FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
p6
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:08 pm    Post subject: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

In the June 2005 issue of Discover Science Magazine. Roger
Penrose argued that gravity is the reason why quantum effects
don't occur in the macroscopic world... why we can't exist
in two places at the same time just like in electrons before
measurement. Penrose is just offering an alternative to the
Copenhagen Interpretation where measurement disengage the
quantum states, as well as Everett Many Worlds and etc
interpretations. What follows is the article. Do you have
any killer arguments against it? The url gives the graphic
illustration of the mirror experiment which can prove or
disprove his hypothesis

http://www.pbase.com/image/44715609/original

Excerpt of the experimental details of the article:

"In Einstein's theory, any object that has mass causes a warp in the
structure of space and time around it. This warping produces the effect

we experience as gravity. Penrose points out that tiny objects-dust
specks, atoms, electrons-produce space-time warps as well. Ignoring
these warps is where most physicists go awry, he believes.

If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should
create its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed
gravitational fields. According to Penrose's theory, it takes energy
to sustain these dual fields. The stability of a system depends on the
amount of energy involved: The higher the energy required to sustain a
system, the less stable it is. Over time, an unstable system tends to
settle back to its simplest, lowest-energy state-in this case, one
object in one location producing one gravitational field. If Penrose is

right, gravity yanks objects back into a single location, without any
need to invoke observers or parallel universes.

How long the process takes depends on the degree of instability.
Electrons, atoms, and molecules are so small that their gravity, and
hence the amount of energy needed to keep them in duplicate states, is
negligible. According to Penrose, they can persist that way essentially

forever, as standard quantum theory predicts. Large objects, on the
other hand, create such significant gravitational fields that the
duplicate states vanish almost at once. Penrose calculates that a
person collapses to one location in a trillion-trillionth of a second.
For a dust speck, the process takes nearly a second-long enough that
it might be possible to measure.

Growing excited, he hoists himself to a more upright position on his
sofa. "Here is the scale where you should start to see differences
between what quantum mechanics says and what reality does," he says.
"The superposition that is part of quantum mechanics is unstable for
large objects; an object will assume one or the other position on a
timescale of about a second. Is this true? Well, we have to do an
experiment."

A few years ago, Penrose figured out how to perform that experiment.
Instead of a speck of dust he would use a tiny mirror, which would
allow him to bounce radiation off it to see if it was in one or two
places at the same time. If traditional quantum theory is right, the
doubled state could remain stable for a long time. If Penrose is right,

the mirror would maintain a dual existence for no more than a second
before gravity chains it to a single location.

Penrose initially envisioned putting his theory to the test using an
X-ray laser mounted on a platform in outer space. The laser would shoot

photons toward a tiny target mirror tens of thousands of miles away.
Here is where quantum weirdness comes into play. A half-reflective
mirror, called a beam splitter, would separate each photon into two
states so that it follows two paths (that is, it goes in two directions

at the same time). On one path, the photon strikes the tiny mirror,
moving it slightly; on the other, it is reflected away from the target
mirror, so the mirror does not move.

In the prevailing view of physics, both events occur simultaneously:
The mirror moves and remains in place at the same time because the
mirror-like the photon-can remain in two states at once. On its
return path, the duplicate photon that struck the tiny mirror hits the
same mirror again, returning it to its initial position. The whole
system then returns exactly to its initial state, and there is
fundamentally no way to tell which path the photon took. As a result,
the two versions of the photon interfere with each other and recombine
into a single photon that is always reflected along a path back toward
the laser. No X-ray photons can ever follow the path that leads them to

a detector.

If gravity intervenes, as Penrose expects, it forces the mirror either
to remain at rest or to move-but not both-and the outcome is totally
different. Now the photon cannot follow both paths because gravity
anchors the mirror to a single state. Consequently, each photon will
follow one path only, so it cannot interfere with itself; half the
time that path will lead it to the detector. Thus if an X-ray triggers
the detector, the quartturn duplicate of the mirror must have
disappeared,
and Penrose's view of reality must be correct."

