Subatomic Darwinism

blamanj writes "In the beginning was Darwinism, then there arose Social Darwinism, now physicists are proposing Quantum Darwinism. According to the Nature article: "If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it, how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to find? Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states."."

Comments

Don't forget ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

... religious Darwinism. IOW, beliefs evolve as previous beliefs are shown to be "unfit," i.e. disproven by observation.

"The Earth is flat, because this passage from the Bible talks about God stopping the Sun directly overhead!"

"Um, no, actually, it's a sphere, and here's the proof."

"Okay, okay! But the celestial bodies are little lights in the sky, and perfect and unblemished, and the go around the Earth!"

"Um, no, actually, they've got all kinds of flaws and blemishes, and they all go around the Sun, and here's the proof."

"Oh, damn! But the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, as we can determine from Biblical genealogies!"

"Um, no, actually, it's been around for a lot longer than that, and here's the proof."

"Aaargh! But humans were specially created by God in His image, and are absolutely unique!"

"Um, no, actually, we look an awful lot like other apes, and that's really not a coincidence, and here's the proof."

"*whimper* All right, so the Earth is round, and it and all the other lumpy rocks revolve around the Sun, and it's all really old, and humans are a lot like apes ... but, um, see, there's all this little stuff you scientists haven't quite figured out yet about the specifics, and sometimes you argue about it, and THAT'S ABSOLUTE PROOF OF THAT GOD EXISTS AND HE WANTS YOU TO DO EXACTLY AS _____ (insert your preferred version of a frequently mistranslated, politically loaded anthology of folktales here) SAYS!"

don't forget about darwinist programming

[Knights who say 'INT]

i.e. genetic algorithms.

GA's are used to maximize arbitrary functions by a mixture of random mutation and crossover between the solution candidates with better aptitude.

It's hot stuff, and it comes up with good solutions for analytically untractable problems.

So then a first post...

[Tebriel]

So maybe a First Post really does matter then.

Wow.

Nothing new here...

[Cynical_Dude]

So observers coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states.

Techno-speak for "rose-tinted-glasses"?

Seriously though, thinking about it makes your brain hurt: Did the scientists working on this create the necessary state "they preferred" inadvertently in order to discover the state they wanted to see?

Abuse of the term "Darwinism"

[ites]

What's next... "market darwinism" when the products people buy survive?

No. "Darwinism" is about replicators, i.e. organisms that reproduce and that compete for resources.

When used for "Social Darwinism", the word implies that societies reproduce and compete for resources. In many ways this is accurate. You could use "darwinism" to describe many kinds of replicating, competing natural systems.

But quantums...? WTF?

Until we have evidence that quantums are actually lifeforms, the word "Darwinism" is simply not valid.

Anyhow, and on a different note, quantum mechanics is easy. Here's Ites' Dummies Guide to Quantum Physics: matter and energy are made of wavelets, a string of energy. Wavelets look like particles when they're compressed by time or distance. Measuring a wavelet changes it. Wavelets do not breed and they do not compete for resources.

The table is not solid because it's an agreed reality. The table is solid because your hand cannot pass through it. /me needs more eggnog

Re:Abuse of the term "Darwinism"

[Stile 65]

If a quantum state changes upon being observed, and it does, then it has a 'successor' state. The 'stable' states are actually the ones which have 'successor' states that are very similar to themselves, no matter what type of observation is made. This makes a state appear stable, as observation only changes it to another copy of itself. This basically allows for states to 'evolve' into stable states.

Think of Conway's Game of Life. You can start with a bunch of random cells, and eventually they'll "evolve," according to rules much simpler than those of quantum mechanics, to either stable structures or structures that move/change in stable ways.

Quantum what?

[JossiRossi]

I'm not a physicist so you can shut me up at any time. But I thought the "observation changes the object" was only true because to observe you you have to toss energy at it and see what happens. Then the act of tossing the energy changed it. How does this mean that "looking at Buckinham Palace" would do anything ever? You just look at it. Being aware of an electron does not make it change. What you do to the electron to know it's there is what changes it. I suppose I don't really know, so I won't claim to.

Oh by the way if we all percieve that the reality of quantum physicists is to disappear, I think they would disappear... or at least make themselves disappear to prove their own points.

Re:Quantum what?

[doug_wyatt]

There are really two kinds of "measuring affects things" at play. The first is more understandable by the lay person - when you look at buckingham palace, you're not changing it, but you're changing the photons that had reflected off it. Had you not looked, your eyes would not have been in the way and absorbed them, so they'd have continued on. In a more general sense, to detect anything, be it the velocity of a particle, the location of a particle, the energy level of a particle, etc., you need to do something to it that affects something about the particle.

