Sunday 30 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [13]

Gribbin (1990: 173-4):
[Feynman explains:] In quantum mechanics, an "event" is a set of initial and final conditions, no more and no less.  An electron leaves the gun on one side of our apparatus, and the electron arrives at a particular detector on the other side of the holes.  That is an event.  The probability of an event is given by the square of a number which is, essentially, Schrödinger's wave function, ψ.  If there is more than one way in which the event can occur (both holes are open inside the experiment), then the probability of each possible event (the probability of the electron arriving at each chosen detector) is given by the square of the sum of the ψ's, and there is interference.  But when we make an observation to find out which of the alternative possibilities actually happens (look to see which hole the electron goes through) the probability distribution is just the sum of the squares of the ψ's, and the interference term disappears — the wave function collapses.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, an event is a construal of experience as meaning.  The probability of an event is the construal of experience as potential.  The observation of an event is the construal of experience as instance.

The interference pattern that builds up on the detector screen, when there is more than one way that the event can occur, is the construal of the statistical distribution of instances in line with the potential probabilities of the system.

When experience is construed as instances of an electron going through one of the slits, the probability of the system potential is changed, and the statistical distribution of instances reflects this.

Each collapse of the wave function is the construal of experience as one instance of the overall range of system potential.

Friday 28 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [12]

Gribbin (1990: 173):
What's worse, as soon as we stop looking at the electron, or whatever we are looking at, it immediately splits up into a new array of ghost particles, each pursuing their own path of probabilities through the quantum world.  Nothing is real unless we look at it, and it ceases to be real as soon as we stop looking.

Blogger Comment:

(Note that here, again, the author, like many physicists, in saying what happens when we are not looking, unwittingly violates the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.  As Feynman cautioned, this is to produce an error.)

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, when we look, we construe the experience as meaning, and when we stop looking, we stop construing the experience as meaning.  There are no ghost particles pursuing their own paths, and 'real' itself is a construal of experience as meaning.

Wednesday 26 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [11]

Gribbin (1990: 173):
The observation that crystallises one ghost out of the array of potential electrons is equivalent, in terms of wave mechanics, to the disappearance of all of the array of probability waves except for one packet of waves that describes one real electron.  This is called the "collapse of the wave function," and, bizarre though it is, it is at the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is itself the foundation of quantum cookery [i.e. applications].

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this is not at all bizarre.  The collapse of the wave function is the semiotic process of instantiation.  In observing, experience is construed as an instance of meaning (electron) in line with the potential (wave of probability) that it instantiates.

Monday 24 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [10]

Gribbin (1990: 172-3):
In the simplest experiment with two holes, the interference of probabilities can be interpreted as if the electron that leaves the gun vanishes once it is out of sight, and is replaced by an array of ghost electrons that each follows a different path to the detector screen.  The ghosts interfere with one another, and when we look at the way the electrons are detected by the screen we then find the traces of this interference, even if we deal only with one "real" electron at a time.  However, this array of ghost electrons only describes what happens when we are not looking; when we look, all of the ghosts except one vanish, and one of the ghosts solidifies as a real electron.  In terms of Schrödinger's wave equation, each of the "ghosts" corresponds to a wave, or rather a packet of waves, the waves that Born interpreted as a measure of probability.

Blogger Comment:

(Note that here the author, like many physicists, in saying what happens when we are not looking, unwittingly violates the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.  As Feynman cautioned, this is to produce an error.)

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the interference of probabilities construes the potential of the system, as instantiated by the statistical distribution of particles.

When the electron is out of sight, it does not "vanish"; the electron, as an instance of meaning, is simply no longer being construed.  Nor is the electron replaced by an array of ghost electrons taking different paths to the detector; the notion of an 'array of ghost electrons' misconstrues the potential of the probabilistic system (wave) as statistical instances (particles).  Nor, therefore, do 'the ghosts interfere with one another', and 'the traces of interference' construes the statistical distribution of particles that instantiates the probabilities of the system as potential.

When we look, therefore, there is no vanishing of ghosts, and no solidifying of one ghost as a real electron.  In looking, experience is being construed as meaning: as one instance (particle) of the system as potential (wave of probability).

