On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and > similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve > the foundational problem, as usually conceived, as define what FAPP must > mean and quantify it in computational terms (instead of probability units > as I have proposed). > > > *Computational solution to quantum foundational problems* > *Arkady Bolotin* > *(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, > v6))* > > * This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum > linearity to any physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of > macroscopic extensional world, which leads to a main foundational problem > in quantum theory referred to as the "measurement problem", actually has a > computational character: It implies that there is a generic algorithm, > which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every > physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many > constituent microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of > computational complexity theory, this requirement is equivalent to the > assumption that the computational complexity classes P and NP are equal, > which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated in the paper, > accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential > Time Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between > a microscopic quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called > the Heisenberg cut) since this hypothesis, if true, would imply that > deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are impossible to overlap > in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of > macroscopic objects from their microstates.* > > *Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science > International Journal. Please refer to this (final) version as a reference* > *Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)* > *Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157* > *Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]* > * (or arXiv:1403.7686v6 [quant-ph] for this version)* > > I may have misinterpreted this paper (and god knows I don't have much time to look at them in depth) but the impression I got was that some computations are "too hard for nature to perform in time" and this time limit creates the Heisenberg cut. Is that a fair summary, or have I messed up again?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
