Saturday, February 18, 2012

The anatomy of state function reduction

In a comment to previous posting Ulla gave a link to an interesting article by George Svetlichny describing an attempt to understand free will in terms of quantum measurement. After reading of the article I found myself explaining once again to myself what state function reduction in TGD framework really means.

The proposal of Svetlichny

The basic objection against assigning free will to state function reduction in the sense of wave mechanics is that state function reduction from the point of view of outsider is like playing dice. One can of course argue that for an outsider any form of free will looks like throwing a dice since causally effective experience of free will is accompanied by non-determinism. We simply do cannot know what is the experience possibly associated with the state function reduction. The lesson is that we must carefully distinguish between two levels: the single particle level and ensemble level - subjective and objective. When we can say that something is random, we are talking about ensembles, not about single member of ensemble.

The author takes the objection seriously and notices that quantum measurement means a division of system to three parts: measured system, measuring system and external world and argues that in some cases this division might not be unique. The choice of this division would have interpretation as an act of free will. I leave it to the reader can decide whether this proposal is plausible or not.

TGD view about state function reduction

What can one say about the situation in TGD framework? There are several differences as compared to the standard measured "theory", which is just certain ad hoc rules combined with Born rule, which applies naturally also in TGD framework and which I do not regard as adhoc in infinite-D context.

I have considered the general anatomy of quantum jump in zero energy ontology (ZEO) from a slightly different point of view here. In the sequel I will discuss the possible anatomy of the state function reduction part of the quantum jump.

  1. TGD ontology differs from the standard one. Space-time surfaces and quantum states as such are zombies in TGD Universe: consciousness is in the quantum jump. Conscious experience is in the change of the state of the brain, brain state as such is not conscious. Self means integration of quantum jumps to higher level quantum jumps and the hierarchy of quantum jumps and hierarchy of selves can be identified in ZEO . It has the hierarchy of CDs and space-time sheets as geometrical correlates. In TGD Universe brain and body are not conscious: rather, conscious experience is about brain and body and this leads to the illusion caused by the assimilation with the target of sensory input: I am what I perceive.

  2. In TGD framework one does not assume the division of the system to a product of measured system, measuring system, and external world before the measurement. Rather, this kind of divisions are outcomes of state function reduction which is part of quantum jump involving also the unitary process. Note that standard measurement theory is not able to say anything about the dynamics giving rise to this kind of divisions.

  3. State function reduction cascade as a part of quantum jump - this holistic view is one new element - proceeds in zero energy ontology (ZEO) from long to short length scales CD→sub-CDs→..., and stops when Negentropy Maximization Principle (NMP defining the variational principle of consciousness is also something new) does not allow to reduce entanglement entropy for any subsystem pair of subsystem un-entangled with the external world. This is the case if the sub-system in question is such that all divisions to two parts are negentropically entangled or form entangled bound state.

    For a given subsystem occurring in the cascade the splitting into an unentangled pair of measured and measuring system can take place if the entanglement between these subsystems is entropic. The splitting takes place for a pair with largest entanglement entropy and defines measuring and measured system.

    Who measures who? This seems to be a matter of taste and one should not talk about measuring system as conscious entity in TGD Universe, where consciousness is in quantum jump.

  4. The factorization of integer to primes is a rather precise number theoretical analogy for what happens, and the analogy might actually have a deeper mathematical meaning since Hilbert spaces with prime dimension cannot be decomposed into tensor products. Any factorization of integer to a product of primes corresponds to a cascade of state function reductions. At the first step division takes place to two integers and several alternative divisions are possible. The pair for which the reduction of entanglement entropy is largest, is preferred. The resulting two integers can be further factorized to two integers, and the process continues and eventually stops when all factors are primes and no further factorization is possible.

    One could even assign to any decomposition n= rs the analogs of entanglement probabilities as p1= log(r)/log(n) and p2= log(s)/log(n). NMP would favor the divisions to factors r and s which are as near as possible to n/2.

    Negentropically entangled system is like prime. Note however that these systems can still make an analog of state function reduction which does not split them but increases the negentropy for all splittings of system to two parts. This would be possible only in the intersection of real and p-adic worlds, that is for living matter. My cautious proposal is that just this kind of systems - living systems - can experience free will: either in the analog of state function reduction process increasing their negentropy or in state function process reducing their entanglement with environment.

  5. In standard measurement theory observer chooses the measured observables and the theory says nothing about this process. In TGD the measured observable is the density matrix for a pair formed by any two entangled parts of sub-system division for which negentropy gain is maximal in quantum measurement defines the pair. Therefore both the measurement axis and the pair representing the target of measurement and measurer are selected in quantum jump.

  6. Quantum measurement theory assumes that measurement correlates classical long range degrees of freedom with quantal degrees of freedom. One could say that the direction of the pointer of the measurement apparatus correlates faithfully with the value of the measured microscopic observable. This requires that the entanglement is reduced between microscopic and macroscopic systems .