(The following is the start of the article for newbies or people who
want to get perspective of the above.-p6)

"If An Electron Can Be In 2 Places At Once, Why Can't You?
Electrons do it. Photons do it. PHYSICS LEGEND ROGER PENROSE
thinks he finally knows why you and I can't do it too"
by Tim Folger

"Sir Roger Penrose-Knight of the Realm, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor
of Mathematics at Oxford University, controversial author, and polymath

extraordinaire-is worried that his car might be towed. It is parked
in a temporary space beside Oxford's Mathematical Institute, where
we've arranged to have the first of our meetings. So before settling
down to discuss his solution to one of the greatest mysteries in
physics, he hustles out a couple of times to make sure the car is still

there, displaying impressive bursts of speed for a 73-year-old.
I am sure that he would like to be in two places at once: here in an
otherwise empty conference room with me and outside in the chill autumn

rain, keeping an eye out for the bobbies. That's impossible, of
course, and therein lies the mystery that consumes Penrose.

About 80 years ago, scientists discovered that it is possible to be in
two locations at the same time-at least for an atom or a subatomic
particle, such as an electron. For such tiny objects, the world is
governed by a madhouse set of physical laws known as quantum mechanics.

At that size range, every bit of matter and energy exists in a state of

blurry flux, allowing it to occupy not just two locations but an
infinite number of them simultaneously. The world we see follows a
totally different set of rules, of course: There's just one Oxford
University, just one car, just one Penrose. What nobody can explain is
why the universe seems split into these two separate and irreconcilable

realities. If everything in the universe is made of quantum things, why

don't we see quantum effects in everyday life? Why can't Penrose,
made of quantum particles, materialize here, there, and everywhere he
chooses?

Many physicists find this issue so vexing that they ignore it entirely.

Instead, they focus on what does work about their theories. The
equations of quantum mechanics do a fantastic job describing the
behavior of particles in an atom smasher, the nuclear reactions that
make the sun shine, and the chemical processes that underlie biology.
For Penrose, that is not nearly enough. "Quantum mechanics gives us
wonderful predictions and experimental confirmations for small-scale
scenarios, but it gives us nonsense at ordinary scales," he says,
relaxed now that a receptionist has assured him of his car's safety.
"If you just follow the equations, you get a mess. So you have to
ask: What leads to this world?"

He has an answer, which, if correct, will lead to the first quantum
theory that makes as much sense for people as for particles. Penrose
believes he has identified the secret that keeps the quantum genie
tightly bottled up in the atomic world, a secret that was right in
front of us all along: gravity. In his novel view, the same force that
keeps us pinned to the ground also keeps us locked in a reality in
which everything is tidy, unitary, and-for better and for
worse-rooted in one place only.

Aside from a frustrating inability to manifest in any number of places
simultaneously, Penrose qualifies as something of a quantum phenomenon
himself. There do indeed seem to be many Penroses; they just all happen

to occupy the same body.

There is Sir Roger the physicist, knighted in 1994 for his
contributions to science, among them pioneering efforts to reconcile
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum
mechanics. There is Penrose the puzzle master, creator of geometric
illusions that M. C. Escher incorporated into some of his most famous
works. There is Penrose the neuroscientist, who developed a
controversial theory linking consciousness to quantum processes in the
brain. And there is Penrose the author, most recently of a 1,049-page
tome called The Road to Reality, which is modestly subtitled A Complete

Guide to the Laws of the Universe. It's an impressive r,sum, for
someone who was demoted a grade in elementary school because he
couldn't master arithmetic.

On our second meeting, all of those Penroses are slumped on a sofa in
the living room of his spacious home a few miles outside Oxford. A
coffee cup and a plate of cookies rest on his chest, which, since he is

sunk so deeply into the sofa, is almost perfectly horizontal. Tall
windows look out on a lush green yard, damp from the rain. In this
pensive setting, he looks back on the events that convinced him that
quantum theory has serious problems, a view that would be heresy for a
young physicist entering academia today.

Penrose's faith began to waver while he was a graduate student at
Cambridge. The crucial moment came during a lecture by Paul Dirac, one
of the legendary early thinkers in quantum mechanics. "He was talking
about the superposition principle, whereby objects could be in two
places at the same time. To illustrate, he broke a piece of chalk in
two and then tried to explain why you never saw superpositions in real
life. My mind may have wandered briefly, because I never heard his
explanation!" Penrose says, laughing. "But when I think about it,
I'm not sure it did wander, because it's not possible to explain
why you don't see objects in two places at once on the basis of
present-day quantum mechanics. It's a big problem. It's what I've
worried about ever since."

