The most widely accepted interpretation of quantum phenomena
was first articulated by Bohr. It is most succinctly understood
as the implications of a number of axioms:

1)*For every physical system there is a corresponding
mathematical object called a state vector that has
no objective physical existence.
This state vector is the most complete source of
information that exists concerning the physical system.

2)*The outcome of any measurement on a physical system
can be predicted by performing a specific mathematical
operation on its state vector.

3)*The outcome of any measurement process on
a physical system can only be predicted as a probability
for obtaining that result.

4)*Once a measurement is made the state vector assumes
a state such that the same measurement immediately
reapplied to this state has 100% probability of achieving
the previous measured result.

5) The state vector evolves in time according to a continuous,
deterministic formula except when a measurement occurs and
then it jumps to the state described in 4) above.

These axioms are all about mathematical manipulation of
mathematical objects and are not a vision of physical reality;
in fact the first axiom explicitly states that the mathematical
objects of the theory have no physical embodiment.

Until now no one has found an explanation of quantum phenomena
consistent with the every day world we experience.
Quantum Darwinism is such a theory and attempts to explain
the mechanisms responsible for transforming quantum reality
from its weird abstract mathematical realm into the common sense
classical reality experienced in our every day lives.

quantum darwinism
====
Pure mathematics and physics are becoming ever more closely
connected, though their methods remain different.
One may describe the situation by saying that the mathematician
plays a game in which he himself invents the rules while the while
the physicist plays a game in which the rules are provided by Nature,
but as time goes on it becomes increasingly evident that the rules
which the mathematician finds interesting are the same as those
which Nature has chosen. …
Possibly, the two subjects will ultimately unify, every branch
of pure mathematics then having its physical application,
its importance in physics being proportional to its interest in mathematics.
/ — Paul A. M. Dirac /
===

Allowed Quantum states are vastly more numerous
then those we experience in classical physics and are
the cause of much of quantum theory’s weirdness.
. . . Schrödinger’s Cat’ . . .
'Schrödinger's Cat' paradox can only arise if the cat-box system
is an isolated quantum system.
That is to say not interacting with its environment in any way.

Misconceptions around the idea of isolation may be
at the basis of the 'measurement problem'.

. . . 'alive' or 'dead'.
This process is now understood to be analogous with axiom
4 above but rather than a wave function 'collapse' we should
view decoherence as the preferential extinction of quantum
superpositions and the survival of classical states due
to interactions that may be human measurements buy
are typically environmental interactions.

quantum darwinism
===
My opinion
Schrödinger’s Quantum-Cat is NOT an isolated quantum system.
===

Basically any measurement can only result in some special values
associated with 'pointer states'. Pointer states are thus associated
with the type of measurement being performed.

quantum darwinism
===
My opinion
When a wave function 'collapse' we should view that as appearance
of the ''pure point-state'' of quantum particle (quantum's duality problem)
======

The resulting theory of Quantum Darwinism is relatively straightforward:
1) . . .
2) . . .
3) . . ..
4) . . .
While this process may explain the emergence of classical physics
from quantum physics it may not be clear where the Darwinian part comes in.
Zurek explains his motivation in naming Quantum Darwinism:

Using Darwinian analogy, one might say that pointer states are most ‘fit’.

Still we might quibble and demand a more formal comparison of
Quantum Darwinism to the defining mechanisms of a Darwinian process.

In what sense can Zurek’s theory be seen to be a Darwinian process?

1)* * * Reproduction.
Information concerning the state of a quantum system is copied with variations.
The variations most directly concerning the information’s survival concerns
the degree to which it is entangled or in superposition with its environment (i.e. non-classical).

2) Information concerning superposition of point states does not survive decoherence
as a result of interactions with the environment and only information concerning
non-entangled, classical pointer states survive as imprints on the environment.

quantum darwinism
====
My opinion.
a) Using Darwinian analogy, I say that point-state of quantum particle
is most ‘fit’ to explain philosophy of Quantum theory.

