Friday 29 September 2017

Quantum Uncertainty Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1989: 235):
And the uncertainty is not restricted to our knowledge of the electron.  It is there all the time, built into the very nature of electrons and other particles and waves.  The particle itself does not "know," with absolute precision, both where it is now and where it is going next.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, knowledge is meaning construed of experience, and electrons and other particles and waves are ideational meanings.  The uncertainty is in what physicists mean — think and say — and it is interpersonal meaning: modalisation, the space between the positive and negative poles 'is' and 'isn't'.

The grammatical metaphor of construing physical particles — instead of physicists — as mediums of mental processes ("know") is a significant source of epistemological incongruity.

Wednesday 27 September 2017

The Notion Of Wave Packet Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1989: 233):
To express itself in particle terms — as a photon, or as an electron — a wave must be confined in some way.  Mathematicians know all about this.  The way to confine a wave is to reduce its purity.  Instead of a single wave with one unique, well-defined frequency, think of a bundle of waves, with a range of frequencies, all moving together.  In some places, the peaks of one wave will combine with the peaks of other waves to produce a strong wave; in other places, the peaks of one wave will coincide with the troughs of other waves, and they will cancel each other out.  Using a technique called Fourier analysis, mathematicians can describe combinations of waves that cancel out almost completely everywhere except within some small, well-defined region of space.  Such combinations are called wave packets.  In principle, as long as you include enough different waves in the packet, you can make it as small as you like. … By losing the purity of a single wave with a unique frequency, we can localise the wave packet until it has the dimensions of an electron.


Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the relation between particle and wave is not one of expression (token to value), but one of instantiation (token to type).  A particle, a photon or electron, is each an instance of a (different) type of potential.

Because quantum waves are quantifications of potential in terms of probability, the Fourier analysis is a technique that manipulates the probabilities of quantum potential.  The resultant wave packet is thus a compromise of potential probabilities (wave) and instance frequencies (particle) that arises from not making a clear distinction between potential and instance.

Monday 25 September 2017

Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1989: 232):
Which is more real, the particle or the wave?  It depends on what question you ask of it.  And no matter how skilful a physicist the questioner may be, there is never any absolute certainty about the answer that will come back.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the particle is a construal of experience as instance, whereas the wave is a construal of experience as potential.  Which is construed as more real depends on the meaning of 'real'.  If 'real' means actual(ised), then the instance is more real than the potential.  The wave is not detected; it is the statistical distribution of particles — as instances of the probabilistic potential — that is detected.

Saturday 23 September 2017

Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [15]

Gribbin (1989: 232):
If we carry out an experiment designed to prod the atom (perhaps by bombarding it with photons, as in the photoelectric experiment), one or more of the electron wave functions may be modified in such a way that there is a high probability that we will detect an electron outside the atom, as if a little particle had been ejected.  But the only realities are what we observe; everything else is conjecture, hypothetical models we construct in our minds and with our equations to enable us to develop a picture of what is going on.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, modifying electron wave functions is modifying electron potential, and, because potential is quantified as probability, it is modifying the system probabilities, and hence, the statistical distribution of instance (particle) frequencies.

The "only realities" are meanings that we construe of experience, consistently or otherwise.  What we observe are construals of experience as instances of potential.  Hypothetical models and equations are construals of experience as potential — as systems whose instances are 'what is going on'.

Thursday 21 September 2017

Quantum Uncertainty Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1989: 231-2):
The implications of this are very deep indeed.  For one thing, we can no longer say that an electron, in principle identifiable as a unique object, starts at one side of our experiment and follows a unique path, a trajectory, through to the other side.  The very concept of a continuous "trajectory" is a hangover from classical Newtonian ideas and has to be abandoned.  Instead, quantum physicists talk in terms of "events," which may happen in a certain order in time but which tell us nothing about what happens to the particles involved in events when they are not being observed.  All we can say is that we observe an electron at the start (event 1) and that we observe an electron at the finish (event 2).  We can say nothing at all about what it does in between, and indeed we cannot say that it is the same electron that is recorded in each event.  Fire two electrons off together, and although two electrons arrive on the detector screen a little later, there is no way of telling which one is which.


Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the continuous trajectory of an electron is a construal of experience as meaning. Whenever there is no observation, there is no construal of an electron in space-time.

Tuesday 19 September 2017

The Collapse Of The Wave Function Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1989: 231):
The jargon "collapse of the wave function" (which has a precise mathematical significance in quantum theory) is equivalent to saying that we can know where things are only when we are actually looking at them.  Blink and they are gone.  And the behaviour of the particles depends on whether or not we are looking.  If we watch the two holes to see electrons passing by, the electrons behave differently from the way they behave when we are not looking.  The observer is, in quantum physics, an integral part of the experiment, and what he or she chooses to watch plays a critical rôle in deciding what happens.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "collapse of the wave function" is the construal of experience as an instance (particle) of potential (wave function); it is the instantiation of quantum potential as a particle.

We "know where things are" when we construe experience as things located in space.  When we blink, it is the construal of experience that ceases.  It is the construal of experience as particles that ceases when we are not looking.

It is the construal of experience that differs when particles are detected at the slits as well as at the detector screen behind the slits, because each is an instance of different quantum potential.

The observer is "an integral part of the experiment" in the sense that it is the observer who construes the experience as meaning.  "What happens" is what is construed as happening by the observer.  The "decision" is the decision between quantum potentials that will be instantiated when experience is construed in an observation.

Sunday 17 September 2017

The Collapse Of The Wave Function Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1989: 230-1):
Quantum physicists have some nice phrases to describe all this.  They say that there is a wave of some sort associated with an electron.  This is called the "wave function," and it is spread out, in principle, to fill the Universe.  Schrödinger's equation describes these wave functions and how they interact with one another.  The wave function is strongest in one region, which corresponds to the position of an electron in everyday language.  It gets weaker farther away from this region but still exists far away from the "position" of the electron.  The equations are very good at predicting how particles like electrons behave under different circumstances, including how they will interfere with one another when they, or the wave functions, pass through two slits.  When we look at an electron, or measure it with a particle detector, the wave function is said to "collapse."  At that instant, the position of the electron is known to within the accuracy allowed by the fundamental laws.  But as soon as we stop looking, the wave function spreads out again and interferes with the wave functions of other electrons — and, under the right circumstances, with itself.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the wave that is "associated with an electron" — its wave function — construes its potential.  The "interaction" of wave functions construes the ensemble of quantum potentials for a given situation.

The "strongest region" of the wave function construes the most probable position of an electron for a given situation.  The "weaker regions" of the wave function construe less probable positions of an electron for a given situation.

Wave functions do not pass through slits, since they construe potential electron positions only.  Only particles, instances of that potential, can be construed as passing through slits, with each particle passing through one slit or the other, not both.

When "we look at an electron" we are construing an instance of potential; the "collapse of the wave function" construes an instantiation of quantum potential.  When "we stop looking" there is no construal of experience — no construal of an instantiation of potential.

Friday 15 September 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [18]

Gribbin (1989: 230):
This is very strange.  Whenever we try to detect an electron, it responds like a particle.  But when we are not looking at it, it behaves as a wave.  When we look to see which hole it goes through, it goes through only one hole and ignores the existence of the other one.  But when we don't monitor its passage, it is somehow "aware" of both holes at once and acts as if it had passed through them both.


Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, only particles (instances of potential) are detected, and each particle goes through only one of the holes, not both.  Waves do not pass through the apparatus, because waves are construals of quantum system potential only.

As Feynman pointed out, 'to conclude that it goes either through one hole or the other when you are not looking is to produce an error'.

Wednesday 13 September 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [17]

Gribbin (1989: 230):
It looks as if each electron goes through both slits.  This is crazy.  But we can devise an additional set of detectors that notes which slit each electron goes through, and repeat our experiment to see if that is indeed what happens.  When we do this, we do not find that our detectors at the two holes report the passage of an electron (or half an electron).  Instead, sometimes the electron goes through one slit, and sometimes through the other.  So what happens now when we send thousands of electrons through the apparatus, one after the other?  Once again, a pattern builds up the detector screen.  But it is not a diffraction pattern!  It is simply a combination of the two bright patches we get when on or the other of the holes is open, with no evidence of interference.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, each particular electron, as an instance of quantum potential, only ever goes through one slit or the other, not both.

When the experimental set-up is changed so that electrons are detected at the point of going through one slit or the other, the potential meaning to be construed of experience is also changed, and the instances of that potential reflect that change in the different statistical distribution of impacts recorded on the detector screen.

Monday 11 September 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [16]

Gribbin (1989: 229-30):
So what happens when you do fire one electron at a time through the experiment?  Clearly, when you get one flash on the screen on the other side that doesn't tell you much about how the electron has behaved.  But you can repeat the single–shot experiment time after time, observing all the flashes and noting all the positions on the screen.  When you do this, you find that the flashes slowly build up into the old familiar diffraction pattern.  Each individual electron, passing through the apparatus, has somehow behaved like a wave, interfering with itself and directing its own path to the appropriate bright region of the diffraction pattern.  The only alternative would be that all the electrons going through the apparatus at different times have interfered with each other, or the "memory" of each other, to produce the diffraction pattern.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, each individual electron has not "somehow behaved as a wave" and "interfered with itself".  Instead, the wave is a construal of experience as quantum system potential, and each electron passing through the apparatus is an instance of that potential.  The diffraction pattern that builds up on the detection screen behind the two slits is created by the statistical distribution of impacting particles, with frequencies as instances of quantum system probabilities.

From the perspective of Edelman's Theory of Neuronal Group Selection, memory is the ability to repeat a performance.  To construe quantum potential as quantum ability is to construe modalisation (probability) as modulation (inclination: ability)

Saturday 9 September 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [15]

Gribbin (1989: 229):
It is more than a little strange that electrons can behave like waves when they are going through the experimental apparatus, then suddenly coalesce into hard little lumps to strike flashes from the detector screen, but by combining the ideas of particle and wave we can at least begin to convince ourselves that we have some idea of what is going on. After all, a water wave is actually made up of myriads of little particles (water molecules) moving about.  If we are firing hundreds of thousands of electrons in a beam through two holes, perhaps it isn't so surprising that can be guided in some way like waves, while retaining their identity as little particles.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, electrons do not behave like waves when going through the experimental apparatus and then coalesce into hard little lumps.  Because the wave model construes system potential and the particle model construes the instance of that potential, it is only the particle (instance) that goes through the apparatus to be detected on the screen.

On the other hand, the notion of waves guiding the particles is getting nearer this perspective, at least in the sense that the waves construe the potential of particle behaviour.

Thursday 7 September 2017

The Double-Slit Experiment Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [14]

Gribbin (1989: 229):
But when both holes are open, there is a clear diffraction pattern on the screen.  The flashes that mark the arrival of individual electrons form bright stripes separated by dark regions.  This is explained by the wavelike nature of electrons.  The electron waves going through the two holes are interfering with one another, cancelling out in some places and reinforcing in others, just like light waves.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this confuses potential (wave) with instance (particle).  The pattern on the detection screen appears even when it is built up one electron at a time — that is, when no interference between electrons is possible.  However, the pattern can be explained by treating the statistical distribution of individual electrons as instances of the probabilities of quantum system potential.  Probability is the quantification of potential, frequency is the quantification of instances.

On this explanation, particles, not waves, go through the holes, and each particle goes through one hole or the other, not through both.

Tuesday 5 September 2017

The Notion Of Phenomena "Obeying" Equations Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: 220):
All the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to visible light and on to X-rays, obeys Maxwell's equations.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the claim here is that material phenomena obey the semiotic models of the phenomena (metaphenomena).  This is analogous to claiming that a landscape obeys the map of it.  This is not a trivial point of alternative wording; it exemplifies a fundamental epistemological error that pervades physics.

Sunday 3 September 2017

The Wave Aspect Of Light Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: 218):
The best evidence for the wave nature of light comes from the way it can be made to "interfere" with itself, like the interference between two sets of ripples on a pond, producing patterns of shade and light that cannot be explained in any other way.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the patterns of shade and light can be explained as the statistical distribution of instances (particles), consistent with the probabilities of the system potential (waves).  Probability is a quantification of potential; frequency is a quantification of instances.  Frequencies are instances of probabilities.

This same statistical distribution occurs even when it is built up one particle (instance) at a time.

Friday 1 September 2017

Quantum Uncertainty Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1989: 215):
[Quantum theory] tells us that it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any atomic experiment, or indeed any event in the Universe, and that our world is governed by probabilities.  And it tells us that it is impossible to know simultaneously both the exact position of an object and its exact momentum (where it is going).

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the world is not governed by probabilities.  On the one hand, a model of a phenomenon, such as a map, does not govern the phenomenon that it models, such as a landscape.  Within the domain of meaning, the two are of different orders of experience: the model of a phenomenon (metaphenomenon) is second-order (semiotic) experience, whereas the phenomenon is first-order (material) experience.  The model is a second-order reconstrual of a first-order construal of experience as meaning.

On the other hand, the probabilities of quantum physics are (second-order) construals of experience as potential meaning.  Probabilities are the quantification of potential.  The statistical behaviour of instances of that potential actualise the probabilities inherent in that system potential.