Quantum Entanglement Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 217-8):

So what happens when we try to measure the spin of one of two separating particles?  Considered in isolation, each particle can be thought of as undergoing random fluctuations in its spin components that will confuse any attempt to measure the total spin of either particle.  But taken together, the two particles must have exactly equal and opposite spin.  So the random fluctuations in spin of one particle must be matched by balancing, equal, and opposite "random" fluctuations in the spin components of the other particle, far away.  As in the original EPR argument, the particles are connected by action at a distance.  Einstein regarded this "ghostly" nonlocality as absurd, implying a flaw in quantum theory.  John Bell showed how experiments could be set up to measure this ghostly nonlocality and prove quantum theory correct.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, each measurement of particle spin is a construal of experience as an instance of potential meaning.  Each random fluctuation in spin is a distinct instance, in line with the probability of the system potential of which it is an instance.  In the case of quantum entanglement, the two particles are instances of the same system.  Consequently, there is no "action at a distance" and no "ghostly nonlocality".

Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 212):

Wheeler goes on to consider the whole universe as a participatory, self-excited circuit.  Starting from the Big Bang, the universe expands and cools; after thousands of millions of years it produces beings capable of observing the universe, and "acts of observer–participancy … in turn give tangible 'reality' to the universe not only now but back to the beginning."  By observing the photons of the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the Big Bang, we may be creating the Big Bang and the universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, Wheeler's "acts of observer participancy" are acts of construing experience as meaning.  The history of the universe, from the Big Bang onwards, is meaning that is created when experience is construed.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [9]

Gribbin (1990: 208):

So, unlike the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen thought experiment, the cat–in–the–box experiment really does have paradoxical overtones. It is impossible to reconcile with the strict Copenhagen interpretation without accepting the "reality" of a dead–alive cat, and it has led [Eugene] Wigner and John Wheeler to consider the possibility that, because of the infinite regression of cause and effect, the whole universe may owe its "real" existence to the fact that it is observed by intelligent beings.

Blogger Comments:

As demonstrated in previous posts, Schrödinger's thought experiment only has paradoxical overtones from the epistemological perspective that was first formulated explicitly in science by Galileo, in which an "objective reality" is not understood to be a construal of experience as meaning.

As demonstrated in previous posts, the mistaken notion of Schrödinger's cat being both dead and alive arises from not distinguishing potential meaning, as construed by the wave function, from instances of that potential, construed as particles.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the 'whole universe that may owe its "real" existence to its being observed by intelligent beings' is the meaning construed of experience.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [8]

Gribbin (1990: 207-8):

But suppose we replace ["Schrödinger's human"] by a computer.  The computer can register the information about the radioactive decay, or lack of it.  Can a computer collapse the wave function (at least inside the box)?  Why not?  According to yet another point of view, what matters is not human awareness of the outcome of the experiment, or even the awareness of a living creature, but the fact that the outcome of an event at the quantum level has been recorded, or made an impact on the macroworld.  The radioactive atom may be in a superposition of states, but as soon as the Geiger counter, even, has "looked" for the decay products the atom is forced into one state or the other, either decayed or not decayed.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the collapse of the wave function is a construal of experience as an instance of meaning in the field of quantum physics.  In contrast, the "superposition of states" of a radioactive atom is a construal of experience as potential meaning in the field of quantum physics.

By the same token, observing (or imagining or talking or writing about) a computer or geiger counter registering ± radioactivity is construing experience as an instance of meaning.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [7]

Gribbin (1990: 207):

The chain is endless.  Imagine that we have announced the ["Schrödinger's Human"] experiment in advance to an intrigued world, but to avoid press interference it has been performed behind locked doors.  Even after we have opened the box and either greeted our friend or dragged the corpse out, the reporters outside don't know what's going on.  To them, the whole building in which our laboratory is based is in a superposition of states.  And so on, back out in an infinite regression.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no infinite regression here, and 'the whole building is not in a superposition of states.  A superposition of states is the potential meaning that can be made in realising a construed situation.  The reason the reporters outside 'don't know what's going on' inside the room is that instances of that potential meaning cannot be construed by them.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1990: 205-7):

Moving in the other direction, since this is only a thought experiment we can imagine a human volunteer taking the place of the cat in the box… .  The human occupant is clearly a competent observer who has the quantum–mechanical ability to collapse wave functions.  When we open the box, assuming we are lucky enough to find him still living, we can be quite sure that he will not report any mystic experiences but simply that the radioactive source failed to produce any particles at the allotted time.  Yet still, to us outside the box the only correct way to describe conditions inside the box is as a superposition of states, until we look.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, any humans inside the box construe their experience as (an instance of) meaning, whereas the humans outside the box construe their experience as (an instance of) different meaning.  When humans outside the box look into the box, they construe that experience as (an instance of) meaning, that can be compared with that construed by the human inside the box.  The "superposition of states" is the potential meaning that can be construed by those outside the box until they look and construe one instance of that potential.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [5]

Gribbin (1990: 205):

Arguments about the cat in the box have gone for fifty years.  One school of thought says that there is no problem, because the cat is quite able to decide for itself whether it is alive or dead, and that the cat's consciousness is sufficient to trigger the collapse of the wave function.  In that case, where do you draw the line?  Would an ant be aware of what is going on, or a bacterium?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, other species construe their experience in terms of the non-linguistic semiotic systems specific to their species.  These do not include linguistic construals such as 'I am alive, and therefore, not dead'.  Only language affords meanings such as 'the cat/ant/bacterium is alive/dead'.  When a language user looks inside the box, one instance of the potential meanings is construed: either a smashed bottle of poison with a dead cat, or an intact bottle with a live cat.  The collapse of the wave function is the instantiation of (linguistic) meaning potential.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1990: 205):

Schrödinger thought up the example to establish that there is a flaw in the strict Copenhagen interpretation, since obviously the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time.  But is this any more "obvious" than the "fact" that an electron cannot be both a particle and a wave at the same time?  Common sense has already been tested as a guide to quantum reality and been found wanting.  The one sure thing we know about the quantum world is not to trust our common sense and only to believe what we see directly or detect unambiguously with our instruments.  We don't know what goes on inside the box unless we look.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Quantum theory, to say what's happening when we are not looking is 'to produce an error', as Richard Feynman cautioned.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, a cat being "both alive and dead at the same time" confuses potential with instance. An instance of that potential is only construed when an observation is made.

By the same token, an electron is not "both a particle and a wave at the same time" because particles are construed instances of quantum potential, whereas waves are construed quantum potential, and it is only instances that are actual.

The "common sense" that has been "found wanting" by the results of Quantum experiments is the worldview based on the mistaken epistemological assumptions of Galileo (and Descartes), as previously explained here. When these assumptions are jettisoned, Quantum Physics no longer seems mysterious or paradoxical.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 205):

It is one thing to imagine an elementary particle such as an electron being neither here nor there but in some superposition of states, but much harder to imagine a familiar thing like a cat in this form of suspended animation.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, imagining a cat, like seeing a cat, is a construal of experience as an instance of meaning.  On the other hand, the "superposition of states" — live cat vs dead cat — is a construal of experience as potential meaning.  It does not equate with an instance of a cat being in suspended animation, since this misinterprets the range of potential as a single instance.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 203-5):

Schrödinger suggested that we should imagine a box that contains a radioactive source, a detector that records the presence of radioactive particles (a Geiger counter, perhaps), a glass bottle containing a poison such as cyanide, and a live cat.  The apparatus in the box is arranged so that the detector is switched on for just long enough so that there is a fifty–fifty chance that one of the atoms in the radioactive material will decay and that he detector will record a particle.  If the detector does record such an event, then the glass container is crushed and the cat dies; if not, the cat lives.  We have no way of knowing the outcome of this experiment until we open the box to look inside; radioactive decay occurs entirely by chance and is unpredictable except in a statistical sense.  According to the strict Copenhagen interpretation, just as in the two–hole experiment there is an equal probability that the electron goes through either hole, and the two overlapping possibilities produce a superposition of states, so in this case the equal probabilities for radioactive decay and no radioactive decay should produce a superposition of states.  The whole experiment, cat and all, is governed by the rule that the superposition is "real" until we look at the experiment, and that only at the instant of observation does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.  Until we look inside, there is a radioactive sample that has both decayed and not decayed, a glass vessel of poison that is neither broken nor unbroken, and a cat that is both dead and alive, neither alive nor dead.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "two overlapping possibilities", and the "superposition of states" they produce, are construals of experience as potential meaning.  Instances of that potential are only construed when observations are made.

