**Matti Pitkänen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:05:36 +0200*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**ca314159: "[time 1012] Apply Quantum Principle with Caution"**Previous message:**I.Vecchi: "[time 1010] Re: [time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]"**In reply to:**Stephen Paul King: "[time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]"**Next in thread:**ca314159: "[time 1013] Re: [time 1010] Re: [time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]"

----- Original Message -----

From: I.Vecchi <vecchi@weirdtech.com>

To: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1@home.com>

Cc: Time List <time@kitada.com>

Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 11:15 AM

Subject: [time 1010] Re: [time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum

Entanglement]

*> Stephen Paul King wrote:
*

*> >
*

*> > Hi All,
*

*> >
*

*> > Robert Fung is making some great points!
*

*> >
*

*> > Later,
*

*> >
*

*> > Stephen
*

*> >
*

*> > ... entanglement is an additional problem when you consider
*

*> > not just the state-space of a single particle, but the
*

*> > state space of two particles that interacted and so their
*

*> > PD's and PDF's have some memory of that event as if they
*

*> > were two bell's (or impulse response functions[1]) that
*

*> > once clanged together and when separated, they maintained
*

*> > a "memory" of that event in their separate sets of PDs and PDFs.
*

*> > Those separate memorys are what allow the two particles
*

*> > to be non-locally correlated, or "entangled".
*

*> >
*

*> > Those memories however tend fade away (decohere) after a while.
*

*> > But they should be maintainable, by a _local_ resonant
*

*> > communications between the entangled particles.
*

*> >
*

*> > Of what use that may be to quantum cryptography &c.,
*

*> > I am not concerned with, as I think there are more significant
*

*> > implications than that.
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*> Decoherence is indeed a slippery concept, often used in an improper way.
*

*> The above statement about "fading memories" is in my opinion confusing.
*

*> The point is that decoherence does not destroy long-range quantum
*

*> superpositions. Decoherence just limits the ability of an observer
*

*> subject to the second principle of thermodynamics to keep track of such
*

*> superpositions.
*

One manner to see decoherence is as a generation of entanglement! Suppose

that initial subsystem is un-entangled and thus behaves like its

own sub-Universe/particle/coherent unit/ "self". This state does not

however last for

long: in each quantum jump Psi_i-->UPsi_i-->Psi_f, U being "time evolution"

operator corresponding to S-matrix entanglement is generated. Thus

subsystem ceases to be unentangeled/loses its "self"/ falls in unconscious

state/subsystem does not anymore behave as single coherent unit/particle.

I would call tend to call this loss of consciousness as decoherence.

In standard physics even slightests entanglement would destroy self. In TGD

framework, the definition of p-adic entanglement involves unique pinary

cutoff and

is vanishing when real entanglement is below a unique threshold

characterized

by threshold entanglement entropy. Thus selves can exist in TGD universe.

Best,

MP

*> Best regards,
*

*>
*

*> tito
*

*>
*

**Next message:**ca314159: "[time 1012] Apply Quantum Principle with Caution"**Previous message:**I.Vecchi: "[time 1010] Re: [time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]"**In reply to:**Stephen Paul King: "[time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]"**Next in thread:**ca314159: "[time 1013] Re: [time 1010] Re: [time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST
*