The other kind "measuring affects things" is a little harder to grasp, and is exemplified by the schroedinger's cat example. There are situations where a particle/system/etc. can probabalistically be in one of several states. But until someone or something measures it to determine which state it is in, "the universe hasn't decided yet". So it's kind of like telling someone "I'm thinking of either a car or a dog" and not really deciding which one you're thinking of until someone asks you to tell them which it is. It's not the case that someone really has to look at it for it to "determine" itself - something about the universe could depend on the state, which is as good as an observer looking at it.

Don't tell...

[jacobcaz]

Schrodinger's cat, it's going to be pissed.

Don't observe this post

[pegr]

It wasn't a troll until you looked at it. Nice going...

Stephen Hawking

[bill_mcgonigle]

Reminds me of this passage from A Brief History of Time
by Stephen Hawking:

"He [the pope] told us that it was all right to study the evolution
of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire
into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation
and therefore the work of God. I was glad then
that he did not know the subject of the talk
I had just given at the conference - the possibility
that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it
had no beginning, no moment of Creation.

He goes on to talk about how time curves back on itself as it approaches zero (stuff I'll never understand). So, basically the Catholic Church has conceded the time since the Big Bang to Science, excepting the occasional divine meddling. Of course, such meddling would imply the Great One couldn't design a universe that ran according to The Plan without intervention - such impudence.

Re:Bah

[MrLint]

I don't agree with that.

You are choosing a non-objective reality, and there's nothing wrong with that. :)

Buzzwords

[internic]

The term "quantum darwinism" is really an unnecessary buzzword. There is a certain analogy about states which create many records of themselves surviving a robust pointer states where others are "selected against", but the analogy is really pretty limited and not very useful. It's better to stay away from using terms like darwinism for effect. I should note that I didn't see the word "quantum darwinism" in the title or abstract of either of the actual journal articles this news item references. For the lazy, the two papers in question seem to be this preprint and this article from the Nov 26 issue of Physical Review Letters.

This sounds like an interesting result and Zurek is a premenent figure in the field of quantum decoherence, but this looks like the tying up of some (important) details rather than the revolutionary developement the news article makes it out to be. Even as far back as the work of Everett we had an idea of why two observers who compared notes would always agree on the objective facts. In the many worlds interpretation, this comes down to the fact that if observer A measures system S, there will be many different possible results. So there will be many branches of the wavefunction with A observing each possible result. When observer B measures system S, he becomes entangled with S and A, and there are many possible outcomes, but in each branch of the wave function A and B agree on the outcome. Not sure if that clears anything up. :-) If you're talking about purely quantum systems, the same thing happens in the Copenhagen interpretation. The only tricky part is how to think about it when A and B are "classical observers". Still, I haven't read these papers yet and now I'm eager to.

Quantum Physics is Like 15th Century Astronomy

[human bean]

I suspect that somewhere it went wrong. Modern physicists are much like the ancient astronomers.

These astronomers, believing that planetary orbits were circular, developed much arcane math and explanation as to why they couldn't completely account for the observed data. They could not imagine such a thing as an elliptical orbit.

Modern physicists, believing that wavelets acted a particular way under certain observation arrangements, developed much arcane math and explanation as to why they couldn't completely account for the observed data. They could not imagine such a thing as a (insert reason here).

I believe that somewhere along the way, a key piece of information may have been missed that would make all of this very simple. Lord knows, I could be wrong...

Re:Quantum Physics is Like 15th Century Astronomy

[rokzy]

>Modern physicists, believing that wavelets acted a particular way under certain observation arrangements, developed much arcane math and explanation as to why they couldn't completely account for the observed data.

Quantum Mechanics is THE most sucessful and accurate theory ever. whereas the astronomers could not account for the data, QM accounts for the data to ridiculous accuracy and the only problem is accepting the interpretation. and that's a problem with humans, not QM.

Here is the Problem

[freepath]

This sounds very interesting, but is it just simply a strange twist on words? Mathematics can work out to many wonderful things, but the challenge is how and why the mathematics is applied. Methinks (and remembers as a physics undergrad) that conceptual theories such as quantum and relativity are very different from everyday life because they are special cases. Whereas in biology we learned that Darwin's theory of evolution was a general case.

Let me explain: Quantum mechanics takes place in the realm of the extremely super small. Einstein's relativity takes place in the realm of extremely large values of velocity. There is a disconnect there in reconciling these two theories, thus the epic hunt for TOE, The Theory of Everything. The Holy Grail of physics is to find this super theory that unites relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, gravity, mechanics. Although relativity is used in quantum for calculations, there are some contradictions in reconciling the two theories, thus Einstein's famous quote (during his hunt to reconcile relativity with quantum), "God does not play dice with the universe!"

It is my understanding that Darwinism, whether social, economic or of natural selection, takes place in all biological situations. Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not something that happens around us! Do you see quantum wells on your computer screen? As you observe the movement of the train, does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come into play? No! This uncertainty principle does not conflict with everyday life chiefly because it only applies to the special case of extremely small and extremely fast particles.

So this comparison, extension and exercise of extending quantum mechanics to Darwinian proportions appears to me to be more than anything a philosophical exercise.

Re:Define ridiculous accuracy

[JeanPaulBob]

Yes, Newtonian physics was ridiculously accurate, within the bounds of our ancestors' measurement precision. In fact, it was so accurate that we still use it today. When we looked closer, we found situations where it doesn't work so well, so we had to expand the theory to fit those situations. Specifically, we can't use Newtonian physics when there are extreme amounts of energy (relativity) or when the scale is extremely small (QM).

But that doesn't make Newtownian physics invalid; it's correct, as an approximation. The maths of relativity and QM do reduce to Newtownian math outside those extremeties.

To respond to your implication, no, this does not mean that QM is perfect. Just as we refined & expanded Newtownian physics, we may well have to refine & expand quantum mechanics. That's not a weakness, per se; QM still works almost everywhere we look. (The major exception is quantum gravity, the synthesis of relativity and QM; we don't have that figured out.) But QM still works astoundingly well. I can't imagine it will ever be shown wrong. Incomplete, sure, but not wrong.

Do the Math

[JohnsonJohnson]

There are a host of comments to the effect that Quantum Physics is ad hoc a la Ptolemaic epicycles, or that the research described is pseudo-science etc. First of all Quantum Physics is not ad hoc, nor does it have any relationship to Ptolemaic epicycles. It is grounded in well established axioms and which have proved themselves spectacularly successful in describing physical reality up to and including the physics of the semiconductor devices which commenters used to demonstrate their astounding ignorance and pride therein.

The problem modern physicists face is that the mathematics of Quantum Physics does not obviously lend itself to description in terms of everyday experience. Most people do not have every day experience with superpositions of states nor do they navigate their existence using that model which leads to a disconnect between the mathematics of Quantum Physics and "common sense". That doesn't make the math wrong, it merely indicates that we have adapted to living in a world in which quantum effects can be safely ignored, unless one is trying to make 0.6 micron scale transistors for Slashdotters to abuse.

The research in question actually goes a long way to explaining why it's OK to ignore the quantum nature of reality above certain scales. In short, among the states that a large ensemble of subatomic particles, like Buckingham Palace, can be in there are states which are relatively resistant to large perturbations by observation. Fortunately for the occupants of Buckingham Palace those states tend to describe a palace comoving with the Earth's surface in London, England, and not a palace hurtling towards the sun at a significant fraction of the speed of light. This is a brutally oversimplified plain English explanation of the results, which can only be precisely stated mathematically, and thus likely to lead to significant misunderstanding. Ironically, the research goes a long way to explaining why another reader and I can both agree on the form of the letters of this message.

Re:what are they talking

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Quantum darwinism is false! The tree is that way because God made it that way, not because 4 billion years of quantum evolution positioned its particles that way!

We need to stop teaching quantum darwinism in our schools, and teach quantum creatinism! Darwin himself denounced quantum evolution on his deathbed, it's true!

God of the Gaps: Glass half-full or half-empty?

[Tackhead]

> This is known as the "God of the Gaps" approach; God is assigned responsibility for whatever science can't currently explain. As you point out, the problem with this approach is that God keep shrinking as the gaps get filled in.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

God, 1200 AD: "Big guy created the whole thing 5200 years ago."

God, 1800 AD: "Clever big guy created the whole thing 5800 years ago. And had to plunk some planets and set up an inverse square law for gravitation. And bury a bunch of weird lizard fossils to confuse us. Either that, or he's been doing some really weird tricks with biology that we're only beginning to guess at."

God, 1950 AD: "Really clever guy (way cleverer than us) created the whole thing out of, umm, something, we don't really know when, but it was a hell of a long time ago, and made particles that behaved like, umm, waves. It's weird and violates common sense, but we can use the math to make televisions. And BTW, now we know how the Sun works."

God, 2004 AD: "Supremely clever dude, existing completely outside of what we perceive as spacetime, may have tweaked an m-brane collision (the math for which only a few hundred of us on the planet can even begin to understand) that resulted in the setting of a few universal constants for the physics engine and the creation of a little bubble of spacetime. Sat back and watched the resulting fireworks for 13.8 billion years to see if sentient life would evolve in a little pocket of it and recognize Him."

Without taking a position either way on the existence or non-existence of God, I humbly submit that the more science we do, the smarter the "God of the Gaps" has to be.