    I have identified the "classical" degrees of freedom in TGD framework as zero modes which by definition do not contribute to the line-element of WCW although the WCW metric depends on zero modes as external parameters. The induced Kähler field represents an infinite number of zero modes whereas the Hamiltonians of the boundaries of CD define quantum fluctuating degrees of freedom.

    The reduction of the entanglement between zero modes and quantum fluctuating degrees of freedom is an essential part of quantum measurement process. Also state function reductions between microscopic degrees of freedom are predicted to occur and this kind of reductions lead to decoherence so that one can apply quantum statistical description and derive Boltzmann equations. Also state function reductions between different values of zero modes are possible are possible and one could perhaps assign "telepathic" effects with them.

    The differences with respect to the standard quantum measurement theory are that several kinds of state function reductions are possible and that the division to classical and quantum fluctuating degrees of freedom has a purely geometric meaning in TGD framework.

  7. One can even imagine quantum parallel state function reduction cascades. This would make possible quantum parallel dissipation, which would be something new. My original proposal was that in hadronic physics this could make possible a state function reduction cascade proceeding in quark scales while hadronic scales would remain entangled so that one could apply statistical description to quarks as parts of a system, which is quantum coherent in hadronic length scale.

    This looks nice but...! It is a pity that eventually an objection pops up against every idea irrespective how cute it looks like. The p-adic primes associated with light quarks are larger than that associated with hadron so that quarks - or rather, their magnetic bodies are larger than that hadron's magnetic body. This looks strange at first but actually conforms with Uncertainty Principle and the observation that the charge radius of proton is slightly smaller than predicted (see this), gives support for this picture. Geometrically the situation might change if quarks are highly relativistic and color magnetic fields of quarks are dipoled fields compressed to cigar like shape: Lorentz contraction could reduce the size scale of their magnetic bodies in the direction of their motion. [Note that p-adic length scale hypothesis applies in the rest system of the particle so that Lorentz contraction is in conflict with it]. Situation remains unsettled.

Further questions

There are many other interesting issues about which my understanding could be much better.

  1. In ZEO the choice of the quantization axes and would fix the moduli of the causal diamond CD: the preferred time direction defined by the line connecting the tips of CD, the spin quantization axis, etc.. This choice certainly occurs. Does it reduce to the measurement of a density matrix for some decomposition of some subsystem to a pair? Or should one simply assume state function reductions also at this level meaning localization to a sector of WCW corresponding to given CD. This would involve localization in the moduli space of CDs selecting some boost of a CD with fixed quantized proper time distance between it tips, fixed spin directions for positive and negative energy parts of zero energy states defined by light-like geodesics at its light-like boundary. Preferred complex coordinates for CP2, etc...

  2. Zero energy states are characterized by arrow of geometric time in the sense that either positive or negative energy parts of states have well defined particles numbers and single particle numbers but not both. State function reduction is possible only for positive or negative energy part of the state but not both. This should relate very closely to the fact that our sensory percepts defined by state function reductions are mostly about the upper or lower boundary of CD. I have discussed this in previous posting.

  3. In ZEO also quantum jumps can also lead to generation of new sub-Universes, sub-CDs carrying zero energy states. Quantum jumps can also involve phase transitions changing p-adic space-time sheets to real ones and these could serve as quantum correlates for intentional actions. Also the reverse process changing matter to thoughts is possible. These possibilities are totally unimaginable in the quantum measurement theory for systems describable by wave mechanics.

  4. There is also the notion of finite measurement resolution described in terms of inclusions of hyperfinite factors at quantum level and in terms of braids at space-time level.
To summarize, a lot of theory building is needed in order to fuse all new elements to a coherent framework. In this framework standard quantum measurement theory is only a collection of ad hoc rules and can catch only a small part of what really happens. Certainly, standard quantum measurement theory is is far from being enough for the purposes of consciousness theorist.


At 1:11 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

About primordial Li

At 2:59 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

ZP as an harmonic oscillator?

At 4:52 AM, Blogger hamed said...

Dear Matti,
The posting and the last posting is very interesting for me, and I am struggling with them now.
Thank you very much for responding my questions, but a question about that:
Why U-matrix should be exist theoretically? I couldn’t find the answer from “The master formula for the U-matrix” or other chapters. I saw properties of U-matrix rather than the answer of this question in the chapters by my childish mind.

At 6:06 AM, Anonymous said...

Dear Hamed,

nothing childish in your mind! I am really grateful for critical questions. They help me enormously in disentangling the details and identifying the many erratic statements I have made. I sincerely hope that you or no-one else would not take me as a guru! The optimal strategy would be that you try to debunk me! Debunking by content is an excellent manner to learn also a lot of things not directly related to TGD.

In the earlier posting I have proposed what I would call minimal identification of U-matrix.

a) There are two state basis correspond different arrows of geometric time. For the first one the positive energy parts of states have well defined single particle quantum numbers and for these second one the negative energy states. Suppose that the states is such that positive energy part has well-defined single particle quantum numbers and is therefore the analog of initial state.

b) The simplest identification of U process is in terms a representations of state basis in terms of state basis with opposite arrow of geometric time.

