Quantum

Quantum
The Quantum World

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Is reality a closed system? Is it possible to access and live in an open system?




I was recently was having a discussion about entropy and the concept of the universe being an open or closed system came up. A closed system is a system in the state of self contained and with no way to exist outside of it. We could assume that there is something outside of it, but it in fact, could be another aspect of the same closed system. Kind of like the Russian doll inside another doll and so son.  You can also make the argument that since no one tell if the universe is being affected from an outside source or other universe or dimension, then it can be concluded a closed system.

Effectively, there exists no space or time outside of the universe that we could know since the way we understand the universe is based on how we experience it, not know it in its entirety.  

 The universe is open if it is affected by something outside of it. But again, how could you or I tell if it were being affected by something outside of it unless you could go outside of it. Sure, we can say that we have found some kind of particle or wave or graviton or unusual occurrence in what we assume to be our stable closed system, but rather it is part of the very same system.

I think most people define the universe as a closed system, though a few people (i.e. brane-world string theorists) use the term somewhat differently. As a sociologist, I am more curious as to why there is a discussion as to the universe being closed or open. I read a comment on a physics forum that can answer in part the curious we have about a closed or open system.

It went like this.... First, start by asking yourself why is it that you care whether it's open or closed. The reason you care, I assume, is because you want to know whether the law of conservation of energy and similar laws apply. So then, why does whether it is open or closed affect that? Because, an open system might have energy added to it or subtracted from it by an external source/sink of energy.

Yes, that is the problem but is it. Again, an open system suggests an external force that has access to a closed system which means that the closed system is not actually ‘closed off’ and hence this open system, the one out there that seems to be acting upon our system either acts randomly or acts accordingly ....to its laws rather than our laws? Rather not... otherwise we wouldn’t notice it. Therefore, it does act according to the same laws and that means then it is not truly or really an open system that we are experiencing just another aspect of our closed system.  

We could suppose it is a closed system with doors and when they open we notice something has changed but we are not sure what or why or by what forces other than supposing someone opened a door. Perhaps, that means there is an external force, another aspect of our closed system but of a higher dimensional nature, or perhaps a Creator.  

The fact that we are able to notice at all means that the system we are in is entirely open and immeasurable or that it is closed in an immeasurable way.

Is entropy the bigger problem? The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system any process can either keep the entropy constant or increase the entropy of the system. What is entropy? Many say it is the state of order to disorder. We can find that truth in many visible aspects of the universe and in nature. The human body is in perfect ‘order’ when born or even before it is born and upon entering this space of reality, begins immediately to move toward disorder. In saying that one has to reject evolution...

In an open system, would entropy stop? We really cannot know that unless we give up the idea that if we discontinue fueling the organism; it ceases to live and eventually disintegrates. From high-energy order it moves in the direction of low-energy disorder. Since we cannot give up that idea, at least no one wants to... then we have no way of knowing unless we die to this closed system and are resurrected to an open system where entropy stops. Amen!


Friday, February 5, 2016

Why does time appear to move forward only?




In a recent article, I was surprised to read that someone could be a physicist today and not have read anything already said, done and published by greater thinkers, greater physicists, i.e. Albert Einstein, Max Planck or Werner Heisenberg. At least that is how it appeared to be upon reading the article, titled - A physicist has a new explanation for why time moves forward, not backward.

Here is an excerpt - We all know that time only ever moves forward in our world — no matter how many times we've wanted it to, that glass of spilled milk never un-spills itself, and we're definitely not getting any younger. There are a lot of hypotheses for why this is the case, but it's long been assumed that this one-way direction of time is a fundamental part of nature.
 
But new research by Joan Vaccaro from Griffith University in Australia suggests that this might not actually be the case, and there might be something deeper causing time to push forward.
In fact, there might actually be a subtle difference between the two arrows of time — forward and backward — that's constantly driving us to the future and not the past.

Did this researcher not know what Albert Einstein said? “Time and Space are modes by which we think and not conditions by which we live”. It is difficult to call this researcher's take on time a 'new explanation'. Physicists have long known that there is a connection between time and space and space is easier to understand. Time appears to move forward but only because of our perception of it. Experiencing one direction of time is due to the fact that we are living in (embedded in) 3 dimensions of space. If we could add to our three dimensions of space another spatial dimension, then we would experience different directions of time. However, once you choose a path in this dimension (the one we live in), you are on it, at least that is what our 'vantage' point is in this dimension.

