1
00:00:03,870 --> 00:00:09,150
So thanks very much. It's a great honour to give this ninth Danny Schama lecture.
2
00:00:09,810 --> 00:00:21,870
So my thanks to Lidia, to the Sharma family, to the organisers, Joe and John, to All Souls College for sponsoring this lecture series.
3
00:00:22,260 --> 00:00:32,520
So as Joe says, my Denis was my dphil supervisor back in the 1970s something.
4
00:00:34,050 --> 00:00:47,820
And yeah, as, as he says for the last gosh, 35 years, I think I've got my maths right, my trajectory has taken a rather different uh, uh, direction.
5
00:00:49,350 --> 00:00:55,530
But what I want to do today is to try to look, uh, retrospectively,
6
00:00:55,530 --> 00:01:04,829
I guess at some of the issues which uh, in the seventies for sure excited Denis and excited me.
7
00:01:04,830 --> 00:01:13,320
Two issues to do with the marriage of general relativity and quantum mechanics, issues to do with the large scale structure of the universe.
8
00:01:13,830 --> 00:01:18,870
Uh, issues to do with the very sort of meaning and interpretation of quantum mechanics.
9
00:01:19,890 --> 00:01:30,660
And I say retrospectively, what I'm going to try to do here is, well, at least ask the question whether some of the mathematical concepts,
10
00:01:30,660 --> 00:01:36,569
which I guess have become pretty much second nature to me in the last, whatever it is,
11
00:01:36,570 --> 00:01:45,000
30 odd years, things to do with, uh, with nonlinear dynamics, with chaos, with fractal attractors and fractal geometry,
12
00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:51,000
things which are very central if one is looking at uh, uh, the climate system or the weather.
13
00:01:52,570 --> 00:01:58,209
But to ask whether these mathematical concepts might actually provide new insights
14
00:01:58,210 --> 00:02:03,400
into these types of problems which which certainly were problems that excited Dennis.
15
00:02:03,700 --> 00:02:06,550
Of course, these are problems still very much alive today.
16
00:02:07,120 --> 00:02:14,020
I think we still don't have any unanimity about how to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics together.
17
00:02:14,500 --> 00:02:18,640
And we still have fundamental problems trying to understand basic quantum mechanics.
18
00:02:19,030 --> 00:02:24,310
So this may be this may seem a tall order,
19
00:02:24,550 --> 00:02:29,140
but I'm going to try to persuade you at least that there are some new ways of
20
00:02:29,140 --> 00:02:35,080
thinking about these old problems that nonlinear dynamics might bring to the table.
21
00:02:35,980 --> 00:02:39,820
Well, at least you can make your own judgement about that by the end of the lecture.
22
00:02:41,810 --> 00:02:51,080
So let me start. The first of my protagonists is Ed Lorenz, protagonist in the title of My Talk.
23
00:02:51,650 --> 00:02:55,820
He's a meteorologist from MIT. Someday, actually, I got to know pretty well.
24
00:02:56,210 --> 00:02:59,300
He died, unfortunately, about three years ago now, I think.
25
00:03:01,580 --> 00:03:11,150
Very famous, of course, outside meteorology, famous around the world for his his 1963 paper on deterministic non periodic flow.
26
00:03:12,140 --> 00:03:20,090
If I had more time, I'd tell you a bit more about it. But I'm sure many of you are familiar with the equations which came out of that paper.
27
00:03:20,330 --> 00:03:29,480
Three coupled ordinary differential equations nonlinear equations which exhibited this concept we now call sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
28
00:03:30,200 --> 00:03:35,990
So here's two animations of two initial conditions, which are almost but not quite identical.
29
00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:41,240
They track each other for a while, and then they they diverge from each other.
30
00:03:42,380 --> 00:03:49,630
And this is often called the butterfly effect, although interestingly, this is actually a bit of a misnomer.
31
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:53,360
What at Lorenz meant by the butterfly effect is actually somewhat different to this.
32
00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:56,960
But again, that's another title of another lecture, which I won't go into.
33
00:03:59,340 --> 00:04:06,270
Okay. Now, you might well ask if you know, your history was actually Lorenz,
34
00:04:06,270 --> 00:04:11,450
the first person to discover a sensitive dependence of evolution on initial conditions.
35
00:04:11,460 --> 00:04:20,280
And in fact, in some sense, he wasn't. At least 50 years earlier on Poincaré studying the gravitational three-body problem.
36
00:04:20,280 --> 00:04:25,050
It also discovered this phenomenon essentially of what we now call chaos.
37
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:28,410
So the question you might ask is, well, what's special?
38
00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:34,710
What what's special that Lorenz brought to the table that Poincaré had not already brought to the table?
39
00:04:36,030 --> 00:04:36,749
And in a sense,
40
00:04:36,750 --> 00:04:46,860
this is very much the theme of my talk that what Lorenz brought to the table in the particular equations that he looked at which were not actually
41
00:04:46,860 --> 00:04:58,500
present in the gravitational three-body equations was this type of geometry in the state space of the equations which the system evolved towards.
42
00:04:58,740 --> 00:05:05,910
So take any initial state X, Y and z a time zero evolve it,
43
00:05:06,270 --> 00:05:14,520
and you see eventually it starts no matter where you start in the state space of X, Y and Z, it attracts towards this geometry.
44
00:05:16,220 --> 00:05:19,879
Laurence knew that this geometry had to have zero dimensions.
45
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:25,010
By looking at the structure of the differential equations, he knew that this Aston toxic attracting set,
46
00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:30,020
as it's called, has to have a zero dimension, 000 volume.
47
00:05:30,380 --> 00:05:34,870
But he didn't. You know, he was struggling for a long time.
48
00:05:34,880 --> 00:05:40,220
It's very interesting reading his papers and his notes and things, how he struggled to try to understand what this was.
49
00:05:40,730 --> 00:05:45,140
He realised it couldn't be a point because the system didn't settle down to a steady state.
50
00:05:45,500 --> 00:05:49,860
It wasn't a circle. The system didn't wasn't periodic.
51
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:53,540
The title of his paper was non periodic deterministic motion.
52
00:05:54,530 --> 00:05:59,149
It wasn't a surface. So what was it? And he agonised about this.
53
00:05:59,150 --> 00:06:06,049
And in fact, I think this is one of the real pieces of genius of Lawrence to realise that this geometry he was looking at,
54
00:06:06,050 --> 00:06:11,030
which came out of these differential equations, was actually a fractal a fractal structure.
55
00:06:12,680 --> 00:06:17,180
And what I want to talk about is that fractal structures.
56
00:06:17,510 --> 00:06:23,960
If we focus on the fractal structure associated with these equations rather than the differential equations per say,
57
00:06:24,650 --> 00:06:30,680
we can discover some remarkable connections into deep parts of 20th century mathematics.
58
00:06:30,710 --> 00:06:35,480
So I'm going to just highlight very briefly a couple of those things that you would never,
59
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:39,650
I think, have gleaned just by looking at the differential equations as such.
60
00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:44,780
The reason I'm telling you this is I want to make the point that these fractal geometries, you know,
61
00:06:44,780 --> 00:06:52,670
often one sees fractals on the front covers of books or conference flyers and things just as a kind of a sexy piece of of geometry.
62
00:06:53,330 --> 00:06:59,660
But no, they're much more than this. They have very profound links into into deep areas of mathematics.
63
00:07:00,980 --> 00:07:02,450
So just a couple of examples.
64
00:07:03,050 --> 00:07:11,390
The question is how how might one characterise this fractal attractor if one didn't have the differential equations to use?
65
00:07:12,180 --> 00:07:17,780
And one technique that people mathematicians use to try to characterise the
66
00:07:18,110 --> 00:07:23,839
attractor are looking at periodic orbits that lie in some sense close to almost,
67
00:07:23,840 --> 00:07:28,070
you could say embedded in the attractor. They lie close to within the body of the attractor.
68
00:07:28,370 --> 00:07:31,849
So there are many, in fact periodic but unstable periodic orbits.
69
00:07:31,850 --> 00:07:33,260
These actually repeat each other.
70
00:07:34,460 --> 00:07:42,380
You can characterise these or describe these periodic orbits by a technique called symbolic dynamics or symbolic representation.
71
00:07:43,510 --> 00:07:50,440
So what I'm just there is you just partition the attractor into two lobes called the left hand lobe out on the right hand low bar.
72
00:07:51,400 --> 00:08:01,200
And then these particular periodic or the period in general periodic orbits that one looks at, one can specify a sum symbolic bit string.
73
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:08,470
So for example, this corresponds to a periodic orbit that starts on the left hand lobe, moves to the right, then goes to the left,
74
00:08:08,470 --> 00:08:14,380
then goes to the right, then goes to the left, then goes stays on the left once more and then keeps repeating itself.
75
00:08:15,570 --> 00:08:22,800
And this turns out to be topologically equivalent to the, say, communal garden if that means something to you.
76
00:08:22,830 --> 00:08:29,610
Trefoil Not. It's one of the basic knots in knot theory and using this kind of jones polynomial type of language,
77
00:08:29,610 --> 00:08:36,870
one can classify these periodic orbits or alternatively these symbolic strings as knots.
