Subatomic Darwinism 556
blamanj writes "In the beginning was Darwinism, then there arose Social Darwinism, now physicists are proposing Quantum Darwinism. According to the Nature article: "If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it, how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states."."
Bah (Score:3, Funny)
I don't agree with that.
Re:Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
what are they talking (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no way to know exactly how similar different people's perception of the same scenes is;
Quantum-level variations resulting from observation and whatever else are not likely to make a noticable difference in these scenes.
The idea that trees are tending to appear the same way because their particles find their way back to the same place after being displaced by observations isn't implausible, but without further establishing the potential for a contrary situation it seems li
Re:what are they talking (Score:5, Funny)
We need to stop teaching quantum darwinism in our schools, and teach quantum creatinism! Darwin himself denounced quantum evolution on his deathbed, it's true!
Re:what are they talking (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what are they talking (Score:3, Interesting)
Science has always assumed that A) somewhere in the univer
Re:Bah (Score:5, Funny)
You are choosing a non-objective reality, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Re:Bah (Score:4, Funny)
>
>You are choosing a non-objective reality, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Hey. Get your hands off his wave function. By posting your observation about him, you're collapsing it for me too!
Don't forget ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Earth is flat, because this passage from the Bible talks about God stopping the Sun directly overhead!"
"Um, no, actually, it's a sphere, and here's the proof."
"Okay, okay! But the celestial bodies are little lights in the sky, and perfect and unblemished, and the go around the Earth!"
"Um, no, actually, they've got all kinds of flaws and blemishes, and they all go around the Sun, and here's the proof."
"Oh, damn! But the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, as we can determine from Biblical genealogies!"
"Um, no, actually, it's been around for a lot longer than that, and here's the proof."
"Aaargh! But humans were specially created by God in His image, and are absolutely unique!"
"Um, no, actually, we look an awful lot like other apes, and that's really not a coincidence, and here's the proof."
"*whimper* All right, so the Earth is round, and it and all the other lumpy rocks revolve around the Sun, and it's all really old, and humans are a lot like apes
Stephen Hawking (Score:5, Interesting)
by Stephen Hawking:He goes on to talk about how time curves back on itself as it approaches zero (stuff I'll never understand). So, basically the Catholic Church has conceded the time since the Big Bang to Science, excepting the occasional divine meddling. Of course, such meddling would imply the Great One couldn't design a universe that ran according to The Plan without intervention - such impudence.
Re:Stephen Hawking (Score:3, Funny)
TAKE IT BACK!!!! Wayne Gretzky can do ANYTHING!!!!
Re:Stephen Hawking (Score:3, Insightful)
Then he's not an omniscient Supreme Being.
Re:Stephen Hawking (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stephen Hawking (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is not scientific way to prove that God Does or Does not Exist. (And yes you do need to prove one or the other, and make your proof solid so no one can come up with arguments to it, otherwise it is just a theory not scientific fact)
As well Religion shouldn't be stating that what scientific observe is wrong or evil because they are just because their observations contradict wha
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:3, Insightful)
> God Does or Does not Exist.
Not all truth can be arrived at through the scientific method. For example, it's true that my parents love me, but establishing a double-blind study to prove it would be difficult.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:4, Interesting)
to say there is no god (atheist), to say that I don't believe in a god until his existense is proved (agnostic)
That's not really what those terms mean. "Atheist" is a wide term that means "I don't believe there is a god" - this umbrella then also ends up including those who go one more step to saying "I believe there is no god." "I believe there is no god" is a statement that is true of only a subset of atheists, and it's not a very large subset, actually (in much the same way that fundamentalists are a subset of Christians, but not a very large subset). It's just as wrong to assume all atheists have a strong belief there is no god, as it would be to assume all Christians are fundamentalists.
"Agnostic" is about knowelge, not belief. There is some overlap between "agnostic" and "atheist". It is possible, for example, to say "I don't think it is possible to really know for sure if god exists or not. However, using Occams' Razor in this situation I think the burden of proof is entirely on the one who says god *does* exist, since they're the one introducing extra entities that don't simplify things any. Therefore if no knowlege is possible, I'm going to take the guess that god is probably nonexistant, and thus refrain from believing in him." Such a person is BOTH an atheist and an agnostic. It's what I am, and I'm not the first person I came across with that exact stance on the issue.
