My First Post-Champaign Blurry 2015 New Years Activity: I woke up on the first day of 2015 and read this paper by Alexei Grinbaum: Quantum Observer and Kolmogorov Complexity (How exciting you say!) It starts with an interesting review of observer paradoxes found in various QM interpretations. But I have a different take on all of it. I start my divergence right from the intro: OK, so what if we define the observer as being the observers whole Universe? Then the system (S) being observed would be within Os Universe. One could alter illustration 1 to put O at the exact center of the illustration (with the understanding that the center-point represents the focal point of Os Universe. The system S under Os observation would be drawn somewhere outside of the center. When O compares notes with another observer (Oi-other), O is just observing another (Oi-other) system along with (S) that are inside of Os Universe. Since Os Universe is decohered into a single outcome/eigenstate then of course O will agree with Oi-other regarding any observation of S. In a different outcome/eigenstate (i.e., another branch of the multiverse), there is an Oi observer at the center of an Oi Universe and Oi observes O-other and S as two systems within Ois Universe. Since Ois Universe is a single decohered eigenstate, then O-other will have to agree with Oi about S. If this is how things are, the Kolgomorov complexity would have to specify each observers whole Universe to capture the observer (which may be impossible). I should add that any whole Universe is only a single instantaneous eigenstate, like one of Barbours time capsules. One more thing, the Oi-other that O sees is only a system within O, it is not the real Oi. And the O-other that Oi sees is likewise not the real O but only a system within Oi. But all the O-other systems seen by all Os are representative of real observers who are at the center of their own whole Universes. IOW, other observers can only be observed by any given observer via internal systems that represent the other observers. In this way via representations (or proxies), all real observers will agree with each other (including Alice and Bob) and the observer paradoxes are solved. Also as Rovelli understands, there is no nonlocality since decoherence is gained in local steps. Nonlocality is an illusion that arises from false assumptions of reality. It all works out quite nicely - if you bend your mind around the idea. So as usual, I seem to sort of disagree with everyone including all sides expressed in this paper - except for perhaps (or perhaps not) my eccentric understanding of Barbour and Rovelli. Now I will go see how my garden is doing and then take the dogs for a walk. Happy First Day of 2015! edition-open-access.de/proceedings/3/2/
Posted on: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 21:18:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015