| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MarkA" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2004 11:21:29 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Darwinism |
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 12:32:40 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Ok, that's seriously fucked up! I only pretend to understand some of that,
and it's fucking creepy.
But theists insist we need demons, spooks and goblins to make the world
interesting. What a bunch of idiots.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
29 Dec 2004 04:51:39 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have
a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World.
Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Ok, that's seriously fucked up! I only pretend to understand some of
that,
and it's fucking creepy.
But theists insist we need demons, spooks and goblins to make the
world
interesting. What a bunch of idiots.
Ha! I know how you feel.
However, I recently finished Michio Kaku's Hyperspace and I think I
understand this. Also, I downloaded Zurek's paper and the first part of
it is actually quite friendly.
As I understand it (and please try to set me right folks, if I've
botched it :-) Zuruk is assuming that the environment is enough to
partially collapse a wave function and therefore pre-select
possibilities which are coherent with already observed phenomenon.
If you recall, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the state of a
particle is described by its wave function and is inherently unknowable
(indeterminate), until being observed causes that wave function to
collapse. This left open the question of what constitues an adequate
observer, ie: does it have to be conscious? Well, Zuruk is saying that
the environment itself is an adequate observer and that once a wave
function has collapsed, information from that event ramifies through
Hilbert space, eliminatng all the possible waveforms whose outcomes are
incompatible with the already collapsed one, leaving these 'pointer
states' - partially collapsed wave forms.
The result is that only wave forms, whose collpased states are coherent
with previous ones, get the chance to collapse and so, classical
lawfulness arises out of quantum interactions.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
29 Dec 2004 10:52:57 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1104317499.134937.246900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have
a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World.
Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Ok, that's seriously fucked up! I only pretend to understand some of
that,
and it's fucking creepy.
But theists insist we need demons, spooks and goblins to make the
world
interesting. What a bunch of idiots.
Ha! I know how you feel.
However, I recently finished Michio Kaku's Hyperspace and I think I
understand this. Also, I downloaded Zurek's paper and the first part of
it is actually quite friendly.
As I understand it (and please try to set me right folks, if I've
botched it :-) Zuruk is assuming that the environment is enough to
partially collapse a wave function and therefore pre-select
possibilities which are coherent with already observed phenomenon.
If you recall, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the state of a
particle is described by its wave function and is inherently unknowable
(indeterminate), until being observed causes that wave function to
collapse. This left open the question of what constitues an adequate
observer, ie: does it have to be conscious? Well, Zuruk is saying that
the environment itself is an adequate observer and that once a wave
function has collapsed, information from that event ramifies through
Hilbert space, eliminatng all the possible waveforms whose outcomes are
incompatible with the already collapsed one, leaving these 'pointer
states' - partially collapsed wave forms.
The result is that only wave forms, whose collpased states are coherent
with previous ones, get the chance to collapse and so, classical
lawfulness arises out of quantum interactions.
Ah, well explained!
Still creepy ;-) but does go a long way towards establishing the reality of
something worthy of being called objective reality. (Is that a fucked up
sentence or what?)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Specter133" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 03:36:52 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:32:40 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Ok, that's seriously fucked up! I only pretend to understand some of that,
and it's fucking creepy.
But theists insist we need demons, spooks and goblins to make the world
interesting.
Where has a theist ever "insisted" anything of the sort?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 04:31:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:32:40 -0600, Denis Loubet wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a
role in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World.
Creationists take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Ok, that's seriously fucked up! I only pretend to understand some of
that, and it's fucking creepy.
Have you 'observed' your cat lately? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
But theists insist we need demons, spooks and goblins to make the world
interesting. What a bunch of idiots.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
29 Dec 2004 02:22:02 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net>,
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Good one! Thanks.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 02:55:21 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net>,
manthony@stopspam.net says...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
It's always time for damage control for creationists. Anyway, the
article was pretty interesting. I particularly like their idea that
various stable states would be naturally selected in favor of those that
were not stable. Applied on a chemical level it could probably help
explain abiogenetic processes emerging out of combinatorial soup of
otherwise less stable configurations. It's definitely bad news for the
Designer Whiners.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
29 Dec 2004 02:34:05 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1c3b762594b4c752989adb@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net>,
manthony@stopspam.net says...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
It's always time for damage control for creationists. Anyway, the
article was pretty interesting. I particularly like their idea that
various stable states would be naturally selected in favor of those that
were not stable. Applied on a chemical level it could probably help
explain abiogenetic processes emerging out of combinatorial soup of
otherwise less stable configurations. It's definitely bad news for the
Designer Whiners.
This will give a boost to the "emergent life" crowd (Kauffman, Shapiro,
et al.).
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 04:14:25 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> writes:
It's always time for damage control for creationists. Anyway, the
article was pretty interesting. I particularly like their idea that
various stable states would be naturally selected in favor of those that
were not stable. Applied on a chemical level it could probably help
explain abiogenetic processes emerging out of combinatorial soup of
otherwise less stable configurations. It's definitely bad news for the
Designer Whiners.
No, no, quibbler. You don't understand. The IDists will come
back and say, "See? SEE? It's designed into the very superstructure of
the universe. Certain states are *priveleged*, and god^H^H^H the
designer wanted them that way!"
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 06:46:00 PM |
|
|
In article <87k6r2cbpa.fsf@drizzle.com>, says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> writes:
It's always time for damage control for creationists. Anyway, the
article was pretty interesting. I particularly like their idea that
various stable states would be naturally selected in favor of those that
were not stable. Applied on a chemical level it could probably help
explain abiogenetic processes emerging out of combinatorial soup of
otherwise less stable configurations. It's definitely bad news for the
Designer Whiners.