In theory, there could possibly be a god. However all the major religions are nothing more than random guesses as to what properties that god might have. As random guesses taken from a pool of infinite possibilities, the probability of any of them being even remotely close to correct is infinitessimally close to zero. At least that's the way I see it. If there is a god, then there is still a high chance that 100% of theists guessed wrong as to what it is like. In fact, I think that the chance of 100% of them being wrong is almost infinitely greater than the chance of even one individual among them being right.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:4, Funny)
1) Foundational assumptions: people prefer to save the life of someone they love over someone they do not love.
2) Methods: a series of pairs of people will be introduced to TPs, and they will be asked to press a button to save one of the subjects' lives. To avoid conditioned response problems, a series of at least 10 initial pairs will be introduced not containing tcopeland. If TPs fails to press one of the buttons, both subjects will be killed.
3) Theory: when a pair containing tcopeland is introduced, TPs will press his button to save him. tcopeland will be introduced in at least 10 pairings over a course of approximately 1000 total pairings to test against the hypothesis that TPs are choosing buttons randomly.
4) Double blind controls: pairs will be selected randomly by computer, and assigned to random buttons also by computer. Rooms will be soundproofed, and viewing of the pairs by TPs will be through one way mirror. TPs will be isolated from the researchers during the experiment. Researchers performing the experiment will not know which subject is tcopeland, and tcopeland will be kidnapped off the street like all the other subjects so that he will not know that TPs are in charge of the buttons.
See, it's not that hard to design a double blind study to establish that your parents love you.
Getting it past HSB, that's the challenge.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:3, Funny)
Don't I know it. Next time, I'm using a condom.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there is.
If the skies opened up, and a heavenly choir of angels descended, and a load booming voice shouted "I am the Lord your God, the God of Abraham and Moses!", and scientists ran out and checked for loud speakers and mass halucinations and a whole bunch of other alternate explanations, the existance of God could be proven to the same extent that evolution can be.
But without cooperation from the Big Guy and daily lightn
Re:There's no such thing as "scientific fact" (Score:2)
The "why" can also be part of the realm of science. For example, that pumpkin you are dropping out of the airplane? You can use scientific knowledge of gravity to figure out why it falls and splats on Mrs. Kotzwinkle's Toyota in the Wal-Mart parking lot, instead of floating sideways.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:3, Funny)
MOD PARENT FUNNY, NOT OFFTOPIC (Score:2, Insightful)
it's funny, laught
it's a fitting example of darwinism taking place in the religious memesphere, each time the study of nature and reality shows that some silly religiously based idea can't be backed up, well then the idea gets appropriately modified to fit reality.
Religions claiming to have special knowledge eventually get challenged and many get shown out the door. It's a sad testimony for some religions. And upsetting for the stringent by-the-letter followers.
A
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:4, Informative)
God of the Gaps: Glass half-full or half-empty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
God, 1200 AD: "Big guy created the whole thing 5200 years ago."
God, 1800 AD: "Clever big guy created the whole thing 5800 years ago. And had to plunk some planets and set up an inverse square law for gravitation. And bury a bunch of weird lizard fossils to confuse us. Either that, or he's been doing some really weird tricks with biology that we're only beginning to guess at."
God, 1950 AD: "Really clever guy (way cleverer than us) created the whole thing out of, umm, something, we don't really know when, but it was a hell of a long time ago, and made particles that behaved like, umm, waves. It's weird and violates common sense, but we can use the math to make televisions. And BTW, now we know how the Sun works."
God, 2004 AD: "Supremely clever dude, existing completely outside of what we perceive as spacetime, may have tweaked an m-brane collision (the math for which only a few hundred of us on the planet can even begin to understand) that resulted in the setting of a few universal constants for the physics engine and the creation of a little bubble of spacetime. Sat back and watched the resulting fireworks for 13.8 billion years to see if sentient life would evolve in a little pocket of it and recognize Him."
Without taking a position either way on the existence or non-existence of God, I humbly submit that the more science we do, the smarter the "God of the Gaps" has to be.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be nice if religious authorities could be as diligent. But that's too risky; might accidentally invalidate their biases, and then they would have to change the way they interpret the world around them. Heaven forbid.
Re:Don't forget ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The age of the earth is not mentioned biblically. Indeed, but isn't the creation of everything mentioned? I seem to recall they say he created people just a few days after the earth. So, to be pragmatic, the earth is mans age (x) plus a few days (3 for example): x+3 days.
