|
Parallelism : Anticipatory systems - Quantum field - The
Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Anticipatory systems
By comparison with the
equations of classical mechanics - where the time is
accounted by the variable "t" - and with classical feedback
control equations - where the time is accounted with the variables
"t - 1" and "t", an anticipatory system may be represented by
equations that account for the time with the variables set "t -
1", "t" and "t +1".
This would mean like the
system may know about its past but also about its future.
However extensive publications
have been produced in this sense demonstrating the accuracy of an
anticipative vision in classical systems - i.e.
D. Dubois provides an
example for an harmonic oscillator - it
seems that this vision has not been so much popularized yet in
physics - say like one can not really believe that the earth knows
its future while rotating around the sun.
We feel that the spherical
time-space introduced at the previous
page 4.5
and the deducted perspective illustrated at the top of the present
page make the vision of an anticipatory system more understandable
hence more acceptable.
This also recalls to a
parallelism with the principle of "the least action" that states
that a particle or a body will choice - between two distant points
- the path that minimizes the effort.
When we think about this
principle which is fairly well accepted in physics, it looks also
that it is like it recall for a particle or a body to have a
knowledge in advance of its destinations and of its possible
trajectories.
In reference with our
illustration at the top of the previous page, a "least action
principle" could be translated by saying that a system tends to
make its evolution deducted from its past the most in accordance
with its future - that is also deducted from the past.
Even if we may have cases with
"trivial solutions", the next page shows that it is not the
general case.
Quantum field
In reference to the
parallelism of the
page 4.4,
one can visually capture in the figure at the top of this page an
illustration of two "opposite fields" - namely the "past" versus
the "future" or "ourselves" versus "our environment".
It is easy to understand a
double duality by saying that both ourselves and our environment
own a global attitude being at the same time a mix of pro-active
and reactive attitudes and that the meet of both may possibly
require efforts to gender the resolutions for eventual
discrepancies - say that those opposite fields may generate
tensions or forces.
One can also understand the
meaning of "creation" and "annihilation" mix by thinking about
successes and failures being distributed either on ourselves or on
the environment according to the winner of each meeting aspects.
 The
illustration of those two fields - like made in the adjacent
figure - allows to close the parallelism with the concept of
quantum field in a comprehensive manner in the next paragraphs.
When we introduced the
complete accounting set - say 8 T-accounts - from the stand point
of a time-cycle at the
page 4.4,
we were considering a motion from a place "1" to a place "2".
Those two places have been noted in red on the
adjacent figure so that it illustrates that the environment will
look like moving from a place "3" to a place "2".
In turn it says that the motions 3-2 will
require 8 T-accounts which in general will not be similar to the 8
T-accounts already inferred by the motion 1-2 - say that between
our perception of our environment and the reality of our
environment we may accept that there is always some remaining
uncertainty. In our
holotomial complete construction and its associated records, this
uncertainty will always be present as we actually inferred by
construction the necessary presence of accounts for uncertainty.
This necessity has been shown
to be the consequence of the inevitable existence of a
complementary view for any single one - say that one "eye" always
implies "two eyes" like demonstrated at the
page 3.3
. Because the eyes pair
implies the spherical time-pace and the spherical time-space
implies the two fields 1-2 and 3-2, those two fields are exactly
like the vision of a same object by a the right and the left eyes.
If we recollect all the concepts that have been
introduced via the holotomial analysis, we can say that - in our
observation space - a field is a configuration - say [q] x [p] x
[t] -, hence it is a particle and it can be described by two
configurations which are both the complement of each other.
In turn we are so with a very similar concept
to the one of the quantum fields introduced in quantum mechanics.
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics
Very interesting is how much all this section 4 own "parallelisms"
with the "Transactional
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" presented by
John G. Cramer
in 1986 The above figures clearly illustrate the
"advanced" and "retarded" senses of forth and back "in time"
"waves", both being of course a physical reality in those
illustrations. The former introduction of
accounting-like methods clearly cope and recall with the concept
of transactions between the "future" forward trends and the "past"
backward trends. The result of such transaction
will be in our scope a "piece of reality" - say [1] - and a "piece
of void" - say [ ]. Without developing the point
further, we may say that the piece of reality might be one
of the two waves surviving at the transaction, the other
disappearing, or alternatively, the piece of the reality might be
an interaction between a "piece" of the two waves, the void being
an interaction between an other piece of the two waves.
This later solution may lead to describe the interaction of two
conjugate parameters. |
