The following is undisputed: 1. The conceptual relation between QM, describing microscopic physics, and macroscopic irreversible physics, is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. 2. When propagating chaotic equations, arbitrarily small scales gradually become significant at arbitrarily large scales. It follows that, the long-time behavior of chaotic systems is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. Previous work by the author sheds new light on the quantum-classical riddle, suggesting that quantum weirdness is a signature of a non mechanistic ontology, viz., one not describable by some generalized state-vector plus evolution rule thereof. It is argued that neither an empirical nor a theoretical case exists against such non mechanistic ontology manifesting in certain macroscopic chaotic systems. Bell's inequality violation by separated but previously coupled such systems is one example. More radically, it is hypothesized that certain systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that, a future perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>0.5. Experiments utilizing machine learning are proposed for testing such hypotheses.
The following is undisputed: 1. The conceptual relation between QM, describing microscopic physics, and macroscopic irreversible physics, is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. 2. When propagating chaotic equations, arbitrarily small scales gradually become significant at arbitrarily large scales. It follows that, the long-time behavior of chaotic systems is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. Previous work by the author sheds new light on the quantum-classical riddle, suggesting that quantum weirdness is a signature of a non mechanistic ontology, viz., one not describable by some generalized state-vector plus evolution rule thereof. It is argued that neither an empirical nor a theoretical case exists against such non mechanistic ontology manifesting in certain macroscopic chaotic systems. Bell's inequality violation by separated but previously coupled such systems is one example. More radically, it is hypothesized that certain systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that, a future perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>0.5. Experiments utilizing machine learning are proposed for testing such hypotheses.
The following is undisputed: 1. The conceptual relation between QM, describing microscopic physics, and macroscopic irreversible physics, is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. 2. When propagating chaotic equations, arbitrarily small scales gradually become significant at arbitrarily large scales. It follows that, the long-time behavior of chaotic systems is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. Previous work by the author sheds new light on the quantum-classical riddle, suggesting that quantum weirdness is a signature of a non mechanistic ontology, viz., one not describable by some generalized state-vector plus evolution rule thereof. It is argued that neither an empirical nor a theoretical case exists against such non mechanistic ontology manifesting in certain macroscopic chaotic systems. Bell's inequality violation by separated but previously coupled such systems is one example. More radically, it is hypothesized that certain systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that, a future perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>0.5. Experiments utilizing machine learning are proposed for testing such hypotheses.
We humans are natural-born engineers. As such, we model after machines not only isolated, naturally occurring systems, but also the basic laws of physics, sharing with machines a local-evolution-of-state `grammar'. However, previous work by the author casts doubt upon this mechanistic paradigm, suggesting that it is to blame for the stubbornness of many open problems in physics. Simple experiments are therefore proposed to identify `non-machines'. In one experiment, `non mechanistic correlations' in the spirit of Bell are sought in a pair of separated but previously coupled (macroscopic) chaotic systems. In another it is tested whether chaotic systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that a future binary perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>1/2. Chaotic systems are chosen as candidates because the long-time application of their (deterministic) mechanistic description is conceptually groundless: All scales are significant and mutually coupled in that regime, down to scales governed by QM, yet the quantum-classical transition remains inexplicable---if only due to the measurement problem. Similarly for so-called non-deterministic chaotic systems, modeled as such purely for defying a short-time deterministic mechanistic description. Should a non mechanistic signature be found in such simple systems, the implications for science as a whole and life sciences in particular cannot be overstated.