You're right, it isn't a coincidence -- we have the same designer! Good job, you pointed out this fact can be used in creationism as well as evolution.
shows EVERY KNOWN PHYLUM coming into existence fully formed
Yeah, welcome to science. 542mya multicellular organisms started showing up. This is quite a bit older than what the bible says. That it was an explosion is far from a fact, it's still being debated in the scientific community. There are many theories that can explain it, including your "god" one. Some of the more-fact based ones are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_glaciation [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_warming [wikipedia.org]
and
"The Cambrian Explosion has recently been a controversial topic regarding the history and evolution of life, with the idea posited that the Burgess Shale preserved such a wide variety of life and that the "Cambrian Explosion" was actually a slower radiation of animal forms than previously thought. The idea of an "explosion" of life in the Cambrian period is still being debated."
Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion [wikipedia.org]
and if you call all disproved scientific ideas "religion" then you can say that all bad ideas are religious,
Sounds good to me, as religion relies heavily on faith, and faith is really just someone taking guesses.
Re:Science cannot disprove the Bible (Score:3)
But this makes no sense even from a biblical perspective. Sure god could have made the world look old - but why? Either the bible is wrong and therefore a work of man, or "God is deceitful" (what else would you call making something look like what its not) and the whole
don't forget about darwinist programming (Score:5, Informative)
GA's are used to maximize arbitrary functions by a mixture of random mutation and crossover between the solution candidates with better aptitude.
It's hot stuff, and it comes up with good solutions for analytically untractable problems.
Re:don't forget about darwinist programming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:don't forget about darwinist programming (Score:2)
> GA's are unreliable in the consistent repeatability of their answers
What specifically are you talking about? Of course the solutions aren't neccessarily repeatable, because it's a heuristic that is deliberately randomly seeded. GAs are best for problems that tend to have more than one answer.
Re:don't forget about darwinist programming (Score:3, Insightful)
Classify GAs however you want - we bother with them because they are useful in finding solutions.
This is like saying "why bother with the Fourier Series - it's just a special case of the Fourier Transform." Feh.
So then a first post... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow.
Slashdot Darwinism (Score:2)
Not if you get modded down.
Re:So then a first post... (Score:2)
Re:So then a first post... (Score:3, Funny)
If he only knew (Score:4, Funny)
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]
Re:If he only knew (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, there's one thing I couldn't decipher from the article (yes, I did RTFA): are these preferred quantum states pre
I believe in it (Score:4, Funny)
(Below this, on the bumper, is a sticker that says "if you can read this, you are too close or you are trying to see my Darwin deck-lid emblem")
An answer looking for a problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
if there is a box containing a red pen and a blue pen and I "observe" it (e.g. shake it about), it will have a different configuration but will still be a box containing a red pen and a blue pen.
Re:An answer looking for a problem? (Score:2)
Are you moving away from the box too fast or are you moving towards the box too fast?
Re:An answer looking for a problem? (Score:2)
(anyone got the proper DNA quote?)
Re:An answer looking for a problem? (Score:2)
Nothing new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Techno-speak for "rose-tinted-glasses"?
Seriously though, thinking about it makes your brain hurt: Did the scientists working on this create the necessary state "they preferred" inadvertently in order to discover the state they wanted to see?
Re:Nothing new here... (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new here... (Score:2)
there are discrete "threads" we call atoms -- knots in spacetime that are constant. When we start looking at the components of these knots, we can learn some interesting things, but not everything interesting about the wool translates to the yarn.
quantum complexity? (Score:4, Interesting)
So what they are saying (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't realize this was new. Maybe the news is that they have a "proof" of this now?
Abuse of the term "Darwinism" (Score:5, Insightful)
No. "Darwinism" is about replicators, i.e. organisms that reproduce and that compete for resources.
When used for "Social Darwinism", the word implies that societies reproduce and compete for resources. In many ways this is accurate. You could use "darwinism" to describe many kinds of replicating, competing natural systems.
But quantums...? WTF?
Until we have evidence that quantums are actually lifeforms, the word "Darwinism" is simply not valid.
Anyhow, and on a different note, quantum mechanics is easy. Here's Ites' Dummies Guide to Quantum Physics: matter and energy are made of wavelets, a string of energy. Wavelets look like particles when they're compressed by time or distance. Measuring a wavelet changes it. Wavelets do not breed and they do not compete for resources.
The table is not solid because it's an agreed reality. The table is solid because your hand cannot pass through it.
Re:Abuse of the term "Darwinism" (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of Conway's Game of Life. You can start with a bunch of random cells, and eventually they'll "evolve," according to rules much simpler than those of quantum mechanics, to either stable structures or structures that move/change in stable ways.
Re:Abuse of the term "Darwinism" (Score:2)
No. "Darwinism" is about replicators, i.e. organisms that reproduce and that compete for resources.
Companies are organism that grow, reproduce and compete.
And they have to evolve to survive the new competitors that show up.
Examples: McDonald's reproduced rapidly and is now mutating into a more viable form offering meals that aren't garanteed to kill off their clients. Microsoft's Windows reproduced rapidly and is now threatnened by v
Re:Abuse of the term "Darwinism" (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree:
You could use "darwinism" to describe many kinds of replicating, competing natural systems. But quantums...?
Without observation, a qunatum system "is" in a large number of states simultaneously (a la Schroedinger's cat). Think of these states as all competing, not for resources in this case, but for observation. Moreover, an act of observation introduces purturbations into the system, much like the biological act of reproduction.
What these physicists proved, then, is that over time the ran
Re:Abuse of the term "Darwinism" (Score:2)
This is not Darwinian. Darwin's great insight, a key point, is that replicators compete for resources and for the best mates and this competition drives evolution, not some outside arbitrer of taste or "success".
I never suggested this is a biological process. Indeed, many non-biological systems demonstrate Darwinian properties. The Internet is a good example. Parasitical software another.
Quantum what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh by the way if we all percieve that the reality of quantum physicists is to disappear, I think they would disappear... or at least make themselves disappear to prove their own points.
Depends on who is looking. (Score:2)
Depends on who is looking. Check out this Cyclops guy [thecomicshop.com.au]. There is no uncertainty at all with the "Heisenburg uncertainty principle" when he decides to give something a look.
Re:Quantum what? (Score:5, Informative)
The other kind "measuring affects things" is a little harder to grasp, and is exemplified by the schroedinger's cat example. There are situations where a particle/system/etc. can probabalistically be in one of several states. But until someone or something measures it to determine which state it is in, "the universe hasn't decided yet". So it's kind of like telling someone "I'm thinking of either a car or a dog" and not really deciding which one you're thinking of until someone asks you to tell them which it is. It's not the case that someone really has to look at it for it to "determine" itself - something about the universe could depend on the state, which is as good as an observer looking at it.
Re:Quantum what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there is a mistaken idea out there that observation alone fixes certain information about sub-atomic particles while the particle is in several states simultaneously beforehand. The problem is with dependence on observation for collapsing the wave form. If this were true, the only cause was observation, then what would count for an observation? How intelligent would the thing causing the collapse have to be to be considered an observer? Can an ape collpase a wave-form? How about a cat? Does it have to be a living thing at all?
Yes the particle holds many states simultaneously at certain times, yes it becomes fixed when an action happens from which an observer can deduce the state in question (whether or not said observer is there to witness it), but no, an actual observer doesn't have to be there to see it at the time for the wave-form to collapse. That's what's ridiculous about Schroedinger's Cat. Once the quantum event which may or may not kill the cat happens, the sucker is alive or dead - period. We just don't happen to know which until we look.
I'm no physicist but that's the impression I get from what I've read. Anyone want to comment?
Re:Quantum what? (Score:4, Informative)
You are getting a right impression from what you have read, but what you have read is just one rather old-fashioned view of Quantum Mechanics (it's called the Copenhagen Intepretation). There are plenty of alternative (and equally valid) interpretations that don't require any waveform collapse by observation. These include the Many Worlds Interpretation, the Transactional Interpretation (my favourite) of John Cramer, which implies that particles exchange information back and forth through time, and the ideas of Roger Penrose which suggest that quantum states collapse to a single one of the alternatives when the states differ sufficiently in energy to cause significant spacetime curvature.
My view is that at this time, it's foolish to pick any single interpretation of quantum mechanics (such as collapse by observation) and assume that it has any reality. We just don't know enough.
Re:Quantum what? (Score:2)
This is a misconception of science. Theories can only be proven wrong. You can gain substantial evidence to back a theory, but it is never "proven" right. There are several theories that have so much evidence it is taken as fact, or considered proven right for discussion reasons, but non the less a theory, by definition, is never proven true.
Re:Quantum what? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not quite true. The thing is quantum mechanics is probabilistic... so that electron is, in general, in some superposition state before you "become aware" of it (i.e. measure it). This means there is some chance it's in state A and some chance it's in state B when measured.