The mistaken notions that a radioactive sample is "both decayed and not decayed", that a vessel is "neither broken nor unbroken", and that a cat is "both dead and alive, neither alive nor dead" all arise from misconstruing potential meanings of experience as instances of Galilean "objective reality".

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [13]

Gribbin (1990: 201-2):

According to our best theories of particle behaviour, the vacuum is a seething mass of virtual particles in its own right, even when there are no "real" particles present.  And this is not idle tinkering with the equations, for without allowing for the effect of these vacuum fluctuations we simply do not get the right answers to problems involving scattering of particles by one another.  This is powerful evidence that the theory — based directly on the uncertainty relations, remember — is correct.  The virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations are as real as the rest of quantum theory — as real as wave/particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and action at a distance.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "seething mass of virtual particles" is a construal of experience as quantum physical potential, whereas the "real particles" are actual instantiations of that quantum physical potential.  'Virtual' and 'real' are both construals of experience as meaning.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [12]

Gribbin (1990: 198):

So a proton is even more the centre of its own cloud of activity than an electron is.  As it moves on its way through space (and time) a free proton is constantly emitting and reabsorbing both virtual photons and virtual mesons.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the emitting of "virtual" particles is the instantiation of quantum system potential as photons and mesons — they are no longer "virtual" when instantiated — whereas the "reabsorption" of photons and mesons reflects a change in the quantum system potential that can be instantiated as a result of the particle interactions.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [11]

Gribbin (1990: 198):

Protons and neutrons — nucleons — can only exchange mesons when they are very close together, essentially when they are "touching", to use an inappropriate expression from the everyday world.  Otherwise, the virtual pions cannot get across the gap during the time allowed by the uncertainty principle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, it is the quantum system potential — the probability of pi meson instantiation — that varies with the distance between nucleons.

It can be seen that the 'uncertainty principle' is a (Galilean) way of interpreting quantum physical data in the absence of the notion of instantiation, which provides a distinction between potential and instance as perspectives on the meaning being construed of experience.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [10]

Gribbin (1990: 197-8):

Yet two protons are held together in the nucleus by exchanging, repeatedly, pions that weigh a good fraction of the proton's own weight, and without the protons losing any mass themselves.  This is only possible because the protons are able to take advantage of the uncertainty principle.  A pion is created, crosses to another proton and disappears all in a twinkling of uncertainty allowed while the universe "isn't looking".

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, "taking advantage of the uncertainty principle" is the instantiation of quantum system probabilities.  The creation of a pion is an instantiation of that potential, and its disappearance signals a change in the system potential that can be instantiated.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [9]

Gribbin (1990: 196):

The photons exist only for a tiny fraction of a second, less than 10⁻¹⁵ sec, but they are popping in and out of existence around the electrons all the time.  It is as if each electron is surrounded by a cloud of "virtual" photons, which only need a little push, a little energy from outside, to escape and become real.  An electron moving from an excited state to a lower state in the atom gives the excess energy to one of its virtual photons and lets it fly free; an electron absorbing energy traps a free photon.  And the same sort of process provides the glue which holds the nucleus together.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "cloud of virtual photons" is a construal of experience as physical potential.  The "popping into existence" of each "real" photon is an instantiation of that potential.  The "popping out of existence" of each "real" photon indicates a change in the physical potential — a change of what can be instantiated physically — as a result of the particle interactions.