The maddening part of that problem is that the ability of particles to
exist in two places at once is not a mere theoretical abstraction. It
is a very real aspect of how the subatomic world works, and it has been

experimentally confirmed many times over. One of the clearest
demonstrations comes from a classic physics setup called the
double-slit experiment.

In this test, a beam of light is projected through two parallel slits
cut in an opaque barrier and then onto a white screen. When light hits
the screen, it does not produce just two overlapping regions of
brightness. Instead, something strange appears: a series of alternating

light and dark stripes, called an interference pattern. The
19th-century explanation for this was that light is a wave and that
light waves overlap after passing through the slits. The light waves
seem to behave much like water waves on the surface of a pond: Where
two crests meet, the wave gets higher, creating a bright stripe; where
a crest meets a trough, the two cancel out, and the wave vanishes,
yielding a dark zone.

With the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the
explanation became far weirder. Physicists realized that light is not a

wave exactly but rather a wavelike particle called a photon. That
discovery suggested a new experiment. In principle, it would be
possible to send light through the slits one photon at a time and
collect them on photographic film. Common sense says there should be no

interference pattern in this case: There is only one photon in the
apparatus at any given moment, so there is nothing for the light to
interfere with.

Then in 1909 a young British physicist named Geoffrey Ingram Taylor
actually ran the experiment and witnessed the bizarre result. As the
photons accumulate on the film, the same old interference pattern of
alternating bright and dark stripes gradually appears, defying common
sense. In this case, there is only one thing each photon can interact
with-itself. The only way this pattern could form is if each photon
passes through both slits at once and then interferes with its
alternate self. It is as if a moviegoer exited a theater and found that

his location on the sidewalk was determined by another version of
himself that had left through a different exit and shoved him on the
way out.

Since then, other researchers have repeated the experiment with
electrons, atoms, even with relatively bulky molecules containing as
many as 70 carbon atoms. The results never vary. Individual atoms and
molecules go through both slits at once. Yet for some reason the laws
of physics take away that ability for large objects like paper clips,
people, and planets. "Something has got to go wrong with quantum
mechanics somewhere," Penrose says. "I regard this as a major
problem that is going to require another revolution. But rather few
people seem to agree with this viewpoint."

When pressed, quantum theorists usually fall back on what is known as
the Copenhagen interpretation. The idea was promoted in the 1920s by
Danish physicist Niels Bohr and his prot,g, German physicist Werner

Heisenberg. In their view, we do not see quantum effects in the
everyday world because the act of observation changes everything,
fixing the many possibilities allowed by quantum mechanics as one. As a

result, when we look, we only see one version of events, with every
object firmly anchored to one position at a time.

The flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation is that it has no basis in
theory-it is more like a story that scientists tell to make sense of
facts that otherwise would seem nonsensical. It also suggests that the
universe does not become fully real until someone observes it. Einstein

found this idea abhorrent. "I like to think that the moon is there
even if I am not looking at it," he fumed in response to Bohr.

Nevertheless, the Copenhagen interpretation was voted the preferred
explanation of quantum weirdness by physicists at a conference in 1997.

The runner-up explanation is an even stranger view of reality. Called
the many worlds interpretation, it was proposed in 1957 by Princeton
University doctoral candidate Hugh Everett III. Its adherents take the
laws of quantum theory at face value: Every possible quantum outcome
really exists-but in worlds parallel to our own. In one universe,
Penrose is talking with me in Oxford; in another, he is watching a
monster-truck rally. From this perspective, people and particles behave

much the same way. We just do not see them in many places at the same
time because each potential location is tucked away in a different
universe

Penrose cannot believe anyone finds either the Copenhagen
interpretation or the many worlds picture satisfactory. "If you take
the equations of quantum mechanics up to the level where you can
actually see things going on, you're driven to an absurd viewpoint.
People are led into views of the world which are pretty fantastical.
And rather than say, 'This is a bit wild, let's try to do something
a bit more commonsense-ish,' they come up with theories that are
completely wild."

After struggling for years to come up with a better explanation, he
finally has a solution.
Turning to gravity for a solution to the quantum mystery is in many
ways a natural strategy, at least from Penrose's perspective. There
are four fundamental forces in the universe: electromagnetism; the
strong force, which binds atomic nuclei together; the weak force, which

is responsible for radioactive decay; and gravity. Gravity is the only
one of the forces that physicists have been unable to explain in
quantum terms. Albert Einstein spent more than 30 years in fruitless
attempts to harmonize his theories of gravity with quantum mechanics,
and his successors are still stumped.

