Sun, 21 Nov 1999 07:57:48 -0800
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Robert and all,
> ca314159 <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > When looking at a painting (reflected light), two people see much
> > > > that is the same, and this is their global commonality analogous
> > > > to common or global time, and what they don't see in common is due
> > > > to superpositional interference and results in their local distinctions
> > > > or analogously their local times.
> > >
> > > Two observers are not synchronous much in this case.
> > I get the impression, that the comparison of the
> > individual superpositions here, is an entanglement.
> I agree. The combination of two observers' local systems L_1 and L_2 is
> described by a tensor product \HH_1 x \HH_2 of two Hilbert spaces HH_1 and HH_2
> each of which is the Hilbert space of the observers 1 and 2. If entanglement
> is understood as a property of tensor products, two observers are described
> by an entanglement.
OK, I understand now. Yes, this is the quantum entanglement.
These folk don't speak from the heart. They either hide what they mean
or over-hype it, but what they are doing seems in the right
direction in a very general sense:
All this reminds me of Asimov's "I, Robot" and soon we will have
the "positronic" brain and robo-psychologists. This was my model
for such a brain and it's psychology:
> > The entanglement is in terms of superposing the individual
> > superpositions.
> > Two holograms can be placed on top of each other an you
> > will see a composite of both pictures, but they do not
> > seem to interfere with each other much unless the
> > phases are very close;
> I feel this feature is an evidence that your "entanglement" can be described by
> tensor product.
Yes. I think it is just as do-able macroscopically as microscopically.
There is nothing about the microscopic domain that makes it the only
domain for "quantum" effects. "Quantum" is a very general idea.
> > The terminology you are using is starting to make sense
> > to me. This is very interesting. I wish I knew more mathematics
> > so I can follow your details as well. Sounds like you have
> > an interesting generic solution. (I'm sure you already knew that :)
> Mathematics could not play an essential role.
> Physics has been attempting to explain the problem of direction or orientation
> of time without introducing any of subjectivity. This has been the tradition in
> physics since the age of Galilei. My point is that the direction of time is a
> subjective notion. Even if one had a time machine and traveled to the past,
> his/her time would "increase" and he/she would age. During the time travel
> one sees/observes the outside, and measures things' motions by one's time and
> would observe that things follow the reverse direction of one's time. This would
> suggest that the direction of time cannot be explained by objective attitude
> with ignoring that the observation is a subjective deed. If one's time did not
> increase, one could not know that he/she lives during the travel: If one's time
> were reversed during the trip, one would forget what had happened and
> therefore did not recognize his/her own existence. My reasoning/intuition
> tells, at least to me, that there must be a subjective direction of reference
> for each observer and physics' attempts to explain the direction of time
> by mere objective reasoning are endless circular arguments.
> My claim is that the traditional "working hypothesis" of physics that things can be
> explained by paying attention merely on "objective aspects" of things
> ended its role and that the next "working hypothesis" should be that
> subjectivity plays an essential role in physics or metasciences (after
I think that step will, and is, being skipped and people are
treating the subjectivity as a wave-theory and objectivity
as a particle-theory, and the next working hypothesis is
to do the same thing they did with space and time, and with
to wave and particle, to form quanta of these:
not to treat them separately, but integrally.
> There may be an objection to this standpoint. However, as physics is a humans'
> reasoning on what they observe, someone must have the responsibility for what
> they say about their observation. That "someone" responsible for the reasoning
> is the "subjectivity."
Definitely. The experimenter is a part of the observation at some
times to a large extent, and at other times to a lesser extent.
It depends on the "inner product" between the observer and the observed.
We can define that "inner product" in terms of the superposition
and/or entanglement of the local systems of the observed and the
observer. Have you already worked something like this out
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST