# [time 1029] Re: [time 1023] Re: [time 1021] Thoughts

Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:02:04 +0900

Dear Stephen and All,

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

Subject: [time 1023] Re: [time 1021] Thoughts

> Dear Hitoshi and Friends,
>
> I have interleaved my comments...
>
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> >
> > Dear Stephen and All,
> >
> > My aunt is dead 13 days after his husband's death and I had to attend the
> > funeral. I felt there is certainly an unknown world for us.
>
> I offer my sincere condolences on your loss.

Thanks. I might have been moved too much.

>It is events like these
> that can serve to help us focus on the finite nature of our experience
> and realize the urgency of our work. :-)

Maybe :-)

>
> > I apologize for my delay in response, but I hope you all to be patient. A
member
> > unsubscribed today. I do not detain them who do not try to be patient, but I
> > feel some difference between the westerners and asians. The asians are not
too
> > hurry to lose something that might be gotten by being patient, while the
> > westerners seem not like to be patient. I should state that this difference
is
> > not a result of observation of short term. Does anyone have anti-opinions or
any
> > other opinions?
>
> It is my experience that we must balance our need for a quick answer to
> our questions and the completeness thereof. I personally find the Asian
> approach to be more beneficial than the Western, but this is just a
> subjective judgment...

Yes, mine seemed to be so too...

>The development of applications of Fuzzy Logic in
> electronic appliances can provide an example of this dichotomy.
>
> > Stephen Paul King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: [time 1018] Re: [time 1017] Re: [time 1013] [Fwd: Simpson's Paradox
and
> > Quantum Entanglement]
> >
> > > Dear Hitoshi, Tito, Robert and Friends,
> > >
> > > This is a cause for happiness! We still have much work to do in the
> > > area of figuring out the way to model the classical environment E of a
> > > quantum mechanical Local System.
> [HK]
> > I agree. The unknown world or the environment E would certainly contain
things
> > which are worth being attempted to know. The things to which we address the
word
> > "mystic" would be just the things belonging to the unkown environment E
because
> > the universe includes the whole and therefore must include the mystic things
> > also. Newton's investigation into mystic things might not mean his hobbies
in
> > his later years.
>
> Umm, perhaps Newton's behavior is similar to Tippler's. It seems that
> as the thinker ages, their urgency and willingness to appeal to mystic
> things increases. Unfortunately this tends to create more obscurity than
> understanding. In contrast, the hard-nosed approach of young thinkers
> gives us an example of how the blinkering effect of ignoring subtleties
> can, in the short term, give concrete results. This line of thought
> reminds me of Robert's essay:
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/WISDOM.HTM

I saw it. It suggests the problem might be in the difference between
generations. Important remarks. I might have been pulled to the older-side by my
relatives' death. It is natural that the older genaration is replaced by the
younger, and the means for it is provided by "death."

> and his other essays on
> duality.
>
> > >
> > > Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Robert, Stephen, et al.,
> > > >
> > > > I was informed from a person in Israel (see attachment) that an idea
similar
> > to
> > > > mine is in
> > > >
> > > > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9902035
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> [HK]
> > > > 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
> > > > mine.
> snip
>
> I have been reading this paper slowly and several ideas and questions
> popped out at me:
>
> 1) Does the discussion of a time-energy uncertainty operator agree with
> Schommers thinking about time operators?

In the sense of section 5.3.5 of "Quantum Theory and Pictures of Reality" edited
by Schommers, Schommers' thinking seems to agree. But the formulation in the
former section of the book looks different.

>
> 2) Is it merely the "size" of the environment of a quantum system that
> allows it to be treated "semiclassically"?

In Briggs and Rost paper they seem to think so, but there might be a question on
this point.

>
> 3) It seems that the authors have not gotten past the assumption that
> time is "external";

Do you mean t in equation (18)?

>but there is some hope. They say "...the
> $parametric$ time derivative arises from the expectation values of the
> environment $operators$" and "...the time which arises is precisely the
> time describing the classical motion of $E$, i.e. the classical
> environment provides the clock for the quantum system."
> Here we have a situation that reminds me of the mind/body dichotomy!

Could you explain more about the relation between the mind/body dichotonomy and
the sentences you quoted from Briggs and Rost?

> Does time arise from classical motions or from quantum scattering, like
> is mind epiphenomena of body [matter] or matter epiphenomena of mind
> [information]? I see that in the dualistic view that I am advocating the
> two are complementary, not dichotomous e.g. XOR, in a fundamental sense.
> The key is to understand that any object that can be considered as being
> a "part" of a "whole" will have a dual complement. The Universe, as the
> totality of Existence, has no complement, and thus is not dual in
> it-self.
> I think that we should consider how the relational structures of both
> LSs and their classical environments ot "outsides" can be modeled and
> how can be define such concepts as mappings, equivalencies, fixed
> points, etc. I do believe that we need to use non-well founded ZFA set
> theory instead of the usual well-founded ZFC theory. Does this last
> point make sense?
>
> 4) What is the connection between the Phi_n being complex valued and the
> dynamical coupling terms giving geometric (Berry) phases? This notion
> has been popping up in my studies and conversations with Paul Hanna and
> Matti!

I have to ask you more explanation of your idea you mention here.

> I have an intuition that there is some clue to our problem hiding
> here! :-) See, for instance:
> http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/060198/health10_20653_body.html
> http://www.cds.caltech.edu/cds/seminars/old/1996/96-01-22.Newton.html
>
http://gandalf.iap.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/hasselbach/interfer/frha/frhasagn.htm
l
> http://physicsweb.org/article/news-1998-01-01-02-01-01
> http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/abs/S3970005.html ("dangerously irrelevant"
> ????)
>
>
> > > > 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
> > > > before.
> [SPK]
> > > Could Bill's infinite products be the classical (external) reflection
> > > of this sum of wavefunctions? My idea, metaphorically rendered, is that
> > > for every wave function there exists a space-time Minkowskian manifold
> > > that has embedded within itself the trajectories of classical particles
> > > that the wave function describes. Does this make any sense? :-)
> [HK]
> > I assume you discuss a wave function of a local system. Then it is known
that
> > there corresponds a classical trajectory that describes the orbit where the
QM
> > particle condenses mostly. But in this case the space-time is Euclidean.
> > Mikowskian or Riemannian manifold would be a consequence of observation IMO.
And
> > as understood as a observational manifold, I think your statement makes
sense.
>
> Could we review the key differences between Euclidean and Minkowskian
> manifolds? I see Euclidean manifolds as being strictly simply connected
> topologically and Minkowskian manifolds as having null subspaces (light
> cone structures) that divide the manifold into areas that are simply
> connected (time-like) and multiply-connected (space-like).
> Since, the notion of a "observation manifold" seems to me to imply that
> such is simply connected, we could identify (up to isomorphism!?) the
> simply connected regions of a given Minkowskian manifold to a Euclidean
> manifold of the same dimensionality.

There is topological difference but it is possible to identify them at least
formally by replacing t by it as is sometimes done in QFT.

>BTW, the algebraic {cohomology)
> properties of these regions needs to be considered carefully! The
> non-commutativity related to quantum mechanical canonical conjugates may
> be related to the non-commutativity that exists in the multiply
> connected regions of the Minkowskian manifolds. Umm, the spaces that
> are complements of knots have similar properties! Is the statistical
> connection the "missing link"?
> Do these words trigger any thoughts? :-)
>
> Later,
>
> Stephen
>

Best wishes,
Hitoshi

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