To Penrose, the failures are a clue that physicists are on the wrong
path. Most believe that quantum theory is fundamentally sound but that
our understanding of gravity must change. Penrose says that rather than

seeking to change Einstein's theory of gravity, we should study how
gravity affects an object small enough to exist in the borderland
between the quantum world of atoms and the human world of visible
objects.

An object the size of a speck of dust would provide the perfect test.
At this scale, an object is small enough to be strongly affected by the

rules of quantum mechanics but large enough to observe directly.
Current theory predicts that such an object could exist in more than
one location and could remain in that split state almost indefinitely.
If there were a way to observe the speck without disturbing it, we
would see quantum strangeness laid bare: a macroscopic thing sitting in

two places at the same time, confounding reality as we know it.
Penrose is convinced that conventional quantum theory seems absurd
because it is incomplete. Specifically, it ignores the effects of
gravity. On atomic or subatomic scales, gravity is so weak compared
with the other forces that most physicists see no problem with leaving
it out of the picture. But in Penrose's view, the only way to
understand the quantum world is to consider all the forces that act on
it. To do that, he is combining Einstein's relativity with quantum
physics in a way nobody has considered before.

(The passages that follow is in the first part of this message.
What follow is the continuation of it)

The expense and technical difficulties of aiming X-ray lasers at
targets thousands of miles away in outer space had seemed
insurmountable, but Dirk Bouwmeester, a former postdoc under
Penrose who is a professor of physics at the University of
Califoria at Santa Barbara, saw a way to make it feasible. Along
colleagues with Williarn Marshall and Christoph Simon, he devised
a way to bring Penrose's experiment literally down to Earth - to
a tabletop in Bouwrneester's lab.

The revised experiment relies on a relatively simple
visible-light source rather than an X-ray laser. Still,
everything about Bouwmeester's setup will push the boundaries of
laboratory physics. To give the mirror the same kick a more
energetic X-ray photon would produce, the light photons will have
to reflect back and forth between two mirrors a million times. Un
til now, the largest objects ever studied in a state of quantum
superposition were soccer-ball- shaped carbon molecules called
buckyballs. Bouwmee ster is trying to detect the same effect on a
mirror that is a billion times bigger. If we were able to
observe, that, it would be spectacular, a test of quantum
mechanics in a completely new regime," he says.

The team at Santa Barbara is running the experiment right now,
but with a significantly smaller mirror than needed to test
Penrose's theory. If the current tests succeed, Bouwmeester will
gradually increase the size of the mirror up to the necessary
tenth -of- a-human-hair diameter. He and his colleagues are also
working out ways to shield the experiment from the vibrations,
stray photons, or temperature changes that would ruin the
results. "It is not something that will happen overnight;' he
says. "We need to isolate the quantum world from our world and
see what happens. If everything works well, 1 expect some results
four years from now."

Penrose, who turns 74 in August, is hopeful that he will see the
day when his ideas are vindicated. Not many physicists share this
optimism. Tony Leggett, a Nobel laureate at the University of
Illinois at Urbana Champaign, suspects the experiment will fail
to snow that gravity has any effect on quanturn systems. I take
the quantum paradox as seriously as Penrose does," Leggett says.
"I'm personally convinced that somewhere between the level of the
atom and human consciousness, something has to come in which
changes the structure of quantum mechanics." The problem is that
quantum theory has never yet failed to predict the outcome of any
experiment. Without evidence of some such flaw in the theory,
physicists are lef t groping in the dark for ways to improve it.
I think the odds of them being right are less than 5 percent," he
says.

David Deutsch, a theoretical physicist at Oxford University's
Centre for Quantum Computation, is a leading proponent of the
many worlds theory. He turns the tables on Pentrose, arguing that
his quest is based more on aesthetics than science: If something
is wrong with a theory, or there is some experimental anomaly,
those are rnotivations for changing a theory. When your
motivation comes from a metaphysical reluctance for reality to be
a certain way, then historically that kind of motivation has
never produ ced the right answers."

Penrose responds that he is not changing quantum mechanics; he is
merely putting it to a new, more rigorous test. "You can say we
haven't seen any violation of quantum mechanics, but that's
absolutely what you'd expect, because no experiment has ever been
performed that comes remotely close to the level you'd need to
see any violations. So unless you try to get to this level I'm
aiming for, it's not at all surprising that we haven't been able
to see any deviations," he says.