“We are not talking about waves or particles, what we are talking about
is a quantum of action in a field. This thing we call a particle is a quantum of action
that becomes more focused by a process we have not described and this thing
we call a wave is the potential in the field.
How can a wave be quantized?
The wave is a precise ratio of potential.”
/ ― Rick Delmonico, The Philosophy of Fractals /

b) How can a wave be ''quantized''* to ''a point-state'', to be particle?
How quantum ''point-particle'' can create wave ?
Is quantum particle a ''point, string, ball . . .'' ?

c) '' Information concerning superposition of point states . . .''
/ Zurek /
Information as energy cannot be destroyed . . .
then according to Zurek’s Quantum Darwinism theory
information can be in two states:
a) ordinary (wave-state) and b) super-ordinary (point-state)
===========

Quantum Darwinism:
1) reproduction of information not material.
2) no competition for supply of resources
3) no sexual reproduction

. . . first point is somewhat confusing as it is now well accepted
that information always has a physical representation.

the Darwinian algorithm is implemented in a wide variety of fields outside of biology

In other words the evolutionary products of Quantum Darwinism may be
the classical reality in which all other Darwinian processes operate and
produce their own evolutionary products.

quantum darwinism
====

Not that I comprehend these axioms, and the interrelationships that occur. However I do see an obvious omission.

There is no mention of phi. It's like a recipe for bread without flour. It is obviously not present.

For a theorem to be elegant, it has to be true in all aspects of our universe, and that is why quantum mechanics stumbles, it fails to explain the macro as well as the micro. So the mechanics that randomly distributed dust in space falls together to create a universe, is the same as non biological soup falls together to create life.

It's also obvious that we don't have the capability to understand these relationships because there is no understanding for the great nothingness in between. We think space as simply distance, and it's erroneous because I have no doubt that it will be proven that space is most likely a fabric of velocity. One where mass harnesses the energy of the movement from negative pressures in the fabric. The negative pressures allow the aggregation in the constructs of phi. How the negative pressures appear is why we are lost in overunity generation, we only perceive the end product... i.e., a loaf of bread, and don't know the ingredients of how it's made.


Sorry to challenge crazy talk with more crazy talk... no one should think alone, that is part of the equation too.

@ilandtan
The visual Newtonian* universe was created from
unseen Planck's quantum micro-world.
We have all capability to understand their relationships.
We need only to answer to some questions.
For example a simple logical question:
what is the real image of Minkowski absolute 4-D space-time?
And . . . . . etc . . .
===

Does it make sense to try to describe a concept with another concept that might not be correct? What if the reality only existed in 5-D? Do you see what I'm saying?

It's not the argument that a 7 minute abs video is better than an 8 minute abs video (Something About Mary)Folly is not just for ignorant. Hawkins when trying to explain his challenges to matter being obliterated near a black hole, went into to a multidimensional spiel.

I'm looking for ways to exploit the vacuum (which has to be an erroneous description BTW). Isn't it strange we haven't been able to unify the relationship between the three forces, and no one questions the postulates of general relativity? If you can move faster than the speed of light, you might be able to detect it has a varied speed in different inertial planes. Tesla could prove that his wave moved faster than the speed of light. We keep placing these artificial barriers because it's at the limit of what we can describe. What do we really know?

One wrong concept can create second one and so . . . .

If 5-D really exist then according to concept of evolution
it was started from 1-D, and then 2-D . . .* 27-D . . .

From 1-D ?

How Einstein’s general theory of relativity killed off common-sense physics
November 25, 2015 12.55am AEDT
https://theconversation.com/how-eins...-physics-50042

We really know that thanks to Physics we have modern technology.
===

What is ''quantum'' ?
My opinion.
Planck / Einstein described ''quantum'' as ''quantum of action'': E=hf
where ( h) is a ''quantum of action''- particle and (f) its frequency.
(wave / particle duality - simultaneously )
Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit described how this action is possible: E=h*f
( h bar = h/2pi )
===