time, interaction, quantum paradoxes and other entertaining animals

    Ok, since the venerable public (although this is not written for the public) is it important to have a brief description, this will be a message with the answer to the questions: (1) is there time in the theoretical and physical picture of the world? (2) is there a place for interaction in it? (3) can a formal description even capture such phenomena? The text will be boring, impossible to read, difficult to understand. Do not read better. Then do not write in the comments that you did not warn

    OK. My knowledge of physics is limited. It just so happened that at one time I did not go to the physics department, but chose mathematics. Therefore, I cannot argue that the following statements are true in general for all physics, but I mastered with the founding books. This Space, time, matter of 'G. Weil is a wonderful book, I recommend it to everyone. And 'Quantum Field Theory' by S. Weinberg.

    So, how do the general theory of relativity and quantum physics set forth in these books operate? They describe the world in terms of functions of time. Something like x (t) = sin (t), and we have a wobble. Even in the terrible and terrible (really scary for the brains, and those physicists who invented it all - geniuses and deserve admiration) quantum field theory, which selflessly operates with symmetry groups, five-dimensional integrals from operator expressions, Minkowski space and other high-tech mathematical tools, the basis is the humble concept of function.

    Because groups are symmetry groups in which the properties of operators must be preserved, and operators work on the space of wave functions. Integrals are counted along paths in fields, and a vector field is also something of the form A (t). So what if A is a capital letter?

    The curvature of spacetime? So this is also a function, at each point (x, y, z, t) having a certain value.

    But here the question arises, but what of the fact that this is a function of time on t? Well, her argument is called this wonderful letter, but this does not change the mathematical meaning of the function, which is that the function f: M -> N, which maps the elements of the set M to the elements of the set N, is 'only' the set of pairs ( m, n) such that m is from M, n is from N, with the property that, in this set, there are no two pairs such that the n-components are the same and the m-components are different.

    But ... And where is the time? Where is the dynamics and change? Where is all the wonderful mobility? Can not see. In general, one might think that well, it’s normal, you can even live like that, the mobility of everything is like in a movie. A tape with a bunch of pictures stretches through the lamp, we are able to see only one picture, from here and the effect ... But who stretches the universe for ... for each living creature personally? Or for all living things combined? What is a tape drive mechanism.

    In addition, we know that information theory works in this real world. And, as you know, a measure of information requires a channel, the state of which can change. Hmm ... But to construct such a channel in a multidimensional and static set without a tape drive is again impossible. The minimum that is needed is a certain boundary crawling along this set that describes what needs to be considered a channel. But on what trajectory should it creep? By a predefined and static?

    Actually, this is the reason for the second part of my personal cognitive dissonance. Because, if these descriptions are correct, then you can easily change the direction of the flow of time and believe that time travel is possible. What? After all, nothing stops, except for a vague intuitive feeling that solutions with negative t are physically incorrect.

    What is actually being investigated in theoretical physics? Static sets like these, we can only see in the history of processes. In the tracks. We ourselves recreate physical laws according to the results of experiments, according to the history of what happened. But now is the time to show a simple trick.

    Suppose we are observing a random process that takes on values ​​0 or 1. Suppose we can only observe this process itself, what will we see? Nothing, chaos and the average is unclear what. But if we see not only the head of the process, but also the previous two meanings, it doesn’t matter how, whether we remember them or don’t remember, but just see, due to our special perception of time, and what will we see?

    For example, if we remember 01, then the set of the following possible perceived states for us is limited to two values ​​of 10 and 11. That is, there is a certain pattern observed in a random process if we decide to remember its values.

    Hm. Interesting, huh? Law for a random process. Including time arises, as a certain change of state.

    Does this bring the mind even closer to the perception of the concept of Tao, which was defined as something mobile and informal, forms and objects in which were determined only through perception? In my opinion, definitely.

    At the same time, in quantum physics there is something similar to a similar process - this is the collapse of the wave function. When a system takes one of the possible states without any apparent reason, and without any visible flow of time ... But, unfortunately, instead of constructing a theory around what this means and what has to do with the concept of time, physics, in bulk they try to express this process through their already familiar instrument of function and unitary evolution (well, we can say that through a function of time, which has its value as a wave function, the same set of pairs, but not numerical). Hmm ... here. This is a theory of super selection. As far as I know, it is not yet universally accepted, but nevertheless, work is underway intensively.