78
00:08:37,170 --> 00:08:41,040
The knots of the of the periodic orbits.
79
00:08:43,640 --> 00:08:51,380
One, I think, quite remarkable result which a French mathematician and geese showed in 2000.
80
00:08:52,070 --> 00:08:57,410
And if you have time to write down, if you're interested at all in this, there's a fantastic online, uh,
81
00:08:57,680 --> 00:09:06,050
kind of, uh, discussion of this result with some fantastic movies showing how these knots evolved and so on.
82
00:09:06,350 --> 00:09:11,780
The result is that these Lorenz knots are entirely equivalent to what are called modular knots.
83
00:09:12,770 --> 00:09:15,440
Now, I'm not going to tell you what a modular nut is because don't have time.
84
00:09:15,710 --> 00:09:24,230
But suffice to say that it's related to properties of the modular group and one can think of the modular
85
00:09:24,230 --> 00:09:31,730
group as essentially the group of two by two matrices with integer elements and with unit determinant.
86
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:34,520
So here's an element of the modular group,
87
00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:45,530
and it turns out it also can be written in as sort of a string of symbols where these symbols now define elemental two by two matrices.
88
00:09:46,760 --> 00:09:52,940
And I guess the work of DS is basically to show an equivalence between these symbolic strings for the modular elements of
89
00:09:52,940 --> 00:10:00,770
the modular group and the symbolic strings of the periodic orbits of the of the Lorenz associated with the Lorenz attractor.
90
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:07,629
Now, if you go into the mathematics, if you go into this this weblink,
91
00:10:07,630 --> 00:10:13,300
you'll see very quickly that the sort of mathematics guess uses to prove this theorem
92
00:10:13,630 --> 00:10:17,230
is the sort of mathematics that number theorists would feel very at home with.
93
00:10:17,710 --> 00:10:20,770
He talks about lattices on the org and plane.
94
00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:25,450
He talks about via Strauss elliptic functions associated with those lattices.
95
00:10:26,170 --> 00:10:30,820
He talks about the Eisenstein series again associated with those lattices.
96
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:35,250
And then one sort of moves into the field of elliptic curves and modular forms.
97
00:10:36,070 --> 00:10:41,320
And this is the area that that Andrew Wiles unified in his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
98
00:10:42,410 --> 00:10:50,120
So from a set of differential equations, one suddenly finds via the structure of the geometry which these equations produce.
99
00:10:50,420 --> 00:10:55,940
One is moving into areas of quite deep number theory, which you would never have guessed,
100
00:10:55,940 --> 00:10:59,330
I think to just look at the differential equations themselves.
101
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:04,360
Another problem you might want to think about is this.
102
00:11:04,370 --> 00:11:12,770
If I, uh, if you were to give me, let's say, a point in this three dimensional state space of the Lawrence equations,
103
00:11:13,370 --> 00:11:21,650
and you asked me, is there an algorithm for determining whether that point lies on this, on this Lawrence fractal attractor?
104
00:11:22,640 --> 00:11:27,620
The answer is there is no algorithm. It's actually it's actually a non if you like.
105
00:11:27,620 --> 00:11:30,140
It's a problem that can't be solved by finite algorithms.
106
00:11:30,530 --> 00:11:35,359
And you can imagine there's not sort of a totally unreasonable to imagine why that should be,
107
00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:39,790
because even if one knew one of the points on the attractor, it might take you.
108
00:11:40,070 --> 00:11:45,350
No matter how far you integrated the equations, you might still not have reached the point that you are given.
109
00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:55,670
And so you would never have a procedure for deciding in finite time whether your given point was, was, was belonging to the attractor.
110
00:11:56,000 --> 00:12:03,200
Now, this was proven rigorously in in this book by Blue Mittal, which included the famous Steve Smail, incidentally,
111
00:12:03,650 --> 00:12:08,390
result being basically that's what are called halting sets, must have integral house stored dimension.
112
00:12:08,930 --> 00:12:14,150
And we know that these fractal attractors are characterised by fractional dimension.
113
00:12:15,490 --> 00:12:23,740
And indeed, one can say one can take many of the classic problems in computing science that are known not to be solvable
114
00:12:23,740 --> 00:12:30,670
by algorithm and show that they have an equivalence in terms of of of a of a fractal geometric problem.
115
00:12:31,660 --> 00:12:37,750
If people have heard of the post correspondence problem, this is one of the classic problems that can't be solved by algorithms.
116
00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:43,809
One can show it's equivalent to the question of asking, what does a point lie on the attractor?
117
00:12:43,810 --> 00:12:49,300
But does a line intersect the attractor of a of a of a chaotic dynamical system?
118
00:12:50,860 --> 00:12:54,700
So you can see we're going into the territory here of the girdle incompleteness
119
00:12:54,700 --> 00:13:02,290
theorem and the corresponding sharing non compute ability type of issue.
120
00:13:04,360 --> 00:13:12,370
So just to summarise then, so far, what I'm trying to tell you is that here are these Lorentz differential equations.
121
00:13:12,370 --> 00:13:16,750
I think Newton probably could have understood in principle what these equations were saying.
122
00:13:17,440 --> 00:13:22,329
After all, he did discover the calculus, but he would never have guessed.
123
00:13:22,330 --> 00:13:29,740
I am sure that he would never have guessed that these equations could generate this amazingly rich and deep type of geometry.
124
00:13:30,190 --> 00:13:38,319
And it's through that geometry that we see links into quite into some of the classic problems of 20th century mathematics,
125
00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:44,050
whether it's Wiles, proof of Fermat's Last Theorem or the Girdle Theorem or the Turing Non Compute ability theorems.
126
00:13:45,190 --> 00:13:53,650
So the reason I'm saying this is that it's by focusing on this geometry that one gets these links into these deep areas of maths.
127
00:13:55,410 --> 00:13:56,670
So what I want to do then,
128
00:13:56,880 --> 00:14:04,830
having convinced you that this is these these types of fractal geometries are really serious topics and worthy of serious discussion.
129
00:14:05,250 --> 00:14:10,170
I want to now switch to these three people at the bottom of the of the figure for three more.
130
00:14:11,790 --> 00:14:18,300
These are three, of course, two famous 20th century physicists, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Dirac.
131
00:14:18,930 --> 00:14:29,460
And ask the question, do this does this type of geometry provide us with any new insights into these deep problems of 20th century physics,
132
00:14:29,700 --> 00:14:34,830
which are characterised by these three people, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Dirac?
133
00:14:36,030 --> 00:14:38,510
Now, at the level of differential equations,
134
00:14:38,520 --> 00:14:46,259
you would have to say this is a barking mad concept that there might ever be any connection because Schrodinger's equation or
135
00:14:46,260 --> 00:14:52,740
Heisenberg's form of the Schrödinger equation or Dirac's relativistic form of the shooting equation are all linear equations,
136
00:14:53,160 --> 00:14:58,620
and this equation is manifestly nonlinear. It's got these terms X and Y and X, and so it's a nonlinear equation.
137
00:14:58,620 --> 00:15:07,380
So how could there ever be any connection at all? So that's the kind of a many I'm sure you've read books who make this point, you know,
138
00:15:07,800 --> 00:15:11,459
as the unpredictability of quantum theory have anything to do with unpredictability of chaos.
139
00:15:11,460 --> 00:15:16,440
And usually people say, no, they're not, because one is a linear century, a linear problem, the other is nonlinear.
140
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:21,180
They don't have anything to do with each other. I want to make the point that I don't think this is correct.
141
00:15:21,300 --> 00:15:27,600
I think there are some profound links, but they need to be approached by looking at this intermediate geometry.
142
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:33,330
This is the key. So this is sort of the basis of the talk to some extent.
143
00:15:35,970 --> 00:15:41,610
I thought I would start with a few quotes before we move on any further.
144
00:15:42,000 --> 00:15:54,600
This is from one of Hawking's popular books where he sets out, I guess, the standard model, if you like, of of quantum interpretation.
145
00:15:54,860 --> 00:16:01,229
The standard interpretation which says there really is no connection between quantum the
146
00:16:01,230 --> 00:16:07,740
unpredictability of quantum physics and the unpredictability of nonlinear dynamical systems.
147
00:16:08,160 --> 00:16:15,570
So according to quantum physics, says Hawking, no matter how much information we obtain or how powerful our computing abilities,
148
00:16:15,810 --> 00:16:22,260
the outcomes of physical processes cannot be predicted with certainty because they're not determined with certainty.
149
00:16:23,280 --> 00:16:30,450
So is this fundamental issue that there is there is no determinism in quantum physics.
150
00:16:30,690 --> 00:16:40,979
That's the standard view. However, I want to contrast that with two other comments from also eminent, very eminent scientist.
151
00:16:40,980 --> 00:16:47,610
So here's Dirac himself, one of the the grandfathers father figures of quantum theory.
152
00:16:48,720 --> 00:16:50,580
One can always hope, he says,
153
00:16:50,580 --> 00:16:55,800
that there will be future developments which will lead to a drastically different theory from the present quantum mechanical theory,
154
00:16:56,130 --> 00:17:00,090
and for which there may be a partial return of determinism.
