Saturday, February 26, 2011

Model based Reality

While reading the new book 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking, the key argument is that there is what is called 'Model Based Reality'.  I am still in early chapters, but the arguments so far suggest that there may be several models that describe the reality.

It seems to suggest multiple models may fit the description of reality.  We need to pick one or more that are convenient to describe the reality from among those models.  When it comes to the argument of 'Does the Moon Exist' when we are not watching, the model based argument is that you observe the reality at that point in time as it exists.  Do not pretend to argue that the object is not there when you are watching.  This model describes the reality every time you observe it.


Wednesday, February 16, 2011


I am here and I am there!!
Isn't it interesting that particle has probability of being at more than one place at the same time? Does it mean that until one 'observes' it, the position is not 'chosen' by the particle?

What do we mean by 'chosen'? Does the particle 'know' that some observer is watching, so it has to make up it's mind? This essentially means the particle was in superposition until we see it?

Does the MOON exist when we are not watching?
How can we prove that moon was there when we were not watching? Does it come into being when somsone is watching?

More interesting thing is - how do alpha & beta particles cause decay of radioactive material over long periods of time when nobody was 'watching'. I bet Niels Bhor has an answer for that I presume. So when we carbon date a fossil, has it decayed just that minute because we observed it that moment?

More later....

More later...

Monday, February 14, 2011

What are "Local HiddenVariables"?

It is truly confusing:

Do "Local Hidden Variables" exist or not in Quantum mechanics?
Einstein, John von Neumann, David Bohm and John Bell.  When I read the accounts of all 4 of them, it is not clear at the end of it whether Local Hidden Variables exist or not.

At least from Bell's Inequality Theorem, it appears that violation of his inequality means Quantum mechanical description of 'Reality' is different from 'Physical Reality'.   Does that mean Bohr's interpretation of QM world does not represent 'Physical Reality'?

What does that mean?

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Does Quantum Mechanics explain 'entire reality'?

This is a blog to capture some of my random thoughts in one place.  They may not be as organized as one would like to.  But I am sure over a period of time, I can capture my understanding of "Reality".

In my opinion, "In Search of Reality" starts with Science.  Most notably Quantum Mechanics. My goal is to "understand" as much of the Quantum Mechanics (QM) as necessary to explain the Physical Reality.  I call it 'understand' because I am not trying to 'explain' how to solve age old argument about whether QM can explain the entire physical reality or not.  

I expect my own understanding of this subject to change dramatically over the next several years or forever. That is the beauty of this subject.  You never know the entire truth of 'Reality', you can only 'approach' it.  I can recall two analogies similar to this process: Golf & Limit theorem in Calculus.  You can never reach the absolute, you can only approach it.  Even world #1 in golf can never boast of perfection and can only reach the fringes of absolute reality of golf.

After reading several books in the area of QM, finally I concluded that Einstein and Niels Bohr were very much in agreement with the basis of QM.  However Einstein was looking for even more representation of reality by QM.  Einstein was in search of the holy grail of 'Unified Theory' and in my opinion one of the off shoots of that ultimate goal was to explain the 'reality' when we are not observing it.

More later...