Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [8]

Gribbin (1990: 196):

The uncertainty principle applies to the complementary properties of time and energy as well as to position/momentum.  The less uncertainty there is about the energy involved in an event at the particle level, the more uncertainty there is about the time of the event, and vice versa.  An electron does not exist in isolation, because it can borrow energy from the uncertainty relation, for a short enough period of time, and use it to create a photon.  The snag is, almost as soon as the photon is created it has to be reabsorbed by the electron, before the world at large "notices" that energy conservation has been violated.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, uncertainty is an interpersonal assessment of meaning in terms of probability.  Probability is a feature of the construal of experience as potential meaning.  The creation of a photon in particle interactions is an instantiation of the system of quantum potential.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [7]

Gribbin (1990: 195-6):

This confirmation that nuclear forces, as well as electric forces, can be thought of purely in terms of interactions between particles is a cornerstone of the physicists' view of the world today.  All forces are now regarded as interactions.  But where do the particles that carry the interactions come from?  They come from nowhere, something for nothing, in accordance with the uncertainty principle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, (observed) particles are construals of experience as instances of meaning.  The "nowhere" they "come from" is the (theorised) physical potential of which they are actualisations.

The translation of the virtual into the actual is construed grammatically by aspect, which, with tense, is one of the complementary features of time, an inherent property of processes.  Halliday (2008: 35):

The grammar of every language is (in one of its metafunctions, the ideational) a construal of human experience: it constructs our “reality” by transforming our experiences into meanings. And in doing this, the grammar often has to choose: to choose either one way of seeing things, or the other. For example, think of time. Either time is a linear progression, out of future through present into past; or else it is a translation from the virtual into the actual. It can’t be both. We may choose to model it (and note here that I am talking about our grammar — not our theory of grammar, our “grammatics”; so we means the speakers of the language, not the linguists) … so let us say our language may choose to model it either as tense, or as aspect;

Einstein's 'Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1990: 192-3):

The flow of time in the everyday world is a statistical effect, largely caused by the expansion of the universe from a hotter to a cooler state.  But even at that level the equations of relativity permit time travel, and the concept can be very easily understood in terms of space-time diagrams.

Motion in space can proceed in any direction and back again.  Motion in time only proceeds in one direction in the everyday world, whatever seems to be going on at the particle level. … The technique for time travel allowed by relativity theory […] involves distorting the fabric of space-time so that in a local region of space-time the time axis points in a direction equivalent to one of the three space directions in the undistorted regions of space-time.  One of the other space directions takes on the rôle of time, and by swapping space for time such a device would make true time travel, there and back again, possible.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the notion of a flow of time confuses the unfolding of a process (flow), with the dimension (time) along which the process unfolds.

Similarly, the notion of time travel misconstrues duration in time as motion in time.  It is because time is endured, rather than moved through, that we only experience time "in one direction".  It is this category error that undermines the validity of treating the time axis as equivalent to any of the space axes.

Einstein's 'Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [5]

Gribbin (1990: 191-2):

Imagine a Feynman diagram that encompassed all of space and time, with the tracks of every particle laid out on it.  Now imagine viewing that diagram through a narrow slot that only allows a limited segment of time to be scanned, and move the slot steadily up the page.  Through the slot, we see a complex dance of interacting particles, pair production, annihilation, and far more complex events, an ever-changing panorama.  All we are doing, though, is scanning something that is fixed in space and time.  It is our perception that alters, not the underlying reality.  Because we are locked into a steadily moving viewing slot, we see a positron moving forward in time rather than an electron moving backward in time, but both interpretations are equally real.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the notion of a particle moving forward or backward in time, rather than enduring in time, is a category error.

The imagined Feynman diagram construes experience as a static image, with both the duration in time and the movement in space of particles represented as lines. That is, the diagram itself construes a static universe — and takes a God's eye view.

What we call "reality" is meaning construed of experience — in the first instance, of perceptual experience.

Einstein's 'Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1990: 191):

But the reality is a photon track in space-time, linking my eye, perhaps with the Pole Star.  There is no real movement of time that sees a track developing from the star to my eye; that is just my perception from my viewpoint.  Another equally valid viewpoint sees that track as an eternal feature around which the universe changes, and during those changes in the universe one of the things that happens is that my eye and the Pole Star happen to be at opposite ends of the track.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, (the perception of) the movement of a photon from the Pole Star to an eye on Earth is a construal of experience as meaning.  The notion of a 'movement of time' is inconsistent with the construal of time in Physics as a dimension like space — since there is no analogous movement of space.

The "equally valid" viewpoint is invalid on several fronts, largely because it confuses the "non-unfolding" in time of a photon as process (analogous to the "non-ticking" of a hypothetical clock moving at light speed) with the unfolding in time of the locomotion process of the photon from the Pole Star to an eye (analogous to the movement of a hypothetical clock through space at light speed).

