The Human Mind As A By-Product Of A Vast Informational Process Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 302):

We mention these admittedly speculative ideas to illustrate the profound change in perspective that has accompanied the move toward a postmechanistic paradigm. In place of clod-like particles of matter in a lumbering Newtonian machine we have an interlocking network of information exchange — a holistic, indeterministic and open system— vibrant with potentialities and bestowed with infinite richness. The human mind is a by-product of this vast informational process, a by-product with the curious capability of being able to understand, at least in part, the principles on which the process runs.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the paradigm that replaced the Newtonian "mechanism" was that of Quantum Theory, which introduced the distinction between systems of interdependent potential, quantified in terms of waves of probability, and the instantiation of that potential as particles of matter, quantified in terms of frequencies.

Both potential and instance constitute information in the sense that they are meanings (theory) construed of meanings (data) construed of experience, and "this vast informational process" is the conscious processing that construes and reconstrues experience as meaning. That is, the human mind is not the by-product of the process, but the process itself.

In this context, the ability of the human mind to understand is the ability of conscious processing to reconstrue meanings as theory, in accordance with assumptions and methodology of science. This ability is provided by language.

The Interrogation Of Nature Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 301-2):

The process of science is a process of interrogation of nature. Each experimental measurement, each observation, elicits answers from nature in terms of information bits. But more fundamentally, the essentially quantum nature of the physical world ensures that, at rock bottom, all such measurements and observations are reduced to answers of the simple "yes-no" kind. Is an atom in its ground state? Yes. Is an electron's spin pointing up? No. And so on. And because of the inherent uncertainty of quantum physics, these answers cannot be foretold. Moreover, the observer plays a key role in deciding the outcome of the quantum measurements — the answers, and the nature of reality, depend in part on the questions asked.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the questions put to nature and the answers they elicit as information bits are the meanings of language. The process of science includes reconstruing the meanings of data as the meanings of theory.

What Quantum Theory demonstrates is that yes-no polarity is a feature of instances, such as particles, but it is the space between yes and no, probability, that is a feature of the potential that particles instantiate. This, in turn, demonstrates that making meaning is interpersonal as well as ideational, since probability is an interpersonal assessment in terms of modality.

The key role of the observer is that it is the observer who construes experience as meaning, and as experimenter, decides which questions are to be answered — questions which depend on the theory being tested, and so on the assumptions on which the theorising is founded.

In this view, reality is the meaning that conscious processing construes and reconstrues of experience.

Wheeler's 'It From Bit' Though Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 300-1):

In an article entitled "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links," the theoretical physicist John Wheeler claimed, at the end of the 1980s, that there was no escape from the conclusion that "The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any pre-established continuum physical law." It would be more accurate, opined Wheeler, to think of the physical Universe as a gigantic information-processing system in which the output was as yet undetermined. As an emblem of this massive paradigm shift, he coined the slogan "It from bit." That is to say, every it — every particle, every field of force, even spacetime itself — is ultimately manifested to us through bits of information. …

Wheeler is an extreme exponent of the "participatory universe" philosophy, in which observers are central to the nature of physical reality, and matter is ultimately relegated to mind.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, modelling the world as a giant machine is reconstruing experience as human technology.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the information-processing system is conscious processing and the information it processes is the meaning it construes of experience. Wheeler's 'it' is the construal of experience as first-order meaning (phenomena), and Wheeler's 'bit' is the reconstrual of first-order meaning as second-order meaning (metaphenomena). It is not that every 'it' is manifested through bits of information, but that every 'it' is construed as bits of information.

In this view, it is not that matter is relegated to the mind, but that matter is a construal of experience as meaning by conscious processing.

The Genetic Code Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 284-5):

Nucleic acids are responsible for storing and transmitting all the information required to build the organism and make it function — the genetic code. The code includes instructions for the manufacture of specific enzymes and specific structural proteins. One type of nucleic acid, DNA (short for deoxyribonucleic acid), takes the form of the now familiar long-chain molecules wound into a double helix. The double helix is where the information needed to replicate and operate the organism is encoded.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the genetic code is an identifying relation between two levels of abstraction: chemical tokens (DNA molecules) and biological values (genes). The identity encodes genes by reference to DNA molecules, and decodes DNA molecules by reference to genes.

From this perspective, the relation between codons of DNA and amino acids is the realisation relation between system and structure, with each codon being a specific selection expression of the DNA system.

The emergence of the genetic code is the emergence of chemistry as tokens of biological values.

"The Need To Adopt A Rather Vague Definition Of Life" Reconsidered

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 280-1):

We have no difficulty in recognising life when we encounter it on Earth. Men, mice, mushrooms and microbes are all undeniably living. Yet what essential features do these systems display in common? Frequently cited properties of life are the ability to reproduce, response to external stimuli, and growth. The problem here is that other, manifestly inanimate systems also share these properties. Flames readily reproduce. Crystals both reproduce and grow into more organised structures. Bubbles respond to external stimuli by retreating when approached. 

Furthermore, once we probe below the level of our everyday experience — below the level accessible to our senses, especially those of sight and touch — there is no clear division, after all, between what is living and what is not. The classic example is the virus. In spite of the fact that viral diseases clearly involve biological activity, the virus itself does not even satisfy one of the criteria for life we have already mentioned — it cannot reproduce by itself, or with the aid of another virus. A virus can multiply only by invading a host cell and taking over its biochemical functions. In essence, it turns the cell into a production line for more viruses. It could be argued that under these circumstances the cell is no longer living, since it has lost the ability to reproduce itself. In isolation, though, viruses can be reduced to an inert dry powder, and differ little in their properties from other substances with less organised biological effects. 

These difficulties oblige us to adopt a rather vague definition of life.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, an essential feature of life is metabolism: the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms. The absence of metabolism is symptomatic of the absence of life.

The Mechanistic Point Of View Of Random Mutations And Natural Selection

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 279):

According to the mechanistic point of view, living organisms are just machines, albeit complicated and wonderful machines. The evolution of life on Earth is likewise seen as a mechanistic affair, but a creative element is introduced through random variations. Most biologists accept that random mutations and natural selection alone can satisfactorily account for the form of all living organisms, once life had got started.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this mechanistic point of view is the reconstrual of Nature in terms of human technology.

To be clear, chemical mutations are only random with respect to biological advantage. They come about though non-random chemical processes.

Given the evolutionary emergence of biological chemistry from non-biological chemistry, some form of chemical variation and selection, before "life had got started", cannot be ruled out.

The Notion Of The Biosphere As A Single Living Organism

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 279):

… one of the few ideas to emerge from science and reach out to strike a chord with a wide cross-section of ordinary people in recent decades has been the concept of Gaia, the hypothesis that the Earth itself may, in some sense, be regarded as a single living organism.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, It is not so much that the biosphere is a single living organism, but that every single organism is a highly integrated ecosystem.

The Physical Universe As An Information-Processing System Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 277):

… scientists are increasingly thinking of the physical Universe less as a collection of cogs in a machine and more as an information-processing system. Gone are the clod-like lumps of matter, to be replaced instead by "bits" of information. This is the shape of the emerging universe paradigm — a complex system in which mind, intelligence and information are more important than the hardware. The time has come for us to take a look at life, mind and intelligence, not as a parochial human concern, but in their cosmic context.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the information-processing system is the conscious processing, a senser sensing and a sayer saying, reified as 'mind', and the information is the meaning, realised in wording, projected by conscious processing. The physical Universe is the construal of experience as material order meaning (phenomena), and theories of the physical Universe are reconstruals of material order meaning as semiotic order meaning (metaphenomena).

The Spontaneous Creation Of Virtual Microscopic Wormholes Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 272-3):

Just as quantum fluctuations in the vacuum create temporary photons, so, on an even smaller scale, they should spontaneously create temporary (virtual) wormholes. The size of these wormholes is typically twenty powers often smaller (10⁻²⁰) than an atomic nucleus. Thus, on an ultramicroscopic scale, space would be a labyrinth of such structures, endowing it with the complicated topology that has been dubbed spacetime foam. With masterly understatement, such tiny tunnels through spacetime are simply referred to by relativists as "microscopic" wormholes.

Blogger Comments:

In terms of the General Theory of Relativity, wormholes involve the gravitational curvature of space-time. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not space-time that is curved, but geodesic trajectories of bodies through space. In this view, the geometry of wormholes is not the geometry of space, but the geometry of geodesic trajectories through space.

From the same perspective, the creation of temporary photons is the instantiation of quantum potential as particles, in space, for a brief time. On this model, the creation of temporary wormholes is the instantiation of potential trajectories through space, in space, for a brief time.

Time Travel Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 272):

The conventional position is that time travel should not be permitted by any physical process whatsoever, precisely because it would threaten the consistency of physics.

Consider, for example, the case of the time traveller who visits his grandmother when she is still a child and murders her. If the grandmother dies as a child, then the time traveller could never have been born, and could not, therefore, carry out the murder after all. But if the grandmother was not murdered, the time traveller would have been free to murder her.

 

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, 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.

That is, there is motion from one location in space to another, but only duration from one location in time to another. Time is the dimension along which the process unfolds, from its beginning to its ending. In this view, the notion of "travelling" backward in time is therefore nonsensical.

The 'Smearing Out' Or Removal Of The Singularity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 266):

The balance of opinion among the experts is that all matter entering a black hole eventually encounters a singularity of some sort. But what if quantum effects remove the singularity somehow? 

Unfortunately, since we have no complete quantum theory of gravity, we cannot model the consequences of quantum effects in smearing out the singularity with any confidence. Whether they actually result in the complete removal of the singularity is uncertain. Some physicists expect this to be the case, and even argue that the very concepts of space and time will cease to apply under these extreme conditions. Just what sort of structures might replace them is a matter for conjecture. The safest position, therefore, is to regard the singularity as merely a breakdown of known physics, rather than the end of all physics.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, from the perspective of the universe outside a black hole, matter entering a black hole never reaches the singularity, because the ever increasing expansion of time intervals entails that this would take an infinite amount of time.

As previously explained, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, even the misapplication of quantum theory to space-time has no bearing on what is purported to happen at the singularity itself, since the uncertainty only lies in the range of potential locations of the singularity.

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, on the one hand, the concepts of space and time do apply within the event horizon of a black hole, if only because these are the dimensions that are affected by the matter that created the black hole; and on the other hand, space and time are dimensions, not structures, and thus cannot be replaced by structures.

On the basis of the above, the singularity is not a breakdown of known physics. Moreover, physics, in the sense of phenomena (data), only ends when the construing of meaning ends, and physics, in the sense of metaphenomena (theories), only ends when the reconstrual of meaning ends.

The Squeezing Of Matter Into A Singularity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 264-5):

If, then, an object that falls into a black hole cannot reemerge into the outside Universe, what happens to it? As we have explained, any object that encounters the singularity is annihilated: it ceases to exist. A precisely spherical ball of ordinary matter, for example, collapsing to become a black hole, will shrink to the common centre. All the matter will be squeezed into a singularity.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, from the perspective of locations outside the event horizon, where meaning-makers are situated, matter falling towards the singularity never actually reaches it, and so is never compressed to an infinite density.

Further, the notion that matter is infinitely compressed at the singularity confuses matter with spatial dimensions. It is the three dimensions of space intervals that are hypothetically "compressed" to the zero dimensions of a singular point in space.

The confusion of matter with spatial dimensions is also demonstrated by the authors' wording "object that encounters the singularity", which presents a location, a point in space, as if it were a thing that could be encountered.

Time At The Event Horizon Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 264):

As you approach the event horizon of a black hole from the outside, so the flow of time in your vicinity slows down more and more as measured by a distant observer. However, the observer who crosses into the hole through the event horizon notices nothing unusual — the event horizon has no local significance — even though at the boundary the time warp becomes infinite. To an outside observer, it will appear to take you forever to reach the event horizon; in a sense, time at the surface of a black hole stands still relative to the time experienced by a distant observer. So anything that happens to you inside the hole lies beyond the infinite future as far as the outside Universe is concerned.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, viewed through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time neither flows, nor slows down, nor stands still, nor becomes warped. Approaching the event horizon of a black hole, it is the unfolding of processes that slows down, relative to the unfolding of processes at the location of a distant observer, as time intervals (between ticks of a clock) increasingly expand with increasing spatial proximity to the centre of mass.

But processes do not cease to unfold at the event horizon, because such a scenario corresponds to the expansion of time intervals to infinity, which corresponds to the contraction of space intervals to zero at the singularity. 

At the event horizon, space intervals, in the direction of the singularity, are only contracted to an extent that is sufficient to curve the geodesic of light within the event horizon. This means that time intervals at the event horizon are finite, not infinite (since space and time intervals are inversely proportional), and consequently, that processes do indeed unfold at the event horizon, relative to the unfolding of processes at distant locations.

Moreover, processes continue to unfold inside the event horizon, taking longer and longer, relative to the unfolding of processes outside the event horizon, as time intervals expand with increasing proximity to the singularity, though such processes are not observable from outside, since the means of observing them, light, is confined within the event horizon.

The Notions Of Gravity Bending Space And Slowing Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 264):

Gravity, remember, not only bends space but also slows time.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in the authors' terms, gravity is the bending of space and the slowing of time, not the cause of bending and slowing. The cause of the bending and slowing is the presence of matter.

However, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this is a very succinct statement of the misunderstandings of space and time in the field of physics.

On the one hand, it is not space that bends, but the geodesic through a gravitational field, caused by the contraction of space intervals in the direction of a centre of mass.

And on the other hand, it is not time that slows down, but the unfolding of processes, as measured by the expansion of time intervals, as between ticks of a clock.

Approaching The Centre Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 263-4): 

It may be that quantum effects cause spacetime to become fuzzy very close to the centre, with the singularity smeared out over the Planck scale, about 10⁻³⁵ of a metre. At this stage we do not have a reliable enough theory to know. … 

The already fierce gravity of the hole rises without limit as the centre is approached, which has two effects. If you fell into the hole feet first, your feet would be closer to the centre than your head, so they would be pulled progressively harder than your head, stretching your body lengthwise. In addition, all parts of your body would be pulled toward the centre of the hole, so you would be squeezed sideways. 

At the end of this spaghettification you would be crushed into nonexistence (or lost in a haze of quantum uncertainty). 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the singularity of a black hole is the hypothetical point at which the intervals of the three dimensions of space contract to zero. According to the General Theory of Relativity, the contraction of space intervals is caused by the presence of matter. Therefore, if, contrary to the first law of thermodynamics, matter were indeed "crushed into nonexistence" at the singularity, then the cause of the singularity would cease to exist, and so the cause of the crushing would cease to exist… creating a logical paradox. On this basis, the claim that matter is annihilated at the singularity is not logically tenable in terms of the General Theory of Relativity.

Moreover, from this perspective, relative to time intervals outside the event horizon, time intervals inside the event horizon increasingly expand with increasing proximity to the singularity, where they hypothetically expand to infinity. This means that, from the perspective of all locations outside a black hole, where experience is construed as meaning, processes inside a black hole, such as falling toward the singularity, take longer and longer to unfold with proximity to the singularity, where they cease to unfold altogether. From this perspective, in-falling matter never reaches the singularity.

On the other hand, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, in misapplying quantum theory to space-time, the uncertainty only lies in the range of potential locations that the singularity can be actualised as an instance of that potential. But, in any case, the actual location of the singularity within the black hole has no bearing on what is purported to happen at the singularity itself.

The Inside Of A Black Hole Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 263):

By definition, we can never see inside a black hole. But theory can be used to infer what it would be like for an observer to enter a hole and explore its interior. The key to understanding the physics of black holes is the so-called event horizon. Roughly speaking, this is the surface of the hole. Any event occurring within the hole (inside the event horizon) can never be witnessed from the outside because no light (or other form of signal) can escape to convey information about such events to the outside world. 

If you should find yourself inside a black hole's event horizon, not only could you never escape but, like the star that preceded you, you would be unable to halt your inward plunge. Just what happens when you arrive at the centre of the hole nobody knows for sure. According to the general theory of relativity there is a so-called singularity there, a boundary of space and time at which the original star (and any subsequent infalling matter) is compressed to an infinite density and all the laws of physics break down.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, viewed through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, at the event horizon, space intervals in the direction of the centre of the black hole contract to the extent that the geodesic trajectory of light is curved below that horizon, and time intervals (as between ticks of a clock) expand in inverse proportion to that spatial contraction.

Inside the event horizon, space intervals continue to contract in the direction of the centre of the black hole, the singularity, where space intervals hypothetically contract to zero, since a singularity is a point with no dimensions.

By the same token, time intervals inside the event horizon continue to expand, in inverse proportion to space intervals, in the direction of the singularity, where they hypothetically expand to infinity. This means that, relative to processes outside the event horizon, the processes inside the event horizon, such as the infalling of matter, take longer and longer to unfold as the matter approaches the singularity, where processes cease to unfold altogether.

On this basis, from the perspective of locations outside the event horizon, where meaning-makers are situated, matter falling towards the singularity never actually reaches it, and so is never compressed to an infinite density.

Moreover, the notion that matter is infinitely compressed at the singularity confuses matter with spatial dimensions. It is the three dimensions of space that are hypothetically "compressed" to the zero dimensions of a singular point in space.

For these reasons, from the perspective of locations outside of a black hole, a black hole is not empty of matter, and it is because of this that it "retains" its gravitational effect on the dimensions of space and time.

The Emptiness Of A Black Hole Reconsidered

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 259):

We now know, from relativity theory, that no force in the Universe can prevent the star from continuing to collapse, once it has reached the light-trapping stage. So the star simply shrinks away, essentially to nothing, leaving behind empty space — a hole where the star once was. But the hole retains the gravitational imprint of the erstwhile star, in the form of intense space and time warps. Thus the region of gravitational collapse appears both black and empty — a black hole.

Blogger Comments:

On the one hand, the notion that a star shrinks away to nothing is inconsistent with the first law of thermodynamics,

On the other hand, from the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, gravity is a relation between matter and space-time, such that the presence of matter contracts space intervals and expands time intervals, increasingly so towards the centre of mass. A black hole thus comprises both matter and the effect of the matter on space-time. 

Thus, if the matter of a black hole were truly to disappear, the effect of the matter on space-time, its "gravitational imprint", would also disappear. On this reasoning, a black hole cannot be empty, since it must contain sufficient matter to contract space intervals to the extent that the geodesic of light is curved within its event horizon.

The Notion Of A "Rolled Up" Space Dimension Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 244-5):

The idea that space may have more than three dimensions actually has a long history. Shortly after the general theory of relativity was developed, when only two fundamental forces (gravity and electromagnetism) were properly recognised, a German mathematician called Theodor Kaluza found a way to describe electromagnetism in terms of geometry, just as Einstein had described gravity in terms of geometry. The electromagnetic field, Kaluza pointed out, could be regarded as a kind of space warp, but not a warp in the ordinary three-dimensional space of our perceptions. Instead, Kaluza's space warp lay in a hypothetical fourth dimension of space, that, for some reason, we do not see in daily life. … 

Kaluza's theory was taken up by a Swedish physicist, Oskar Klein, who found a way to explain why we do not notice the fourth dimension of space. Klein argued that this is because the extra space dimension is "rolled up." Just as a hosepipe looks like a one-dimensional line from a distance, but is in reality a cylinder, so four-dimensional space could be wrapped into a hypertube (Figure 40). What we previously thought of as structureless points in three-dimensional space are, Klein asserted, really tiny circles in the fourth dimension.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the notion of a 'rolled up' space dimension derives from confusing dimension with trajectory. (The curved shape of a hose-pipe is not a curved dimension; what is curved is the trajectory of any body traversing its surface.) When Einstein described gravity as the curvature of space-time, the curvature he actually described was the curvature of the path of a photon in the vicinity of a massive body, not a curvature of space. 

According to the General Theory of Relativity, gravity is the increasing contraction of space intervals with increasing proximity to a centre of mass. Because space intervals are shorter in the direction of the centre of mass, relative to space intervals in other directions, the shortest path that a passing body takes unless acted upon by another force, the geodesic, is curved in the direction of the centre of the massive body.

This confusion of dimension with trajectory invalidates not only the Kaluza-Klein theory, but all versions of String Theory that depend on the notion of a curved dimension.

