Limits of conservation laws when symmetries break

Jack Sarfatti

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
- Albert Einstein


On Nov 27, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Nov 27, 2006, at 10:09 PM,...wrote:
In a message dated 11/28/2006 1:07:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
You assume the dimensionality of the Hilbert space is a constant of the
motion.

well, since it's infinite, I can live with that statement.

But there are different orders of infinity - Cantor

Also in quantum computers we have finite dimensional Hilbert spaces.

If the universe is a computer with quantum gravity as a lattice theory
then the continuum is only a low energy emergent phenomenon.

Any experiment, any experience - is really a finite dimensional space of
states - the Hilbert space model is an over-idealization.

QUBITS are inherently finite dimensional.


Jack Sarfatti

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
- Albert Einstein


On Nov 27, 2006, at 10:27 PM, ... wrote:

In a message dated 11/28/2006 1:06:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

See also below for some questions:


Jack Sarfatti

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
- Albert Einstein


On Nov 27, 2006, at 8:29 PM, G (PhD UC Berkeley Theoretical Physicist)
wrote:
Dear Jack,

thanks for the Rovelli book. Now THERE is a real physicist! It is an
incredible pleasure to read it. Thanks! All these pseudo-physicists
(brilliant mathematicians, some of them, but their claim to doing
physics, as opposed to applied math, seems based on nothing: not real
experiments, not Gedankenexperiments; and their big-mouthed claims to be
on the verge of a TOE are laughable) can get lost, as you so nicely
write below. We need Einstein-like intuition and connection with
experience, and Rovelli passes muster.

Question: could you say a bit more about your proposed slaughter of
unitarity? In doing so, please express it in terms of fundamentals.



1. Non-hermitian Hamiltonians are used in nuclear physics e.g. optical
model if I recall, and in irreversible open systems and actually fit
real observations. So why must the scattering matrix be unitary?
these approximations are like friction in classical mechanics (before
kinetic theory): just plug it in to fit experiment, but you know it's
not fundamental

But how do we know? Yes for classical mechanics of small systems sure.
However, the dark energy density of the universe is constant if w = -1
therefore the total energy of the expanding accelerating universe is not
globally conserved at all.
true
Entropy is not conserved. Conservation of energy is not fundamental
true
and neither is conservation of probability when genuinely new
possibilities emerge and old ones disappear.
granted, IF genuinely new possibilities emerge; not just new
possibilities in the sense that their actualization was "virtually"
impossible" (extremely unlikely) before, but truly new possibilities,
unthinkable, mathematically unrepresentable even as possibilities. I.e.
the Hilbert space changes.

I have a hard time conceiving of that. But that is probably due to my
paradigmatic limitations. Please enlarge me :-)

Conservation of energy is much over-rated. It is merely an artifact of
time translation symmetry that is a good approximation here only because
the local radii of curvature are ~ 1 astronomical unit and the solar
system motions are Newtonian to a good approximation. Energy
conservation works in special relativity also of course.

true

2. Unitarity of the S-Matrix is based on Born probability interpretation
- but why must
probabilities add up to 1?
what the hell are probabilities supposed to add up to, Jack, if not one?
Please explain

You assume that the number of possibilities at time t1 is same as number
of possibilities at time t2. Then and only then will the probabilities
at t1 continue to add to 1 at t2.
yes, as already mentioned, I assume that, and ask you to challenge my
assumption in a plausible way
That's only in an evolving closed system in which there are no emergent
new possibilities (Henri Bergson) from "More is different" ODLRO
condensations.
our Hilbert space is supposed to describe all possibilities, and any new
emergent phenomena are within that domain.

Well that's the issue.

Suppose you have a Fock space of a single harmonic oscillator - but then
that single harmonic oscillator replicates to a second one with a
slightly different frequency.
if that possibility exists, then the original Hilbert space you used had
to accommodate that possibility from the start. You don't just change
Hilbert spaces in midstream

Look Valentini has written about this i.e. break down of Born
probability interpretation implicit in unitarity of S-Matrix.
Fock Valentini :-) You tell me (or, second best by far, direct me to his
paper).

I think we have pinpointed the discrepancy between us. I stand on
traditional ground here (an unusual place for me to stand, I admit). The
burden of proof is on you to justify this Hilbert space switch
sleight-of-hand business,

....

I don't think you can (mis) use Henri Bergson for that :-)
As for "more is different, please explain it to this babe in the woods
(me) in simple words appropriate for a babe. ODLRO is not babe language
I(although it sounds like it phonetically)

Correlation functions develop macro-eigenvalues. The BEC condensate has
a robust phase and the rules of collapse break down for it. Only the
micro-quantum fluctuations into and out of the BEC obey the usual rules.

3. In Bohm's theory, probability is not fundamental.
can you give me reference so I can read and consider that? If you have
the text itself in computer form, could you email me the relevant section?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0203049

A. Valentini has taken this a lot further "sub-quantal heat death"


It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal
communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are
hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental
but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe
happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or
nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles
from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected
and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send
instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to
distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to
eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum
computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0203049

I am working on this George. ;-)


In a message dated 11/27/2006 11:07:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
I went through Kaku's advanced text on superstrings today - MY GAWD -
some nice math here and there, but what a colossal waste of money
time and talent IMHO chasing after straws never such a big buck for
so little bang - experimentally. All those theoretical physicists
wasting their careers wrecking the field. String theory is to physics
as the Iraq fiasco is to American Foreign Policy. Talk about lack of
coherence and ad hoc this and ad hoc that and unjustified this and
unjustified that. Mind you Kaku is a good expositor - it's not him
it's the whole bloody idea - fundamentally flawed though parts of it
may survive. See Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" as opposed to
Witten's "Yellowbrick Road" and Wolfowitz's "Yellowcake Road."
Puthoff and Haisch's theory bad as it is, is better than string
theory because the former is testable and has been falsified. Sharon
Weinberg's second book should be "Imaginary Physics" starting with
STING THEORY. It's physics of the Mandarins and you know what
happened to China under the mandarins with the long fingernails. ;-)


Some sacred cows needing quick painless slaughter

1. Unitarity of S-MATRIX

2. Forbidding retro-causality & no-cloning theorem