What Is the Marseille Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

[koantum]

Lubos: Concerning relational EPR, someone should try to tell these people that the problems that they are trying to solve have been solved by 1992 and most of them by 1929. Omnes' ultimate paper [sic!] ... What Rovelli et al. are doing is just completely obsolete and confused diluted version of the insights that have been done properly decades ago, and sometimes it is a good idea to study the work of others, especially if the work of others is superior.

Omnes in his Quantum Philosophy: Bohr always attempted to preserve at all costs the objective character of the science he had helped to found, and we shall see that he was right in doing so. As for the rest, it is nonsense, twaddle, balderdash, and idle fancies (I also have some stronger words in store).​

Apparently these two share the same arrogance.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Koantum, I liked the idea you put forward that there may be no such thing as a traveling photon. Perhaps it is observers which do the traveling, and the realm of the photon is unmoving. Maybe this will lead to a new way to think about the zero point energy? But what then becomes of the speed of light as a constant? Zero is not very satisfactory as a constant. Or must we then say that all observers are traveling at the same speed relitive to the unmoving photon field? Then what is motion, what is separation, what is space? I suppose velocity and differences in velocity such as we commonly observe would be diffences in direction instead, such as on the light cone.

My doctors have advised me to avoid intoxicants. Champions of homeostatic mediocrity, they prize longevity above all other qualities. Pfah. What good is life without smoke and drink? But perhaps thoughts like these will be proof enough to disolve my sense of self after all, allowing me to achieve the perfectly smooth manifold of the omniscient, omnipresent unobserver.

Nice talking with you, too.

R.

 

[marcus]

Apparently these two share the same arrogance.

but in one case the arrogance may be hollow (I have found his assertions repeatedly to be unreliable)
and in the other case the arrogance may be solid.
Won't swear to it but the latter might be justified opprobrium

Anyhow, a stylistic likeness can conceal fundamental differences
and flamboyant arrogance (as long as it is not cruel) can be amusing.
One tries to be tolerant: appreciate the originality and talent without being misled.

And yeah, I agree with your remark. I am just elaborating on it a little. In fact the Omnes pronouncement about balderdash is priceless Thanks for finding it and sharing it.

 

[marcus]

What good is life without smoke and drink? But perhaps thoughts like these will be proof enough to disolve my sense of self after all, allowing me to achieve the perfectly smooth manifold of the omniscient, omnipresent unobserver.
...

the Mark Twain of quantum gravity

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Hi Marcus

Was it Mark Twain who said that? I was thinking Gertrude Stein. But you flatter me too much, and I am embarrassed to admit I enjoy it. I envy your memory for its accuracy and precision. Mine was cloudy long before I took up the bottle or the cigar. I don't suppose fifth essences will improve it any.

I saw your post about the Oriti book, and VSL. I suppose it has to vary given inflation, depending on the observer. What surface shall one attach oneself to, when tossed like flotsam on the open sea?

A friend asked me a few days ago how scientists can say they are detecting light from the first seconds of the universe, coming into us from way out there. Shouldn't that light have past us by long ago, since it moves away from the center so fast, and we so slow? I mulled over the inflation explanation, then considered curved spacetime, broke upon the thought of inversion. What happens to our sense of space if way out there is the same thing as what is deep within our own origin? It seems one must collapse the bubble to find the center.

R.

 

[marcus]

Hi Marcus

Was it Mark Twain who said that? I was thinking Gertrude Stein.

.

said what? I'm weak on quotes like that. to me, it just sounded like Mark Twain (a kind of ironic realism that allows for some human frailty)

if Gertrude stein said something about smoke and drink what did she actually say? I'm curious.

 

[marcus]

...A friend asked me a few days ago how scientists can say they are detecting light from the first seconds of the universe, coming into us from way out there. Shouldn't that light have past us by long ago, since it moves away from the center so fast, and we so slow? ...

the CMB light is usually dated from when the U was about 350,000 years old (roughly a third of a million years old, not a few seconds)

most lay confusion about mainstream cosmology comes from not realizing that there is no center

the "balloon 2D analogy" is the best, although imperfect.
the CMB light comes from everywhere in the 2D surface of the balloon and it travels every direction IN the 2D surface and is always arriving at every point in the surface from all directions IN the surface

but you have to stretch your mind to imagine a 3D analog. a closed 3D world WITH NO CENTER

tell your friend to watch Ned Wright balloon animation.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Balloon.html
this one just shows just galaxies, there was another that used to show light waves wriggling on the surface as well. As the surface expands, the galaxy dots on it get farther apart. the lightwave snaky things are the CMB---they are always there coming from all directions (in the 2D analog) and they gradually get stretched out (redshifted) by the expansion.

if only lay could imagine a universe where space has no center, so many puzzles would just evaporate, and it is EASY TO DO. you don't have to go to college for godsake to imagine expanding space without a center.

give the guy Ned Wright animation URL, might help. this one has the lightwaves too as well as the galaxies but it is not the best one which I remember from a couple of years ago.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

he used to have a better one that filled the whole screen, can't find it now but will post if I come across it

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Thanks, Marcus.

The smoke and drink quote, or paraphrase anyway, is a favorite among some of my community. At least three people have expressed to me their dissatisfaction with the laws restricting smoking in bars and restaurants. It isn't so much that they want to trample on non-smoker's rights to drink and dine in a smoke-free environment, as that they resent the loss of a freedom to sit in comfort among random friends enjoying the subtle poisens of their choice. I suggested they form a private smoker's club, freedom of association you know, but that did not really ease the pain of severance. They still remember the contemplative joy of abandonment when snuffing out a butt in the last scraps of a plate of eggs and ham, and then the last sip of cooling coffee. I suppose it gives a sense of finality to a meal, unequaled by the presentation of the check or the after-dinner mint. Personally, having already given up tobacco and liquor, I must confine myself to crumpling the paper napkin, throwing it with disdain upon the plate, like a final prayer to the forgotten god, there, it is finished.

I'll ask around for the source of the quote. It might even be Hunter S. Thompson.

R.

 

[koantum]

I liked the idea you put forward that there may be no such thing as a traveling photon. Perhaps it is observers which do the traveling, and the realm of the photon is unmoving...

"One unmoving that is swifter than Mind, That the Gods reach not, for It progresses ever in front. That, standing, passes beyond others as they run."

Isha Upanishad, Verse 4​

Then what is motion, what is separation, what is space?

One thing is sure: not what they seem to be!

It may be relevant in this context that generalized Lorentz transformations can be derived from the principle of relativity alone, without invoking the speed of light or its constancy. These transformations contain a single universal constant K. Since this is not dimensionless (it has the dimension of an inverse velocity squared), only three possibilities exist:

• K>0. In this case the signature of the metric would be ++++, no kind of objective difference would exist between time and a spatial dimension, making a U turn in time would be as easy as making one in space, etc.

In the other two cases (but not in this) there exists an invariant speed: whatever travels with it in one inertial frame does so in ever inertial frame.

• K=0. Galilean relativity, the invariant speed is infinite.
• K<0. Special relativity, the invariant speed is finite.

The existence of an invariant speed is what prevents us from making U turns in time, for it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach it. Its existence causes time and space to be objectively distinct. In my opinion what is more important is the existence of an invariant speed, less important is whether this is finite or infinite.

Now suppose that there is such a thing as an unmediated cause-effect relation. Then it is the invariant speed that determines the temporal relation between cause and effect for any given spatial relation, but there is nothing that travels with that speed! In Newtonian mechanics it will be an instantaneous action at a distance, and in Einstein's world it will be a retarded action.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

said what? I'm weak on quotes like that. to me, it just sounded like Mark Twain (a kind of ironic realism that allows for some human frailty)

if Gertrude stein said something about smoke and drink what did she actually say? I'm curious.

Well, an hour searching turned up an interesting absense of evidence. One google reference attributes a quote to Sartre: "Life without smoke is not worth living." Unfortunately I could not find the actual quote in the link, which is here:

http://www.nycclash.com/AllThoseOpposed.html

What is amazing to me is the huge number of anti-smoking sites that came up. There seemed to be many variations in opposition to the idea of life not worth living without smoke (and drink), but few sites flying the death's head flag of liberty.