No, no, quibbler. You don't understand. The IDists will come
back and say, "See? SEE? It's designed into the very superstructure of
the universe. Certain states are *priveleged*, and god^H^H^H the
designer wanted them that way!"
Yes, he I guess he designed it most particularly to look exactly like it
was done by evolution and without the need for any alleged intelligent
agent to guide it. The point is that if a designer is unnecessary as
part of the explanation, then they will have no excuse to invoke him.
If they say that "he's the one who make some states more stable than
others" we simply respond that it's equally probably that some states
are just naturally more stable than others. The only alternative is for
all states to be equivalently stable, but that's not what we actually
observe.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 11:42:52 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
It's been damage control time since 1859.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
29 Dec 2004 04:46:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:21:29 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
Mind bending stuff.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
Published online: 23 December 2004; | doi:10.1038/news041220-12
Natural selection acts on the quantum world
Philip Ball
Objective reality may owe its existence to a 'darwinian' process that
advertises certain quantum states.
A team of US physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our
objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive
quantum world.
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it,
how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each
person leave a slightly different version of the world for the next
person to find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are
promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which
they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states
proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. So observers
coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture
of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states.
If it wasn't for quantum darwinism, the researchers suggest in
Physical Review Letters1, the world would be very unpredictable:
different people might see very different versions of it. Life itself
would then be hard to conduct, because we would not be able to obtain
reliable information about our surroundings... it would typically
conflict with what others were experiencing.
Taking stock
The difficulty arises because directly finding out something about a
quantum system by making a measurement inevitably disturbs it. "After
a measurement," say Wojciech Zurek and his colleagues at Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico, "the state will be what the
observer finds out it is, but not, in general, what it was before."
They survive monitoring by the environment to leave 'descendants'
that inherit their properties.
Wojciech Zure
Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
Because, as Zurek says, "the Universe is quantum to the core," this
property seems to undermine the notion of an objective reality. In
this type of situation, every tourist who gazed at Buckingham Palace
would change the arrangement of the building's windows, say, merely by
the act of looking, so that subsequent tourists would see something
slightly different.
Yet that clearly isn't what happens. This sensitivity to observation
at the quantum level (which Albert Einstein famously compared to God
constructing the quantum world by throwing dice to decide its state)
seems to go away at the everyday, macroscopic level. "God plays dice
on a quantum level quite willingly," says Zurek, "but, somehow, when
the bets become macroscopic he is more reluctant to gamble." How does
that happen?
Quantum mush
The Los Alamos team define a property of a system as 'objective', if
that property is simultaneously evident to many observers who can find
out about it without knowing exactly what they are looking for and
without agreeing in advance how they'll look for it.
Physicists agree that the macroscopic or classical world (which seems
to have a single, 'objective' state) emerges from the quantum world of
many possible states through a phenomenon called decoherence,
according to which interactions between the quantum states of the
system of interest and its environment serve to 'collapse' those
states into a single outcome. But this process of decoherence still
isn't fully understood.
"Decoherence selects out of the quantum 'mush' states that are stable,
that can withstand the scrutiny of the environment without getting
perturbed," says Zurek. These special states are called 'pointer
states', and although they are still quantum states, they turn out to
look like classical ones. For example, objects in pointer states seem
to occupy a well-defined position, rather than being smeared out in
space.
The traditional approach to decoherence, says Zurek, was based on the
idea that the perturbation of a quantum system by the environment
eliminates all but the stable pointer states, which an observer can
then probe directly. But he and his colleagues point out that we
typically find out about a system indirectly, that is, we look at the
system's effect on some small part of its environment. For example,
when we look at a tree, in effect we measure the effect of the leaves
and branches on the visible sunlight that is bouncing off them.
But it was not obvious that this kind of indirect measurement would
reveal the robust, decoherence-resistant pointer states. If it does
not, the robustness of these states won't help you to construct an
objective reality.
Now, Zurek and colleagues have proved a mathematical theorem that
shows the pointer states do actually coincide with the states probed
by indirect measurements of a system's environment. "The environment
is modified so that it contains an imprint of the pointer state," he
says.
All together now
Yet this process alone, which the researchers call
'environment-induced superselection' or einselection2, isn't enough to
guarantee an objective reality. It is not sufficient for a pointer
state merely to make its imprint on the environment: there must be
many such imprints, so that many different observers can see the same
thing.
Happily, this tends to happen automatically, because each individual's
observation is based on only a tiny part of the environmental imprint.
For example, we're never in danger of 'using up' all the photons
bouncing off a tree, no matter how many people we assemble to look at
it.
This multiplicity of imprints of the pointer states happens precisely
because those states are robust: making one imprint does not preclude
making another. This is a Darwin-like selection process. "One might
say that pointer states are most 'fit'," says Zurek. "They survive
monitoring by the environment to leave 'descendants' that inherit
their properties."
"Our work shows that the environment is not just finding out the state
of the system and keeping it to itself", he adds. "Rather, it is
advertising it throughout the environment, so that many observers can
find it out simultaneously and independently."
Top
References
1. Ollivier H., Poulin D. & Zurek W. H. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93.
220401 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
2. Zurek W. H. Arxiv, Preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127 (2004).
Top
Story from news@nature.com:
http://news.nature.com//news/2004/041220/041220-12.html
© 2004 Nature Publishing Group
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Darwinism |
28 Dec 2004 11:39:02 AM |
|
|
Top Posting (so sorry): this is an interesting article, thanks.
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.28.17.22.07.719866@stopspam.net...
An article that discusses how a form of natural selection may have a role
in the link between the QM world and the Macroscopic World. Creationists
take note: it's time for damage control!! (again)
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/full/041220-12.html
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