First happens state preparation meaning reduction to a state for which negative energy part has well defined single particle quantum numbers.

This process is followed by a state function reduction to the positive energy part and the net outcome is what can be regarded as a transition between positive energy states.

This picture allows the change of the arrow of geometric time.

The nice feature is that all that happens are transitions in which positive and negative energy parts of the state become prepared=state function reduced. I do not of course know whether this picture about U-process is enough to all imaginable transitions.

U-matrix would exist automatically theoretically: the M-matrices served as its building brick would be defined in terms of time-like entanglement coefficients between positive and negative energy states for the modes of WCW spinor fields. The only condition is that the single particle states for either upper or lower boundary of CD have well-defined quantum numbers and linearity allows to realize this.

This is somewhat analogous to the coding of S-matrix by the solution of Schrodinger equation which in potential field which approaches at t-->-infty to plane wave solution. The idealization is that the situation is stationary

At 6:27 AM, Anonymous said...

Dear Hamed,

I have continued my own struggle with the quantum p-adics. This stuff is still in total turmoil so that you should not waste time with it. I have however the feeling that I managed to make a considerable progress in the understanding of what quantum p-adics could mean.

There is the safe option but it effectively reduces to ordinary p-adic number fields and to a modification of canonical identification mapping the coefficients of powers of prime to quantum integers.

And there is the interesting and highly risky option. The version of this option that I have proposed turned out to be non-associative with respect to +_q and also additive inverse failed to be unique. This forced the realization that unless one wants just the safe option one must do something radical.

a) The attribute "quantum" must be realized somehow. Obviously this means wave function: wave function in the discrete space for quantum representatives of given integer - at the orbit of the analog of Galois group associated with integer n reducing to the product of Galois groups associated with the primes dividing it.

b) Remarkably, this forces to realize the equations x+_q y=z and x*_q y =z as analogs of zero energy states or quantum transitions represented by 3-vertices! There would be direct mapping of arithmetic operations to quantum transitions! Algebraic formulas would become the basic objects represented as zero energy states. That mathematical statements A=B correspond naturally to zero energy states is not a new proposal.

c) The conditions of associativity and distributivity fix - I guess- uniquely now what the wave function for z is if the wave functions for x and y are known. This would unify algebra and co-algebra and mean that number theory is transformed to quantum physics! Every algebraic equation A=B could be transformed to zero energy state! Could physical zero energy states represent equations, mathematical statements! Could the physical world be Platonia!

Only in this manner one can hope that one indeed obtains field structure - or should one say "quantum field" structure;-)!

At 9:33 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

At 10:21 AM, Blogger Ulla said... Suddenly there seems to be much interesting happening.

At 10:34 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

At 11:54 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Here is a post that boosted my steroids again.

Who he is? He sits on the Holy Grail of Life, RNA and what is life.

Benvenistes faith comes in mind

At 4:19 AM, Anonymous said...

To the comment

" Suddenly there seems to be much interesting happening."

of Ulla.

Not very convincing arguments. Author introduces what he calls "classical wave function" for a spin system. Even the notion of quantized spin is non-classical! Also Grassmann variables are introduced. To me all this is very quantum mechanical. One can of course play with words.

At 10:33 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Collective memory, note ants, with low brain complexity (hbar?)

At 3:57 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Linked to the earlier link, your text 8.3 Could insect colonies have "EEG"? in (the links works yet)

"That only vertebrates have EEG conforms with the empirical findings about the e ffects of ELF em fields on vertebrate brain. This does not however imply that one could not assign EEG to the collective levels of consciousness.
For instance, in the case of social insects forming colonies some kind of collective EEG might exist and explain the ability of the colony to behave like single organism. Indeed, ELF magnetic field and magnetic fields a ffect the behavior of honeybees just as ELF em fields a ffect the behavior of vertebrates [68] : the model for this findings led to a model for the fractal hierarchy of EEGs.

Hence one could test whether colonies of social insects or their sub-colonies might possess an analog of ordinary EEG. What this would mean that ant colonies have sufficiently complex hyper-genome making possible collective variants of memory, sensory input, and intelligence, as well as the ability to realize collective motor actions.

The earlier link talked of chemicals on skin, but the emotional (p-adic?) effect of chemicals depends on em-fields? Note that this memory lasted only a few days. Something like causing attention and creating some kind of cognition? Is cognition working together with genome directly, so it works as some 'brain'receptor too, in the same way as our gut-receptors works as 'a second brain'? A spread-out brain? Also outside the body border? In this case the enemy id is laid as a superposition on the ant colony. The tool (chemical) is maybe not that important?

I still feel a bit unsure with interpretations :)

At 1:34 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Look: Approaches to the Origin of Life on Earth
Stuart A. Kauffman, Tampere University IN FINLAND!!!

At 9:28 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

At 11:16 PM, Blogger sanam arzoo said...

Great details. Thanks intended for providing us all a real useful details. Continue the excellent work and also proceed providing us all far more high quality details on occasion.Geomentary on Geo News


Post a Comment

<< Home