[time 1017] Re: [time 1013] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and Quantum Entanglement]

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 03:52:31 +0900

Dear Robert, Stephen, et al.,

I was informed from a person in Israel (see attachment) that an idea similar to
mine is in


The abstract is:

> Quantum Physics, abstract
> quant-ph/9902035
> From: Jan M Rost <rost@tqd1.physik.uni-freiburg.de>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:43:43 GMT (12kb)
> Time Dependence in Quantum Mechanics
> Authors: John S Briggs, Jan M Rost
> Comments: 7 pages, no figures
> It is shown that the time-dependent equations (Schr\"odinger and Dirac)
> for a quantum system can be always derived from the time-independent
> equation for the larger object of the system interacting with its
> environment, in the limit that the dynamical variables of the
> environment can be treated semiclassically. The time which describes
> the quantum evolution is then provided parametrically by the
> classical evolution of the environment variables. The method used
> is a generalization of that known for a long time in the field of
> ion-atom collisions, where it appears as a transition from the full
> quantum mechanical {\it perturbed stationary states} to the
> {impact parameter} method in which the projectile ion beam is
> treated classically.

In the paper Briggs and Rost introduce a decomposition of the total Hamiltonian
H similar to that of http://kims.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/time_VI.tex ; a decomposition
of H into a sum of H_S of the system S under discussion and H_E of the
environment E with a non-zero interaction term H_{ES} between them. They derive
the existence of time for the system S from the *time-independent* Schroedinger
equation (E-H) Psi = 0 for the total system. The argument is different from mine
in the point that my argument that derives the nonzero interaction is a top-down
argument from Goedel's incompleteness theorem, while they seem to derive it from
the apparent existence of time for the system S (see section IV). In this point
their argument seems circular, but the main point of their arguments is in
showing that time is a (semi-)classical notion that arises from the interaction
of the system S with the *classical* environment E, which is very similar to

In showing this, they use an " 'entangled' wave function for the complete object
composed of system and environment."

I am not sure if their usage of the word "entangled" is the same as Robert's.
But seeing their definition, the entangled state seems to be a (infinite and
convergent) sum of tensor products of vectors (wavefunctions) belonging to
Hilbert spaces HH_S and HH_E describing the interior and exterior systems S and
E. If this is the case with Robert's thought I can understand what Robert wrote

Their work suggests that the investigation of time becomes within a reach of
concrete physics, i.e. one can produce papers on time as one of the usual
researches as other physical areas. The period for paradigm shift might have
ended, and a time industry seems to be starting.

Best wishes,

----- Original Message -----
From: ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net>
To: <vecchi@weirdtech.com>
Cc: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1@home.com>; Time List <time@kitada.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 11:22 AM
Subject: [time 1013] Re: [time 1010] Re: [time 1009] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox and
Quantum Entanglement]

> I.Vecchi wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Superpositions are not necessarily entanglements.
> A superposition is what happens at a beam splitter.
> An entanglement is what happens in a non-linear crystal.
> Zeilinger et al, don't use beamsplitters to make entangled
> particle pairs. Superpositions and entanglements are different.
> Wavefunction collapse can be alot like tapping a computer
> programmer on the shoulder while s/he is in deep superposition
> of many associated concepts; destoying their concentration.
> Decoherence is like you say, a loss of the ability to
> make meaningful distinguishments, or the loss of the ability
> to maintain a record of a past event (entanglement) and
> this diffusion or dispersion does not destroy all record
> of the past event but makes it increasingly unrecoverable
> in a theromdynamic sense, which itself can probably be modelled
> as a damping in an impulse-response (Green's functions) sense,
> like a pair of bells having clanged against each other
> and that ringing of each bell, fading like a memory of
> the past as the energy of the event disperses within the bell.
> Single-moded spatio-temporal solitons (light-bullets)
> are recognized for their ability to resist such dispersion
> and are proposed for this reason as candidates for qubits
> which resist decoherence. Other possibilities for
> decoherence resistent qubits might be BE condensates,
> superconductors, and superfluids, and extremely stabilized
> laser-light (non-interaction experiments); all of which
> effectively seem to homogenize their component units to the
> point where they act in extreme unison (coherence).
> Pure coherence, unadulterated, is apparently not possible
> in any finitely bounded system. But we none-the-less have
> computers, which function almost completely as if this
> idealism of both continuity and closure were attainable in a
> finite system.
> The Zen master will tap the meditating student on the shoulder
> to remind him that closures are indeed just as much a part of
> life as coherence. Decisions have to be made.
> An electric battery represents distinguishment. Its potential
> energy is meaningless without continuity (a circuit).
> But shorting out the terminals of the battery and explosively
> releasing all its energy is also meaningless.
> We build an electric circuit with resistance (decoherence) and
> yet it can still have meaning, but that meaning is (as Stephan
> minds me) is generally derived from outside the energy
> economy of that circuit.
> The battery's energy is eventually depleted and it fails
> to serve its purpose to make some form of distinguishment.
> In order for its purpose to survive, the energy must
> be replenished from the outside, but not with excessive
> greed (we live off the land and should respect the Time
> it takes to feed us and itself).
> --
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/

attached mail follows:

Read your works on the matter of time and found them very similar
to those of Briggs and Rost quant-ph 9902035. Just wanted to let you
know about this paper and agree with your ideas.

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