The Electric Field Of An Electron Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 236, 237):

Because of quantum uncertainty, we can envisage a particle such as an electron as surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons which buzz around it like bees round a hive. Each photon emitted by the electron is rapidly reabsorbed. Photons nearer the electron are allowed to be progressively more energetic because they do not venture far from home, and so need exist only for the briefest duration. Picture, then, the electron immersed in a shimmering bath of evanescent quantum energy, intense near the electron but dwindling steadily with distance. This restless, seething ferment of virtual photons is, in fact, precisely the electron's electric field, described in quantum language. 

If another electron enters the melee, it can absorb one of the first electron's attendant photons, with the exchange producing a force in the way we have already described [for electron scattering]. But if no second electron (or other charged particle) is present, the temporary photons have nowhere to go but back to the original electron. In this way, each electron acts on itself through its own photon cloud (Figure 39).

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the electric field of an electron is the region of the instantiation of its electric charge potential. It is not quite the case that the virtual photons are emitted and reabsorbed by the actual electron, but that the virtual photons are momentary instantiations of this potential, with the duration of their instantiations inversely proportional to energy they instantiate.

The Duration Of Virtual Particles Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 236, 252):

Quantum uncertainty allows a messenger particle to come into existence, fleetingly, so long as it soon disappears again. In quantum mechanics, uncertainty is a precise thing, and the energy of the short-lived quantum is determined by the duration of its existence, and vice versa — shorter-lived quanta can have more energy than longer-lived quanta, so that the product of energy and duration is always less than the limit set by the quantum rules. … 

Thanks to quantum uncertainty, virtual X particles can exist for a very brief duration (remember that the lifetime of a virtual particle is inversely proportional to its mass) and so they have only a very short range.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this means that the duration of the instantiation of a virtual particle is inversely proportional to the mass of the particle, which is proportional to the ability of a process mediated by the particle to unfold. That is, the less potential mass and energy to be instantiated, the longer the duration of the instantiation.

A Quantum Theory Of Gravity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 235):

To bring gravity into the fold, and produce a fully unified theory of a superforce, it will be necessary to provide a quantum description of gravity. As we explained, the quantum theory began when it was discovered that electromagnetic waves come in discrete quanta, or photons; so it seems reasonable to assume that gravitational waves are likewise associated with quanta. These are known as gravitons. As yet, gravitons are entirely hypothetical particles. Indeed, it seems unlikely that their effects will ever be directly observable, so we must rely on theory to tell us about their properties.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Quantum Theory, it is not reasonable to assume that gravitational waves are associated with quanta, because waves associated with quanta are probability waves, whereas gravitational waves are not.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, photons are instances of the potential quantified as waves, whereas gravitons cannot be instances of gravitational waves because gravitational waves are not quantifications of potential, but actual propagations of relative contractions of space intervals. From these perspectives, the attempt to provide a quantum description of gravity is a futile exercise.

The Virtual Particles Of Quantum Electrodynamics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 230-1):

A charged particle, such as an electron, which is the source of an electromagnetic field, can be envisaged as a point of matter at the centre of a field of unseen electromagnetic energy, surrounding it like a halo extending into space. When another electron approaches close to the first electron, it senses the field and experiences a repulsive force. It is as though the field of one electron sends out a message: "I'm here, so move." The message travels through the field in the form of a disturbance, which exerts a mechanical effect both on the receiving particle (action) and on the transmitting particle (reaction). In this way, electrically charged particles act on one another across empty space. 

And, of course, in the classical picture of this process at work the messages linking all charged particles in a network of action and reaction are carried by ripples in the electromagnetic field, that is, by electromagnetic waves. 

Quantum theory retains the basic idea of a field, but the details are radically altered. Electromagnetic disturbances, as we have seen, can be emitted or absorbed only in discrete packets, or quanta, known as photons, so we must envisage the disturbance in the electromagnetic field which conveys the interaction as involving the exchange of photons. These photons, in effect, carry the messages between electrons and other charged particles. Instead of envisaging the field of one electron continuously disturbing the path of another, we must picture instead the first electron emitting a photon which is then absorbed by the other (Figure 37).

It is rather like firing cannonballs across space; the first electron recoils in response, while the second is deflected by the impact. The disturbance therefore takes place abruptly. An observer would see the end result as the scattering of one electron away from the other, and infer that their electric charges were causing a repulsion.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, by this description, the electromagnetic force between electrons is said to be conveyed by a disturbance propagating through an electromagnetic field. In classical physics, this disturbance is interpreted as an electromagnetic wave, whereas in quantum physics, it is interpreted as an emitted and absorbed virtual photon. 

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, a particle is an instance of a probability wave, and so the wave in the Feynman diagram (Figure 37) actually represents the potential of a virtual photon.

Cosmic Coincidences Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 226-7):

For some people, the exceedingly fortuitous arrangement of the physical world, which permits the very special conditions necessary to human observers' existence, confirms their belief in a creative Designer. Others, however, point to the many-universes theory as a natural explanation for cosmic coincidences. If an infinite array of universes really does exist, each of which realises a slightly different cosmic possibility, then any universe, however remarkable or improbable, is bound to occur somewhere in the array. It is no surprise then that the Universe (or universes) that we perceive is of this remarkable sort, for only in a cosmos in which the conditions necessary for life to form have occurred (by chance) will observers arise to ponder over the meaning of it all.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the anthropocentric conceit of fortuitous coincidences giving rise to the existence of human observers confuses two distinct types of cause: result and purpose. Human observers are the result of chance events, not the purpose of them, not least because chance events, by definition, are not purposeful. It is because 'purpose' implies consciousness that the category error invites belief a 'creative Designer'.

From the same perspective, the 'many-universes theory' misconstrues potential as actual, mistaking different potentials in one universe for different instances of universes.

Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 219-20):

This is where the many-worlds interpretation seems to force itself on us. In terms of serious physics, as opposed to the pages of science fiction, the idea dates from 1957, with the work of an American, Hugh Everett. It has since been refined by others. As we remarked earlier, the many-universes theory resolves the cat paradox by supposing that the Universe divides into two copies, and both then coexist in parallel with each other. There is thus no impediment to applying quantum mechanics to the entire Universe, if we are prepared to entertain the rather fantastic notion that the whole Universe is continually splitting into countless copies, each in a slightly different state, one for every possible outcome of every possible quantum interaction. The Everett theory suggests a sort of multiple reality, in which an infinite number of entire universes coexist. Bizarre though this may seem, the actual mathematical formalism involved is identical with standard quantum mechanics. The novelty of the theory concerns only the interpretation of the quantities that appear in the equations.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the many-worlds interpretation mistakes potential for actual, misconstruing potential instances as actual instances.

The Mind Collapsing The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 219):

Various resolutions have been proposed to break out of this deadlock. According to one highly speculative point of view, it is necessary to invoke the concept of mind at some stage, and to argue that the chain of regress ends when the result of the measurement enters somebody's consciousness. This endows the world with an extremely subjective element, for it obliges us to suppose that, in the absence of observation, the external world does not exist in a well-defined sense. It is as though through our observations we actually create, rather than explore, the external world.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this "highly speculative" point of view is entirely valid. However, it is not that 'in the absence of observation, the external world does not exist in a well-defined sense', but that the absence of observation is the absence of construing experience as an existing external world. But all such construals are intersubjective, not subjective, because the meanings that are construed are those of a socially exchanged semiotic system (language).

An Infinite Regress Of Collapsing Wave Functions Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 218-9):

As far as the world outside the box is concerned, however, we can regard the whole laboratory as just a bigger box. If the experimenter has looked inside the box and determined the fate of the cat, a colleague working in the lab next door may not know this. Does the quantum wave of the whole lab collapse only when the colleague opens the door and asks how the cat is getting on? This clearly leads us into an infinite regress. Each quantum system can be collapsed into a definite state on being measured by another system outside itself, but then the larger system goes into an indeterminate state and must be collapsed into reality by yet another system outside of it, and so on.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no infinite regress here. Just as the perception of the cat is meaning construed by the experimenter on opening the box, the perception of experimenter's lab is meaning construed by the colleague on opening its door. And so on.

The Collapse Of The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 218):

The very concept of a superposition of live-cat and dead-cat states waiting to be resolved when someone looks in the box seems absurd, because presumably the cat itself knows whether it is dead or alive. Does this knowledge not constitute an observation leading to a collapse of the quantum wave into a definite state one way or the other? Surely it is not necessary for all quantum observations to be conducted by human beings before they can be regarded as producing a definite state of reality? But if a cat can do the job, what about an ant? Or a bacterium? Or can we dispense with a living component in the experiment altogether, and leave it all up to a computer, or even a camera?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'very concept of a superposition of live-cat and dead-cat states waiting to be resolved when someone looks in the box' is not absurd, because the superposition is of potentiality, not of actuality, and it is only by looking in the box that one of those two potentials can be instantiated.

To be clear, the cat does not know whether it is dead or alive. On the one hand, a dead cat cannot know anything, because knowing requires a functioning brain. On the other hand, the meaning 'I am alive' is linguistic meaning, and so not meaning that can be construed by a species without language. What is true is that a live cat in the box construes its experience as perceptual meaning, at the very least, whereas a dead cat does not.

On this basis, other species, computers and cameras cannot collapse the wave function, because this requires the ability to construe experience as an instance of linguistic meaning.

The Act Of Measurement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 218):

The Aspect experiment essentially lays to rest Einstein's hope that quantum uncertainty and indeterminism can be traced back to a substratum of hidden forces at work. We have to accept that there is an intrinsic, irreducible uncertainty in nature. An electron or other quantum particle generally does not have a well-defined position or motion unless an actual measurement of position or motion is made. The act of measurement causes the fuzziness to give way to a sharp and definite result. It is this combination of uncertainty and of the collapse of the quantum wave when an observation is made that leads to the paradox of the cat in the box.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not that 'an electron or other quantum particle generally does not have a well-defined position or motion unless an actual measurement of position or motion is made' but that these meanings are not construed unless a measurement is made.

By the same token, it is not that 'the act of measurement causes the fuzziness to give way to a sharp and definite result' but that the act of measurement — the collapse of the wave — is the instantiation of potential meaning as actual meaning.

In this view, Schrödinger's 'cat in the box' experiment presents no paradox, since it is not until the observation is made that potential meaning — either 'the cat is alive' or 'the cat is dead' — is instantiated as actual meaning .

The Violation Of Bell's Inequality Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 217-8):

Although Bohr provided a defence of his position in the face of this formidable challenge, the case rested until the 1960s as a pure thought experiment. Then John Bell of CERN extended the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment to a wider class of two-particle processes, producing general rules that all such systems must obey if they are to comply with Einstein's "common sense" picture of reality. Bell found that these rules incorporate a mathematical restriction now known as Bell's inequality. For the first time, it became possible to consider an actual laboratory test of these ideas. If the experiments showed that Bell's inequality is obeyed, Einstein would be proved right; but if the inequality was violated, Einstein would be proved wrong. Following Bell's work, a series of careful experiments has been performed, culminating in an accurate test of Bell's inequality by Alain Aspect, of the University of Paris, in 1982. Aspect's experiment consisted of performing simultaneous measurements on pairs of oppositely directed photons that were emitted in a single event from the same atom, and so possessed correlated properties. The results? Einstein was wrong. This conclusion has since been confirmed by repeated experiments.

Assuming one rules out faster-than-light signalling, it implies that once two particles have interacted with one another they remain linked in some way, effectively parts of the same indivisible system. This property of "nonlocality" has sweeping implications. We can think of the Universe as a vast network of interacting particles, and each linkage binds the participating particles into a single quantum system. In some sense the entire Universe can be regarded as a single quantum system. Although in practice the complexity of the cosmos is too great for us to notice this subtle connectivity except in special experiments like those devised by Aspect, nevertheless there is a strong holistic flavour to the quantum description of the Universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, particles are not linked parts of the same system, but interdependent instances of the same system. That is, the relation is not of part to whole (extension: composition), but of token to type (ascription: instantiation).

From this perspective, the violation of Bell's inequality demonstrates the interdependency of instances of potential, in the construing of experience as meaning.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Thought Experiment Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 215-7):

Einstein wanted to believe that, say, an electron really did have both a well-defined position and a well-defined momentum at the same time, even though in typical practical experiments knowledge of one aspect might frustrate attempts to know the other. … 

Suppose, Einstein reasoned, that there are two particles, A and B, which collide and separate to a great distance. Now we are free to measure either the position or the momentum of B. If we measure the former we can infer the position of A, from the laws that govern collisions. But we could equally well measure the momentum of B and use it to infer the momentum of A. 

Einstein suggested that although a measurement of B's position might fuzz out the momentum of that particle (or vice versa), the act of a measurement on B could not immediately affect particle A, which might be a long way away by the time the measurement is made. At the very least, no physical influence from the measurement of B could reach A in less time than it would take light to travel from B to A — the ultimate speed limit of Einstein's own theory of relativity. Certainly, it seemed to Einstein that at the instant of the measurement of B, the state of particle A must remain undisturbed. 

This seemed to settle the issue, for if the experimenter chose to measure either the position or momentum of B, and hence infer either the position or momentum of A, in either case without disturbing A, then surely A must already possess both "elements of reality" at the time of measurement. Indeed, one could envisage measuring the momentum of A by this proxy technique (that is, by measuring the momentum of B and inferring that of A) and at the same instant conducting a position measurement directly on A, thereby yielding precise values for both quantities at the same time. 

So, Einstein reasoned, it is possible in principle to know the position and the momentum of particle A at the same time. It seemed to Einstein that the only way to retain quantum uncertainty across the gap between the particles would be if they were connected by what he called some "spooky action at a distance," operating faster than light and therefore transcending the restraints of his own theory of relativity.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, Einstein's claim is that a measurement of the position or momentum of one particle cannot influence the measurement of position or momentum of another particle, with which it had collided, because this would require faster than light signalling between the particles.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this does not require any signalling between instances (particles), because the relation is between potential and instances, not between instances.