155
00:17:01,800 --> 00:17:11,370
So this, uh, this from the one of the guys that was the Founding Fathers, uh, at least suggesting that the, the door is not yet closed.
156
00:17:12,810 --> 00:17:17,580
And this is from my third protagonist of my title, Roger Penrose,
157
00:17:17,580 --> 00:17:25,460
whose work will feature more and more as we go through the talk with an even, I think, more positive statement.
158
00:17:25,470 --> 00:17:34,500
Still, he says, it seems quite plausible that the correct theory of quantum gravity might be a deterministic but non computable theory.
159
00:17:35,620 --> 00:17:44,530
Now this non computable action is interesting because we've already seen a maybe is this is this just a spurious link or is there something deep here?
160
00:17:44,770 --> 00:17:49,030
We've already seen these fractal geometries are non computable.
161
00:17:49,240 --> 00:17:54,340
They membership of that set cannot be determined by algorithm.
162
00:17:55,590 --> 00:17:58,680
So is that is that just a coincidence or is there something deep link here?
163
00:18:00,660 --> 00:18:07,800
Those three quotes were sort of deliberately taken from three people that link very closely to Dennis.
164
00:18:09,300 --> 00:18:14,080
Stephen was was one of Dennis's students.
165
00:18:15,180 --> 00:18:19,680
Dirac was Dennis's, uh, supervisor.
166
00:18:20,630 --> 00:18:32,180
And Roger was somebody that Denis inspired to move into mathematical physics from an earlier career career in pure mathematics.
167
00:18:32,930 --> 00:18:40,160
So Denis was very instrumental, pivotal in bringing Roger into the relativity community.
168
00:18:41,780 --> 00:18:48,110
Dennis has had an enormous number of very eminent students, and a few perhaps not quite so eminent students.
169
00:18:49,040 --> 00:19:00,620
Um, but, uh, I find that it's almost impossible not to be sort of proud of my linkage to Dennis because of this,
170
00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:04,100
an ability to talk about my academic brother,
171
00:19:04,100 --> 00:19:13,310
Stephen Hawking, my academic father, uh, Roger Penrose, my academic grandfather, Paul Dirac, you know, my academic uncle Roger Penrose.
172
00:19:13,430 --> 00:19:17,600
So that's I couldn't resist putting that slide up.
173
00:19:19,890 --> 00:19:24,090
Okay. Let's just move back then to the Lorenz system.
174
00:19:25,300 --> 00:19:30,060
And this is a slide, actually, I often show in my climate talks or weather type talks,
175
00:19:30,060 --> 00:19:38,430
because it shows how the predictability of the system is a function of initial conditions.
176
00:19:38,430 --> 00:19:43,560
So some parts of the attractor are extremely stable and predictable.
177
00:19:44,070 --> 00:19:48,600
So if one imagines this as some little error bowl, perhaps a cup through an error ball,
178
00:19:49,260 --> 00:19:54,870
the error actually doesn't grow at all as you propagate as you as you evolve the system forward in time.
179
00:19:55,710 --> 00:20:02,790
Other initial states are more unpredictable and others yet more unpredictable.
180
00:20:02,790 --> 00:20:11,850
Still, the fact that the predictability varies around the attractor is a direct result of the nonlinear arity of the equations.
181
00:20:12,390 --> 00:20:18,180
So if these these are Lorenz equations, we can linear ize them.
182
00:20:19,140 --> 00:20:25,590
So look at the growth of small perturbations and the operator is now the derivative of F with respect to x.
183
00:20:26,070 --> 00:20:34,470
So if F is at least quadratic in x, then df by the x is at least linear in x i.e. this operator depends on the underlying state,
184
00:20:34,500 --> 00:20:45,850
and that's what we're seeing here. So somewhere, you know, some weather forecasts as Michael Fish found to his costs can be very unpredictable.
185
00:20:46,230 --> 00:20:51,690
And in fact, in other cases, we can make very potentially quite long range forecasts with confidence.
186
00:20:51,870 --> 00:20:55,980
That's the sort of basis behind much of weather prediction.
187
00:20:57,030 --> 00:21:05,940
But I'm not going to go down that route. What I want to talk about is what equation is actually describing this evolution of probability.
188
00:21:07,050 --> 00:21:10,710
I mean, for example, one could take this point here and say this supply,
189
00:21:10,730 --> 00:21:16,860
this little ring defines a 90% probability that the true state lies within that ring.
190
00:21:17,670 --> 00:21:25,470
Then as you map this forward in time, you get to some future forecast time and there's a 90% probability that the true state lies in that ring.
191
00:21:25,560 --> 00:21:30,480
The forecast time or this would be a sort of a squashed banana, if you like, if you looked at it properly.
192
00:21:30,810 --> 00:21:38,160
There's a 90% probability it lies in that squashed banana. What's the equation that's describing that evolution of probability?
193
00:21:38,790 --> 00:21:44,640
It's this thing. It's called the Louisville equation. This is written in its general, most general form.
194
00:21:45,270 --> 00:21:49,360
By the way, some people think the Louisville equation only works for Hamiltonian systems.
195
00:21:49,380 --> 00:21:55,800
This is not true. Louisville Equation. Conservation of probability works for Hamiltonian and non Hamiltonian systems.
196
00:21:56,220 --> 00:22:01,860
This is a bit like the mass conservation equation for a compressed, compressible fluid.
197
00:22:02,640 --> 00:22:07,560
If it was incompressible, you could move the Volt. But if it's compressible, the V has to be in here.
198
00:22:07,980 --> 00:22:13,710
Now, this is not this is not mass density and volume and velocity in physical space.
199
00:22:14,010 --> 00:22:21,630
This is probability and velocity and state space, but it's still a conservation equation, nevertheless, conservation of probability.
200
00:22:22,440 --> 00:22:28,470
Now, one thing you can note if you look at this equation is it's linear and in probability it's linear in row.
201
00:22:30,130 --> 00:22:34,180
And this is an important point I want to make. If I gave you that equation.
202
00:22:35,350 --> 00:22:38,770
You would not be able to deduce because it is linear.
203
00:22:39,100 --> 00:22:43,120
It cannot be underpinned by some underlying nonlinear dynamic.
204
00:22:44,050 --> 00:22:48,550
The linearity of this equation says nothing about the weather.
205
00:22:48,550 --> 00:22:52,240
The dynamics that generates that probability is linear or nonlinear.
206
00:22:52,690 --> 00:22:56,830
And in fact, in this system, as I've just pointed out, the system is nonlinear.
207
00:22:58,010 --> 00:23:07,190
So the linearity of the alluvial equation is really just a statement of the fact that the probabilities are conserved as the flow evolves.
208
00:23:09,300 --> 00:23:19,590
Now, if we have a Hamiltonian system, we can write the Louisville equation in this form using Poisson brackets I'm sure familiar to people,
209
00:23:21,300 --> 00:23:27,780
or if indeed if we had a dynamical system which was approximated, approximated a Hamiltonian system, this would be a good approximation.
210
00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:36,180
So I want to contrast this with the direct form, at least of the of the Schrodinger equation.
211
00:23:39,010 --> 00:23:45,970
Which I've written here. And the first point I want to make is how remarkably similar it is formally.
212
00:23:48,560 --> 00:23:56,540
It has a row, a d row by d t, it has a sort of an anti symmetric bracket, it has hamiltonians and so on.
213
00:23:57,260 --> 00:24:02,150
It seems to be some formal close similarity with the classical legal equation.
214
00:24:04,160 --> 00:24:08,720
And I'm sure it's because of that that Dirac perhaps was inspired to make that comment that,
215
00:24:09,530 --> 00:24:15,020
you know, just just as this equation can be underpinned by deterministic dynamics.
216
00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:21,530
So maybe also this equation might be underpinned by deterministic dynamics.
217
00:24:24,090 --> 00:24:30,660
And of course, the point that this this equation is linear says nothing at all about whether
218
00:24:30,930 --> 00:24:34,890
the underpinning dynamics is linear or nonlinear might just be non-linear.
219
00:24:36,500 --> 00:24:44,930
Incidentally, just as an aside, I often find people who who look for nonlinear things that might nonlinear processes that might
220
00:24:44,930 --> 00:24:50,060
come in to quantum mechanics sometimes add non-linear terms to the Schrodinger equation itself.
221
00:24:50,420 --> 00:24:57,680
And I always find this an extremely misguided idea personally, because if this is just reflecting a conservation of probability,
222
00:24:58,550 --> 00:25:01,580
you don't really want to tinker with it by adding non-linear terms.
223
00:25:01,850 --> 00:25:08,780
If you want to look for nonlinearity, try and find the equation that underpins this type of conservation of probability.
224
00:25:10,470 --> 00:25:17,760
Okay. Now of course I recognise that there are differences as well between the classical Louisville equation.
225
00:25:18,030 --> 00:25:21,960
There's a square root of minus one. There's a Planck's constant.
