The Notion Of Time Travel Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 248):

Conventional wisdom has it that true time travel must be impossible, because of the paradoxes involved, like the one where you go back in time and kill your grandfather before your own father has been conceived.  On the other hand, at the quantum level particles seem to be involved in time travel all the "time," and Frank Tipler has shown that the equations of general relativity permit time travel.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the notion of travelling through time can be seen as a category error that arises from treating time as if it were equivalent to space.  For space, there is the distinction between 'moving from here to there' and 'extending from here to there', but for time, there is no distinction between 'moving from now to then' and 'extending from now to then'.  In the case of time, both renderings construe the Extent (duration) of the unfolding of the process.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1990: 244-5):

As DeWitt explained in an article in Physics Today in 1970, the Everett interpretation has an immediate appeal when applied to the paradox of Schrödinger's cat.  We no longer have to worry about the puzzle of a cat that is both dead and alive, neither alive nor dead.  Instead, we know that in our world the box contains a cat that is either alive or dead, and that in the world next door there is another observer who has an identical box that contains a cat that is either dead or alive.  But if the universe is "constantly splitting into a stupendous number of branches," then "every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriad copies of itself." … DeWitt's conclusion is as dramatic as the earlier conclusion of Wheeler:

The view from where Everett, Wheeler and Graham sit is truly impressive.  Yet it is a completely causal view, which even Einstein might have accepted … it has a better claim than most to be the natural end product of the interpretation program begun by Heisenberg in 1925. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no paradox in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, because 'alive' and 'dead' are potential states of the cat only.  An act of observation construes one instance of that potential or the other.

Not distinguishing between potential and instance has caused some physicists to hypothesise a "stupendous number" of universes, none of which can be observed.  Accordingly, the many–worlds interpretation has no claim whatsoever 'to be the natural end product of the interpretation program begun by Heisenberg in 1925'.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [5]

Gribbin (1990: 243):

In the Everett interpretation, it is not that our choice of which spin component to measure forces the spin component of another particle, far away across the universe, to magically take up a complementary state, but rather that by choosing which spin component to measure we are choosing which branch of reality we are living in.  In that branch of superspace, the spin of the other particle always is complementary to the one we measure.  It is choice that decides which of the quantum worlds we measure in our experiments, and therefore which one we inhabit, not chance.  Where all possible outcomes of an experiment actually do occur, and each possible outcome is observed by its own set of observers, it is no surprise to find that what we observe is one of the possible outcomes of the experiment.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, 'our choice of which spin component to measure' does not force 'the spin component of another particle, far away across the universe, to magically take up a complementary state'.  Nor does it choose 'which branch of reality we are living in'.

Instead, measuring the spin component of a particle is construing experience as a statistical instance of meaning, and the complementary spin state of the other particle is another statistical instance of the same potential, in line with the probabilities inherent in that quantum potential.  There is no "magical" interaction (force) between instances (spins of particles).  The "choosing of realities" is the construing of different instances of meaning from the same potential.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1990: 241-2):

Everett carefully explained in his Reviews of Modern Physics paper that the argument that the splitting of the universe into many worlds cannot be real because we have no experience of it doesn't hold water.  All the separate elements of a superposition of states obey the wave equation with complete indifference as to the actuality of other elements, and the total lack of any effect of one branch on another implies that no observer can ever be aware of the splitting process.  Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the earth cannot possibly be in orbit around the sun, because if it were we would feel the motion.  "In both cases," says Everett, "the theory itself predicts that our experience will be what in fact it is."

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, 'all the separate elements of a superposition of states' are the construal of experience as potential meaning only. 

Importantly, the relation between a superposition of states and a wave equation is one of symbolic abstraction (intensive identity: realisation), not "obedience"; a wave equation represents a superposition of states, just as a map represents a landscape.  A superposition of states does not "obey" a wave equation, just as a landscape does not "obey" a map.  This type of metaphor leads to very serious epistemological errors in the physical interpretation of mathematical equations.

(Everett's analogy is invalid, because, whereas the earth, sun and orbits are perceived phenomena that can be theorised, the myriad additional universes in the many–worlds interpretation of quantum physics are not.)

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of The Double-Slit Experiment Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 241):

On the many–worlds interpretation, [the particle] doesn't choose [which hole to go through].  Faced with a choice at the quantum level, not only the particle itself but the entire universe splits into two versions.  In one universe, the particle goes through hole A, in the other it goes through hole B.  In each universe there is an observer who sees the particle go through just one hole.  And forever afterward the two universes are completely separate and non-interacting — which is why there is no interference on the screen of the experiment. 

… and yet, as Everett established twenty-five years ago, it is a logical, self-consistent description of quantum reality that conflicts with no experimental or observational evidence.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the many–worlds interpretation mistakes potential meanings for actual universes.  The probabilities of a particle going through one or the other hole are construals of experience as potential meaning.  The observation of a particle going through one of the holes is a construal of experience as an instance of that potential.

There is no observational evidence in support of any of additional universes proposed by the many–worlds interpretation.

The Copenhagen Interpretation Of The Double-Slit Experiment Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 239-41):

Let's get back to the fundamental experiment in quantum physics, the two-holes experiment.  Even within the framework of the conventional Copenhagen interpretation … the interference pattern produced on the screen of that experiment when just one particle travels through the apparatus is explained as interference from two alternative realities, in one of which the particle goes through hole A, in the other of which it goes through hole B.  When we look at the holes, we find the particle only goes through one of them, and there is no interference.  But how does the particle choose which hole to go through?  On the Copenhagen interpretation, it chooses at random in accordance with the quantum probabilities — God does play dice with the universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the interference pattern that gradually builds up on the detector screen, when particles are emitted one at a time, is the statistical distribution of instances, in line with the probabilities of the system potential.  There is no "interference from two alternative realities".

Locating another particle detector at one of the holes changes the quantum system potential, such that the probability of detecting particles at that hole is 1, and the probability of detecting particles at the other hole is 0, and the statistical distribution of instances is in line with this, which is why, in this case, there is no interference pattern on the original detector screen.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 237-8, 239):

The equations of quantum mechanics tell us that inside the box of Schrödinger's famous thought experiment there are versions of a "live cat" and "dead cat" wave function that are equally real.  The conventional, Copenhagen interpretation looks at these possibilities from a different perspective, and says, in effect, that both wave functions are equally unreal, and that only one of them crystallises as reality when we look inside the box.  Everett's interpretation accepts the quantum equations entirely at face value and says that both cats are real.  There is a live cat, and there is a dead cat; but they are located in different worlds.  It is not that the radioactive atom inside the box either did or didn't decay, but that it did both.  Faced with a decision, the whole world — the universe — split into two versions of itself, identical in all respects except that in one version the atom decayed and the cat died, while in the other the atom did not decay and the cat lived.  It sounds like science fiction, but it goes far deeper than any science fiction, and it is based on impeccable mathematical equations, a consistent and logical consequence of taking quantum mechanics literally. …

Everett's world is one of many concrete realities, where all the worlds are equally real … .  But Everett's version is science fact, not science fiction.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the equations of quantum mechanics tell us that "live cat" and "dead cat" are potential meanings ("possibilities") only.  The Copenhagen interpretation is consistent with this view, if 'unreal' is interpreted as 'potential', and if 'crystallising as reality' is interpreted as the instantiation of potential when an observation is made.

Everett's interpretation that 'both cats are real' mistakes potential for instances: potential cats for the cat, potential universes for the universe.  It demonstrates that the misinterpretation of the most "impeccable mathematical equations" can, indeed, result in science fiction.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 237):

Everett's interpretation is that the overlapping wave functions of the whole universe, the alternative realities that interact to produce measurable interference at the quantum level, do not collapse.  All of them are equally real, and exist in their own parts of "superspace" (and supertime).  What happens when we make a measurement at the quantum level is that we are forced by the process of observation to select one of these alternatives, which becomes part of what we see as the "real" world; the act of observation cuts the ties that bind alternative realities together, and allows them to go on their own separate ways through superspace, each alternative reality containing its own observer who has made the same observation but got a different quantum "answer" and thinks that he has "collapsed the wave function" into a single quantum alternative.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, 'the overlapping wave functions of the whole universe, the alternative realities that interact to produce measurable interference at the quantum level' are construals of experience as potential meaning only.  

It is indeed the case that 'what happens when we make a measurement at the quantum level is that we are forced by the process of observation to select one of these alternatives, which becomes part of what we see as the "real" world'.  However, the alternatives are probability-weighted options in the system of quantum potential, and the "collapse of the wave function" when an observation is made is a construal of experience as one statistical instance of that potential.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 233-4):

But still the Copenhagen interpretation is intellectually unsatisfying. What happens to all those ghostly quantum worlds that collapse with their wave functions when we make a measurement of a subatomic system?  How can an overlapping reality, no more and no less real than the one we eventually measure, simply disappear when the measurement is made?  The best answer is that the alternative realities do not disappear, and that Schrödinger's cat really is both alive and dead at the same time, but in two or more different worlds.  The Copenhagen interpretation, and its practical implications, are fully contained within a more complete view of reality, the many-worlds interpretation.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "ghostly quantum worlds" are potential meanings only.  The collapse of "their wave functions when we make a measurement" is the construal of experience as statistical instances of that probabilistic potential.  There is no disappearance of "overlapping realities" because these are potential only, not instances.  Schrödinger's cat is not "both alive and dead at the same time" because these two states are potential only, not instances.  The many-worlds interpretation is not "the best answer" because it confuses potential with instance and because, to the extent that it proposes universes that cannot be investigated experimentally or observationally, it is not a scientific answer.

Quantum Non-Separability Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 230-1):

If everything that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with everything it interacted with, then every particle in every star and galaxy that we can see "knows" about the existence of every other particle. …

Does it seem paradoxical?  Richard Feynman summed up the situation succinctly in his Lectures: "The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be'."

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no paradox, and interacting particles do not "know" anything.  Particles are instances of physical potential, and their measurable qualities depend on the instantiated qualities of other particles of the same potential.

It is not so much "a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be' ", as a conflict between the epistemology of Galileo and Descartes and an epistemology that holds that all meaning is located within semiotic systems.  As the neuroscientist Gerald Edelman pointed out: the world is unlabelled.

Quantum Non-Separability Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 229-30):

Theorists such as d'Espagnat and David Bohm argue that we must accept that, literally, everything is connected to everything else, and only a holistic approach to the universe is likely to explain phenomena such as human consciousness.

It is too early yet for the physicists and philosophers groping toward such a new picture of consciousness and the universe to have produced a satisfactory outline of its likely shape, and speculative discussion of the many possibilities touted would be out of place here. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, it is the meaning construed of experience that is interconnected, and meaning is the content of consciousness.

Aspects's Experimental Test Of Bell's Inequality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 229):

… the Aspect experiment and its predecessors do indeed make for a very different world view from that of our everyday common sense.  They tell us that particles that were once together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system, which responds together to further interactions.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, this "everyday common sense" derives from the epistemological assumptions of Galileo, and their refinement by Descartes.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this is indeed what the Aspect experiment and its predecessors tell us: particles that were once together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system.  However, the relation between the particles and the system is not one of part–whole constituency, but of instantiation: particles are instances of the system, and system is the probabilistic potential of which the particles are instances.

Quantum Non-Separability Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 228):

Following the announcement of of the results from Aspects's team just before Christmas 1982, nobody seriously doubts that the Bell test confirms the predictions of quantum theory. … As d'Espagnat has said, "Experiments have recently been carried out that would have forced Einstein to change his conception of nature, on a point he always considered essential … we may safely say that non-separability is now one of the most certain general concepts in physics."

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the non-separability of entangled quantum states can be understood in terms of related instances of the same quantum potential, and these as meanings construed of experience.

Aspects's Experimental Test Of Bell's Inequality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 227):

Because it takes 20 nanoseconds for a photon to travel from the atom in which it is born in the heart of the experiment to the detector itself, there is no way in which any information about the experimental setup can travel from one part of the apparatus to the other and affect the outcome of any measurement — unless such an influence travels faster than light.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no "travelling of information about the experimental setup" and, thus, no faster–than–light signalling. Two entangled photons are two related instances of the same quantum potential, and these are meanings construed of experience.

'Local Realistic' Views Of The World Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1990: 222-3):

[The theoretical physicist] D'Espagnat says that our everyday view of reality is based on three fundamental assumptions.  First, that there are real things that exist regardless of whether we observe them; second, that it is legitimate to draw general conclusions from consistent observations or experiments; and third, that no influence can propagate faster than light, which he calls "locality". Together, these fundamental assumptions are the basis of "local realistic" views of the world.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the first of these assumptions involves an epistemological error, and it this that the experiments of quantum physics disconfirms.  Things and existing are meanings — participants and processes — and meanings are distinctions made within semiotic systems that construe experience.

Quantum Entanglement Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1990: 221-2):

Now we imagine some atomic process that produces two photons travelling in opposite directions.  There are many real processes that do this, and in such processes there is always a correlation between the polarisations of the two photons.  They must be either be polarised in the same way, or in some sense in opposite ways.  For simplicity, in our thought experiment we imagine that the two polarisations must be the same.  Long after the two photons have left their birthplace, we decide to measure the polarisation of one of them.  We are free to choose, entirely arbitrarily, in which direction we line up our piece of polarising material, and once we do so there is a certain chance that the photon will pass through it.  We know afterward whether the photon is polarised "up" or "down" for that chosen direction of space, and we know that, far across space, the other photon is polarised the same way.  But how does the other photon know?  How can it take care to orientate itself so that it will pass the same test that the first photon passes and fail the same test that the first photon fails?  By measuring the polarisation of the first photon we collapse the wave function, not just of one photon but of another, far away, at the same time.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the collapse of the wave function, at the same time, for the polarisation of two 'entangled' photons, no matter how far apart, is a construal of experience as instances of the same quantum potential.  The metaphor of one photon "knowing" the polarisation of another is misleading, and is motivated, in part, from failing to distinguish between statistical instances and probabilistic potential.