    OK. The next problem is that in physics there is no model of perception. Moreover, the best observer model in physics is a point observer in the theory of relativity. I am very interested in imagining how this is so. A point observer capable of tracking the photon's travel in a light clock? Einstein was definitely a genius, once thought of such a mental experiment.

    Perception could easily be determined through interaction, but with interaction as tightly. The best that is today is the concept of the exchange of neurotransmitters between elementary particles (electrons act with each other through a constant exchange of photons). Hmm ... And again hmm ... Because, this is really non-trivial: a point particle that does not have a specific location in space-time changes its state when another point particle with an indefinite place of stay approaches it ... At the same time, in principle, a change is impossible , or perhaps, but predetermined in advance. Logical horror, if you try to apply all this to mobile and variable systems ... In my opinion.

    At the same time, from a mathematical point of view, everything is very simple: the photon has probabilities of being in a certain region of space-time, the electron also has its own region with its probabilities, interaction at these intersections with some probability is possible. And the theory can in these terms predict the results of experiments ... But. But ... And yet again. To do all this you need a mathematician. What makes us believe that electrons really exist?

    OK Okay ... Now a little about quantum mechanics. And the well-known (popularized, in particular, in Quantum Psychology) experiment with ERP-pairs. The essence of the experiment (mental, proposed by Einstein) is this. Suppose we have a system of two photons in the same quantum state. Now, without measuring this quantum state, we distribute these photons to an arbitrary distance, measure one of the photons in a pair, we get a random value (with some probability this or that), but what’s the funniest, unmeasured photon will also take a certain state, such which would have to occupy in the general quantum state, if another photon occupied the state in which it was measured.

    Many spears were broken about the interpretation of this experiment, which was actually carried out. How is this all of a sudden? Do photons learn about each other instantly? This does not happen. Let us not think so, we will think that our dimension is changing our past - say hotheads. Let's give up common sense, they say.

    Hm. OK. Now imagine such an experiment: one takes two balls, one black, the other white, with his eyes closed mixes, and sends to two different cities. And then he sits and waits for a call from his friends, so that they tell him what color they got the balls. From Yekaterinburg they called him and said: Marya Petrovna (we will observe gender equality), and here we have a black ball. They call from Zelenograd and say: we have white. Hmm ... And Marya Petrovna was surprised - how could this be so !? How did the Yekaterinburg ball learn about the Zelenograd ball?

    At the same time, which is interesting, for meters, in Zelenograd, Yekaterinburg and Marya Ivanovna herself from Dnepropetrovsk, any ball sent by mail had an undefined state before it was measured. There was no information in the world about (well, we believe in the honesty of postal workers) which particular balloon flies where, therefore, they could be discussed only in terms of wave functions. But such wave behavior is the fruit of the conditions of the experiment.

    How do photons differ from balls? Many insist that everyone. But personally, I do not understand. This experiment with ERP is just a sophisticated way of conveying a well-known fact in advance: two photons in an entangled ERP pair will be in different states. Two balls will be painted in different colors ...

    The rhetorical question is, if the information obtained during the measurement would not end up in one place, where they would compare it and be surprised at how photons behave, who would be surprised at this experiment? The behavior of photons does not determine the variable past, and not some counterfactuality and anti-intuitiveness (rather, it all refers to the classical descriptions of physical systems in the form of trajectories, material points and complex vector bundles over complex smooth manifolds), and not to the obvious facts that the behavior of the universe in the form of photons is determined by our way of observing and processing information, that is, by the experiment itself.

    Moreover, the experiment is always finite in time and space, its history is finite, so we can talk about its symmetries, trajectories and other phenomena on which modern theoretical physics is built. But how is nature arranged where there is no synchrophasotron?

    Hmm ... here. That is, it is quite possible that electrons, photons, protons and so on are really just models. Terms that appear when applying a certain configuration of equipment to the Universe, a configuration that limits the behavior of the universe, which allows you to remember something, and thus formulate a law ... Hmm, I’m probably wrong about this, but it doesn’t come to my mind.