Einstein's 'Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 191):

The mystics and popularisers who seek to equate Eastern philosophy with modern physics seem to have missed this point [that time stands still for photons], which tells us that everything in the universe, past, present, and future, is connected to everything else, by a web of electromagnetic radiation that "sees" everything at once. Of course, photons can be created and destroyed, so the web is incomplete.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, if time stands still for a photon, then a photon is not itself a process that unfolds in time — analogous to the ticking process of a locomoting clock — and, if it is not a process that unfolds in time, then no processes can be ascribed to it, not even a metaphorical process of "seeing".

On the other hand, the creation, locomotion and destruction of a photon are material processes that a photon does participate in, and so, which do unfold in time, just as the creation, locomotion and destruction of a clock are material processes that a clock participates in, and which do unfold in time.

Einstein's 'Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 190):

A photon of the cosmic background radiation has, from our point of view, been travelling through space for perhaps 15,000,000,000 years since the Big Bang in which the universe as we know it began, but to the photon itself the Big Bang and our present are the same time.  The photon's track on a Feynman diagram has no arrow on it not only because the photon is its own antiparticle, but because motion through time has no meaning for the photon — and that is why it is its own antiparticle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the two timescales construed here are the dimensions of two distinct processes: the unfolding of the travelling process vs the unfolding of the photon as process.  The duration of the travelling process is about 15,000,000,000 years, whereas the photon does not unfold as a process.  The notion of 'motion' through time is a category error, as previously explained.

Einstein's 'Time' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 190):

But what does the photon itself "see" as the arrow of time? We learn from relativity theory that moving clocks run slow, and that they run slower the closer they get to the speed of light. Indeed, at the speed of light, time stands still, and the clock stops. A photon, naturally, travels at the speed of light, and this means that for a photon time has no meaning. A photon that leaves a distant star and arrives at the earth may spend thousands of years on the journey, measured by clocks on earth, but takes no time at all as far as the photon is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, time is a construal of experience of the non-semiotic domain as meaning, specifically: the dimension of the unfolding of processes.  The "arrow" of time is the mathematical reconstrual of the dimension as a Euclidean vector, such that the dimension of time has direction as well as magnitude.

The notion that 'time stands still' when travelling at the speed of light confuses the dimension (time) with the process by which time is measured (a clock ticking).  To be consistent with Einstein's model of time as a dimension, the relative slowing of a clock's ticking corresponds to the relative expansion of time intervals along the dimension.  This is because the relative slowing of a process entails that the process takes relatively more time to unfold.  This relative extension of the duration of the process is the relative expansion of intervals along the time dimension.

The relative stopping of a process, such as a clock ticking, corresponds to the expansion of time intervals to the point where no process can unfold for even the shortest time interval, the Planck time.

The notion of a photon "seeing" refers to Einstein's thought–experiment of an observer riding on a beam of light.  In this case, as the observer approaches the speed of light, it is the unfolding of the observer's mental processes — including construing experience as time — that gradually come to a halt, relative to mental processes of other observers travelling at speeds slower than light.

"The Flow Of Time" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 184-5):

The track of an electron is represented on a Feynman diagram by a line.  An electron that sits in one place and never moves produces a line that moves straight up the page, corresponding to motion in the time direction only; an electron that slowly changes its position, as well as being carried along by the flow of time, is represented by a line at a slight angle to the line straight up the page, and a fast–moving electron makes a bigger angle with the "world line" of a stationary particle.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this demonstrates the error of misconstruing extent in time (duration), as movement in time (location).  In a Feynman diagram, a particle that doesn't move is misconstrued as moving through time, instead of persisting through time.  Particles are not carried along by the flow of time, because this notion confuses the unfolding of processes (flow) with the dimension along which they unfold (time).

"The Flow Of Time" Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 183):

Physicists often use a simple device to represent the movement of particles through space and time on a piece of paper or on a blackboard.  The idea is simply to represent the flow of time by the direction up the page, from bottom to top, and motion in space across the page.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the notion of particles moving through time can be seen as a category error, mistaking Extent for Location: motion.  To explain, in the case of space, there is the distinction between

• Location (motion): the object moved from A to B, and
• Extent (distance): the object moved three metres.

However, in the case of time, although the grammar provides the same distinction

• Location (motion): the object moved from from noon to 1pm and
• Extent (duration): the object moved for one hour

both renderings actually construe the Extent (duration) of the object's motion.  There is no distinct traversal of the dimension of time, analogous to the traversal of any of the three dimensions of space.

The notion of a 'flow of time' — derived from (an interpretation of) the Second Law of Thermodynamics — also involves a category error, mistaking the unfolding of processes (flow) for the dimension along which processes unfold (time).  Physics treats time as a dimension just like space, but there is no 'flow of space'.

The Thoughts Of Bohr vs Einstein Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 183):

Bohr and his colleagues could live with a reality in which the position and momentum of the second particle had no objective meaning until they were measured, regardless of what you did to the first particle.  A choice had to be made between a world of objective reality and the quantum world, of that there was no doubt.  But Einstein remained in a very small minority in deciding that of the two options open he would cling to objective reality and reject the Copenhagen interpretation.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the position and momentum of any particle are not construed as meaning until they are measured.  "Objective reality" and the quantum world are both construals of experience as meaning.  The findings of quantum theory expose the epistemological error in the notion of an objective reality secundum Galileo.

The Thoughts Of Einstein On The Copenhagen Interpretation Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 182):

The point of the argument was that, according to Einstein and his collaborators, the Copenhagen interpretation had to be considered as incomplete — that there really is some underlying clockwork that keeps the universe running, and that only gives the appearance of uncertainty and unpredictability at the quantum level, through statistical variations.  According to this view, there is an objective reality, a world of particles that have momentum and position, both precisely defined, even when you are not looking at them.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, "objective reality" is a construal of experience as meaning.  When we are not looking, there is no experience to be construed as meaning, and so: there are no construals of experience as particles with momentum and position.  The Copenhagen Interpretation is not incomplete; instead it exposes the epistemological error of Galileo and Descartes.

The Thoughts Of Bohr On The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 175-6):

Bohr suggested that the very idea of a unique "world" may be misleading, and offered another interpretation of the experiment with two holes.  Even in that simple experiment, of course, there are many paths that an electron can choose through each of the two holes.  But for simplicity, let's pretend there are just two possibilities, that the particle goes through hole A or through hole B.  Bohr suggested that we might think of each possibility as representing a different world.  In one world, the particle goes through hole A; in the other, it goes through hole B.  The real world, the world that we experience, is neither of these simple worlds, however.  Our world is a hybrid combination of the two possible worlds corresponding to the two routes for the particle, and each world interferes with the other.  When we look to see which hole the particle goes through, there is now only one world because we have eliminated the other possibility, and in that case there is no interference.  It isn't just ghost electrons that Bohr conjures out of the quantum equations, but ghost realities, ghost worlds that only exist when we are not looking at them. … Combine that with the puzzle that an electron at A knows whether hole B is open or closed, and that in principle it knows the quantum state of the entire universe …

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, each path "choice" of an electron is the construal of an instance of potential meaning, with instance frequencies in line with potential probabilities.

The two possible paths do not represent different worlds, but are construals of different potential meanings.  Each path is a construed instance of that potential.

The "world that we experience" corresponds to the instantial meanings construed of experience.  It is not a hybrid combination of possibilities (potential), but the instantiation of potential meaning.

The interference patterns are not the result of "possible worlds" interfering with each other.  They are the accumulation of instances whose frequencies correspond to the probability values of the system potential, as represented by the wave equations.

When we look to see which hole an electron goes through, that experience is construed as an instance of meaning, in line with the different probabilities of a different system potential.

The "ghost worlds" that Bohr conjures out of quantum equations are construals of potential meanings, instances of which only "exist" when experience is construed.

Electrons don't "know" anything.  Our construal of them as meaning depends on the system potential of which each is an instance.

The Copenhagen Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 175):

In his first exposition of what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation, back in 1927, Bohr stressed the contrast between descriptions of the world in terms of pure space-time coordination and absolute causality, and the quantum picture, where the observer interferes with and is a part of the system that is being observed.  Coordinates in space-time represent position; causality depends on knowing precisely where things are going, essentially on knowing their momentum.  Classical theories assume that you can know both at once; quantum mechanics shows us that precision in space-time co-ordinates has to be paid for in terms of uncertainty of momentum, and therefore causality.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, both descriptions of the world in terms of pure space-time coordination and absolute causality, and the quantum picture, are each construals of experience as meaning.  The observer is part of the system in the sense that it is the observer that construes the experience as meaning.  To know the position and momentum of particles is to have construed experience as meaning.  Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: x):

… “understanding” something is transforming it into meaning, and to “know” is to have performed that transformation.

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1990: 174):

Persist in asking for a physical picture of what is going on, and you'll find all physical pictures dissolving into a world of ghosts, where particles only seem to be real when we are looking at them, and where even a property such as momentum or position is only an artefact of the observation.

Blogger Comment:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, quantum particles, and such properties as momentum and position, are only construed as meanings when we are looking at them.  The "dissolving" is simply the cessation of construal, and to speak of "a world of ghosts" is 'to produce an error', as Feynman made clear; see original relevant post here.