Yes, that is why we can say that time appears to move forward because we observe certain events that cause the state of the universe to appear to be moving forward. That 'moving forward' is actually the state of entropy. Which means in a state of decay; therefore, time and space in this observational condition and especially what we call time seem to move forward... but that is an illusion or rather our perceiving entropy, our perceiving of a decaying corrupt program. We look but we cannot look absolutely and forever as we too are caught in the same entropy.

How is this perception possible- this state of decay? At CalPolyTech, the state of entropy has been described in this way. Entropy is observed as a measure of the disorder of a system. That disorder can be represented in terms of energy that is not available to be used. Natural processes will always proceed in the direction that increases the disorder of a system. Entropy follows the second law of thermodynamics which has been summarized in many different statements in the last century and a half.

All of the statements are an attempt to put a reason to the things all of us have observed - that when two objects are in thermal contact, heat always goes from the warmer to the cooler and never the other way. This universal result has probably as many explanations as there are physicists trying to explain it - and is still the subject of serious consideration by some of the best theorists. The difficulty does not lie in what the second law says - or how it should be interpreted - but rather in what the fundamental, underlying reason is for why nature behaves in that way.

Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged.  All natural processes are irreversible.  All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased ~ Source http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

We are observing the decay of a program even though it appears to be ‘real’ as in having immutable physical attributes as in having direction. Again, that is not the case. Time and space do seem to have direction as appearing to be affected by natural processes which they even appear to be embedded in and or in some way interfacing with each other. Yet, what is real is only what we are able to observe in this state of entropy. 

Einstein’s observation of time and space, as being modes by which we think (time is in the mind) and not conditions by which we live, is as true a reality we can ever know. It means that other than man’s perception in this information reality (detected on the quantum level) there is no ‘real’ knowable physical condition (natural processes included) that we could know absolutely. There is only our thinking about what we are able to observe. Our brain observes the world one plank length (frames) at a time... a flip book animation. 

Can we flip backwards? No. Again, we are limited to this three spatial dimension. Because of that, we can only go in one direction. We cannot redo things differently. We can only experience one thing 'plank length' one after another. Is time the fourth dimension? The fourth dimension adds a way for the third to change. Time is a direction not a dimension. We experience this direction from the third dimension. We experience, change as in causality, things appear to move forward and decay. That is because of entropy. The entropy we experience is the arrow of time operational.

Again, time isn't a dimension, its a direction that is tracking change. We need the next dimension in order to track or observe change otherwise, we would be standing still as in frozen. That is kind of what happens to your computer... information gets frozen. Why? Because of the limitations of their linear program. But, quantum computers don't freeze, they are not limited. Does that mean such computers are outside of time?
Quantum computers provide information in quanta. So information is given in little bit sized plank lengths. They are able to process as in do more in a moment than a linear computer because they use quantum mechanics to do the processes, they are in a sense outside of time as we know it. 

Albert Einstein said that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.  How can we lift the curtain of that illusion in our own mind which is an organic computer? Are we operating at the quantum level? Yes, We can imagine or envision taking numerous routes and all probabilities, our mind is performing a quantum equation. Considering as many probabilities and then deciding. However, being embedded in this 3-D program, though limited, by this dimension, the mind is outside of that  and thus the mind operates as a quantum computer.

Perhaps, this is what the Griffth researcher was trying to say. Even if that were, though not likely; because, of the lack of reference to Einstein or any predecessor in the article. One could strongly suppose a lack of classical training. Why? Today, sociologists observe a trend among young millennials which is to forego classical training and or philosophy, research methods, writings/literature. As if their thinking, their mind is like no other that has come before them. Too bad they are so mistaken or have been so misled.

Immanuel Kant wrote that things don't control the mind, the mind controls things and or that things conform to the mind. At least this much classical training, we can recognize in the work of trained physicists like Einstein. Great minds, stand on the shoulders of other great minds. Reading this article reflects that we are failing to do that in this century.

*Time is a creation as is matter and space and man. Man has been allowed to know somethings about creation... essentially, on a need to know basis.  One could ask - does a program have the power to observe everything in the program simultaneously and to change it at will? We might think so and even think we are able to. However, it is not our task to change what is unless commanded by the programmer. God's word, the Bible, is our task giver. All commands are given there. Consider... by taking over the program, away from the programmer, do we create harm for the entire program or good? Whose good? The greater good would be to act as a fully functioning program and do the will of the Creator. Time would be on our side.