    And this does not contradict our success in engineering. Using the concepts of the symmetry of various finite forms in the Universe, the behavior obtained in the experimental setup we can scale, expand, rotate, stretch, shake, twist and so on, and get a transistor. But does this mean that there are holes in the transistor? In general, does our ability to observe the existence of the observable mean? Or is it a feature of our observation?

    And finally, the interaction. In physics, the interaction is tight. For me at least. Is there a formal system in which the interaction is obvious? Do not be lazy, download the Game of Life Conway. It is desirable that option, which is equipped with a collection of various configurations, including spacecraft.www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns you can see here, the treasured enjoy life button in the upper left corner.

    So here. What is interesting about her? For all its detachment from the world of complex numbers, for all the simplicity of the rules in it: (1) obviously there are structures that, while retaining their devices, can move at a certain speed - spaceships. Moreover, this structure does not consist of building blocks, it does not consist of the cells themselves that evolve, it consists of the properties of these cells. Just a bunch of elements repainted in black. (2) the simplest structure capable of moving is known - glider. You can collide two spaceships and look at the explosion.

    Face interaction. And for this interaction, Calabi-Yau spaces are not needed. It is only necessary to accept a very simple setup - the existing one is only a persisting feature of an evolving group of cells (just like a persisting property in the axiomatics of natural numbers, in the last axiom of induction). When the two properties come closer, they will begin to change and form new properties. Because the cells themselves are volatile, as volatile the Tao.

    Everything is simple. But then again ... Difficulties with math. This game was not mathematically analyzed, Conway himself tried, and in the process even invented wonderful surreal numbers, but ... no special significant conclusions were found. Another nail nailing an inscription to the wall that mathematics alone is not able to cope with moving systems. To analyze them, you need a person, or a computer. Accordingly, it is quite possible that this refutes the Penrose hypothesis that intelligence requires some mysterious quantum effects traveling from the future to the past. For the existence of intelligence, dynamics is needed - this is an alternative thesis. Naturally, no Turing machine has dynamics. This is just a sequence of states, always determined by the initial state of the tape and the machine itself ... But everything changes, when in the process of computing a machine is able to receive data independent of its internal state - a machine with an input / output register. This thing, quite possibly, is quite dynamic. A computer, of course, is just such a machine.

    Okay. One more remark. If you take an empty space in Life without any deviations from symmetry, and then build some kind of installation around it, then it is quite possible that, for example, gliders will appear inside this space over time (glidergun exists). Thus, we can say that the emerging glider is not an element of the universe, but an element of experiment. Although this structure can exist and arise anywhere, but it is not necessary that it exists everywhere, for example, between two electrons in a molecule. It does not exist until we climb there with our experiment, or with our measurement.

    But why only should we have this right? That's the problem. And the modern mathematical picture speaks about this. To collide two electrons, you need a man, to tell the electrons how to absorb photons, you need a man. They themselves do not know how. More precisely, they know how, but we do not have a qualitative description of the process. Perhaps it will never appear, because the possibilities of mathematics are limited, but the existence of the formal Game of Life gives hope that this is not so.

    In fact, this all closely echoes the quantum field theory, which works in accelerators.

    Therefore, in my opinion, physicists now need not build LHCs, not generate black holes and stanjlets, but try to understand what they do in their theories. What are they going to? Finally, carefully introduce the concepts of interaction and the concepts of time. Or to show that it is impossible to do. But from the impossibility of doing this, interesting results will also follow, for sure. This is what quantum theory teaches us - the result of an experiment depends on what can be measured.

    Perhaps, in general, you need to start speaking the language of information. Because in an ERP experiment, the flow of information has a certain structure, and in all other quantum experiments, if we take a particle as something that transfers information that is divided into parts does not make sense, then many paradoxes cease to be so.

    And in the end - the general theory of everything that physics is striving for is a purely information theory. When, you do not need anything other than the characters written in pen to explain all the richness of the universe. And only information has the property that the carrier is not important to it, only the property is important that the carrier is able to accept various states. And information can form entities, as Game of Life and many other cellular automata show.

    Perhaps this is able to bring consciousness closer to understanding what the universe is made of. And perhaps this is a way to get closer to understanding what Tao is. But most likely - it’s just fluctuations that my mind caught to understand from where, and decided to make it public. He made it public, calmed down and can now safely return to socially useful activities in the form of programming.

    Now, I hope this porridge will not bother me anymore.


    Also popular now: