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.
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 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.
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.
Chaotic quantum many-body dynamics typically lead to relaxation of local observables. In this process, known as quantum thermalization, a subregion reaches a thermal state due to quantum correlations with the remainder of the system, which acts as an intrinsic bath. While the bath is generally assumed to be unobserved, modern quantum science experiments have the ability to track both subsystem and bath at a microscopic level. Here, by utilizing this ability, we discover that measurement results associated with small subsystems exhibit universal random statistics following chaotic quantum many-body dynamics, a phenomenon beyond the standard paradigm of quantum thermalization. We explain these observations with an ensemble of pure states, defined via correlations with the bath, that dynamically acquires a close to random distribution. Such random ensembles play an important role in quantum information science, associated with quantum supremacy tests and device verification, but typically require highly-engineered, time-dependent control for their preparation. In contrast, our approach uncovers random ensembles naturally emerging from evolution with a time-independent Hamiltonian. As an application of this emergent randomness, we develop a benchmarking protocol which estimates the many-body fidelity during generic chaotic evolution and demonstrate it using our Rydberg quantum simulator. Our work has wide ranging implications for the understanding of quantum many-body chaos and thermalization in terms of emergent randomness and at the same time paves the way for applications of this concept in a much wider context.
Abstract Classical physics states that physical reality is local—a point in space cannot influence another point beyond a relatively short distance. However, In 1997, experiments were conducted in which light particles (photons) originated under certain conditions and traveled in opposite directions to detectors located about seven miles apart. The amazing results indicated that the photons “interacted” or “communicated” with one another instantly or “in no time”. Since a distance of seven miles is quite vast in quantum physics, this led physicists to an extraordinary conclusion—even if experiments could somehow be conducted in which the distance between the detectors was half-way across the known universe, the results would indicate that interaction or communication between the photons would be instantaneous. What was revealed in these little-known experiments in 1997 is that physical reality is non-local—a discovery that Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos view as “the most momentous in the history of science”. In The Non-Local Universe, Nadeau and Kafatos offer a revolutionary look at the breathtaking implications of non-locality. They argue that since every particle in the universe has been “entangled” with other particles like the two photons in the 1997 experiments, physical reality on the most basic level is an undivided wholeness. In addition to demonstrating that physical processes are vastly interdependent and interactive, they also show that more complex systems in both physics and biology display emergent properties and/or behaviors that cannot be explained in the terms of the sum of parts. One of the most startling implications of non-locality in human terms, claim the authors, is that there is no longer any basis for believing in the stark division between mind and world that has preoccupied much of western thought since the seventeenth century. And they also make a convincing case that human consciousness can now be viewed as emergent from and seamlessly connected with the entire cosmos. In pursuing this groundbreaking argument, the authors not only provide a fascinating history of developments that led to the discovery of non-locality and the sometimes heated debate between the great scientists responsible for these discoveries. They also argue that advances in scientific knowledge have further eroded the boundaries between physics and biology, and that recent studies on the evolution of the human brain suggest that the logical foundations of mathematics and ordinary language are much more similar than we previously imagined. What this new knowledge reveals, the authors conclude, is that the connection between mind and nature is far more intimate than we previously dared to imagine. What they offer is a revolutionary look at the implications of non-locality, implications that reach deep into that most intimate aspect of humanity: consciousness.