Quantum Theory y(QT) and Control Theory

CSGnet Archive CSG2005
1

Hi Bill,

Thanks for returning my note.

There is an easy but sophisticated little book on quantum theory by Alistair
Rae: "Quantum Physics, Illusion or Reality," 2nd Ed. Cambridge University
Press. About $17.00. He also has a more mathematical physics book by a
similar title.

After you read this easy book, you will see what the polarization
experiments are about and what the measurement problem is about. I see
Control Theory (CT) focusing on the propensity of a system to stabilize
itself in the presence of signals to stabilize itself. QT deals with the
bizarre phenomena as some sore of an error in classical thinking that has
yet to be explained. There is this wave particle duality discussion which
is far from satisfying, but I see CT speaking about something that the QT
people seem to overlook: I will quote you to yourself:

  "We thus have a picture in which some number of independently-acting
second=order control systems act by sending multiple amplified copies of
their error signals to many first-order control systems, specifically those
whose actions can alter the second-order perceptual signal directly or
indirectly. The second-order systems therefore share the use of overlapping
sets of first-order systems. No one second-order system determines the net
reference setting for any one first-order control system. The net reference
setting for one first order system is always a compromise among the demands
of all second-order systems that affect it."

In QT there is this idea of correlated photons or subatomic particles when
they are passed from a single light source in opposite directions to
detectors that measure their spin among other things. There is a physicist
named David Mermin, known for his Mermin machines and quantum computing,
that tested a critical theory called Bell's Theorem. By so doing his
experiment, he with others, established that any quantum system could not
have hidden variables explaining the correlation. Thus, either photons
communicated with each other faster than the speed of light, violating
special relativity, or no one knows why the correlation exists. This is
where I think your work on CT can serve to yield another way of talking
about all this.

In any system, there are two orders of signals as you have pointed out.
What happens if we use your thinking to look at QT?

Please take a look at the Rae book. The mathematics of QT is not hard, just
tedious and terse. For example, QT calls an observable, a self adjoint
linear operator, or a Hermitian operator. It is stuff like that. Some
functional analysis, probability theory and linear algebra. Undergraduate
stuff. The philosophy is very rich. General Relativity also helps one see
sides of QT that are different. This theory is not hard at all. Anyone can
play with it. The difficult part is the nature of explanation. That is,
what do we mean by explanation? This is why I am studying your work along
with Maturana and von Glasersfeld.

Please write soon.

Ely

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:21 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: More of Mary's writings

Hello, Ely --

I'm somewhat mystified by your references to quantum measurement problems,
but curious as to what similarities you see. I know nothing about quantum
mechanics, so perhaps you are crediting me with more knowledge than I have.
It should be easy to find out.

Best regards,

Bill Powers

PS -- I'm sorry you had to come across those sordid posts from CSGnet. Not
the sort of interchange I hope for.

2

Hey, whatta ya know. I could be all wrong about the hierarchy after all. It could actually apply at the quantum level. Bill, I’m sure this was one of your very first insights back in the 50’s after telling Pribram all about the properties of control.

Ely, play no mind to me. Bill Powers is one helluva control engineer, I’m not sure he will buy the book you want him to read but I wish you luck in your quest none-the-less. Sounds like fun.

Marc

In a message dated 3/26/2005 1:54:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, edorsey@STARPOWER.NET writes:

···

Hi Bill,

Thanks for returning my note.

There is an easy but sophisticated little book on quantum theory by Alistair
Rae: “Quantum Physics, Illusion or Reality,” 2nd Ed. Cambridge University
Press. About $17.00. He also has a more mathematical physics book by a
similar title.

After you read this easy book, you will see what the polarization
experiments are about and what the measurement problem is about. I see
Control Theory (CT) focusing on the propensity of a system to stabilize
itself in the presence of signals to stabilize itself. QT deals with the
bizarre phenomena as some sore of an error in classical thinking that has
yet to be explained. There is this wave particle duality discussion which
is far from satisfying, but I see CT speaking about something that the QT
people seem to overlook: I will quote you to yourself:

  "We thus have a picture in which some number of independently-acting

second=order control systems act by sending multiple amplified copies of
their error signals to many first-order control systems, specifically those
whose actions can alter the second-order perceptual signal directly or
indirectly. The second-order systems therefore share the use of overlapping
sets of first-order systems. No one second-order system determines the net
reference setting for any one first-order control system. The net reference
setting for one first order system is always a compromise among the demands
of all second-order systems that affect it."

In QT there is this idea of correlated photons or subatomic particles when
they are passed from a single light source in opposite directions to
detectors that measure their spin among other things. There is a physicist
named David Mermin, known for his Mermin machines and quantum computing,
that tested a critical theory called Bell’s Theorem. By so doing his
experiment, he with others, established that any quantum system could not
have hidden variables explaining the correlation. Thus, either photons
communicated with each other faster than the speed of light, violating
special relativity, or no one knows why the correlation exists. This is
where I think your work on CT can serve to yield another way of talking
about all this.

In any system, there are two orders of signals as you have pointed out.
What happens if we use your thinking to look at QT?