226
00:25:22,410 --> 00:25:29,040
And in fact, these things aren't just well, these aren't functions in state space operators in some Hilbert space.
227
00:25:29,580 --> 00:25:32,790
And this is an operator commentator bracket, not a person bracket.
228
00:25:34,730 --> 00:25:39,800
So there are similarities and there are differences. Do these differences matter?
229
00:25:40,220 --> 00:25:45,260
Does the fact it is operating on a Hilbert space rather than a classical state space, does it matter?
230
00:25:45,680 --> 00:25:48,140
Well, the answer, of course, is yes, it does matter.
231
00:25:48,770 --> 00:25:56,480
And there are a number of no go theorems in quantum mechanics, which, uh, which tell us very much that it does matter.
232
00:25:56,850 --> 00:26:06,830
And the most famous of these, I guess, is, is Bell's theorem, which in a nutshell says no physical theory based on local cores or hidden variables.
233
00:26:07,460 --> 00:26:14,330
So you posit some deterministic system which operates deterministically.
234
00:26:14,330 --> 00:26:19,130
The variables of the of the deterministic system may be hidden to you or hidden certainly hidden to quantum mechanics.
235
00:26:19,610 --> 00:26:25,330
But Bell's Theorem says that one can never replicate the predictions of quantum mechanics.
236
00:26:25,340 --> 00:26:29,120
It's based on this inequality, which I don't proceed.
237
00:26:29,120 --> 00:26:33,320
Don't propose to describe in detail. I don't propose to describe at all.
238
00:26:34,550 --> 00:26:40,310
So you either you either say from this that there is no such thing as deterministic reality,
239
00:26:40,880 --> 00:26:47,670
or you say, well, if there is deterministic reality, it somehow violates principles of relativity.
240
00:26:47,690 --> 00:26:49,790
There's something, to use Einstein's phrase,
241
00:26:49,790 --> 00:26:59,060
some spooky action at a distance going on in if we want to try to underpin quantum mechanics with some underlying deterministic model.
242
00:26:59,900 --> 00:27:09,460
That's the standard interpretation. Now I want to at this stage just talk about an idea which.
243
00:27:11,420 --> 00:27:20,090
Bell himself recognised was a potential way out of the constrictions of his theorem.
244
00:27:21,200 --> 00:27:25,069
I'll just say right from the beginning, it's it's an idea which he himself did not believe in.
245
00:27:25,070 --> 00:27:29,990
And I don't think anybody in the in the community or almost nobody believes in.
246
00:27:30,440 --> 00:27:39,050
So I'm not actually going to advocate this. You'll be pleased to know. But it's an important concept to get over in what I will talk about later on.
247
00:27:41,060 --> 00:27:42,139
And actually at first sight,
248
00:27:42,140 --> 00:27:52,040
it's a rather strange loophole or a escape from the constrictions of bells whom you might think to escape from the constrictions of battle serum.
249
00:27:52,490 --> 00:27:58,219
You might want to somehow relax this notion of determinism and imagine things being more stochastic.
250
00:27:58,220 --> 00:28:01,590
Maybe. But what Bell says actually is the opposite.
251
00:28:01,610 --> 00:28:10,610
There is a way to escape the inference of super luminal speeds and spooky action at a distance, but it involves absolute determinism in the universe.
252
00:28:10,940 --> 00:28:15,380
So going somehow even more deterministic. So what does that mean?
253
00:28:15,410 --> 00:28:20,780
What does this word phrase? Absolute determinism. People now generally use the word super determinism.
254
00:28:21,350 --> 00:28:25,430
So what is super determinism? What's the difference between determinism and super determinism?
255
00:28:27,120 --> 00:28:34,950
Well, this at least, is my understanding of the difference between these words and the normal deterministic system.
256
00:28:35,370 --> 00:28:39,990
You have maybe a set of differential equations describing the evolution of the system,
257
00:28:40,560 --> 00:28:47,160
and you start off with some initial condition and then the equation matches into the future.
258
00:28:47,970 --> 00:28:51,660
Now here the equations are deterministic, the dynamics is fixed,
259
00:28:52,170 --> 00:28:57,030
but you can imagine perhaps you've got a free choice to make in what the initial conditions are,
260
00:28:57,060 --> 00:29:02,330
so you don't have to start from a specific initial condition. In the Lawrence model.
261
00:29:02,330 --> 00:29:06,740
In principle, you can start the equations off from any point in space you like.
262
00:29:08,530 --> 00:29:16,060
So you have a free choice. And to some extent in this idea, the the the initial conditions are independent of the dynamics.
263
00:29:16,690 --> 00:29:17,990
So go anywhere you like.
264
00:29:18,010 --> 00:29:24,820
But when you made that choice, then you run the dynamics and the dynamics are fixed and that provides you with a future state.
265
00:29:26,280 --> 00:29:33,630
The super deterministic idea is where somehow not only is the dynamics fixed, but your initial state is fixed.
266
00:29:34,110 --> 00:29:37,290
Now, how this should be, how your initial state should be fixed?
267
00:29:37,290 --> 00:29:40,790
What determines that your initial state is fixed is another matter.
268
00:29:40,860 --> 00:29:43,560
We'll come on to try to discuss some of these issues.
269
00:29:43,980 --> 00:29:50,250
But just say for the moment, there is some reason, some principle that your initial state, there's no choice at all.
270
00:29:50,370 --> 00:29:56,310
Then absolutely everything is fixed. Your initial state's fixture, deterministic dynamics are fixed.
271
00:29:57,840 --> 00:30:05,760
The reason this is relevant is that in the Bell Theorem, if you posit a so-called hidden variable model,
272
00:30:06,690 --> 00:30:14,040
what that does in general is predict outcomes of of of physical experiments.
273
00:30:14,040 --> 00:30:24,990
You might do so you might measure the spin of a particle and your hidden variable model will tell you for a given particle what the result is,
274
00:30:25,290 --> 00:30:29,010
but only for experiments that you might actually do on that particle.
275
00:30:29,520 --> 00:30:33,240
But for experiments that you might have done but didn't do.
276
00:30:34,700 --> 00:30:39,210
So this is what philosophers would call counterfactual experiments.
277
00:30:39,220 --> 00:30:47,270
So I actually measured the particle in the X direction, but I might have measured it in the x direction.
278
00:30:49,340 --> 00:30:55,370
A standard hidden variable model will give you not only the prediction in the in the Z direction that you actually did.
279
00:30:55,610 --> 00:30:58,460
It would also tell you give you a prediction of that.
280
00:30:59,570 --> 00:31:05,030
Counterfactual experiment that you didn't actually do, but you somehow might have done in the extraction.
281
00:31:06,650 --> 00:31:09,740
Now, if you posit then the world is super deterministic,
282
00:31:10,280 --> 00:31:17,749
then obviously these so called counterfactual measurements become by definition they're not things that correspond to.
283
00:31:17,750 --> 00:31:23,200
There's only that one trajectories. Everything's fixed. So there is no there are no counterfactual worlds to consider.
284
00:31:23,210 --> 00:31:31,070
So it's a kind of almost a trivial way in which the Bell Theorem can be in some sense,
285
00:31:31,220 --> 00:31:36,320
negated by disallowing these types of counterfactual experiments.
286
00:31:39,000 --> 00:31:44,790
But the problem with it is, and this is the reason nobody actually believes this is a viable way in physics,
287
00:31:45,840 --> 00:31:53,850
is that it seems to say something about the world that's just uncomfortably fine tuned, uncomfortably special.
288
00:31:55,290 --> 00:32:04,590
So, for example, I might roll a dice and use that outcome to determine how I'm going to orientate my measuring apparatus.
289
00:32:05,190 --> 00:32:10,650
So if I roll the dice and it's a five, that will determine some angle for the measuring apparatus.
290
00:32:11,850 --> 00:32:23,670
Now, in the super deterministic world, the hidden variable will have to somehow be in harmony with the outcome of that dice in order that the in order
291
00:32:23,850 --> 00:32:29,280
in order to get the correct quantum mechanical probabilities or in order to violate the bell inequalities.
292
00:32:30,600 --> 00:32:35,610
But you might imagine well, just as I was about to roll that dice, I sneezed.
293
00:32:35,820 --> 00:32:40,070
And then the dice actually ended up as a six rather than the five or tiny gust of air.
294
00:32:40,750 --> 00:32:44,580
You know, slightly affected the dice as it was rolling and it ended up as a six.
295
00:32:45,360 --> 00:32:50,069
Then that tiny perturbation that's the sneeze or the or the gust of air would
296
00:32:50,070 --> 00:32:57,510
completely upset that harmony that is required to to to violate the bell inequalities.
297
00:32:58,920 --> 00:33:02,220
So you can take all those little perturbations back to the beginning of time.
298
00:33:02,580 --> 00:33:09,690
And the conundrum you're left with is that any almost infinitesimal perturbation, let's say, to the Big Bang,
299
00:33:10,710 --> 00:33:16,290
would produce a world where this perfect harmony that you'd set up had been somehow destroyed.