If Bouwmeester's experiment succeeds, it will show Mat the
fantasy of being in two places at the same time really is
impossible. As a kind of compensation, it will also show that the
number of places science can go is far greater than we have come
to believe. Most physicists today trying to unite Einstein's
theory of gravity with quantum mechanics focus on microscopic
realms beyond the reach of any conceivable experiment. Per. haps
the solution that eluded Einstein is much closet at hand, in the
strange ter ritory where quantum rnechanics just barely emerges
into the human world.

The one Penrose rises from his one chair, preparing to pick up
Max, his 4-year-old son, from school. He has no doubt that Max's
generation will learn physics lessons different from the
confusing, incomplete story that Penrose got from Dirac all those
years ago.

"Is quantum mechanics the last word?" Penrose asks. "There is no
reason to believe that."

End Excerpts.
-------------
back to p6

In deep space, there is no gravity. How come the astronauts don't
become macroscopic quantum objects appearing in different places
at once. What's the arguments why Penrose didn't use this
experiment or argument? Can the body of the spacecraft be a
gravity source of any object inside and vice versa?

p6
Back to top
Guy Gordon
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:29 am    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:

In the June 2005 issue of Discover Science Magazine. Roger
Penrose argued that gravity is the reason why quantum effects
don't occur in the macroscopic world.

I'd say definitely proven wrong. And his idea that gravitons cause dechoherence
was never all that believable. His other far-out idea that Quantum interference
effects are responsible for thought in the human brain is even less believable.
That one arises from the fallacious reasoning that since we have two things we
can't explain, they must be related. That only works in Agatha Christy novels.

Recent experiments by Anton Zeilinger with atom interference using C70
(buckyball) molecules shows that interaction with the environment through IR
photons is enough to destroy a quantum interference pattern. The experimenters
shoot a molecular beam of C70 molecules through a Talbot-Lau Interferometer and
see the interference pattern. Then they heat up the C70s so that they emit IR
photons. Also, they admit a very small amount of gas (billionth atmosphere) to
the chamber. Both of these cause dechoherence by forcing the C70s to interact
with the surroundings. Neither one of those will significantly increase the
number of gravitons around.

Quote:
In deep space, there is no gravity.

Incorrect. The gravitational field is everywhere, just like the electromagnetic
field. In some places its value might be near zero, but the field is
everywhere.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Back to top
p6
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:57 am    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

Guy Gordon wrote:
Quote:
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote:

In the June 2005 issue of Discover Science Magazine. Roger
Penrose argued that gravity is the reason why quantum effects
don't occur in the macroscopic world.

I'd say definitely proven wrong. And his idea that gravitons cause dechoherence
was never all that believable. His other far-out idea that Quantum interference
effects are responsible for thought in the human brain is even less believable.
That one arises from the fallacious reasoning that since we have two things we
can't explain, they must be related. That only works in Agatha Christy novels.

In the same article. There is a small passage that says:

"What is consciousness? Penrose argues that it is a byproduct of
quantum mechanical processes operating in the brain. Some intriguing
recent research supports his contention that microtubules - tiny
structures in brain cells - can allow quantum phenomena to influence
how neurons behave."

Do you know the source of that "intriguing recent research"?

Quote:

Recent experiments by Anton Zeilinger with atom interference using C70
(buckyball) molecules shows that interaction with the environment through IR
photons is enough to destroy a quantum interference pattern. The experimenters
shoot a molecular beam of C70 molecules through a Talbot-Lau Interferometer and
see the interference pattern. Then they heat up the C70s so that they emit IR
photons. Also, they admit a very small amount of gas (billionth atmosphere) to
the chamber. Both of these cause dechoherence by forcing the C70s to interact
with the surroundings. Neither one of those will significantly increase the
number of gravitons around.

But he never mention gravitons. He is suggesting that gravity
(g. relativity wise) may be what's preventing macro objects from
experiencing natural quantum superposition and measurement not being
entirely the mechanism. In micro objects. An act of measurement may
override the superposition... well.. i don't know what's Penrose
explanation of how micro objects can decohere... perhaps this is
explained in his 1,000 page Road to Reality (those who own this
book, did Penrose mention anything about the stuff in the article)?

Penrose is said to have an IQ of a genius. So he should be smarter
than anyone here except maybe Uncle Al.

Quote:
In deep space, there is no gravity.

Incorrect. The gravitational field is everywhere, just like the electromagnetic
field. In some places its value might be near zero, but the field is
everywhere.

Mass can cause curvature in space/time. But does this really extend
indefinitely. If there is a region in space that is 100 million light
years across without any object. Can the center still experience
gravity effect from let's say the sun?? Isn't it said that when the
sun disappears, the gravity wave has to travel so there is a delay
effect.

p6

Quote:



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Back to top
Guy Gordon
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:09 pm    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
In the same article. There is a small passage that says:

"What is consciousness? Penrose argues that it is a byproduct of
quantum mechanical processes operating in the brain. Some intriguing
recent research supports his contention that microtubules - tiny
structures in brain cells - can allow quantum phenomena to influence
how neurons behave."

Do you know the source of that "intriguing recent research"?

I know of no research that supports his contention. And in fact, it makes no
sense.

Quote:
with the surroundings. Neither one of those will significantly increase the
number of gravitons around.

But he never mention gravitons.

He does in his own writings, instead of just the Discover article about them.
I've read his "Shadows of the Mind", and "The Emperor's New Mind", and found
very little of use in either of them.

Quote:
Penrose is said to have an IQ of a genius.

Irrelevant. Maybe I'm a genius too. Wild speculation by a genius is still wild
speculation. What matters is results. Can Penrose build his ideas into a
mathematical physical theory? Can that theory make testable predictions? Do
experiments test that theory? The answers so far are no, no, and no.

Genius is a label we apply to people who have figured things out that a normal
person could not. This doesn't mean a normal person cannot understand them.
You and I can understand Einstein's theories of Relativity, even if it took a
genius to create them. And the genius Einstein was just plain wrong to reject
Quantum Mechanics because it wasn't deterministic enough.

Also, beware of physicists venturing outside their area of expertise. When
Penrose looks at consciousness and the brain he's as much a layman as you or I.

Quote:
Mass can cause curvature in space/time. But does this really extend
indefinitely. If there is a region in space that is 100 million light
years across without any object. Can the center still experience
gravity effect from let's say the sun??

If you were 100Mly from the sun, and you had a really *really* good telescope,
you'd have no trouble believing you could see a tiny tiny bit of light from the
sun, right? Well that light is just a vibration in the electromagnetic field.
You aren't seeing 'the electromagnetic field of the sun'. There is only one
electromagnetic field, and it exists everywhere by definition.

Same thing with the gravitational field. It exists everywhere. You aren't
feeling a separate field from the sun, and another from the Earth. There is one
gravitational field, and every mass in the universe makes its contribution. Of
course, at 100Mly, the effect of anything will be vanishingly small.

Quote:
Isn't it said that when the
sun disappears, the gravity wave has to travel so there is a delay effect.

Yes, I saw the same Nova program. And yes, if the sun were to magically
disappear, the effects would travel outward from the sun's last position at the
speed of light. But how is this relevant? Both the gravitational and
electromagnetic fields exist everywhere, and effects in them propagate at the
speed of light.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:36 pm    Post subject: Penrose's New Spin & Its Actual Origin (was: QM- the Penrose Interpretation) Reply with quote

p6 wrote:
Quote:
In the June 2005 issue of Discover Science Magazine. Roger
Penrose argued that gravity is the reason why quantum effects
don't occur in the macroscopic world...

You know ... that sounds AWFULLY familiar. Formerly, he held that
Black Holes decohere quantum states turning pure states into thermal
states (as they do), and that, itself, was the primary mechanism behind
a von Neumann pure->mixed "projection".

But now, this is much more general, stating that the mere presence of
gravity, itself, is the main culprit behind decoherence.

Quote:
If a dust speck is in two locations at the same time, each one should
create its own distortions in space-time, yielding two superposed
gravitational fields.

Yup, sure does sound familiar. I WONDER where this new approach could
have suddenly come from...??!

1990 May 9
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b74525246bfbd2c1?dmode=source

1991 April 14
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d18b0c83a547cf80?dmode=source

2002 March 3
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/e2e637ef2bf4f9c7?dmode=source

2002 November 13
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.theory/msg/3eb08a9476c294fe?dmode=source

2004 April 6
http://group-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/e993b70fdd324bc3?dmode=source

BUSTED!

And the clincher...

"Schroedinger's Cat"
2003 October 17
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2f7a999c88fcc3dd?dmode=source

"You don't need to resort to that or anything elaborate to explain it.
A cat has gravity. The gravity is a long-range force. The force is
universal -- it couples to everything, and the force cannot be
shielded. So, having the box around the cat doesn't do anything, since
it's STILL continually entangling with the rest of the world around it,
literally as fast as its gravity acts on its surroundings."

.... which includes an additional element not seen in Penrose (thus
establishing true priority):

"For a small enough system, one might expect that the discreteness of
gravitational interaction will start to show up, so that there will be
a 'mean time between gravitational events' type deal going on. This
will set an upper bound on the lifetime of the superposition of
quasi-classical states."

YOU ARE SO BUSTED!
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:54 pm    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

I'd say the first regular mirror is not far enough away. The light
would reach the first mirror and go back to the beam splitter and go
through simply because the light in the direction of the small mirror
hasn't reached its original position yet. They should move the first
regular mirror far enough away so that the length of the light path
there is equal to the length of the light path in the direction of the
tiny mirror.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:40 pm    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

Rozmonth@Lycos.com wrote:
Quote:
I'd say the first regular mirror is not far enough away. The light
would reach the first mirror and go back to the beam splitter and go
through simply because the light in the direction of the small mirror
hasn't reached its original position yet.

Another important observation: apart from the deviating paths of the
particles, polarization has no gravitational signature. The Maxwell
stress tensor is invariant under "complexion" transformations (E -> E
cos k + cB sin k; B -> B cos k - E/c sin k), as is the gravity field.

This is, in fact, one of the central arguments that definitively shoots
down the Maxwell notion of the field arising from the stress of a
medium. The electromagnetic stress, in fact, simply does NOT reproduce
the field: it and the field complexion are entirely independent of one
another.
Back to top
Ranando King
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 129

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:11 pm    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

"Guy Gordon" <gordon@NOSPAMwhite-crane.com> wrote in message
news:5gjra1pl2e9tkeptcas94otm6ujnss6fbv@4ax.com...
Quote:
"p6" <atomicp6@yahoo.com> wrote:
snipped
Mass can cause curvature in space/time. But does this really extend
indefinitely. If there is a region in space that is 100 million light
years across without any object. Can the center still experience
gravity effect from let's say the sun??

If you were 100Mly from the sun, and you had a really *really* good
telescope,
you'd have no trouble believing you could see a tiny tiny bit of light
from the
sun, right? Well that light is just a vibration in the electromagnetic
field.
You aren't seeing 'the electromagnetic field of the sun'. There is only
one
electromagnetic field, and it exists everywhere by definition.

Same thing with the gravitational field. It exists everywhere. You
aren't
feeling a separate field from the sun, and another from the Earth. There
is one
gravitational field, and every mass in the universe makes its
contribution. Of
course, at 100Mly, the effect of anything will be vanishingly small.

Isn't it said that when the
sun disappears, the gravity wave has to travel so there is a delay
effect.

Yes, I saw the same Nova program. And yes, if the sun were to magically
disappear, the effects would travel outward from the sun's last position
at the
speed of light. But how is this relevant? Both the gravitational and
electromagnetic fields exist everywhere, and effects in them propagate at
the
speed of light.


I think p6 was taking note of the fact that Sol is only so old. Since the
propagation speed of a gravity wave is the same as for EM, then anything
that is c * (Sol's age +/- a few millenia) will neither experience any light
or gravitational effects from Sol. So in a region like the one he described,
if the center of this region is more than about 5 billion lightyears away
from Sol, then it will not experience gravity from Sol.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Penrose's New Spin & Its Actual Origin (was: QM- the Penrose Interpretation) Reply with quote

markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
p6 wrote:
In the June 2005 issue of Discover Science Magazine. Roger
Penrose argued that gravity is the reason why quantum effects
don't occur in the macroscopic world...

You know ... that sounds AWFULLY familiar. Formerly, he held that
Black Holes decohere quantum states turning pure states into thermal
states (as they do), and that, itself, was the primary mechanism behind
a von Neumann pure->mixed "projection".

But now, this is much more general, stating that the mere presence of
gravity, itself, is the main culprit behind decoherence.
[snip]

As you seem aware of his previous work, I'm surprised you didn't know
he's been talking about this stuff since the late 1980s, which predates
your references.

