arXiv blog

Quantum Darwinism and the Nature of Reality

Quantum Darwinism can explain the nature of classical reality. But is it really a form of natural selection or just an imposter?

kfc 01/07/2010

  • 9 Comments

Quantum darwinism is an extraordinary idea that was unleashed last year by the physicist by Wojciech Zurek at Los Alamos National Labs in New Mexico.

It's main claim is that it explains the quantum-classical transition: why macroscopic physics obeys classical rules while the quantum world obeys the seemingly weird laws of quantum mechanics. That makes it a Big Idea.

So how does it work? Zurek's way into this problem is to think about the role of the environment in quantum mechanics. For other quantum physicists, the environment has never been anything more than a nuisance. Consider a quantum object in isolation and the quantum information it contains can survive forever. But place it in the real world and this quantum information leaks into the environment, destroying the system under study.

Zurek takes different view. He thinks of the environment as an information channel and the properties of this channel are the key to understanding quantum darwinism.

All macroscopic measuring machines get their information through this channel. For example, at this very moment you are intercepting a fraction of the photons emitted by a screen. But we can never observe all of the environment, only a small fraction of it which reveal systems of interest.

This is the essence of quantum darwinism, says Zurek. Only quantum states that can be transmitted through the environment in the right kind of way and with multiple copies, can be observed on the macroscopic scale. That rules out various kinds of quantum information. What's left are what Zurek calls "pointer states". These are what we observe classically.

So the classical view of the universe is determined by the states that survive transmission through the environmental information channel. Hence the darwinism: it is only possible to observe the states that are fit enough to survive this process of transmission.

But is this real survival of the fittest or just something like it? That's the question raised today by the independent researcher John Campbell.

It has long been known that Darwin's theory of natural selection can be applied in many situations. The "substrate free" version of it is called universal darwinism and is essentially an algorithm composed of three steps: replication or copying, variations amongst the copies, and selective survival of the copies determined by which variations they possess.

Campbell's conclusion is that quantum darwinism meets this criteria.

That still leaves many questiosn unanswered, of course. In his paper introducing quantum darwinism, Zurek asks: "Is Quantum Darwinism (a process of multiplication of information about certain favored states that seems to be a fact of quantum life") in some way behind the familiar natural selection? I cannot answer this question, but neither can I resist raising it."

Campbell would have us believe that they are intimately linked, although this conclusion is by no means a slam dunk.

There's plenty of inspiring work to be done here by any philosophers with a little time on their hands.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1001.0745: Quantum Darwinism as a Darwinian process

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 766 Days Ago
  • 01/08/2010

The dualism of quantum and the macro

Can the distinction between macro and the quantum world exist in nature? Isn't the problem of quantum and macro result of our observational limitations? Isn't macro just a combination of micro?

Apparently, quantum world and macro world seem to follow separate rules. We have enough evidences of it but macro exists because micro exists and hence to apply the logic of darwinism in this situation does not make sense. Here, it is not the case where macro is fundamentally different than the micro but it simply is a combination of micro.

It is not that there are different species out there wanting to destroy each other. It is a case where there are just a group of few species consisting of individual entities. The group is the macro and individual entities are the micro. Therefore, if micro is destroyed then the size of the group too must reduce.

When we observe individual member of species then we find that the behavior is highly unpredictable and when we examine the group then the behavior pattern is different.

I am not sure we can apply the 'survival of fittest' to explain this situation.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

Myself

1 Comment

  • 641 Days Ago
  • 05/13/2010

Re: The dualism of quantum and the macro

you can´t really tell anything by this article alone. read his paper, it´s really coherent. people love the idea of coming up with a simple refutation to show how smart they are, wonder how many of them have the balls to come up with a published, official refutation

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 766 Days Ago
  • 01/08/2010

Information channel

Even the idea of 'environmental information channel' is scientifically not tenable.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

John Galt

1 Comment

  • 766 Days Ago
  • 01/08/2010

Holy Feynman batman

Uh yeah, Feynman realized that the little quantum bubbies go everywhere, but some everywheres cancel and others amplify.You just superpose the states, do a little renormalization hand waving and, presto chango, classical physics.

This is not Darwin.  The little quantum thingies do not mutate as they fling through space-time.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 766 Days Ago
  • 01/08/2010

Re: Holy Feynman batman

Yes, they do: they're occasionally collide and condense into larger artifacts like solitons or rogue waves at ocean surface.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 766 Days Ago
  • 01/08/2010

evolution and dispersion of solitons

In AWT the observable reality is driven by dispersion of Aether fluctuations, which is sorta evolution as well - for fluctuation to remain stable in inhomogeneous environment is should be of sufficient fitness, i.e. it should consist in mixture of waves in distribution, which cold be described by Green's function. In such a way, most of atemporal observable reality consist of solitons, which can survive from mixture of waves.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-grb090510-photon-controversy.html

Reply

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 766 Days Ago
  • 01/08/2010

The way the paper goes about to "create copies" seems to be to make an (uncalled) appeal to bayesian updating in the Feynman formalism. Such states doesn't exist, if they did superpositions would always decohere immediately.

The whole idea of QM evolution is daft because states aren't evolving no more or less than remaining molecules in a river is selected and adapted (temperature, say). What distinguishes biological evolution is that it occurs on biological populations with phylogenetic inheritance. QM states (and water molecules) has no specific memory of their history, specifically in QM no hidden variables.

And, not at it matters at this point, since when was it permissible to confuse information entropy with real entropy?

Reply

Advertisement

hdginzo

14 Comments

  • 764 Days Ago
  • 01/10/2010

The problem with metaphors

I'm not a physicist, therefore I cannot fully grasp the implications of the current debate among preceding commentators about ‘quantum darwinism’. But it is evident from that debate that the choice of the metaphor ‘quantum darwinism’ is unfortunate, because it conveys the idea that in the physical world – micro and macro – processes might be intrinsically similar to those of the (comparatively) peculiar biological world. Some other name, possibly not so flashy, should be chosen to describe the proposed theory.  

Reply

sleeprun

23 Comments

  • 762 Days Ago
  • 01/12/2010

"Frozen Accidents"

I saw a Gell Mann lecture at Northwestern last week and he spoke about complexity and "frozen accidents" as a metaphor for "increasing the envelope of complexity."  Seems as good a description of evolution as more anthropomorphic language.  I especially dislike "fittest."

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement