Карасев Александр Владимирович : другие произведения.

Clarification of the paradoxes of quantum interference in neural terminology

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
 Ваша оценка:
  • Аннотация:
    All the paradoxes of quantum mechanics are due to the use of traditional atomistic terminology that implicitly, unconsciously inherited many of the prejudices of classical atomism. Daylight to the neural terminology returns common sense to the physics .
  Clarification of the paradoxes of quantum interference in neural terminology
  
  A.V. Karasev
  
  All the paradoxes of quantum mechanics are due to the use of traditional atomistic terminology that implicitly, unconsciously inherited many of the prejudices of classical atomism. Daylight to the neural terminology returns common sense to the physics .
  
  It is said that quantum physics is mysterious, contradictory, incomprehensible paradox [1]. Even invented a special quantum logic, incompatible with the common sense. I believe that these contradictions and paradoxes come from is not entirely successful terminology. Because quantum mechanics inherited atomistic terminology - atoms and the void, from Epicurus. It solved the problem of compatibility with classical mechanics - that is the problem of the practical application of calculations of quantum objects. However, it also led to controversy with logic and common sense.
  For example, lets consider the "heart of quantum mechanics" [1] - interference by two slits. The closing of the slit - this is the interrupt of the spatial relationship through this slit from the particle source to the detector. And this relationship is always unconsciously assumed to be positive. Hence, there is a paradox - how can that be: the slit was closed, but the particles suddenly began to hit into the detector. Or vice versa - a slit opened but the particles do not pass. It should be emphasized that this assumption of positive space communications - the assumption is implicit, unconscious. It has inherited from Epicurus, from his teachings on emptiness. Indeed, the empty space may have only the most simple features. But experience shows the complex spatial relationship from the source to the detector. This complexity in the traditional terminology has to ascribe to the particle itself in the form of the wave function. So, the corpuscular - wave dualism and other paradoxes appear.
  To describe the empty space in the neural terminology is not so easy as in the atomistic, where enough to say like this: "Consider a spherically symmetric wave function ...". In neural terminology it is necessary to organize the neural network so that the internal observer of the network emerged conviction to spherical symmetry [2]. And it's not that simple - to me it all seems very hazy - only in general view. In neural terminology there is not neither particles no voids, but only neural connections and neural signals. This, of course, metaphysical concepts.
  But they are no more and no less metaphysical than the traditional concept of the atomistic terminology - particles and void. A fragment of a neural network that transmits neural signals without distortion it seems as empty space for any observer. If the neural signals are distorted, the observer would say - on the path of the particle there is region filled with some substance. In a network there are fragments in which the minimum input signal causes the output steady stream of neural signals. Then the observer will notice that there are some classic event or measurement. This event - measurement is described by the instantaneous (at the one cycle of the neurocomputer) changing the state of neural signals in a neuron layer that corresponds to coherent quantum object [3].
  Of course, all this requires a more detailed study on the much higher level. But now, based on neural terminology we may significantly deepen understanding of quantum mechanics. Really. in neural terminology self-evident that the spatial neuronal connections should generally have a complex structure. If the whole world seems as complex neural network, so the empty space, too, must have a complex structure. But the overlapping of the complex connection naturally can and should have a variety of effects - as in the minus and plus. Therefore, after the closing of the slit. the overall neural signal in the detector can either decrease or increase. In the latter case, some of the detectors will be recorded events that internal observer network will be conveniently interpreted as the registration of "particles", because all of the minimal events will be exactly the same - it is never a half event. For some time the observer may wonder - what is the slit through the "particle" has passed? But if he guessed about the neural structure of the universe - all perplexities and paradoxes will be explained. He will understand that between the events no "particles" exists. What in his universe there are no permanent existing things - except relatively stable flows of events that sometimes convenient to describe as the things. But the fact that the complex neural signals sometimes lead to interference phenomena - this is not surprising. The results of the interference immediately cease to be paradoxical, incomprehensible, mysterious, etc.
  If somehow mark the particle and trace its trajectory [1] - so we're adding another source of neural signals and additional neural layer [3] from a new source for a new receiver, which monitors the particle. The resulting event is complicated - it is now not only check the investigated particles on the screen, but also the registration of the particle tracking. Neural layers to experiment with interference and to experiment with tagged particle fundamentally different in the very structure. Of course, in this case the results are quite different.
  For experiments with a deferred selection [1] structure of the neuronal layer is changed during the experiment. For example, if you remove the screen on which are recorded interference fringes so that the particle falls into one of two telescopes, precisely targeted each in its own slit - it corresponds to the replacement neural layer in which there is interference on another neural layer in which each telescope are complex neural connections from only one slit. It is understood that there is no interference in the latter case is possible.
  Thus, in the neural terminology, the experiments on the interference of particles at two slits becomes clear and logical. And to explain the interference does not need any special logic in addition to the usual common sense. As if the light turns on in the dark and everything suddenly becomes clear and understandable. This clarification is possible because the traditional terminology postulated particle properties and space. Postulated largely implicitly, unconsciously, based on the classic prejudices. In neural terms explicitly and consciously postulated properties of neural network - so that at the internal observer of the network arise the illusion of particles and emptiness, the properties of which correspond to our ideas. This opens the possibility of at least a qualitative study of this mysterious properties [3].
  In conclusion, we emphasize once again. atomistic terminology that much more comfortable in applied physics. But its application to understanding the foundations of quantum mechanics, just as if we had described the rain not as a stream of events, but as permanently existing thing. Especially if rain is weak, what corresponds to the quantum flow of events. With a large stream of events no issues arise - the river seems to us as permanently existing thing. And only the most inquisitive mind realizes that in the same river can not enter twice. But under weak drizzle immediately raises the question - is today rain or not? It turns out that while there is rain, and at the same time it is not. We'll have to come up with a special logic! Or enter a special "rain dualism". Neural terminology operates not things, but events.
  Of course, our very language is such that the subject appears as if the thing and the predicate - event. So it is in the language lies our weakness. To describe the event we are talking - electrons detected by the detector. That is, we using the concept of "electron" as the ever-present thing. It is important to realize that an event - is the primary, fundamental concept, and the word "electron" is used only for convenience of the description of the event. Nothing fundamental in the electron is not, it is essentially a purely metaphysical concept used only by the infirmities of our mind and language. It is not surprising that no electrons between events does not exist. In neural terminology there not a question - through which slit the electron passes.
  
  
  1. Путенихин П.В. Главная загадка физики квантов.
  http://samlib.ru/p/putenihin_p_w/gzfk.shtml
  2. Карасев А.В. Трехмерное пространство и спин электрона в нейронной терминологии. Квантовая Магия, 2011, том 8, вып. 2. http://quantmagic.narod.ru/volumes/VOL822011/p2168.html
  3. Карасев А.В. Вселенная в нейрокомпьютере. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/neuroun.shtml
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список
Сайт - "Художники" .. || .. Доска об'явлений "Книги"