By the way, in the above link, the anti-smoking crusade was variously attributed to nazis, communists, and liberals, all of whom seem to think they know what is good for all of us and enjoy imposing their opinions on others.

I was reminded of Einstein's comment on the publication of a book by a hundred physicists who were intent on proving relativity to be in error. Albert said if they were correct, only one would have been enough.

If human culture is a kind of super-being, with its own circulation, brain, and senses, is the profusion of anti-smoking anti-drinking anti-drug anti-caffeine (yes, that is on the list) anti-soda pop anti-anything sites evidence that the culture is in the throws of anti-phyllactic shock? Are we eating ourselves alive in a massive allergic reaction?

In my opinion, nature has her own homeostatic mechanisms. Humans would do well to take a deep breath, and reconsider their actions. Life may well go on more merrily without us.

(neologism, for those who may have missed it: anti-phyllactic shock, from anaphylactic shock, which is what happens when the body goes into self-destruct mode in a misguided attempt to protect itself from, say, p-nuts or bee stings. No pun aimed in your direction there, hossi.)

R

and, in edit, the following:

"Jean Paul Sartre spent many years smoking, giving it up only to take up the "demon" habit for the next 40 years. He stated that a life without smoking was not worth living. "

from the link:

http://www.homeopathy-academy.org/HomeoResearch/Tobacco.htm

But notice that this is an attribution again, not a quote. Later in the same link a relevant quote from Sartre is provided:

"A few years ago, I was led to decide to stop smoking. The beginning was rough, and in truth, I did not so much care for the taste of tobacco that I was going to lose, as for the meaning of the act of smoking. A whole crystallization had taken place. I used to smoke at performances, mornings at work, evenings after dinner, and it seemed to me that in ceasing to smoke I was going to subtract some of the interest of the performance, some of evening dinner’s savor, some of the fresh vivacity of the morning’s work. Whatever unexpected event might have struck my eyes, it seemed to me that it was fundamentally impoverished as soon as I could no longer welcome it by smoking. To-be- susceptible-to-be-encountered-by-me-while-smoking: that was the concrete quality that had been universally spread over things. And it seemed to me that I was going to tear it away from them and that, in the midst of this universal impoverishment, life was a little less worth living..."

Can this be the comment that provoked so much intensity in those who wish to refute it? Did they first have to build it up into a scarecrow so that they could be seen brave and virtuous in the act of defeating it?

And the final irony, Sarte seems to say he regrets not the loss of the pleasure of smoking, but the loss to the world in that he may no longer regard it from under the filter of a rich blue haze!

Sartre was a truly powerful and influential thinker, death to tyrants. He was certainly a contemporary of Gertrude Stein, altho I do not know if he was in her aquaintance.

I guess this commentary is appropriate here, in a thread named for Marseille, a town famed for bistros, smugglers, pirates, philosophers and poets.

r

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Koantum, you said: "It may be relevant in this context that generalized Lorentz transformations can be derived from the principle of relativity alone"

I was under the impression that it was relativity which was derived from the mathematics of Lorentz?

I wonder about the signature ++++, and the idea that it outlaws the temporal U-turn. I should like to know more about this reason. I am not arguing that it does not, merely stating that I do not yet see why it has to do so.

You said:
"The existence of an invariant speed is what prevents us from making U turns in time, for it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach it. Its existence causes time and space to be objectively distinct. In my opinion what is more important is the existence of an invariant speed, less important is whether this is finite or infinite.

Now suppose that there is such a thing as an unmediated cause-effect relation. Then it is the invariant speed that determines the temporal relation between cause and effect for any given spatial relation, but there is nothing that travels with that speed! In Newtonian mechanics it will be an instantaneous action at a distance, and in Einstein's world it will be a retarded action."

I will have to study more to understand this. First question, what is meant by an unmediated cause-effect relation?