300
00:33:17,830 --> 00:33:20,559
So the problem for a super determinist is to say, well,
301
00:33:20,560 --> 00:33:30,370
why should the initial conditions be precisely big bang initial conditions and not some just marginal sort of quasi random perturbation of Big Bang.
302
00:33:31,150 --> 00:33:36,380
And I think all a super determinist could do would say, well, maybe God decided this.
303
00:33:36,850 --> 00:33:40,930
This is on the big bang initial condition and not this other one.
304
00:33:42,030 --> 00:33:46,530
Well, as theorists, we don't like you know, we like our theories to be self-contained.
305
00:33:46,530 --> 00:33:51,420
We don't want external agents to somehow determine important parts of the theory.
306
00:33:51,430 --> 00:34:01,590
So this is this is considered then a sort of an implausible reconciliation of of the Bell Theorem.
307
00:34:01,830 --> 00:34:05,790
And so as things stand, people do indeed believe either.
308
00:34:06,890 --> 00:34:11,990
We live in a world where there isn't any deterministic reality or if there is something,
309
00:34:11,990 --> 00:34:16,520
something spooky action at a distance, something super luminal is happening.
310
00:34:19,090 --> 00:34:24,970
Okay. I'm not satisfied with either of these explanations, so I.
311
00:34:25,420 --> 00:34:33,309
This is why I've been going back and thinking and, as I say, trying to think about the things which are pretty much second nature to me over the years
312
00:34:33,310 --> 00:34:39,970
and ask whether these provide some new ways of thinking about this rather old problem.
313
00:34:41,420 --> 00:34:49,160
So we talked about the Lorenz attractor. At the heart of any fractal attractor is a cantor set.
314
00:34:49,220 --> 00:34:52,890
This is perhaps the simplest of all fractals.
315
00:34:52,910 --> 00:34:58,280
I'm sure most of you are familiar with this idea. You start with the real line between nought and one.
316
00:34:58,310 --> 00:35:01,940
Think of that as your zeroth iterate of the cantor set.
317
00:35:02,270 --> 00:35:05,300
Your first iterate will be throwing away the middle third.
318
00:35:06,190 --> 00:35:10,990
Your second district will be throwing away the middle thirds of the two remaining pieces.
319
00:35:11,320 --> 00:35:14,980
Your next district will be throwing the middle third of all the remaining pieces.
320
00:35:15,400 --> 00:35:19,870
You carry on with those iterates and then you take the intersection of the iterates.
321
00:35:20,830 --> 00:35:24,790
Overall, the all the iterates. And this is the cancel set.
322
00:35:28,140 --> 00:35:33,959
Now you can define from that. A dynamical system which operates on that cancel set.
323
00:35:33,960 --> 00:35:38,130
So this is a very simple dynamical system called an iterated function system.
324
00:35:38,550 --> 00:35:44,520
In this example, there are just two functions which two different things to the state, the current state,
325
00:35:45,000 --> 00:35:51,299
but basically the action of either F one or F two, which is to be considered as a kind of time evolution.
326
00:35:51,300 --> 00:35:55,740
Operator keeps the state on this canter set.
327
00:35:59,670 --> 00:36:07,649
By the way, the council set is another nice and very simple example about how number theory kind of comes into these geometries in this in this case,
328
00:36:07,650 --> 00:36:18,390
in a very simple way, because one can represent a point on the cancel set by just writing a number, a fraction say between zero and one in base three.
329
00:36:19,690 --> 00:36:27,760
And if the base three expansion of the number has no digit one in it but has digits zero and two that it's a point on the cancel set.
330
00:36:28,700 --> 00:36:31,820
By definition, because you've thrown away all the bits where you'd have the digit one.
331
00:36:33,900 --> 00:36:40,770
So now I'm going to consider a perturbation of a point on the on the on the cancel set.
332
00:36:41,190 --> 00:36:47,819
And let's suppose for the sake of argument, my I have no knowledge of this cancel set when I do this perturbation.
333
00:36:47,820 --> 00:36:54,770
So I'm going to take a very small perturbation, but in some sense it'll be random with respect to the real line itself.
334
00:36:55,110 --> 00:37:05,730
So imagine I have no knowledge of the geometry or I choose to ignore the geometry of the cancel set in defining my, my, my small perturbation.
335
00:37:08,660 --> 00:37:14,050
So here we are. I've chosen a what I'm calling a geometrically unconstrained perturbation at some.
336
00:37:14,060 --> 00:37:19,280
It's a number that's very small, but it's been somehow chosen from that, from the real line itself.
337
00:37:19,550 --> 00:37:25,100
And therefore, somewhere there may be lots of zeros to start with, because it's a small perturbation, but somewhere there'll be ones.
338
00:37:26,330 --> 00:37:34,160
And because there are ones, as soon as I in general added on to my point on the capital set, I'll I'll move it off.
339
00:37:35,470 --> 00:37:40,120
So here x prime is being perturbed off the or set.
340
00:37:42,720 --> 00:37:48,240
Now what this is saying is that if you view the cantor set from the outside.
341
00:37:49,960 --> 00:37:56,560
It looks incredibly special. Any tiny perturbation will take you off the capital set,
342
00:37:57,190 --> 00:38:05,260
and indeed that is consistent with a cantor set having zero volume or zero measure relative to the real line.
343
00:38:05,620 --> 00:38:10,300
It looks incredibly special. It looks very high, very finely tuned.
344
00:38:10,330 --> 00:38:14,050
Any tiny perturbation will take you off the cantor set.
345
00:38:15,670 --> 00:38:21,010
So this initial state x nought looks incredibly fine tuned when viewed from the outside.
346
00:38:22,830 --> 00:38:27,510
I'm calling this, by the way, fractal determinism because it it's a type of determinism.
347
00:38:28,680 --> 00:38:32,790
Which either looks deterministic or super deterministic, depending on how you look at it.
348
00:38:33,330 --> 00:38:35,250
And when you look at it from the outside.
349
00:38:36,280 --> 00:38:47,710
It looks a bit super deterministic because any tiny perturbation, uh, uh, destroys this balance associated with the system being on the cancel set.
350
00:38:49,390 --> 00:38:57,340
On the other hand, if I am aware of the of this geometry when I construct these perturbations,
351
00:38:58,570 --> 00:39:05,650
so I'm going to construct now perturbation that what I would call geometrically constrained perturbation,
352
00:39:05,950 --> 00:39:11,230
which ensures that I stay on the cantor set when I add this perturbation.
353
00:39:11,530 --> 00:39:13,050
It stays on the cantor set.
354
00:39:15,730 --> 00:39:24,640
Now at first sight, you might think that these this these perturbations are much less numerous than the more random ones relative to the real line.
355
00:39:25,600 --> 00:39:33,270
But the remarkable property of the Cantor set is that there are as many points in the Cantor set as there are actually on the real line itself.
356
00:39:33,280 --> 00:39:36,700
There's an undeniable, infinite number of points on both.
357
00:39:38,170 --> 00:39:48,310
And a way to see this is if you take a point on the on the rail line between zero and one and express it as a binary number just with zeros and ones.
358
00:39:49,550 --> 00:39:58,550
And then right instead of the one replace each one with a digit two, then that becomes a point in base three on the cancel set.
359
00:39:58,790 --> 00:40:05,120
So as a 1 to 1 correspondence to points on the real line and points on the on the cancel set.
360
00:40:05,540 --> 00:40:09,100
So when you're inside the kantor set, it looks absolutely enormous.
361
00:40:09,110 --> 00:40:12,200
It's it's as big as the real line ever was.
362
00:40:13,890 --> 00:40:19,230
The aficionados of Doctor Who may liken the cancer set to the TARDIS.
363
00:40:21,030 --> 00:40:24,390
If you look at it from the outside, it looks incredibly small.
364
00:40:25,020 --> 00:40:28,350
But open the door and go in. And it's fantastically big and spacious.
365
00:40:30,670 --> 00:40:38,740
This is now, of course, us. Colleagues at the time thought he was completely crazy and I think that drove him a little bit to despair.
366
00:40:40,150 --> 00:40:41,650
But he was absolutely dead right.
367
00:40:42,070 --> 00:40:50,740
And also, these things underpin all of these wonderful geometric attractors, which I talked about at the beginning, such as the Lorenz attractor.
368
00:40:53,770 --> 00:40:57,160
We can do a similar thing for Laurent 63.
369
00:40:59,890 --> 00:41:03,570
Take. Uh, take a point.
370
00:41:04,160 --> 00:41:11,970
Uh, if we start on the attractor and evolve along trajectories of the Lorentz attractor, then we'll stay on the attractor.
371
00:41:12,510 --> 00:41:15,659
There are many perturbations as a non de numeral,
372
00:41:15,660 --> 00:41:23,490
infinite number of perturbations to the initial conditions which keep the initial conditions on the on the attractor.
373
00:41:24,700 --> 00:41:31,870
So there's there's a there's a lot of freedom. So it looks from inside on the attractor, it looks deterministic.
374
00:41:31,870 --> 00:41:35,500
You have a big choice of of degrees of freedom.
375
00:41:36,070 --> 00:41:43,300
But on the other hand, if you do something dynamically unconstrained, you can take yourself off the attractor.
