the idea that a new theory should reproduce the results of older well-established theories in those domains where the old theories work." But how do you tie up Correspondence Principle with Emergence??

For example. Is it possible to get a new degree of freedom after discovery of quantum gravity such that someday United Parcel Service can just teleport the entire package from say Europe to United States in a sec without transfering quantum states but the object itself? Is this is possible in any beyond the standard model. When how does Correpondence Principle cut in. I mean. In Newtonian physics. We can't teleport objects.. however, in Newtonian physics.. we can't transfer quantum state either. So how to tell what is the limits that can be crossed and those that is totally impossible between Correspondence Principle and Emergence? Any rule?

I know what the correspondence principle is, but what is emergence? Please give a rigorous, scientific definition, so that we can discuss it in scientific terms.

 

[Matterwave]

The correspondence principle is more of a guideline than any real "law" of nature. If your physical theory does not reproduce previously known results (which work), then there's probably something wrong with your theory. However, that doesn't mean that no new phenomena can emerge from within your theory. Time dilation, for example, is totally new to SR and does not appear at all in Newtonian physics. The trick is merely that in the low velocity limit, this phenomenon isn't noticed.

 

[Drakkith]

It means that if your theory explains how this new degree of freedom works, the rules and laws that describe it should ALSO work for the other degrees of freedom using those same rules. New theories tend to explain things with much greater accuracy than old theories do in addition to solving the anomalies of previous theories.

 

[Varon]

The correspondence principle is more of a guideline than any real "law" of nature. If your physical theory does not reproduce previously known results (which work), then there's probably something wrong with your theory. However, that doesn't mean that no new phenomena can emerge from within your theory. Time dilation, for example, is totally new to SR and does not appear at all in Newtonian physics. The trick is merely that in the low velocity limit, this phenomenon isn't noticed.

Ok. Back to the original question: Is it possible to get a new degree of freedom after full discovery of say quantum spacetime such that someday United Parcel Service can just teleport the entire package from say Europe to United States in a sec without transfering quantum states but the object itself? Is this scenerios possible in any beyond the standard model or must it always obey the law that large portion of Newtonian must be obeyed?

SpectraCat, Emergence like SR causing time dilation against Newtonian backdrop.

 

[Drakkith]

Your example is meaningless. You haven't set any rules or mechanisms that allow this to happen and are jumping from discovering a new degree of freedom to teleportation. It is pure speculation about something which cannot happen in our current understanding and cannot be answered as being possible or not except in the context of our current knowledge.

That said, obviously if we found a new degree of freedom tomorrow and managed to develop teleportation from it, then yes, it would be possible. Sorry if this seems harsh, but you asking about a hypothetical development from a hypothetical breakthrough that goes against our current understanding of physics.

Edit: I tried to put your example in terms of what the correspondence principle would mean for it, but I couldn't.

 

[Matterwave]

Based off the correspondence principle alone, sure you can have a theory that would predict such things as real teleportation, but the theory better explain why you don't see it in every day life, and why it has never been observed in nature. Perhaps the theory would require ridiculous energy densities to do such a teleportation, or some other factor that does not occur naturally.

 

[Drakkith]

When how does Correpondence Principle cut in. I mean. In Newtonian physics. We can't teleport objects.. however, in Newtonian physics.. we can't transfer quantum state either. So how to tell what is the limits that can be crossed and those that is totally impossible between Correspondence Principle and Emergence? Any rule?

There is no set point. It depends entirely on what we discover along the way.

 

[Drakkith]

Based off the correspondence principle alone, sure you can have a theory that would predict such things as real teleportation, but the theory better explain why you don't see it in every day life, and why it has never been observed in nature. Perhaps the theory would require ridiculous energy densities to do such a teleportation, or some other factor that does not occur naturally.

Thanks Matterwave! I couldn't form my post into a good explanation and it was irritating the hell out of me lol.

 

[Matterwave]

Thanks Matterwave! I couldn't form my post into a good explanation and it was irritating the hell out of me lol.

np ;)

 

[Varon]

Based off the correspondence principle alone, sure you can have a theory that would predict such things as real teleportation, but the theory better explain why you don't see it in every day life, and why it has never been observed in nature. Perhaps the theory would require ridiculous energy densities to do such a teleportation, or some other factor that does not occur naturally.

"never been observed in nature"? That's not entirely accurate. But for the sake of physicsforums and to be scientific. Let's say there is a CERN creative toy model building contest and in that contest, the participants would create toy models that can fuly encompass full fledge teleportation of objects. How much do you have to change the laws of nature to accommodate it. Do quantum physics, relativity, classical Newtonian physics have to end. Perhaps only Newtonian physics has to go? I think QM and SR and even GR can have degrees of freedom to allow full fledge teleportation isn't it?

 

[Matterwave]

I was only talking in the context of correspondence principle. Now if you want to extend that discussion to include what established theories have to say about it, that's a different issue. GR admits wormhole solutions which would look like teleportation from our plane of existence I suppose, but those solutions found so far all require some sort of exotic matter (with "negative energy density") or some such. I'm not very knowledgeable in this matter.