(exhales a thick blue cloud of aromatic alkyloids, waiting for the smoke to clear, revealing what it will, in regret that it is only imaginary.)

 

[koantum]

I was under the impression that it was relativity which was derived from the mathematics of Lorentz?

Hi, Richard. I just noticed we were born in the same year.

The principle of relativity says that all inertial reference frames are created equal. Together with the postulate of the constancy of c it leads to the Lorentz transformations. Without that postulate, it leads to generalized Lorentz transformations.

I wonder about the signature ++++, and the idea that it outlaws the temporal U-turn. I should like to know more about this reason.

The signature of Minkowski spacetime and of the pseudo-Riemannian spacetime of general relativity is -+++ (or +--- according to some). The signature ++++ characterizes a 4 dimensional Euclidean or Riemannian space. In this case there are 4 completely equivalent dimensions; the generalized Lorentz transformations (in this case) are simply 4 dimensional Euclidean rotations. So if you can reverse along one axis, you can do it along all.

First question, what is meant by an unmediated cause-effect relation?

Well, you know what is meant by the relation between a cause and an effect. Example: cause = atom here transits from an excited state to the ground state; effect = atom there transits from the ground state to an excited state. The physical laws are such that d/t=c, where d is the distance and t the time between the two events.

• Meditated: something travels from one event to the other. (If so, c is its speed.)
• Unmediated: nothing travels from one event to the other.

 

[marcus]

this thread got lost. What struck me about it when I looked back at it is that f-h had a number of thoughtful criticisms of RQM. For me, there was too much going on, too much distraction and noise in my own head, to pay careful attention at the time.

So I want to review some f-h posts on this thread.

#5

I see, I'm quite familiar with RQM by now and will just give my own personal perspective here. There are two analogies that drive it, galillean and special relativity, which both say that different observer descriptions on something particular might not agree, that the valid statements are "relational".

What is critically missing from RQM is synchronisation. Due to this RQM is IMO best understood as an account of why the formalism of QM, which escapes any consistent onthological interpretation, even as relational data, is still consistent epistemologicaly for all observers.

#8

Well, the question is, are we done if we keep saying let's throw away the excess baggage and take quantum states as epistemological.

Imagine we have three systems A, B and C. A and B meassure C. Now if A meassures what B has meassured with respect to C it will find it consistent with it's own meassurement of C. So will B with respect to A. What they will find if the epistemological states are all there is is not related at all.
So B might observe that itself and A have found C to be in state c_1 while A might find that B and itself have found C in state c_2. There is no paradox here of course.
But in this sense this complete "epistemologisation" of physics implies an extreme solipsism.

If we "synchronise" the different experiences we get something equivalent to collapse again.

In this sense it shows first and foremost that physical predictions are insensitive to the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but I wouldn't really call RQM an interpretaion of QM.

#9 HURKYL:

I think you're still thinking externally.

I think you're imagining "Okay, A did his experiment, and saw this". And "B did her experiment, and saw that". And you, from your external viewpoint, are comparing things.

But if you do things internally, it all works out. You perform an experiment in which A and B meet to compare notes.

It's (IMHO) easy to see that the formalism predicts the only possible outcome is that A and B agree on what they saw.

#10 F-H:

Hurkyl, yes, this is correct.

But outlawing all external thinking is precisely the extreme soliplism I was talking about.

#11 HURKYL:

I meant my post to counter your assertion that we have to add in something called "synchronization", and that it's equivalent to collapse.

I assert it's already in the formalism, and doesn't involve collapse.

#12 F-H:

Hmmm...

What I meant is that if there is a third system D asking A and B what they saw it will find that A and B saw the same thing, but the problem remains that what A saw might be different from what B saw, because what they saw has reality only with respect to themself and not with respect to D.

I don't see a mechanism in the formalism that does what you say. Could you elaborate?

#18

...According to RQM you do not synchronise... Not synchronising does NOT lead to paradoxes, only indigestion and vertigo.[/color]

#21

Hurkyl, I agree with what you say. It doesn't touch my point. I wasn't pointing out a physical question that would require collapse (in this sense) to be consistent. I was pointing out what to me appears to be a characteristic feature of an RQM universe: Universal soliplism.

