Comments on: Penrose Objective Reduction http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/ Musings on art, philosophy, mathematics, and physics Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:40:18 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: insomniac http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/#comment-85 insomniac Thu, 29 May 2008 21:31:07 +0000 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-85 Hmmm, i'm really over my head on this, but if this phenomenon really is part of a holographic memory process, having a switch with infinite states could be very handy, huh? It gives another possible take on the uncertainty thing. Maybe the fuzziness of matter is not a physical situation, but informational in nature. Maybe the state is dependent on the stored content rather than physical attributes. cheers, jim Hmmm, i’m really over my head on this, but if this phenomenon really is part of a holographic memory process, having a switch with infinite states could be very handy, huh?

It gives another possible take on the uncertainty thing. Maybe the fuzziness of matter is not a physical situation, but informational in nature. Maybe the state is dependent on the stored content rather than physical attributes.

cheers,
jim

]]> By: hilbertthm90 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/#comment-84 hilbertthm90 Thu, 29 May 2008 18:49:46 +0000 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-84 As many states as you want. This includes infinitely many. Suppose $latex \{\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \varphi_3, \ldots \}$ are all states (of position say and it goes on forever), then the wavefunction $latex \psi=\sum_{n=1}^\infty c_n\varphi_n$ is a perfectly legitimate wavefunction and it is a superposition of infinitely many states. If it collapses to one of those states through observation, or whatever, then the probability that it will go to state $latex \varphi_n$ is $latex |c_n|^2$. As many states as you want. This includes infinitely many. Suppose \{\varphi_1, \varphi_2, \varphi_3, \ldots \} are all states (of position say and it goes on forever), then the wavefunction \psi=\sum_{n=1}^\infty c_n\varphi_n is a perfectly legitimate wavefunction and it is a superposition of infinitely many states. If it collapses to one of those states through observation, or whatever, then the probability that it will go to state \varphi_n is |c_n|^2.

]]> By: insomniac http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/#comment-83 insomniac Thu, 29 May 2008 17:05:11 +0000 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-83 It helps, for sure. I'm looking for a high level of agreement. Wavefront equals some information, is good enough for me. In the holographic memory model, the wavefunction would be the state of fundamental memory unit. Its state would represent one unit of the dynamic holographic image recorded there. So, my next question: How many states can be represented by a the wavefuncton of a particle? Geez, i hope i'm making sense. cheers, jim It helps, for sure. I’m looking for a high level of agreement. Wavefront equals some information, is good enough for me.

In the holographic memory model, the wavefunction would be the state of fundamental memory unit. Its state would represent one unit of the dynamic holographic image recorded there.

So, my next question: How many states can be represented by a the wavefuncton of a particle?

Geez, i hope i’m making sense.

cheers,
jim

]]> By: hilbertthm90 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/#comment-82 hilbertthm90 Thu, 29 May 2008 15:08:23 +0000 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-82 I haven't really been ignoring your question, but it is semi-tricky so I've been thinking about it. I'm interpreting it as "Does a wavefunction represent a system or a particle?" In that case, the wavefunction should be said to represent a system. That system could be a particle, but it could also be said to be two particles. On the other hand, I could interpret the question as, "Does the wavefunction contain all the information of a system?" This is more tricky. I dare say yes. When you talk about position or momentum etc, we know what those look like and can thus transform to the "position space" or "momentum space" and find the probabilities. On the other hand, in theory the information for things that we don't know what it looks like is encoded in the wavefuntion. If we had a way to transform to that space we would have the information, but what good does that do us if we don't know how to do it (or worse yet, someone proves that the space can't exist mathematically). The information is there, but not accessible. Not sure if this helps. I haven’t really been ignoring your question, but it is semi-tricky so I’ve been thinking about it. I’m interpreting it as “Does a wavefunction represent a system or a particle?” In that case, the wavefunction should be said to represent a system. That system could be a particle, but it could also be said to be two particles.

On the other hand, I could interpret the question as, “Does the wavefunction contain all the information of a system?” This is more tricky. I dare say yes. When you talk about position or momentum etc, we know what those look like and can thus transform to the “position space” or “momentum space” and find the probabilities. On the other hand, in theory the information for things that we don’t know what it looks like is encoded in the wavefuntion. If we had a way to transform to that space we would have the information, but what good does that do us if we don’t know how to do it (or worse yet, someone proves that the space can’t exist mathematically). The information is there, but not accessible.

Not sure if this helps.

]]> By: insomniac http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/#comment-81 insomniac Thu, 29 May 2008 02:28:13 +0000 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-81 Howdy, My name is jim cranford. I'm working on a manuscript that explores natural systems as processing information first with matter the resulting output. I see you checkout my blog. thanks for stopping by. I can't make much sense out of the equations and jargon you folks use, but i'm trying to grasp the concepts and connect them with the model i'm building. Is it accurate to say that the wavefunction represents the information present in the system or particle it describes? cheers, jim Howdy,

My name is jim cranford. I’m working on a manuscript that explores natural systems as processing information first with matter the resulting output.

I see you checkout my blog. thanks for stopping by.

I can’t make much sense out of the equations and jargon you folks use, but i’m trying to grasp the concepts and connect them with the model i’m building.

Is it accurate to say that the wavefunction represents the information present in the system or particle it describes?

cheers,
jim

]]> By: insomniac http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/penrose-objective-reduction/#comment-79 insomniac Wed, 28 May 2008 22:51:15 +0000 http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-79 Howdy, My last comment never made it through... trying again. LifeOS: in search of the system that executes DNA Oops, gotta go. cheers, jim Howdy,

My last comment never made it through… trying again.

LifeOS: in search of the system that executes DNA

Oops, gotta go.

cheers,
jim

]]>