But such superposition states have actual physical consequences as well (probability interference, wave-like properties). Anyway, once you "become aware" of that electron, it
Re:Quantum what? (Score:2)
Re:Quantum what? (Score:4, Informative)
This was an early rationalization of the experimental results, but the truth turns out to be more general than that. Physicists have gotten much cleverer in working out ways of gaining information about a system without perturbing it, and the results still hold. (Think of Sherlock Holmes's dog that doesn't bark in the night). But it is not clear whether observation changes the system being observed or the rest of the universe, or even whether that is a meaningful distinction. Another way of looking at things is that observation couples the quantum states of the system being observed with the quantum states of the observing system. So once the Schrodinger's Cat box is opened, all "dead cat" states becomed coupled with "bereaved experimenter" states, which do not appreciably interfere with the "live cat" states that are coupled with "relieved experimenter" states.
Same nonsense different century. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds a lot like Solipsism which is nothing new at all.
Solipsism is the belief that, because we can only verify our own experiences and no-one elses, only the self is real.
or to put that in Layman's terms: "Go away, you don't exist!"
Don't tell... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't tell... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Don't tell... (Score:2)
- or will it be both pissed and pleased?
Only if you don't look at it.Schrödinger's Girlfriend (Score:2)
"> or will it be both pissed and pleased?"
"Only if you don't look at it."
I wish that worked with my girlfriend. It would be great if I could resolve her into one state or the other and finally be done with it.
Don't observe this post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't observe this post (Score:2)
i'm confuzzled (Score:3, Funny)
I perfer Terry Pratchett's definition of 'quantum' where scientists label anything too confusing for them to understand as being 'quantum'
"What're quantum mechanics?" - "I don't know. People
who repair quantums, I suppose."
Re:i'm confuzzled (Score:2, Funny)
Any cosmic thingamajoo that doesn't fit in with what we're told.... String theory.
Ie; There isn't enough matter in a galaxy to keep it together via gravity. What keeps a galaxy together? String theory and dark matter!
How? You're no astro-quantum dood so you wouldn't understand. It's done with strings. Shut up and sit down.
Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)
Quantum physics is just the microcosm if the greater universe. Looking f
Be suspicious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Be suspicious (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, while I'm not familiar with the first author, the third author on the paper is Zurek, who is one of the formost experts in the field of quantum decoherence, not some grad student fumbling for a dissertation topic. Secondly, the work on quantum decoherence is not just a matter of interpretation. There are real questions as to how and under what conditions quantum coherence is lost in a system and classical features emerge. It's not just an esoteric problem and has applications to mesoscopic
Quantum Effects at Large Scale (Score:3, Insightful)
So, for observation of the macroscopic environment it would follow that quantum effects can be ignored. But then again, I'm arguing against quantum physicists from Los Alamos, so maybe they're just explaining why quantum effects can be ignored at a large scale.
Yet it would seem as simple as "observation of the individual particles of the windows at Buckingham Palace are affected by observation, but statistically speaking, each change is just as likely as the next, so at a macroscopic level the odds of a visible change are infinitesimal." Sure, there's a chance that a window could move but it's so unlikely as to never happen during the life of the universe. I RRTFA and don't see this.
House of Cards? (Score:2)
Re:House of Cards? (Score:2)
Buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "quantum darwinism" is really an unnecessary buzzword. There is a certain analogy about states which create many records of themselves surviving a robust pointer states where others are "selected against", but the analogy is really pretty limited and not very useful. It's better to stay away from using terms like darwinism for effect. I should note that I didn't see the word "quantum darwinism" in the title or abstract of either of the actual journal articles this news item references. For the lazy, the two papers in question seem to be this preprint [arxiv.org] and this article [aip.org] from the Nov 26 issue of Physical Review Letters.
This sounds like an interesting result and Zurek is a premenent figure in the field of quantum decoherence, but this looks like the tying up of some (important) details rather than the revolutionary developement the news article makes it out to be. Even as far back as the work of Everett [wikipedia.org] we had an idea of why two observers who compared notes would always agree on the objective facts. In the many worlds interpretation, this comes down to the fact that if observer A measures system S, there will be many different possible results. So there will be many branches of the wavefunction with A observing each possible result. When observer B measures system S, he becomes entangled with S and A, and there are many possible outcomes, but in each branch of the wave function A and B agree on the outcome. Not sure if that clears anything up. :-) If you're talking about purely quantum systems, the same thing happens in the Copenhagen interpretation. The only tricky part is how to think about it when A and B are "classical observers". Still, I haven't read these papers yet and now I'm eager to.
Quantum Physics is Like 15th Century Astronomy (Score:5, Interesting)
These astronomers, believing that planetary orbits were circular, developed much arcane math and explanation as to why they couldn't completely account for the observed data. They could not imagine such a thing as an elliptical orbit.
Modern physicists, believing that wavelets acted a particular way under certain observation arrangements, developed much arcane math and explanation as to why they couldn't completely account for the observed data. They could not imagine such a thing as a (insert reason here).
I believe that somewhere along the way, a key piece of information may have been missed that would make all of this very simple. Lord knows, I could be wrong...
Re:Quantum Physics is Like 15th Century Astronomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Quantum Mechanics is THE most sucessful and accurate theory ever. whereas the astronomers could not account for the data, QM accounts for the data to ridiculous accuracy and the only problem is accepting the interpretation. and that's a problem with humans, not QM.
Re:Quantum Physics is Like 15th Century Astronomy (Score:4, Informative)
No, it seems more like a problem with current theory. QM is very accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't give the whole picture, even in its own domain. Theories about the causes of decoherence - collapse of superposed states - are still very much under development, which explains why there's so much confusion about the subject.
The naive and typically anthropomorphic idea that human or conscious observation has something to do with decoherence hasn't been credible for a long, long, time, and Nature (the magazine) deserves to have its ass kicked for allowing an abstract to pit its argument against such a nonsensical straw man. For an update on the most credible current work, a good starting point is The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Theory [stanford.edu].
Re:Define ridiculous accuracy (Score:5, Interesting)
But that doesn't make Newtownian physics invalid; it's correct, as an approximation. The maths of relativity and QM do reduce to Newtownian math outside those extremeties.
To respond to your implication, no, this does not mean that QM is perfect. Just as we refined & expanded Newtownian physics, we may well have to refine & expand quantum mechanics. That's not a weakness, per se; QM still works almost everywhere we look. (The major exception is quantum gravity, the synthesis of relativity and QM; we don't have that figured out.) But QM still works astoundingly well. I can't imagine it will ever be shown wrong. Incomplete, sure, but not wrong.
Re:Define ridiculous accuracy (Score:3, Interesting)
There are different ways to be wrong. A decent mathematician today could easily work out a perfectly accurate theory of planetary orbits in which the Earth is at the center of the solar system. The predictions about orbits would all be perfectly correct. Like the epicycle-dependent orbital theories developed by the old astronomers, the system would be ridiculously complicated, but it w
Stability (Score:3, Interesting)
The more stable the configuration, the more likely it is to form and stay for long periods of time.
From the Article... (Score:4, Funny)
Sure glad we avoided that problem.
Here is the Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me explain: Quantum mechanics takes place in the realm of the extremely super small. Einstein's relativity takes place in the realm of extremely large values of velocity. There is a disconnect there in reconciling these two theories, thus the epic hunt for TOE, The Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail of physics is to find this super theory that unites relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, gravity, mechanics. Although relativity is used in quantum for calculations, there are some contradictions in reconciling the two theories, thus Einstein's famous quote (during his hunt to reconcile relativity with quantum), "God does not play dice with the universe!"
It is my understanding that Darwinism, whether social, economic or of natural selection, takes place in all biological situations. Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us! Do you see quantum wells on your computer screen? As you observe the movement of the train, does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come into play? No! This uncertainty principle does not conflict with everyday life chiefly because it only applies to the special case of extremely small and extremely fast particles.
So this comparison, extension and exercise of extending quantum mechanics to Darwinian proportions appears to me to be more than anything a philosophical exercise.
Re:Here is the Problem (Score:3, Informative)
Take any of these elements away and you don't have darwinian evolution. I haven't read the article yet, so I don't know if it misapplies the term.
Re:Here is the Problem (Score:4, Informative)
This sounds very interesting, but is it just simply a strange twist on words?
No
Let me explain: Quantum mechanics takes place in the realm of the extremely super small. Einstein's relativity takes place in the realm of extremely large values of velocity.
No, relativity applies just as accurately to a garden snail as a laser beam and quantum mechanics applies to a neutron star just as much as an electron (in fact in many ways neutron stars can be considered large atomic nuclei). The disconnect between quantum physics and relativity comes from the fact that the former describes reality in terms of wave functions (although practicing physicists use a different, equivalent formulation in terms of fields) and the latter in terms of curvature tensors. Reconciling those points of view is the point of a ToE.
The Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail of physics is to find this super theory that unites relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, gravity, mechanics. Although relativity is used in quantum for calculations, there are some contradictions in reconciling the two theories, thus Einstein's famous quote (during his hunt to reconcile relativity with quantum), "God does not play dice with the universe!"
This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin but I'll try. Neither quantum mechanics nor relativity have any problems describing electromagnetism (now more properly known as the electroweak force), there is no succesful theory of quantum gravity yet, but the creation of one does not require a ToE as far as anyone can tell, although a ToE will necessarily have a quantum theory of gravity as one of its consequences. Einstein's "God does not play dice..." quote was in reference to his belief in (now discredited) hidden variable theories which would attempt to remove some of the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics.
Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us!
Aagh, my computer just vanished thanks to the impossibility of its existence! Given the physical nature of a quantum well (a system that traps a particle in a particular energy state, typically very small and cold) if I could see one I'd probably have several more pressing problems to address than my misunderstanding of quantum physics.
As you observe the movement of the train, does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come into play?
Yes, but thanks to the fact that uncertainty in the product of position and momentum only has to be larger than Planck's constant divided by 2*pi [uoregon.edu] and Planck's constant is a very small number in SI units [google.com] given the relatively large errors in the equipment at hand for observing trains I can safely cross train tracks. Or to put it another way, the de Broglie wavelength of a typical train is so small as to be safely ignored.
This uncertainty principle does not conflict with everyday life chiefly because it only applies to the special case of extremely small and extremely fast particles.
To be precise, only when the de Broglie wavelength approaches the spatial extent of a system do quantum mechanical effects become significant. Similarly, although there is no equivalent to the de Broglie wavelength in relativity, when the energy of an object is smaller than a certain threshhold relativistic effects can be safely ignored.
So this comparison, extension and exercise of extending quantum mechanics to Darwinian proportions appears to me to be more than anything a philosophical exercise.
What's a Darwinian proportion?
God plays dice ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, IANAP but
>> "The environment is modified so that it contains an imprint of the pointer state," he says.
Which means that the photons (say) coming from one area and reaching another will statistically be similier at a level of accuracy attainable by the receptors(?)
Or are they implying that some 'resonance' (my word) is conserving information that should, according to Copenhagen, be lost. I'm trying to read the paper but I'm charitably near the bottom of the slashdot education graph so someone please explain. The phrase 'Environment monitors certain observables' sounds like a macroscopic pov in a microscopic (quantum) discussion.
No fact of the matter prior to measurement (Score:4, Interesting)
The article is muddy and confusing, and makes a number of problematic claims, the most important of which is the claim that measurement changes the system measured. Within the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation of QM this is exactly the type of claim we want to avoid: prior to measurement, we can't say much about the system. We certainly can't say it "is" in any particular state or superposition--only that the outcomes of various possible experiments will follow the predicted probability distributions. To say the system "is" something prior to measurement is to load it with ontological baggage that just isn't justified.
The article also makes a hash of the relation between collapse and decoherence, which are quite different things. Decoherence theory doesn't explain collapse--it replaces it by making it unnecessary. I'm a bit out of date on this stuff, but as near as I can tell decoherence theory is treading down the path to many worlds, and it's still an open question as to whether it will be able to avoid the well-known problems that await its arrival.
--Tom
What's Going On? (Score:4, Funny)
And don't expect me to do it for you.
Take a QM class... (Score:3, Informative)
Case in point: TFA talks a lot about observations. But they also talk about people looking at trees and buildings. You looking at something really doesn't constitute an observation (Quantum mechanically). The photon interacting with the tree (building, etc) is the observation. The photon entering you eye, interacting with your cornea, your lense, and finally your retina is another "observation." But you looking at a tree does not change the tree.
Go read the actual papers referenced by the article, these will actually contain science, and not some journalist's misunderstanding of it.
BTW- IANA physicist... yet. I am halfway through my third year of undergrad physics work. One of the classes I just finished was Intro to Quantum Mechanics I. Just to establish my credentials. If anyone who is a physicist with more education in the subject disagrees with what I have said, I would be glad to talk to him. But if you haven't had any QM class.... shut up. Please. Trust me, unless you have had exposure to infinite dimensional linear algebra and partial differential equations, you do not know what you are talking about.
Do the Math (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem modern physicists face is that the mathematics of Quantum Physics does not obviously lend itself to description in terms of everyday experience. Most people do not have every day experience with superpositions of states nor do they navigate their existence using that model which leads to a disconnect between the mathematics of Quantum Physics and "common sense". That doesn't make the math wrong, it merely indicates that we have adapted to living in a world in which quantum effects can be safely ignored, unless one is trying to make 0.6 micron scale transistors for Slashdotters to abuse.
The research in question actually goes a long way to explaining why it's OK to ignore the quantum nature of reality above certain scales. In short, among the states that a large ensemble of subatomic particles, like Buckingham Palace, can be in there are states which are relatively resistant to large perturbations by observation. Fortunately for the occupants of Buckingham Palace those states tend to describe a palace comoving with the Earth's surface in London, England, and not a palace hurtling towards the sun at a significant fraction of the speed of light. This is a brutally oversimplified plain English explanation of the results, which can only be precisely stated mathematically, and thus likely to lead to significant misunderstanding. Ironically, the research goes a long way to explaining why another reader and I can both agree on the form of the letters of this message.
what i hear when i read this stuff (Score:3, Funny)
i am not saying that the argument for quantum darwinism is as crackpot as the timecube guy [timecube.com], what i am saying is that both the timecube guy and the argument for quantum darnwinism are way over my head
Now that explains somethings (Score:3, Funny)
Curious, this is how I experienced the US election last November. I'll blame it on TV.
Suggested Reading: Quarantine by Greg Egan (Score:3, Interesting)
There is an excellent novel by Australian Science Fiction author Greg Egan [netspace.net.au] called Quarantine (Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]/Amazon [amazon.com]) on this subject. I cannot claim to understand even half the theories in there, but it is a fascinating read and a mindbender similar to what Stephenson's "Snow Crash" had to offer twelve years ago.
Caution! FAITH required! (Score:3, Interesting)
Over the years I've observed some things:
1) Physicists at the top of the theoretical latter, like Hawkins, readily admit to the strenghts AND weakness of their models, but those at the bottom don't seem to understand the weakenss. They often speak in term os absolute knowledge, usually displaying lots of arrogance and insulting those who hold different views. No smear seems to be beneath them. The NTY science writer who ridiculed Goddard for believing man could fly to the Moon and said rockets couldn't fly in space because there was nothing to 'push against'. But, sometimes the 'expert' is not above arrogantly ridiculing the less trained. Prof. Langley denounced the Wright brothers efforts to build a flying machine as mis-guided, while crashing into the sea on both of his efforts.
2) Science seems like a spiny sea urchin, with the spines representing specific areas of 'advancement' in knowledge. Some of those spines have only a handful of scientists at the tip, some only one, speaking in mathematical terms few others, if any, can understand. Are they right, or are they merely building castles out of clouds? Who can say?
3) Biology has made advancements in direct proportion to its utilization of chemisty, then physics, then math. But even now, I have yet to read of any Evolutionist making a non-trivial prediction about some future event in the same way that Einstein precticed the bending of light grazing the eclipsed Sun and making a specific star appear to move a specific distance from its normal position relative to nearby stars. Claddists still hold to successive minute changes occuring over long stretches of time (gradualism) even though other Evolutionists don't believe the geologic record support gradualism, something Dawkin's called "Evolution's dirty little secret" in order to advance a theory he and Gould called "Puncuated Equilibrium". Punk Eek states that life forms are static for LONG periods of time then explode in a burst of new forms for a short (50K years) period of time because, they think, that is more in tune with what they think the geologic record is showing them. Both camps still argue about whose interpretation of the geologic record is right but always come together to fight those with divergent views. It seems that either view is preferable when compared to one which includes the actions of a Supreme Being, suggesting that the common element in both theories is that God is not.
History is littered with the carcases of "missing Links" which turned out to be distortions of fact, mis-identified or even faked. It seems to me that if supporters of Evolution are so sure of its being factual one of its members could devise a sophisticated hypothesis that would predict specific facts of a non-trivial future event, something on the order of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativeity prediction.
Well, I am going to suprise a few readers and state that such a prediction will soon be made (not by me!) and will prove overwhelmingly, by the best science we have today (DNA?), that Evolution is true and God is not. Those that witnessed for God will be destroyed, certainly in influence if not physically. Atheists and others who favored the demise of God will exchange gifts with one another in celebration of their achievement. These celebrations will go on for a few years. Very few people will continue to cling to Faith in God, and religious Faith might even cease to exist. Then the celebrations will cease. Then we shall know.
quantum nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)