Why do you say that "never been observed in nature" is not accurate? Have we observed teleportation to occur in nature? I am not aware of these findings.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I was only talking in the context of correspondence principle. Now if you want to extend that discussion to include what established theories have to say about it, that's a different issue. GR admits wormhole solutions which would look like teleportation from our plane of existence I suppose, but those solutions found so far all require some sort of exotic matter (with "negative energy density") or some such. I'm not very knowledgeable in this matter.

Why do you say that "never been observed in nature" is not accurate? Have we observed teleportation to occur in nature? I am not aware of these findings.

Teleportation, as in the experiments performed by Zeilinger & co?

 

[Drakkith]

Let's say there is a CERN creative toy model building contest and in that contest, the participants would create toy models that can fuly encompass full fledge teleportation of objects. How much do you have to change the laws of nature to accommodate it.

I can think of two answers to this:
A. You wouldn't have to "change" them, as they don't allow it in the first place. You would need to come up with new theory.
B. a lot.

 

[Matterwave]

Teleportation, as in the experiments performed by Zeilinger & co?

Uh, is this real teleportation? I was only aware of quantum teleportation which is just the teleportation of states. The OP specified that this kind of teleportation is not what he's talking about. He wants to actually teleport a real physical object from one place to another.

 

[Drakkith]

Teleportation, as in the experiments performed by Zeilinger & co?

Quantum teleportation is completely different from the standard idea of teleportation.

 

[Varon]

I was only talking in the context of correspondence principle. Now if you want to extend that discussion to include what established theories have to say about it, that's a different issue. GR admits wormhole solutions which would look like teleportation from our plane of existence I suppose, but those solutions found so far all require some sort of exotic matter (with "negative energy density") or some such. I'm not very knowledgeable in this matter.

Why do you say that "never been observed in nature" is not accurate? Have we observed teleportation to occur in nature? I am not aware of these findings.

Unofficially yes... but of course officially it's denied. I think the key to the Final Theory is a theory that can explain full fledge teleportation of objects. Again to make it scientific. Whatever new theory to be created must encompass full fledge (not mere transfer of information or quantum state) teleportation. I think this is not difficult, isn't it. Treat Quantum Mechanics and Spacetime as emergence or lower limits of a third theory that is totally different even from String theory.

Anyway. Right now I just want to know to apply correspondence principle between say Newtonian physics and relativity.. to be able to think more clearly or make it as example of another level of correspondence principle.. but you said it is not a law.. so it's more like a unique situation only between QM and Newtonian physics?

 

[Matterwave]

The correspondence principle is not even a "law" in quantum mechanics. It is merely a guiding principle in its construction. For large quantum numbers, classical results "should" be reproduced. This is not ALWAYS the case. For example, super conductivity is a purely quantum mechanical effect which has no real analogue (AFAIK) in classical mechanics, but this is observed in macroscopic scales (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

The only real principle is that we should not destroy the "working" parts of current theories with a new theory because we have made a lot of experimental tests of these "working" parts. For example, SR mechanics limits to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low velocities. GR limits to Newton in the limit of low velocities, and low curvature.

The essence of the correspondence principle is merely that we should not have a theory that says, for example, that a 1kg object subject to a 1N force would be accelerated at 300m/s/s. We've taken a lot of these kinds of measurements, and they all suggest that Newton's laws works for these typical every day objects. We shouldn't have a theory that cannot at least explain these every day phenomena.

 

[Varon]

Can you give another example in physics where something in Newtonian is really violated by SR and QM? Right now.. it's more like SR works at very fast speed and QM works at very small object.. so Newtonian middleweight is not affected at all, isn't it. I don't know how to verbalize this or express it. I'm like asking why make Newtonian like a reference. I'm looking for example in physics where something like Newtonian is just temporarity and just emergence of a completely different theory. Can you give an example if you see what I'm thinking?

 

[Matterwave]

SR works at ALL speeds. It's only that for low speeds, Newtonian physics is a good approximation. But if you want to go to higher levels of accuracy (say, 8-10 decimal places or something like that), then even at normal speeds, you need SR.

Physics is not disjoint in that sense. It's not like SR is valid for speeds from 300km/s+ and Newtonian is good for lower. There's a smooth transition where Newtonian predictions get worse and worse as the speeds get higher and higher.

 

[Varon]

The correspondence principle is not even a "law" in quantum mechanics. It is merely a guiding principle in its construction. For large quantum numbers, classical results "should" be reproduced. This is not ALWAYS the case. For example, super conductivity is a purely quantum mechanical effect which has no real analogue (AFAIK) in classical mechanics, but this is observed in macroscopic scales (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

The only real principle is that we should not destroy the "working" parts of current theories with a new theory because we have made a lot of experimental tests of these "working" parts. For example, SR mechanics limits to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low velocities. GR limits to Newton in the limit of low velocities, and low curvature.