The reason why a measurement of the position or momentum of one particle does influence the measurement of position or momentum of another particle is that the particles are interdependent instances of the same potential. That is, the construal of one instance of the system is dependent on the construal of another instance, and this requires no "spooky action at a distance" between the instances.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Einstein was trying to reframe Quantum physics, which distinguishes potential from instance, in terms of Classical physics, which only recognises instances. The unwarranted assumption, also, is that particles, along with their position and momentum, are meanings that are independent of the act of construing.

Classical Determinism vs Quantum Indeterminism Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 214-5):

In the early days of the quantum theory these strange results divided physicists into two camps. There were those, led by Niels Bohr, who fully accepted the implications of the theory, and insisted that the microworld is inherently indeterministic. And there were those, most notably Einstein, who maintained that quantum mechanics could not be regarded as a satisfactory theory if it made such nonsensical claims. As we have mentioned, Einstein hoped that behind the weird quantum world lay a hidden reality of concrete objects and forces moving in accordance with the more traditional notions of cause and effect. 

Einstein supposed that the fuzziness of quantum systems is somehow a result of observational inadequacy. Our instruments are simply not elaborate enough, he believed, to reveal the intricate details of the variables that determine the seemingly erratic behaviour of subatomic particles. 

Bohr's view was that there are no causes of this chaos, that the old Newtonian view of a clockwork Universe unfolding according to a predetermined pattern is forever discredited. Rather than rigid rules of cause and effect, claimed Bohr, matter is subject to the laws of chance. The processes of nature are not so much a game of pool as a game of roulette.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the indeterminism of the quantum physics of Bohr concerns the relation between potential and instance, whereas the determinism of the classical physics of Newton and Einstein concerns relations between instances.

Position x Momentum vs Wave-Particle Complementarity Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 214):

The trade-off between position and momentum is another example of quantum complementarity at work. It turns out to bear a close relation to the wave-particle complementarity. The wave associated with an electron is, by its very nature, a spread-out thing, and does not have a definite position, although it does encode information about the electron's momentum. By contrast, the particle associated with an electron is, by its very nature, something with a well-defined position; but a wave collapsed to a point carries no information about the momentum of the electron. Measure the position of an electron, and you do not know (nor does the electron know) how it is moving; measure the momentum of an electron, and neither you nor the electron know where it is located.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the trade-off between position and momentum and wave-particle complementarity differ in an important way.

Wave-particle complementarity is a complementarity of perspective: the view of phenomena as potential (wave) or instance (particle).

The 'trade-off' between position and momentum, on the other hand, is an inversely proportional relation between instantiation probabilities: the more probable the construal of one, the less probable the construal of the other.

Uncertainty As An Intrinsic Quality Of Nature Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 213):

We have encountered the uncertainty principle in our discussion of quantum chaos, the nature of the vacuum and the origin of time. This is the same uncertainty that also affects energy and time, and tells us that virtual particles can pop briefly out of nothing at all, and vanish again. Such quantum uncertainty is not merely a result of human clumsiness. It is an intrinsic quality of nature. However accurate and powerful our instruments may be, we cannot beat the inherent fuzziness of quantum uncertainty.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the uncertainty that the authors describe as an intrinsic quality of nature is an intrinsic quality of construing experience as meaning. Moreover, it demonstrates that meaning involves both the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the latter in evidence through the inherent uncertainty (modalisation) in the instantiation of meaning.

The Uncertainty Of Position x Momentum Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 213):

Because of the wave-particle duality of entities such as electrons, it is impossible to attribute to them precisely certain properties, such as possessing a well-defined path through space, that we are used to thinking of in connection with macroscopic objects like a bullet or a planet in its orbit. Thus, when an electron goes from A to B, its trajectory is fuzzed out by quantum uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 

In one form, this principle states that you cannot know, at any instant, both the position and the momentum of a quantum particle. Indeed, it goes deeper — it says that a quantum particle does not possess both a definite momentum and a definite position simultaneously. If you try to measure accurately the position, you lose information about the momentum, and vice versa. There is an irreducible trade-off between these two qualities. Either can be known as accurately as you like, but only at the expense of the other.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, an observer's uncertainty lies in the probabilistic nature of instantiation. If an electron is observed for the duration of its trajectory from A to B, then one well-defined path of its potential paths is instantiated. If the electron is only observed at A and B, then the path that the electron takes between them is not instantiated, and so remains probabilistic potential.

From the same perspective, the 'irreducible trade-off' between position and momentum demonstrates the interdependence of these two variables, in as much as the instantiation probabilities of position and momentum are inversely proportional: the more probable the construal of one, the less probable the construal of the other.

The Many-Universes (Or Alternative-Histories) Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 212-3):

Perhaps the most dramatic attempt to make sense of such quantum superpositions is the so-called many-universes (or alternative-histories) theory. In the context of the cat experiment, this states that the entire Universe splits into two coexisting, or parallel, realities, one with a live cat and the other with a dead cat. Although it may seem like science fiction, the many-universes theory is entirely consistent with the rules of quantum mechanics and is supported by several leading theoretical physicists.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, quantum superpositions are alternative potentials. The notion of the entire Universe splitting into two parallel universes simply mistakes alternative potential (either live cat or dead cat) for additive actual (both live cat and dead cat).

Resolutions Of 'Schrödinger's Cat' Type Paradoxes Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 212):

It is clear from scenarios such as this that the wave properties of matter applied to macroscopic objects — and especially to conscious observers — raise very deep issues about the nature of reality and the relationship between the observer and the physical world. The cat scenario is deliberately contrived to tease out the paradoxical nature of quantum weirdness in a dramatic way, but the same essential phenomenon occurs every time an alpha particle is emitted by a nucleus, and is busily at work in the radioactive paint on the hands of your luminous clock. 

There is still no general agreement on how to resolve paradoxes like that involving Schrödinger's cat. Some physicists believe that quantum mechanics will fail for systems as large and complex as cats. Another opinion is that quantum physics can tell us nothing about individual alpha particles or cats, but only about the statistics of collections of identical systems, so that we can say that if we were to perform the same experiment with a thousand cats in identical boxes then a certain fraction of the cats (as determined by the quantum rules) will be found alive and the rest dead. But that simply dodges the question of what happens to any individual cat.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Schrödinger cat experiment supports the view of meaning as immanent (construed in semiotic stems) and invalidates the view of meaning as transcendent of semiotic systems. In the 'immanent' view, it is the construal — the meaning — that constitutes reality. Moreover, Quantum physics, in general, demonstrates the probabilistic nature of construing experience as instances of potential (such as instances of 'what happens to any individual cat').

The Schrödinger Cat Experiment Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 210-2):

Many physicists feel very uneasy about large systems having wave properties that play a part in the outcome of experiments. One reason for their concern is that it is possible to envisage arranging for two waveforms which represent very different macroscopic states to overlap and interfere with one another. The most famous example of this was dreamed up by Schrödinger. It consists of a cat incarcerated in a box containing a flask of cyanide and a hammer poised above the glass (Figure 36).

