On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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?
That's what I took it to say. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