Please take a look at the Rae book. The mathematics of QT is not hard, just
tedious and terse. For example, QT calls an observable, a self adjoint
linear operator, or a Hermitian operator. It is stuff like that. Some
functional analysis, probability theory and linear algebra. Undergraduate
stuff. The philosophy is very rich. General Relativity also helps one see
sides of QT that are different. This theory is not hard at all. Anyone can
play with it. The difficult part is the nature of explanation. That is,
what do we mean by explanation? This is why I am studying your work along
with Maturana and von Glasersfeld.

Please write soon.

Ely

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:21 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: More of Mary’s writings

Hello, Ely –

I’m somewhat mystified by your references to quantum measurement problems,
but curious as to what similarities you see. I know nothing about quantum
mechanics, so perhaps you are crediting me with more knowledge than I have.
It should be easy to find out.

Best regards,

Bill Powers

PS – I’m sorry you had to come across those sordid posts from CSGnet. Not
the sort of interchange I hope for.

3

[From Bill Powers (2005.03.26.0238 MST)]

Hello, Ely – I didn’t realize your post had gone to CSGnet, so didn’t
include the standard time-date stamp we customarily use (hint, hint)

···

–

At 11:52 PM 3/25/2005, you wrote:

Hi Bill,

Thanks for returning my note.

There is an easy but sophisticated little book on quantum theory by
Alistair

Rae: “Quantum Physics, Illusion or Reality,” 2nd
Ed. Cambridge University

Press. About $17.00. He also has a more mathematical physics
book by a

similar title.

I’ve ordered it used from Amazon – only ten bucks with shipping. It will
get here next week.

The parallels you draw with HPCT may not be appropriate, but I’m only
guessing at this point. HPCT is a proposal concerning mechanisms that
underlie observed phenomena of behavior. Quantum mechanics, it seems to
me, does not describe any mechanisms: only behavior. The difference is
like writing equations that describe the trajectory of an artillery
shell, and proposing that behind this trajectory there is an
inverse-square gravitational field and velocity-dependent aerodynamic
forces. I remember asking my physics professor in high school what the
mechanism of gravity is. His answer was that gravity is a given, and that
physics doesn’t ask why it exists. That’s probably not really true, but I
remember how irked I was at that answer. Maybe that’s why I balked so
much when introduced to quantum physics: why do energy transfers occur in
steps expressible in terms of small integers? I got the same answer in
college: we don’t ask why; that’s a fundamental observation. That was a
long time ago, of course. Maybe they don’t say that any more.

After you read this easy book,
you will see what the polarization

experiments are about and what the measurement problem is about. I
see

Control Theory (CT) focusing on the propensity of a system to
stabilize

itself in the presence of signals to stabilize itself.

Did that sentence get garbled? “signals to stabilize itself?”
Please explain.

In QT there is this idea of
correlated photons or subatomic particles when

they are passed from a single light source in opposite directions to

detectors that measure their spin among other things. There is a
physicist

named David Mermin, known for his Mermin machines and quantum
computing,

that tested a critical theory called Bell’s Theorem. By so doing
his

experiment, he with others, established that any quantum system could
not

have hidden variables explaining the correlation. Thus, either
photons

communicated with each other faster than the speed of light,
violating

special relativity, or no one knows why the correlation exists.
This is

where I think your work on CT can serve to yield another way of
talking

about all this.

This is probably not what you mean here, but I have thought that PCT (or
some similar approach) does yield another way of talking about physical
phenomena. The PCT view is that the world we interact with (as laymen or
as physicists) consists entirely of neural signals in a brain; it is the
external world that is problematic. Both classical and quantum physics
are basically perceptions in human brains (I assume not chimpanzee or
dolphin brains). So are thoughts about physics. So the question
arises, “How much of what we think we know about the physical world
is a product of human perceptual systems, and how much is a consequence
of properties of the world outside the brain?” In other words, how
can we distinguish between properties of the observer/analyst, and
properties of external reality? What is the human “instrument
profile?”

In any system, there are two
orders of signals as you have pointed out.

What happens if we use your thinking to look at QT?

Actually, I have proposed 11 levels, and that is just a guess. There
could be more.

Please take a look at the Rae
book. The mathematics of QT is not hard, just

tedious and terse.

Speak for yourself. I reserve the right to be baffled.

For example, QT calls an
observable, a self adjoint

linear operator, or a Hermitian operator. It is stuff like
that.Some

functional analysis, probability theory and linear algebra.
Undergraduate

stuff.

For some undergraduates, maybe. I am cowed already. Maybe you shouldn’t
tell me any more about how easy it is until I see the book. How can an
operator be something observable? Seems to me that’s like trying to
observe plus-ness.

The philosophy is very
rich. General Relativity also helps one see

sides of QT that are different. This theory is not hard at all.
Anyone can

play with it. The difficult part is the nature of explanation. That
is,

what do we mean by explanation? This is why I am studying your work
along

with Maturana and von Glasersfeld.

You may see things in my work that I don’t see myself (perhaps I will be
like the man who discovered, to his delight, that he had been speaking
prose all his life). We shall see.

Best,

Bill P.