We humans are natural-born engineers. As such, we model after machines not only isolated, naturally occurring systems, but also the basic laws of physics, sharing with machines a local-evolution-of-state `grammar'. However, previous work by the author casts doubt upon this mechanistic paradigm, suggesting that it is to blame for the stubbornness of many open problems in physics. Simple experiments are therefore proposed to identify `non-machines'. In one experiment, `non mechanistic correlations' in the spirit of Bell are sought in a pair of separated but previously coupled (macroscopic) chaotic systems. In another it is tested whether chaotic systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that a future binary perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>1/2. Chaotic systems are chosen as candidates because the long-time application of their (deterministic) mechanistic description is conceptually groundless: All scales are significant and mutually coupled in that regime, down to scales governed by QM, yet the quantum-classical transition remains inexplicable---if only due to the measurement problem. Similarly for non-deterministic chaotic systems, modeled as such purely for defying a short-time deterministic mechanistic description. Should a non mechanistic signature be found in such simple systems, the implications for science as a whole and life sciences in particular cannot be overstated.
We humans are natural-born engineers. As such, we model after machines not only isolated, naturally occurring systems, but also the basic laws of physics, sharing with machines a local-evolution-of-state `grammar'. However, previous work by the author casts doubt upon this mechanistic paradigm, suggesting that it is to blame for the stubbornness of many open problems in physics. Simple experiments are therefore proposed to identify `non-machines'. In one experiment, `non mechanistic correlations' in the spirit of Bell are sought in a pair of separated but previously coupled (macroscopic) chaotic systems. In another it is tested whether chaotic systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that a future binary perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>1/2. Chaotic systems are chosen as candidates because the long-time application of their (deterministic) mechanistic description is conceptually groundless: All scales are significant and mutually coupled in that regime, down to scales governed by QM, yet the quantum-classical transition remains inexplicable---if only due to the measurement problem. Similarly for non-deterministic chaotic systems, modeled as such purely for defying a short-time deterministic mechanistic description. Should a non mechanistic signature be found in such simple systems, the implications for science as a whole and life sciences in particular cannot be overstated.
Quantum mechanics marks a radical departure from the classical understanding of Nature, fostering an inherent randomness which forbids a deterministic description; yet the most fundamental departure arises from something different. As shown by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2], quantum mechanics portrays a picture of the world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum mechanics predicts phenomena which cannot be explained by any theory with objective realism, although our everyday experience supports the hypothesis that macroscopic objects, despite being made of quantum particles, exist independently of the act of observation; in this paper we identify this behavior as classical. Here we show that this seemingly obvious classical behavior of the macroscopic world cannot be experimentally tested and belongs to the realm of ontology similar to the dispute on the interpretations of quantum mechanics [3,4]. For small systems such as a single photon [5] or a pair [6], it has been experimentally proven that a classical description cannot be sustained. Recently, there have also been experiments that claim to have demonstrated quantum behavior of relatively large objects such as interference of fullerenes [7], the violation of Leggett-Garg inequality in Josephson junction [8], and interference between two condensed clouds of atoms [9], which suggest that there is no limit to the size of the system on which the quantum-versus-classical question can be tested. These behaviors, however, are not sufficient to refute classical description in the sense of objective reality. Our findings show that once we reach the regime where an Avogadro number of particles is present, the quantum-versus-classical question cannot be answered experimentally.
The relationship between chaos and quantum mechanics has been somewhat uneasy--even stormy, in the minds of some people. However, much of the confusion may stem from inappropriate comparisons using formal analyses. In contrast, our starting point here is that a complete dynamical description requires a full understanding of the evolution of measured systems, necessary to explain actual experimental results. This is of course true, both classically and quantum mechanically. Because the evolution of the physical state is now conditioned on measurement results, the dynamics of such systems is intrinsically nonlinear even at the level of distribution functions. Due to this feature, the physically more complete treatment reveals the existence of dynamical regimes--such as chaos--that have no direct counterpart in the linear (unobserved) case. Moreover, this treatment allows for understanding how an effective classical behavior can result from the dynamics of an observed quantum system, both at the level of trajectories as well as distribution functions. Finally, we have the striking prediction that time-series from measured quantum systems can be chaotic far from the classical regime, with Lyapunov exponents differing from their classical values. These predictions can be tested in next-generation experiments.