The essence of the correspondence principle is merely that we should not have a theory that says, for example, that a 1kg object subject to a 1N force would be accelerated at 300m/s/s. We've taken a lot of these kinds of measurements, and they all suggest that Newton's laws works for these typical every day objects. We shouldn't have a theory that cannot at least explain these every day phenomena.

Ah. So it is about laws like f=ma being obeyed at all times. Of course. But if say the universe is multi branes.. then simply add more numbers to m or a or solve for multiple f like f in each brane.

So I guess teleportation is more to do with complete overhaul of QM and SR/GR. This means Newtonian is only valid for laws like f=ma but it can be of any nature hidden inside it.

 

[Drakkith]

Can you give another example in physics where something in Newtonian is really violated by SR and QM? Right now.. it's more like SR works at very fast speed and QM works at very small object.. so Newtonian middleweight is not affected at all, isn't it. I don't know how to verbalize this or express it. I'm like asking why make Newtonian like a reference. I'm looking for example in physics where something like Newtonian is just temporarity and just emergence of a completely different theory. Can you give an example if you see what I'm thinking?

Newtonian isn't "affected" because it works just the way it should in the range of values that it should. Exceed those boundaries and it begins to become inaccurate. SR, GR, and QM all work pretty much just fine at everyday velocities and sizes, however because they can be much more complex than Newtonian laws, it is usually MUCH easier to use Newtonian rules where you can.

 

[Drakkith]

Ah. So it is about laws like f=ma being obeyed at all times. Of course. But if say the universe is multi branes.. then simply add more numbers to m or a or solve for multiple f like f in each brane.

So I guess teleportation is more to do with complete overhaul of QM and SR/GR. This means Newtonian is only valid for laws like f=ma but it can be of any nature hidden inside it.

Think of it like this. If we found some bizarre region of anti-space or something, and applying a force to an object resulted in 10 times the normal acceleration of that object, nothing in current physics would be wrong really because no current theories deal with said anti-space.

 

[Varon]

Think of it like this. If we found some bizarre region of anti-space or something, and applying a force to an object resulted in 10 times the normal acceleration of that object, nothing in current physics would be wrong really because no current theories deal with said anti-space.

Ok. Whenever I think of Newtonian. I imagine a world made of solid stones and continuous things just like people in the time of Newton did. But for you physicists. Newtonian is about law like f=ma and not about imagining solid stones, isn't it.

I guess QM, SR, GR are just like another Newtonian where a higher theory with more complete degree of freedom can supercede it. But here's the problem. Some part of QM, SR have to be shattered. In the Quantum-Newtonian example. Did we shatter any Newtonian part to become quantum?? Hmm.. does decoherence and classical to quantum transition counts as one?

I guess it's now time for another major breakthrough and paradigm shift in physics where there would be quantum/SR/GR to (Final Theory) transition just like quantum to classical transition in quantum decoherence. My analogy is accurate. isn't it?

 

[StevieTNZ]

I guess it's now time for another major breakthrough and paradigm shift in physics where there would be quantum/SR/GR to (Final Theory) transition just like quantum to classical transition in quantum decoherence. My analogy is accurate. isn't it?

See 'Sneaking a Look at God's Cards' (pages 348-350), and 'Interpreting the Quantum World' [by Jeffrey Bub] (pages 216-217) for more information on decoherence.

 

[Varon]

In the time of Newtonian, time being dilated and quantum superposition is against the law of Newtonian.. but QM and SR supercedes it. In the time of Obama, objects being fully teleported is against the law of QM, SR and GR... but the Final theory supercedes it.

Does this analogy hold? My problem is that SR works precisely to hide any preferred frame. Full object teleportation can violate SR because it needs preferred frame or else causation is violated. Hence in this case SR must proven false for this kind of Teleportation to exist?? Right?

 

[Matterwave]

I wonder, why are you so hell-bent on this teleportation thing? Why do you think the "final" theory must allow teleportation?

 

[Varon]

I wonder, why are you so hell-bent on this teleportation thing? Why do you think the "final" theory must allow teleportation?

To avoid this message getting deleted. Let's just say that it is due to elegance. Teleportation is elegance. When Einstein thought of spacetime curvature or time dilation, it was elegance.
Anyway. With nature having unlimited imaginations allowing the possibilities of quantum mechanics superposition or spacetime curvature for example.. It has at its disposal anything allowable and thinkable. Teleportation is one. It is natural. It's unthinkable if nature won't make use of it.

What we have in our standard model are just default mode. Enhance mode would produce all those degrees of freedom. So hope scientists can figure it out soon... I wonder what would happen if their model building allows for Teleportation. Who knows. Unexpected discoveries would even come up.

 

[Drakkith]

With nature having unlimited imaginations allowing the possibilities of quantum mechanics superposition or spacetime curvature for example.. It has at its disposal anything allowable and thinkable. Teleportation is one. It is natural. It's unthinkable if nature won't make use of it.

Your view is simply not a scientific one then.

 

[Varon]

Your view is simply not a scientific one then.

Hope it got into one of CERN creative model building contests where contestants were ask how they could manipulate the present laws of physics to make possible the teleportation of objects that doesn't use the concept of wormholes.