Saturday 22 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [9]

Gribbin (1990: 172):
[The quantum world] is holistic; the parts are in some sense in touch with the whole. And this doesn't just mean the whole of the experimental setup.  The world seems to keep all its options, all its probabilities, open for as long as possible.  The strangest thing about the standard Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum world is that it is the act of observing a system that forces it to select one of its options, which then becomes real.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this is not strange at all.  In the act of observing, experience is construed as an instance of meaning (particles being fired through slits at a detector screen).

The strangeness only arises through an epistemological error: mistaking an instantiation of meaning for an instantiation of (nonsemiotic) "reality".  The error can be sourced to Galileo and Descartes, as previously discussed (e.g. herehere and here).

Thursday 20 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [8]

Gribbin (1990: 172):
As Feynman explained to his BBC TV audience in 1965, if you have an apparatus that is capable of telling which hole the electron goes through, then you can say that it either goes through one hole or the other.  But when you have no apparatus to determine through which hole the thing goes, then you cannot say that that it goes through either one hole or the other.  "To conclude that it goes either through one hole or the other when you are not looking is to produce an error," he states.

Blogger Comment:

Feynman's explanation of quantum physics is in line with the view of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory that the acts of looking (and saying) are acts of construing experience as meaning.  If no-one is looking, there is no meaning being construed of an experience.

Tuesday 18 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [7]

Gribbin (1990: 172):
You might say that the double-slit experiment tells us that we are dealing with waves; equally, by looking only at the pattern on the detector screen you can deduce that the apparatus has two holes in it, not one.  The whole thing is what matters — the apparatus, the electrons, and the observer are all part of the experiment.  We cannot say that an electron goes through either hole, without looking at the holes as it passes (and that is a different experiment).  An electron leaves the gun and arrives at a detector, and it seems to possess information about the whole experimental setup, including the observer.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the double-slit experiment tells us that the frequencies of instances of meaning (particles) are in line with the probability (wave) of potential.

The observer is part of the experiment in the sense of being the construer of the experience as meaning.

An electron does not possess information about the experimental set-up.  As a semiotic construal, an electron is an instance of potential: a participant in a process unfolding according to circumstances.

Sunday 16 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1990: 172):
What we see is what we get.  An experimental observation is only valid in the context of the experiment and can't be used to fill in details of things we do not observe.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, it is only when we are observing that experience is being construed as an instance of meaning.

Friday 14 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [5]

Gribbin (1990: 171):
When we try to look at the spread-out electron wave, it collapses into a definite particle, but when we are not looking it keeps its options open. In terms of Born's probabilities, the electron is being forced by our measurement to choose one course of action out of an array of possibilities. There is a certain probability that it could go through one hole, and an equivalent probability that it may go through the other; probability interference produces the diffraction pattern at our detector. When we detect the electron, though, it can only be in one place, and that changes the probability pattern for its future behaviour — for that electron, it is now certain which hole it went through. But unless someone looks, nature herself does not know which hole the electron is going through.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the reason we construe a particle rather than a wave is that the wave is a construal of potential only, and it is the instance, the particle, that we construe when we are looking.  When we are not looking, we are not construing experience as meaning.

The measurement does not force an electron to choose from the potential.  The measurement is the construal of one instance from the probabilistic array of potential instances.

The diffraction pattern at the detector records the instance frequencies, in line with the probability of the system as potential.

Wednesday 12 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1990: 171):
We can try cheating — shutting or opening one of the holes quickly while the electron is in transit through the apparatus.  It doesn't work — the pattern on the screen is always the "right" one for the state of holes at the instant the electron was passing through.   
We can try peeking, to "see" which hole the electron goes through.  When the equivalent of this experiment is carried out, the result is even more bizarre.   
Imagine an arrangement that records which hole an electron goes through but lets it pass on its way to the detector screen.  Now the electrons behave like normal, self-respecting everyday particles.  We always see electrons at one hole or the other, never both at once.  And now the pattern that builds up on the detector screen is exactly equivalent to the pattern for bullets [i.e. for particles, not waves], with no trace of interference.  The electrons not only know whether or not both holes are open, they know whether or not we are watching them, and they adjust their behaviour accordingly.  There is no clearer example of the interaction of the observer with the experiment.


Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this result is not at all bizarre. Construing experience as an instance of an electron going through one hole reduces the potential of the electron going through the other hole to a probability of zero, and the statistical distribution of all such instances reflects this.  Electrons don't need to "know" anything, and the "interaction of the observer with the experiment" is the construing of experience as meaning.

Monday 10 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 170-1):
Indeed, for electrons or photons, if we took a thousand identical experiments in a thousand different laboratories, and let one particle pass through each experiment, we could add up the thousand different results and still get an overall distribution pattern in line with diffraction, just as if we'd let a thousand electrons through one of those experiments together.  A single electron, or a single photon, on its way through one hole in the wall, obeys the statistical laws which are only appropriate if it "knows" whether or not the other hole is open.  This is the central mystery of the quantum world.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no mystery here.  As construals of experience as meaning, the frequencies of particles "instantiate" the probabilities of the quantum as potential, as represented by the wave equation.

The notion of particles obeying statistical laws is invalid on two counts. Interpersonally, it misconstrues probability (modalisation) as obligation (modulation), and ideationally, it misconstrues different orders of experience, the material (particles) and the semiotic (statistical laws), as being of the same order.

Saturday 8 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 170):
The diffraction pattern of the electron two-hole experiment is a pattern of ψ² [wave intensity]. If there are many electrons in the beam, this has a simple interpretation — ψ² represents the probability of finding an electron in some particular place.  Thousands of electrons rush through the two holes, and where they end up can be predicted on a statistical basis using this interpretation of the ψ wave — Born's great contribution to quantum cookery.  But what happens to each individual electron? …
And we still get this pattern if we slow down our electron gun so much that only one electron at a time goes through the whole setup.  One electron goes through one hole, we would guess, and arrives at our detector; then another electron is let through, and so on.  If we wait patiently for enough electrons to pass through, the pattern that builds up on our detector screen is the diffraction pattern for waves.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this demonstrates that the wave model is a construal of experience as the probability of a quantum system as potential.  Each electron is a construal of experience as instance, and the diffraction pattern is the accumulation of instances, with instance frequencies in line with the probabilities of the system as potential.

Thursday 6 April 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 168-9):
"Probability waves" seem to decide where each "particle" in the beam goes, and probability waves interfere just as water waves do. … The rules of wave behaviour are needed to assign probabilities to the appearance of an electron — a particle — or not. We don't see a wave.  We cannot say what the electron is "really" doing during its passage through the apparatus.


Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, probability waves are construals of experience as system potential, whereas particles are construals of experience as instances of that potential.  The interference patterns are construals of experience as the statistical distribution of instance frequencies, in line with the potential probabilities.

Tuesday 4 April 2017

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [5]

Gribbin (1990: 162):
Can Eddington's doubts really be taken at face value?  Is it possible that the nucleus, the positron and the neutrino did not exist until experimenters discovered the right sort of chisel with which to reveal their form?  Such speculations strike at the root of sanity, let alone our concept of reality.  But they are quite sensible questions to ask in the quantum world. … But the interpretation of particles is all in the mind, and may be no more than a consistent delusion.If we cannot say what a particle does when we are not looking at it, neither can we say that if it exists when we are not looking at it, and it is reasonable to claim that nuclei and positrons did not exist prior to the twentieth century, because nobody before 1900 ever saw one.


Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the nucleus, the positron and the neutrino did not exist as meanings until experimenters discovered the means of construing experience as such.

Moreover, the construal of experience as particles is "all in the mind", in the sense that particles, like all meanings, are the content of consciousness, projected into semiotic existence by mental (and verbal) processes.

Sunday 2 April 2017

The Thoughts Of Eddington Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 161-2):
"The discovery [of the nucleus] does not go beyond the waves which represent the knowledge we have of the nucleus," says Eddington [in The Philosophy Of Physical Science], for nobody has ever seen an atomic nucleus.  All we see are the results of experiments, which we interpret in terms of the nucleus.

Blogger Comment:

This is consistent with the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory to the extent that the 'knowledge we have of the nucleus' is the meaning 'nucleus' that we construe of experience in experiments.  The 'waves which represent' such knowledge are construals of experience as potential (probability) rather than instance (frequency).