BR
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:14 pm    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

I don't think the C70 examples prove Penrose wrong. But I'm also
skeptical of Penrose's own test of his proposal. After reading his
books, I thought there was an element of "consistent histories" to his
proposal, like a many-universe collapse down to a single universe. That
view seems contradicted in the article of the OP above. I don't see how
he can get away without a consistent histories approach, which would
imply a many-universe interpretation to be equally valid to whatever he
is proposing.

And does a consistent histories approach imply a kind of past-future
non-locality? (I guess that should be non-temporality). As spatial
non-locality (XYZ entanglement) over very long distances is so well
accepted, then time non-temporality (past-future entanglement) over
long times should not be too hard to accept (and I mean more than the
usual E-t uncertainty relation which is well established, but rather a
cause-effect entanglement), especially as relativity treats space and
time on an equal footing. I know, it's been discussed before, but may
be worth a revisit.

BR
Back to top
Ben Rudiak-Gould
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 382

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:29 am    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

p6 wrote:
Quote:
In deep space, there is no gravity. How come the astronauts don't
become macroscopic quantum objects appearing in different places
at once.

People have already responded to point out that gravity is an infinite-range
force, but that's actually beside the point. Penrose's proposal involves the
gravitational field of the test object, not an ambient gravitational field.
Even in deep space, the astronauts themselves still generate gravitational
fields.

-- Ben
Back to top
George Jones
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:57 pm    Post subject: Re: QM- the Penrose Interpretation (How true?) Reply with quote

brendan.roycroft@nmrc.ie wrote:
Quote:
I don't think the C70 examples prove Penrose wrong.


Nor do I. As the excerpt given in the original post indicates, and as
Ben Rudiak-Gould has noted, Penrose thinks that the gravitaional
effects of the objects involved collapse the wavefunction. When
infrared photons or gases are introduced, the system gets coupled to
the environment, which, if Penrose is correct, has more than enough
mass to cause collapse.


Quote:
But I'm also
skeptical of Penrose's own test of his proposal.


I'm not sure what you mean. I am very skeptical of Penrose's
intriguing proposal, but the test seems OK. He wants an experiment
performed for which his proposal predicts different results (collapse)
than does standard quantum theory (superposition). Even if standard
quantum theory comes through with flying colours, it will still be an
amazing result - superposition of states for an object composed of
10^14 atoms! Compare to C70. Some of the details of the proposed
experiment were published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 159903 (E) (2003),
and the submitted manuscript is available at

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210001


Quote:
After reading his
books, I thought there was an element of "consistent histories" to his
proposal, like a many-universe collapse down to a single universe. That
view seems contradicted in the article of the OP above. I don't see how
he can get away without a consistent histories approach, which would
imply a many-universe interpretation to be equally valid to whatever he
is proposing.


As I understand things, Penrose is proposing something quite different
than consistent histories. I know only a little about consistent
histories, and this thread has motivated me to try and learn some of
the details about Penrose's approach from: The Road to Reality; Class.
Quantum Grav. 15 (1998) 2733-2742;

http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/online/Html/Seminars/Fall1998/Penrose/Slides/s01.html

I hope to make another post to this thread explaining some of the
technical details behind Penrose's proposal.

Are you saying that consistent histories is the only valid
interpretation of quantum theory? I don't know enough to comment on
your interesting remarks below.

Regards,
George


Quote:
And does a consistent histories approach imply a kind of past-future
non-locality? (I guess that should be non-temporality). As spatial
non-locality (XYZ entanglement) over very long distances is so well
accepted, then time non-temporality (past-future entanglement) over
long times should not be too hard to accept (and I mean more than the
usual E-t uncertainty relation which is well established, but rather a
cause-effect entanglement), especially as relativity treats space and
time on an equal footing. I know, it's been discussed before, but may
be worth a revisit.

BR
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [12 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:58 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts "Help A Disabled Man's Dream Come True" disabledmanneedshelp Math 3 Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:58 am
No new posts Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm
No new posts Investigations of John Cramer's Transactional Interpretat... Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:45 pm
No new posts Penrose egg. brian a m stuckless Electromagnetics 1 Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:30 pm
No new posts Penrose egg. brian a m stuckless Math 0 Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:30 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1820s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1172s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]