376
00:41:43,960 --> 00:41:49,420
And a possible way of doing of taking yourself off is to is to take a perturbation which keeps,
377
00:41:50,230 --> 00:41:55,000
say, one component unchanged and just perturbs the other two components.
378
00:41:55,600 --> 00:42:02,810
This will take you off the attractor. Now, when I was thinking about this, this struck me as a very.
379
00:42:03,500 --> 00:42:12,500
In my mind, it was kind of reminiscent of those counterfactual experiments where you you think, here's a particle.
380
00:42:12,950 --> 00:42:16,490
I actually measure it in this way. I could have measured it this way.
381
00:42:16,520 --> 00:42:23,890
So when you say that you're perturbing, the sort of conceptual experiment you're thinking about is one where the particle stays fixed.
382
00:42:23,900 --> 00:42:30,770
You do nothing to the particle, but you somehow perturb your measuring system so that instead of the actual direction,
383
00:42:31,760 --> 00:42:35,930
you perturb some degrees of freedom to make the direction slightly different.
384
00:42:36,170 --> 00:42:45,180
And you say, well, what would have happened there? So let's just imagine the toy, the Lorenz model now is a toy universe.
385
00:42:45,850 --> 00:42:48,540
And just think about what this type of perturbation might mean.
386
00:42:48,720 --> 00:42:54,960
It might mean perturbing two degrees of freedom, which correspond to the orientation of your measuring apparatus,
387
00:42:55,380 --> 00:43:02,250
keeping fixed the degree of freedom associated with the hidden variable associated with the particle you're about to measure.
388
00:43:02,790 --> 00:43:05,909
So this would then be a non reasonable, I would say,
389
00:43:05,910 --> 00:43:12,720
physically unreasonable type of perturbation if you believe the universe was constrained to this underlying geometry.
390
00:43:14,360 --> 00:43:18,740
And similarly, the experiment where you say, well, I threw my I threw the dice.
391
00:43:19,040 --> 00:43:23,120
And that determined, again, how I would measure this particle.
392
00:43:23,390 --> 00:43:30,050
I will now consider a hypothetical universe where the particle again was the same particle, but now I sneezed,
393
00:43:30,320 --> 00:43:36,290
which caused the dice to land and on different number and that to to lead to a different measurement orientation.
394
00:43:37,550 --> 00:43:44,180
Again, that corresponds to keeping fixed one of the variables, one of the components of the state vector and varying the other two.
395
00:43:45,380 --> 00:43:49,400
And this would be a perturbation that would be unconstrained.
396
00:43:49,400 --> 00:43:53,510
It would be something that you were just thinking up out of your head as a possible type of perturbation.
397
00:43:53,780 --> 00:43:59,800
But if you had the view that there was some underlying geometric constraint associated with the, uh,
398
00:44:00,260 --> 00:44:08,630
the universe somehow lying on a on or belonging to an invariant set, then this would be a physically unreasonable perturbation.
399
00:44:09,470 --> 00:44:13,760
A physically reasonable perturbation would be one where all three components were perturbed.
400
00:44:14,210 --> 00:44:18,050
So not only that, so there are plenty of universes, perhaps where you did, in fact,
401
00:44:18,050 --> 00:44:24,110
had the orientation of the measuring device was as it was in the counterfactual world.
402
00:44:24,230 --> 00:44:27,590
But in that universe, the hidden variable was also different.
403
00:44:27,830 --> 00:44:30,200
To keep the whole system on the invariant set.
404
00:44:31,070 --> 00:44:41,570
So this is something which I have been, uh, as I say, rather interested in as a kind of this is not my day job, if you like, but it's something that.
405
00:44:43,520 --> 00:44:50,420
I find a compelling idea myself whether I can convince my colleagues of that.
406
00:44:50,450 --> 00:44:58,759
I don't know. But this may actually what I call fractal determinism may actually provide a conspiracy
407
00:44:58,760 --> 00:45:05,800
free loophole for the Bell Theorem and a paper in crisis a few years ago about it.
408
00:45:07,550 --> 00:45:12,860
But there is a fundamental assumption here to make this postulate make any sort of sense,
409
00:45:13,130 --> 00:45:18,800
and that is that one can really think of the universe as a dynamical system in its own right.
410
00:45:19,870 --> 00:45:23,410
But it's a dynamical system to beat all dynamical systems, I suppose.
411
00:45:25,210 --> 00:45:33,010
But more than that, it's a dynamical system which evolves on one of these special types of fractal geometries.
412
00:45:34,720 --> 00:45:41,470
Now. I'm I will. I actually there's I mean one could talk about what is the evidence,
413
00:45:41,470 --> 00:45:48,430
the cosmological evidence that the universe is a dynamical system that evolves on a fractal invariant set.
414
00:45:49,990 --> 00:45:55,000
That's a great topic for discussion, but I'm not going to. I'm going to leave that because we'll we'll run out of time.
415
00:45:56,460 --> 00:46:00,780
So let's just assume that is a viable model for the universe that it actually
416
00:46:00,780 --> 00:46:07,940
evolves on on one of these zero volume invariant sets in its state space.
417
00:46:10,350 --> 00:46:20,340
I want to come back now to then, uh, these three key differences between the Louisville equation and the Schrodinger equation.
418
00:46:21,240 --> 00:46:25,860
Planck's constant. Square root of minus one. And the fact it's a Hilbert space.
419
00:46:27,670 --> 00:46:34,360
And if you do, you want a bit more vivid? Hilbert Space means that cats are both alive and dead.
420
00:46:35,590 --> 00:46:40,810
So the question I want to ask is if this does provide a potential loophole,
421
00:46:41,650 --> 00:46:50,530
can we actually go from just postulating this as a possible way out of the dilemma of underpinning quantum mechanics with something deterministic?
422
00:46:50,920 --> 00:47:01,299
Can we go from that to an actual theory? Can we actually put some meat on the bones, as it were, and construct a real theory based on this this idea?
423
00:47:01,300 --> 00:47:07,270
So can we in particular, can we construct a fractal set bit like I did for the Cantor set,
424
00:47:07,270 --> 00:47:13,390
but something which will obviously be more complex than that from which quantum statistics would emerge naturally?
425
00:47:15,800 --> 00:47:25,310
So I just want to spend the last 10 minutes of the talk going through some slightly more technical stuff,
426
00:47:25,310 --> 00:47:34,580
which is in a paper on the archive which I wrote last year, trying to at least give some outline for how one might do this.
427
00:47:36,750 --> 00:47:40,290
So I want to start by talking about Planck's constant. How might that emerge?
428
00:47:40,980 --> 00:47:44,430
Let's start by thinking about a stern Gerlach experiment.
429
00:47:46,700 --> 00:47:56,720
Now I'm going to be very much motivated by people that have been and Roger is is is certainly well known in the field.
430
00:47:56,990 --> 00:48:03,620
People have been motivated by thinking about gravity as a possible mechanism for collapse, state vector collapse.
431
00:48:03,950 --> 00:48:14,510
Now, I'm not talking about collapse in this model because I'm trying not to view superpositions as something of of fundamental significance.
432
00:48:15,020 --> 00:48:22,130
So but nevertheless, I'm going to use the order of magnitude calculations to motivate this work.
433
00:48:22,940 --> 00:48:26,749
So the idea is we have now a sort of bundle of space times,
434
00:48:26,750 --> 00:48:34,100
a bundle of trajectories on this supposed invariant set, this fractal geometry of the universe as a whole.
435
00:48:35,510 --> 00:48:46,430
And I'm going to use this language of symbolic dynamics. So I want to label each space time with a with a colour which represents its symbolic label.
436
00:48:48,420 --> 00:48:57,660
So these are trajectories corresponding to space times where a particle has gone through the magnet and is on its way up towards the spin up detector.
437
00:48:58,080 --> 00:49:03,480
And here are some trajectories of space times where there's a particle on its way to the spin down.
438
00:49:04,110 --> 00:49:10,230
So this this time t one is after it's left the magnet, but long before it's got to the detector.
439
00:49:11,740 --> 00:49:17,260
I want to ask the question, are these space times gravitationally distinct from one another?
440
00:49:17,980 --> 00:49:23,560
And to do that, I'm going to take pairs of space times and ask whether their interaction,
441
00:49:23,830 --> 00:49:31,030
the gravitational interaction, energy integrated over the trajectory exceeds Planck's constant.
442
00:49:32,220 --> 00:49:39,600
The gravitational interaction. Energy is if you have two, let's say two lumps of matter, the gravitational interaction,
443
00:49:39,600 --> 00:49:46,139
energy and Newtonian gravity anyway is easily defined by merging moving one lump of matter to
444
00:49:46,140 --> 00:49:51,150
the position of the second lump of matter against the gravitational field of the second lump.
445
00:49:51,570 --> 00:49:55,830
So how much energy do you need to move it against the gravitational field of, say, this one?
446
00:49:56,400 --> 00:50:03,960
That's the gravitational interaction energy. Now, at this time, it's this small time here, then for sure.