A small source of radioactivity is arranged so that if, after a certain period of time, an alpha particle is emitted, this is detected by a Geiger counter and triggers the fall of the hammer, which breaks the flask and kills the cat. The scenario provides a memorable demonstration of the paradoxical nature of quantum reality. 

One can imagine a situation in which, after the specified time, the alpha particle's wave lies partly within the nucleus and has partly tunnelled out. This might correspond, for example, to equal probability that the alpha particle had, or had not, been ejected by the nucleus. Now the rest of the stuff in the box — Geiger counter, hammer, poison and the cat itself — can also be treated as a quantum wave. One can therefore envisage two possibilities. 

In one case the atom decays, the hammer falls, and the cat is dead. In the other case, which has equal probability, none of this happens and the cat remains alive. The quantum wave must incorporate all possibilities, so the correct quantum description of the total contents of the box must consist of two overlapping and interfering waveforms, one corresponding to a live cat, the other to a dead cat. 

In this ghostly hybrid state, the cat cannot be regarded as definitely either dead or alive, but in some strange way both. Does this mean we can perform the experiment and create a live-dead cat? No! If the experimenter opens the box, the cat will be found to be either alive or dead. It is as if nature suspends judgment on the fate of the poor creature until somebody peeks. But this raises the obvious question: what is going on inside the box when nobody is looking?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'live cat' or 'dead cat' constitute the system of potential meanings to be construed. It is only when an observation is made that one meaning or the other is instantiated. Put simply, the cat is potentially alive or dead, not actually alive and dead. And, when nobody is looking inside the box, no goings-on are being construed.

The Collapse Of The Wave Function Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 210):

The oddity of this abrupt resculpturing of the wave — often called "the collapse of the wave function" — is that it seems to depend upon the activities of the observer. If nobody looks, then the wave never collapses. So the behaviour of a particle such as an electron appears to vary according to whether it is being watched or not. This is deeply troubling to physicists, but may not seem of any great concern to other people — who else really cares what an electron is doing when we are not looking at it? But the issue goes beyond electrons. If macroscopic objects also have associated waves, then in principle the independent reality of everything seems to go into the quantum melting pot.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason why 'the collapse of the wave function seems to depend on the activities of the observer' is that the collapse of the wave function is the instantiation of potential in the construal of experience as meaning. Thus the reason why 'the wave never collapses if nobody looks' is that the meaning is not construed if nobody looks.

In this view, it is not that the behaviour of a particle varies according to whether it is being watched or not, but that the behaviour of a particle is only construed if it is watched.

In this view, all reality, including macroscopic objects, is meaning construed of experience.

The Measurement Paradox Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 209-10):

The role of the observer is highlighted by what is known as the measurement paradox. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the wave corresponding to an electron is confined to a box and the particle is equally likely to be found anywhere inside the box. Then imagine that a partition is slid into the box, dividing it into two equal halves (Figure 35).

According to the quantum rules, the wave is still present in both halves of the box, reflecting the fact that when we look for the electron we are equally likely to find it on either side of the partition. Common sense, however, would dictate that the electron can be in only either one half of the box or the other. Suppose, now, that someone looks inside the box and finds the electron in one particular half. Clearly the probability wave must abruptly disappear from the other half of the box, because it is now known with certainty to be empty.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave models the potential locations of an electron in terms of probability. As potential, the wave is not in the box, partitioned or otherwise, because only the observed instance of that potential, the particle, is actual, and so actually in the box.

The measurement paradox only arises because physicists ignore Born's explanation of the wave as a wave of probability, or are unaware that probability measures potentiality, not actuality, and ignore the distinction between potential and its actual instances.

The Act Of Observation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 208-9):

Probably the most unsettling aspect of these studies is the way that the observer seems to play a central role in fixing the nature of reality at the quantum level. This has long worried both physicists and philosophers. In the pre-quantum era of physics, everyone assumed that the world "out there" existed in a well-defined state quite irrespective of whether, or how, it was observed. 

Admittedly the act of observation would intrude into that reality, for we cannot observe anything without interacting with it physically to some extent; yet it was always supposed that the interaction was purely incidental and could either be made arbitrarily small (at least in principle) or else be performed in a controlled way and so be taken precisely into account. 

But quantum physics presents a picture of reality in which observer and observed are inextricably interwoven in an intimate way. The effect of observation is absolutely fundamental to the reality that is revealed, and cannot be either reduced or simply compensated for. 

If, then, the act of observation is such a key element in creating the quantum reality, we are led to ask what actually happens when an observation of an electron or a photon is made.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the reason why 'the observer seems to play a central role in fixing the nature of reality at the quantum level' is that observation is the construing of experience as meaning, and reality is the meaning thus construed. The 'observed' is perceptual meaning reconstrued as the meaning of language, and theoretical models are reconstruals of those meanings.

The reason why 'this has long worried both physicists and philosophers' is that such physicists and philosophers, following Galileo, take a transcendent view of meaning, wherein meaning transcends semiotic systems, and experience is categorised independently of semiotic systems. The findings of Quantum physics have demonstrated that this view is untenable.

The 'effect of observation' is thus to construe reality, rather than reveal it, and 'what actually happens when an observation of an electron or a photon is made' is that experience is construed as meaning: as an instance of potential.

Wheeler's "Delayed-Choice" Experiment Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 207-8):

One might imagine a remote source of light, such as a quasar, emitting photons that pass around some intervening object and are focused at the Earth. The two paths around the object then play the role of the two slits. An experimenter on Earth could in principle bring the two light beams together in an interference experiment. If the delayed-choice facility were now deployed, the decision of the experimenter to expose either the wave or particle nature of the quasar light would affect the nature of that light — not just a few billionths of a second in the past, but several billion years ago! In other words, the quantum nature of reality involves nonlocal effects that could in principle reach right across the Universe and stretch back eons in time. …

Nevertheless, the delayed-choice experiment illustrates graphically that the quantum world possesses a kind of holism that transcends time, as well as space, almost as if the particle-waves seem to know ahead of time what decision the observer will make.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, waves of probability measure potential and particles are instances of that potential. In this view, light does not "decide" to be observed as particle or wave. All observations are of particles, since only particles are actual. Observations of the 'wave nature' of light are those where the probabilistic nature of instantiation cannot be ignored, as when the potential involves the overlap of one probability wave with another.