There is nothing in RQM as presented so far that prevents A from seeing green, B from seeing red, and D from seeing A and B see yellow. And E from seeing A, B see magenta and seeing D seeing A and B see magenta and so on and so on ad inf.

Each of the physical questions asked is consistently answered, every observation is consistent with every observation of an observation.

But the price is the disconectedness of all the experiences/information each system acquires about the other systems.

#22

Yes there is. It is physically impossible for \omega to see A see green, and to see B see red, and to see D see A and B see yellow, and so on ad inf.Of course, I know you know that. But you're missing the point -- you don't give up "connectedness of experience/information". What you do give up is the ability to perform the sort of classically inspired external manipulations that you need to use to arrive at the conclusion of a "disconnected experience/information."(At least, if my initial perception of these papers is accurate)

#23

"Yes there is. It is physically impossible for \omega to see"

But that's not what I said.

I'll have to ponder this more, I know that what you say is what they are claiming to do, but to me it looks like the way they are doing it leads to the disconnectedness I described.

#32

Hmmm... RQM is supposed to solve the problem of interpretation of QM, not the problem of time in Quantum Gravity.
While in some sense these seem to be related problems they are very clearly distinct. Particularly there is a whole body of work on relational time spawned by Rovellis concepts of partial and complete Observables and evolving constants of motion, including perhaps most notably so far Dittrich's Thesis, but these work with any odd interpretation of quantum mechanics (or in Dittrichs case it's mostly classical).

The overarching philosophical idea is relationality, but it's different uses should not be confused...

I think f-h has clearly described---without a lot of extra words---the key point of resistance to RQM.

self-Adjoint called it something like "de-objectifying"

I would try to say it this way: There is nothing in the QM formalism that represents reality----there is no mathematical surrogate for the real world.

f-h calls it sometimes the abandonment of "synchronicity" and sometimes he calls it "EPISTEMOLOGIZATION" which means that QM has been turned into a theory of knowledge----of the information that an observer has about the world----that it gives a model of WHAT STATEMENTS we can make, not a model of what nature "is".

Curiously, Neils Bohr already said this: QM is not about nature, it is about what we can SAY about nature.

there is in nature nothing corresponding to a hilbert with operators, there is no wavefunction---that is something which, as Asher Perez said, we merely imagine.

To me this sounds very much NOT SOLIPSIST.

and it does not give me vertigo. But to f-h it sounds solipsist and gives him vertigo! This is a really interesting difference in attitude!

I do not say f-h is wrong to react this way. I want to further explore this difference in gut reaction.

I think the difference probably comes from one's PRIOR EXPECTATIONS. I never expected that QM should be "ontological" and tell me what the natural world truly consists of.

My basic philosophy is ANTI-SOLIPSIST. There is one real natural world. If we cannot agree about what is there and not there (when we get together and discuss it) then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG with us.
rovelli says this: if we are together in the same place and I see and elephant and you dont, then there is something wrong. Solipsism means SOLUS IPSUS "only himself". I don't think of my own mental constructs as specially valid, I count on there being other observers that I can talk to and come to consensus.

what I don't think is that agreement is guaranteed by some objectified intellectual machinery. there is nothing that one can turn the crank of and have the answer come out. There is one real natural world, but it eludes MODELING BY A SINGLE UNIVERSALLY VALID MODEL. this is one of the delightful things about it. like men think women are----the more you keep asking questions trying to pin her down the more she changes like shakespeare's soldier Enobarbus said about Cleopatra-----her infinite variety.
that is one of the fun things.

so I think QM being epistemological is par for the course and very much in line with nature and the world being ONE and really there.
(the thing which we don't ultimately model but, when we get together and examine it, we can agree on certain basic statements about, or else there is something wrong with us, and which would be naive to expect can be modeled entirely of water or of fire, or air, or of hilbert, or complexvalue wavefunctions whatever)
========
Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale
Her infinite variety. (Act 2 Scene 2)