447
00:50:04,590 --> 00:50:08,110
Although Planck's constant is a small number, this thing will be minuscule. Is small.
448
00:50:08,490 --> 00:50:12,270
And so this criterion will not be satisfied.
449
00:50:12,570 --> 00:50:18,420
And I view that as a statement that each of these will be given the same symbolic label.
450
00:50:18,420 --> 00:50:21,960
They're not distinct enough to be given distinct symbolic labels.
451
00:50:23,310 --> 00:50:28,680
But again, using the work DFC, Penrose, Kebble, Percival, many others,
452
00:50:29,130 --> 00:50:35,160
there are good indications that when the particle is started to interact with atoms
453
00:50:35,160 --> 00:50:41,700
in the detectors and you're starting to see macroscopic differences between the bit,
454
00:50:41,700 --> 00:50:46,740
between whether the particle's excited, the spin up detector or the spin down detector,
455
00:50:47,400 --> 00:50:52,260
then this interaction, gravitational energy can start to exceed Planck's constant.
456
00:50:53,250 --> 00:50:59,520
So this might be a small term, but Planck's concerns are also small and the order of magnitude estimates.
457
00:50:59,610 --> 00:51:06,540
I'm just going to take this on faith now. When when the when you start to get macroscopic effects in the detectors.
458
00:51:06,840 --> 00:51:10,800
So at this point, then you can give these distinct labels.
459
00:51:11,640 --> 00:51:17,400
So Planck's constant in this picture is entering through essentially through gravitational effects.
460
00:51:19,400 --> 00:51:23,500
One can analyse multiple stern Gerlach experiments this way.
461
00:51:23,510 --> 00:51:29,510
So here's here's a particle. Here's a series of trajectories that go through one stern Gerlach apparatus.
462
00:51:29,840 --> 00:51:34,460
So this one is and this one is the top one is blocked or measured somehow.
463
00:51:34,760 --> 00:51:38,480
So these three have the same symbolic label, which is different to that one.
464
00:51:39,440 --> 00:51:46,700
You can take this through a second sequential Stern Gerlach apparatus, and now these three trajectories start to this.
465
00:51:46,730 --> 00:51:50,810
This trajectory starts to become distinguished from these two gravitationally.
466
00:51:51,740 --> 00:52:00,650
And then finally in the third one, these two and one can derive the whole of Stern Gerlach statistics in this in this way, quite straightforwardly.
467
00:52:00,920 --> 00:52:08,120
This, by the way, is how Schwinger introduces his students to quantum mechanics through these sequential Stern Gerlach experiments.
468
00:52:11,650 --> 00:52:15,370
You might. Oh, yeah. So I couldn't resist this, you might say.
469
00:52:15,580 --> 00:52:20,200
Gravitational interaction, energy. It is very Newtonian. How do you define this relativistic li?
470
00:52:20,470 --> 00:52:25,780
Uh, this is actually what I did for my thesis under Dennis defining gravitational energy momentum.
471
00:52:26,260 --> 00:52:31,989
And, uh, we came up with, I think, a rather neat solution to this rather old problem.
472
00:52:31,990 --> 00:52:37,210
How do you define gravitational energy momentum in space times which don't have killing vectors?
473
00:52:38,080 --> 00:52:42,820
And the proposal was a not a tensor field on space time,
474
00:52:43,120 --> 00:52:48,880
but a tensor field on the tangent bundle two space time, which is a bit like a state space for space time.
475
00:52:50,710 --> 00:52:59,820
So this is, this is my, this is in the days when you had typewriters and ink and stuff, uh, it appeared, it appeared eventually in Fitzrovia.
476
00:53:00,400 --> 00:53:03,700
So actually there is a way to do this. I just.
477
00:53:04,770 --> 00:53:12,149
To change this because it amuses me. It links back a bit to my thesis work that there is a way to develop these ideas for
478
00:53:12,150 --> 00:53:16,740
how Planck's constant might be based on relativistic gravitational energy momentum.
479
00:53:18,150 --> 00:53:25,260
So conscious of the time I'm moving on, I want to talk about the second aspect planks, the square root of minus one.
480
00:53:26,700 --> 00:53:34,830
One of the interesting properties of a fractal is itself similarity is an essential part of a fractal, in fact.
481
00:53:35,220 --> 00:53:40,860
So if one was to zoom into a cancel set, you'd see a precise copy of the whole thing.
482
00:53:40,860 --> 00:53:46,259
And you could zoom in again and you'd see another copy. If you need to.
483
00:53:46,260 --> 00:53:55,840
Really, if your theory requires you to keep that, you have that notion of self similarity at the fore.
484
00:53:56,100 --> 00:54:08,200
It turns out that it's very useful to describe the dimension, the house of dimension of the fractal using complex numbers rather than real numbers.
485
00:54:08,700 --> 00:54:15,220
And the, the, the second, if you like, the complex number characterises not only if you like the fractal too,
486
00:54:15,630 --> 00:54:18,850
but also this notion of the self similarity.
487
00:54:18,870 --> 00:54:24,750
As you zoom in, how does it how quickly does it amplify to the back to the original scale?
488
00:54:26,040 --> 00:54:29,280
I guess the mother of all I'm so similar.
489
00:54:30,180 --> 00:54:32,990
I mean, this, this, this, this. I'll just show this.
490
00:54:33,000 --> 00:54:38,069
We people have seen this before, but I feel I haven't done sort of justice to the wonders of fractals.
491
00:54:38,070 --> 00:54:41,160
So I'll just show this movie, which just illustrates this notion of.
492
00:54:42,030 --> 00:54:51,180
If self similarity if you haven't seen it before for the Mandelbrot set, we're focusing on a bit now which where this kind of content,
493
00:54:51,190 --> 00:54:57,930
this scaling symmetry part, which is pretty, pretty manifest, it just keeps repeating and repeating ad infinitum.
494
00:55:01,510 --> 00:55:04,570
Now, if one is I'll just leave this point very briefly.
495
00:55:04,840 --> 00:55:15,250
If one is trying to develop a relativistic theory, a theory that's invariant under Lorentz, Lorentz with a T now transformations.
496
00:55:18,440 --> 00:55:25,790
So you might say suppose you had to spatially extend a fractal set which describes a spatially extended dynamical system,
497
00:55:26,330 --> 00:55:31,790
and you wanted that scaling invariance, that scale invariance to be Lorentz invariant.
498
00:55:33,030 --> 00:55:41,130
Okay. Now, in Lorenz. Lorenz transformation, one man's, one man's time is another man's space and time.
499
00:55:41,640 --> 00:55:51,540
So if you want your scaling symmetry to be Lorenz invariant in a spatially extended dynamical system,
500
00:55:51,840 --> 00:56:02,190
you better have some oscillatory type of structure in the configuration space and the spatial degrees of freedom of spatially extended system.
501
00:56:03,480 --> 00:56:11,520
So in some sense, my I think the picture which I I'm sort of coming to for, you know, why is the wave function wavy?
502
00:56:12,180 --> 00:56:21,240
Is it is actually I mean it's it's needed to make this type of scale invariant a symmetry.
503
00:56:21,360 --> 00:56:27,180
Lorentz invariant under a boost for a system with a spatially extended system.
504
00:56:29,560 --> 00:56:34,720
All right. I'm going to move on. This is the last sort of this is the last bit.
505
00:56:35,140 --> 00:56:40,120
A little bit. Well, no, I didn't start till 25, so I'm okay. But I might have run by a couple of minutes.
506
00:56:40,510 --> 00:56:44,110
I just want a very focussed come back to this last the last bit now the Hilbert space.
507
00:56:44,110 --> 00:56:49,880
How would that fit into this picture of fractal invariant sets?
508
00:56:50,260 --> 00:56:57,309
So I just want to remind a very standard picture about Hilbert space for a simple qubit there.
509
00:56:57,310 --> 00:57:10,120
There's the Hilbert space state for this state, state here on the equator relative to a basis where the north poles up, the south poles down.
510
00:57:10,570 --> 00:57:15,370
But now I want to do a unitary transformation where I rotate the basis.
511
00:57:15,370 --> 00:57:24,400
So now if you like the North Pole points here. And ask, how does this state transform under that rotation of the basis?
512
00:57:24,760 --> 00:57:27,880
And quantum mechanics gives us a very clear answer.
513
00:57:28,770 --> 00:57:31,530
Now one can think of this as this counterfactual experiment.
514
00:57:31,530 --> 00:57:38,490
So the state is well defined that say this is the actual experiment I did, but I ask what would have happened had I done this experiment?
515
00:57:38,790 --> 00:57:46,800
Quantum mechanics gives us a well-defined state, at least in which for giving us probabilities relative to this rotated basis.
516
00:57:50,200 --> 00:57:53,830
In this fractal theory, and I'm jumping over quite a bit now.
517
00:57:55,180 --> 00:57:59,380
The equivalent of the Hilbert space is what I'm calling a symbolic skeleton.
518
00:57:59,920 --> 00:58:10,629
These symbols appear as as long symbolic sequences, a bit like for the lowest Lorenz orbits, the North Pole would have just zeros.