Wheeler's "Delayed-Choice" Experiment Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 206-7):

As if this were not bewildering enough, a further twist was added by John Wheeler, of the University of Texas at Austin. He pointed out that the holistic nature of reality extends not just through space but through time as well. Wheeler showed how a decision as to which of the two complementary aspects of reality — wave or particle — shall be revealed by the two different double-slit experiments can be left until after the photon (or electron) has already passed through the double-slit system. It is possible to "look back" from the position of the image screen to find out which slit any given particle has come through. Alternatively, one could choose not to look, and leave the interference pattern to develop as usual. The decision of the experimenter about whether or not to look back at the time the particles arrive at the screen determines whether or not the light was behaving in the manner of particles or waves at an earlier moment, at the time when it passed through the slit system in the first screen. Wheeler called his arrangement the "delayed-choice" experiment.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, light does not behave "in the manner of particles or waves". Instead, particles are instances of the potential that is quantified as a wave of probability. Thus, only particles pass through the slits. Experiments that are said to reveal the wave nature of light are typically those that involve the overlapping of probability waves, such that the distribution of particle trajectories instantiates those overlapping probabilities.

From the same perspective, the time of observation is the time of construing experience as a particular instance of a probability wave. In this 'immanent' view, meanings such as particle and wave are construed in semiotic systems, and do not transcend them.

Experiments That "Destroy The Wave Aspect" Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 205-6):

Bohr expressed the situation clearly. Suppose we attempt to uncover the particle nature of photons by pinning down the location to the extent that we can tell through which slit each one passes. Then the result of this scrutiny is to smudge out the very interference pattern that is the hallmark of the wave aspect. 

Thus if we set up the experiment so that a counter sits at each of the two slits to record the passage of each photon through one slit or the other, the effect of making these observations is to introduce an additional uncertainty (via Heisenberg's principle) into the behaviour of the particles. The magnitude of this uncertainty is just such that it smears out the interference pattern, leaving instead two superimposed smudges of light, just as you would expect for particles going through either of the slits without interference. So in exposing the particle aspect of the wave-particle duality, we destroy the wave aspect. 

We must therefore contend with two different experiments, one revealing the wave aspect and the other the particle aspect. The results of the experiment depend on the nature of the whole experimental setup, apparatus plus light (or electrons), and not just on the nature of light itself. These ideas may seem to defy common sense — but remember, our common sense is based on experience of things much bigger than photons or atoms, and there is no reason why it should be a good guide to what goes on at the atomic level.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Quantum Physics, as articulated by Max Born, such waves are probability waves. Interference patterns between two waves are thus interference patterns between two waves of probability. The removal ("smudging out") of an interference pattern in an experiment is thus the removal of an interference between two waves of probability, and it is this that is achieved when particle detectors are placed at each of the two slits.

Such an experiment does not "destroy the wave aspect". Instead, it eliminates probability wave interference, which, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, changes the probabilities of the potential, and so changes the statistical behaviours of the particles that instantiate those probabilities.

The Metaphors Of Particles "Knowing" And "Deciding" Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 205):

So how can an individual particle, which can pass through only one of the slits, "know" of the existence of the other slit and adjust its behaviour accordingly? Could it be that a wave of something passes through the two slits, only to collapse into a particle when its position is "measured" by the screen? This is surely too conspiratorial, for the electrons or photons would have to know our intentions. And how does each individual particle "know" what the others will do so it can decide where it belongs in the interference pattern that builds up from the flow of thousands or millions of individual particles through the experiment? 

This is clear evidence for the holistic nature of quantum systems, with the behaviour of individual particles being shaped into a pattern by something that cannot be explained in terms of the Newtonian reductionist paradigm.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the behaviour of individual particles is 'shaped into a pattern' by the probabilities of the potential they instantiate. Instantiation requires no "knowledge" or "decisions" on the part of the instantiated.

In this view, it is particles — not waves — that pass through the slits, and each particle passes through either one slit or the other — not through both – in accordance with the probabilities of the potential.

The Double-Slit Experiment Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 203-5):

A classic example [of wave vs particle detection] is provided by a famous experiment first performed by Thomas Young in England in the early nineteenth century. Young carried out his experiment with light, but an exactly equivalent experiment has now been performed using electrons. In the original experiment, a point source of light illuminates two narrow adjacent slits in a screen, and the image of the light that passes through the slits is observed on a second screen (Figure 33).

You might guess that the image would consist of two overlapping patches of light; in fact, it is made up of a series of bright and dark stripes, known as interference fringes. 

The appearance of interference fringes in Young's experiment is a clear demonstration of the wave nature of light. Wave interference occurs in any wave system when two (or more) waves come together and overlap. Where the waves arrive in step they reinforce each other; where they are out of step they cancel each other. In Young's experiment the light wave from one slit intersects the light wave from the other slit to produce the bright and dark stripes, as the two waves alternately add together and cancel each other out. And it is important to appreciate that if either one of the slits is covered, the striped pattern disappears.

Paradoxical overtones emerge if one now regards the light as composed of particles — photons. It is possible to weaken the light source until only one photon at a time passes through the slit system, and to record the cumulative effect of many photons arriving one after the other at the second screen over a long period of time. Each photon arrives at the image screen and makes a spot on a photographic plate. In the equivalent electron experiment, single electrons are fired through a double-slit system, and the "image screen" is a sensitive surface like that of a television screen. The arrival of each electron makes a spot of light on the screen, and a video of the buildup of the spots of light shows how a pattern emerges as more and more electrons pass through the system.

Recall that one cannot know in advance, because of the inherent uncertainty of the system, precisely where any given photon or electron will end up. But the cumulative effect of many "throws of the quantum dice" will average out the distribution into a well-defined pattern. Moreover, this pattern shows the same series of interference bands as obtained with a strong source. The puzzle is this. Each particle, be it photon or electron, can clearly pass through one slit alone. And each particle, as the buildup of spots on the image screen indicates, behaves like a particle when it arrives, striking the screen in just one place. 

Blogger Comments:

As this description makes clear, it is particles (photons, electrons) that are fired through the double-slit system and it is particles that are detected on the screen as a pattern of dots. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the instantial frequency pattern that accumulates on the screen manifests the probabilities of the system potential. 

The interference pattern that appears is thus a manifestation of the overlap of two probability waves, since each slit provides its own range of probable trajectories. The most frequent detections occur where the probability waves reinforce each other, and the least frequent detections occur where the probability waves cancel each other out.

The reason why the interference pattern disappears when there is only one possible slit for the particle to pass through is that, in this instance, there is only one wave of probability, and so no overlap of different waves.

Detecting Waves vs Particles Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 203):

Bohr admonished those who would ask what an electron really is — wave or particle — by denouncing the question as meaningless. To observe an electron, one has to conduct some form of measurement on it, by carrying out an experiment ("tossing the coin"). Experiments designed to detect waves always measure the wave aspect of the electron; experiments designed to detect particles always measure the particle aspect. No experiment can ever measure both aspects simultaneously, and so we can never see a mixture of wave and particle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, all experiments involving electrons are concerned with particles, because particles are the actual instances of potential. Experiments 'designed to detect waves' are those that probe the probabilistic nature of particle instantiation.

From this perspective, 'reality' is the construal of experience as meaning, potential or instance, not the experience that is construed. Meanings, including categorisations of experience, constitute semiotic systems, and do not transcend them.