519
00:58:10,630 --> 00:58:20,080
The South Pole have just ones. On the equator you have mixtures of zeros and ones at a particular and antipodal points have opposite,
520
00:58:20,610 --> 00:58:24,819
you know, zero gets flipped to one and a particular co latitude feature.
521
00:58:24,820 --> 00:58:31,780
You'd have a symbolic sequence where the frequency of a zero would be given by cosine squared peter over to.
522
00:58:34,410 --> 00:58:38,360
And these are related to. Certain operators,
523
00:58:38,360 --> 00:58:43,459
which I don't have time to talk to talk about a key point about this symbolic
524
00:58:43,460 --> 00:58:51,200
skeleton is that these and these cosine of co latitude angles are rational.
525
00:58:51,200 --> 00:58:54,230
The cosine is facts are based to rational number.
526
00:58:55,570 --> 00:59:03,400
So these can be as dense as you like these. I've just drawn a rather coarse representation of what is a really dense set of points.
527
00:59:05,400 --> 00:59:16,860
So I want to consider this counterfactual and how, uh, how this, how this, this works in this alternative sort of fractal picture.
528
00:59:17,520 --> 00:59:23,940
So I'm taking this point here. So these dots in some sense of the set of all allowable points, and this is very dense.
529
00:59:25,380 --> 00:59:33,210
This is the set of all the blue points and the red points on the equator, of the set of all the allowable states relative to the rotated basis.
530
00:59:33,600 --> 00:59:38,219
But now I want to know this. If I keep this point, this is this is my original state.
531
00:59:38,220 --> 00:59:41,550
And I'll say, what's that state relative to this rotated basis?
532
00:59:43,090 --> 00:59:50,560
In other words, just this coincides with one of the allowable states. Then another very interesting kind of number theoretic result comes out.
533
00:59:52,820 --> 01:00:01,250
This angle between here and here is pi over eight by construction and cosine of pi over eight is not a rational number.
534
01:00:02,840 --> 01:00:07,010
So it doesn't lie on this set of points which have rational cosine.
535
01:00:07,670 --> 01:00:12,830
And in fact it doesn't matter. This can be any based to rational number between zero and one.
536
01:00:13,460 --> 01:00:18,200
Symbol number. Number. Theoretic calculation tells you this cosine is always irrational.
537
01:00:19,960 --> 01:00:25,630
So this construction captures perfectly this notion of of counterfactual indefinite.
538
01:00:25,630 --> 01:00:31,150
This. This point has no representation relative to this rotated basis.
539
01:00:36,920 --> 01:00:38,600
Uh, Heisenberg.
540
01:00:38,870 --> 01:00:48,590
Usually you will occasionally use this German phrase, thus under-estimate Princip to describe the uncertainty, what we call the uncertainty principle.
541
01:00:48,860 --> 01:00:55,310
But this actually translates better as the indeterminacy principle, rather the uncertainty principle.
542
01:00:55,610 --> 01:01:01,250
And I think this indeterminacy characterises this construction pretty well.
543
01:01:03,750 --> 01:01:12,090
So I view the Hilbert space as a sort of completion onto the continuum of this symbolic skeleton.
544
01:01:12,960 --> 01:01:18,980
A bit like the reals are the completion of the rationals. But you know, and the reels were fantastic.
545
01:01:18,980 --> 01:01:22,430
Of course, for for physics, we would nobody would be without the real numbers.
546
01:01:22,820 --> 01:01:25,790
But you don't want to take the real numbers too seriously, in my view.
547
01:01:25,820 --> 01:01:29,900
You can do some pretty strange things with the real numbers if you take them too seriously.
548
01:01:30,200 --> 01:01:34,129
People might be familiar with the Banach task construction.
549
01:01:34,130 --> 01:01:39,260
You can take a bar of gold, you can chop it up into a finite number of pieces, stick it back together again.
550
01:01:39,260 --> 01:01:48,330
And the bar of gold is twice as big as it was. So here's a way to either get rich very quickly or to devalue the value of gold very quickly.
551
01:01:50,010 --> 01:01:56,880
But of course, the reason it's got twice as big is that you've treated the real numbers too seriously in terms of physics.
552
01:01:58,280 --> 01:02:03,610
My own picture and this is, I suppose, a bit controversial, is that the Hilbert's face is a bit like this.
553
01:02:03,620 --> 01:02:06,739
It's a fantastic tool for doing calculations.
554
01:02:06,740 --> 01:02:11,620
And of course all students should be taught the Hilbert space because you have to use it to do calculations.
555
01:02:12,110 --> 01:02:19,220
But you shouldn't take it too seriously, because if you do take it too seriously, you end up with strange paradoxes like Schrödinger's cat.
556
01:02:20,570 --> 01:02:24,440
And if you. So. So that's my that's my picture of how this.
557
01:02:24,560 --> 01:02:28,280
The Hilbert space comes out. It's a completion of this skeleton.
558
01:02:28,880 --> 01:02:34,080
Uh. But it's and it's and in that sense, it's a useful tool for calculations.
559
01:02:34,080 --> 01:02:40,110
But don't take it too seriously. Right.
560
01:02:40,130 --> 01:02:48,350
I'm just going to finish now. So my claim is that if you if you if the universe evolves on a on a fractal set,
561
01:02:49,280 --> 01:02:55,370
one can overcome the Bell Theorem without any need for conspiracy, no need for God.
562
01:02:55,880 --> 01:02:59,660
And in fact, Bell's implausible conspiracy, like all good conspiracy theories,
563
01:03:00,080 --> 01:03:06,649
is really just all in the mind because the sort of conceptual issues that that lead you to think there
564
01:03:06,650 --> 01:03:15,590
might be some conspiracy are are what I would call geometrically unconstrained types of considerations.
565
01:03:17,850 --> 01:03:22,020
So I have a lot of sympathy with with Dirac and with with Roger.
566
01:03:22,440 --> 01:03:25,980
So I'm less wedded to Stephen's view about quantum physics.
567
01:03:28,000 --> 01:03:31,960
I do want to just finish with the word about quantum gravity,
568
01:03:32,380 --> 01:03:39,459
because it seems to me that if this picture if there's any sense in this picture what one is proposing,
569
01:03:39,460 --> 01:03:47,960
here is some extension of of general relativity theory taking, if you like, Einstein's insight about the importance of geometry.
570
01:03:49,060 --> 01:03:52,810
But now, not only for space time, but for state space itself.
571
01:03:53,680 --> 01:03:54,970
And the claim then is that.
572
01:03:58,190 --> 01:04:07,750
That from this extended type of idea about about geometry and in particular than about gravity, quantum physics, maybe emergent.
573
01:04:09,730 --> 01:04:16,460
Now if that's the case. Then the whole quantum gravity program seems to me to be put at B to be the wrong way round.
574
01:04:16,470 --> 01:04:22,110
It's putting the cart before the horse, the horse being gravity and the cart being quantum mechanics.
575
01:04:22,290 --> 01:04:24,300
So if I had to sort of finish with the prediction,
576
01:04:24,540 --> 01:04:29,520
I would I would say if we ever got to the stage of being able to detect gravitons, we won't ever find them.
577
01:04:29,850 --> 01:04:37,840
Because I think it's personally, I think it's a misguided concept. So my last statement is to say the three.
578
01:04:39,520 --> 01:04:45,250
Great theories of 20th century physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, chaos theory.
579
01:04:45,500 --> 01:04:49,810
They're a little bit just disparate theories as we standard have them currently.
580
01:04:49,870 --> 01:04:56,320
Quantum mechanics and relativity are not combined. Chaos and quantum mechanics are not considered different.
581
01:04:56,470 --> 01:05:03,040
Actually, even chaos. If we think of chaos as defined in terms of of of leaping of exponents,
582
01:05:03,040 --> 01:05:08,619
that actually is not a very relativistic idea because you could scale time logarithmic and then a leaping
583
01:05:08,620 --> 01:05:14,169
of the exponentially diverging trajectories would just look like linearly diverging trajectories,
584
01:05:14,170 --> 01:05:17,649
and then it wouldn't be chaotic. All these things.
585
01:05:17,650 --> 01:05:21,640
My view can come together by thinking about this underlying geometry.
586
01:05:22,450 --> 01:05:26,469
And I suppose if I had to summarise my talk in one sentence,
587
01:05:26,470 --> 01:05:34,600
is that we should think perhaps of the laws of physics in their most primitive expression in terms of state space geometry,
588
01:05:34,600 --> 01:05:40,990
move away from the old paradigm of differential equations and think like Einstein taught us about geometry.
589
01:05:42,980 --> 01:05:53,330
Well. So just to finish by saying Dennis, of course, was an enormously eminent and distinguished scientist.
590
01:05:54,310 --> 01:06:00,880
But he was also somebody who was phenomenally good at inspiring young scientists like myself.
591
01:06:01,770 --> 01:06:05,820
And I hope if you come away with nothing else,
592
01:06:06,360 --> 01:06:13,410
you will understand that it's an education under Dennis Sharma is really something one can never shake off.
593
01:06:14,910 --> 01:06:15,540
Thank you very much.