F 1 D 0 - 2004 07 23 at 1820

Quantum Mechanics needs simpler axioms.

You should probably read the background material:


a similar talk in 1998

Gilles Brassard is a straight forward funny guy. He understands
the details of Quantum Mechanics well. How particles just seem
to appear here and reappear there. How they exhibit the traits of
waves and particles, of both and neither. How we have observed
that the rules which apply to our own lives don't apply at all to the
stuff that atoms (and ultimately universes) are made of.

He contends that to get the stuff we see happening
in atomic particles, we should consider rethinking
what we have accepted so far, and find a new model.

If we can see the transmission of information such as
spin across space as we do, there must be some sort of
connection. Prof Brassard contends this is Cryptographic

Think about Einstein, and the axioms of relativity.
Einstein was a theorist, really. But a good one. He
said, "The speed of light in an empty space is 
independant of the speed of light at its source."
And, "Physics should appear the same in all inertial
reference frames."

English? Certainly. Einstein wanted physics to make

Now think about Quantum mechanics. Imagine a frame
with very heavy-duty formulae written onto tablets
from God Himself. "It's all so ugly compared to
Relativity. And It's All Math! Yuck!"

This is the question I'm asking you today:
Why is this all so complex?

Einstein, Bohr and others added up axioms as
their evidence piled up.

It's probably time to do some Spring Cleaning!
But what *is* at the core? 

Einstein was so lucky!

(Imagine that famous picture of God reaching
out from the heaven, touching Adam. Now imagine
he's reaching out to Einstein)

God decided "Let there be uncertainty!"

And it was good.

Then God decided "Let there be commitment!"

And he saw it was *BAD*.

So God had no choice.

He created Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein commented on this, you know. "God doesn't 
play dice!!" But Bohr commented on this remark, "Who
are you (Einstein) to tell God what to do?"

So here we physicists ask, "Is it logical that Quantum
Mechanics is the only solution?"

Well, for one thing, it doesn't work!! What more do
we need to add? We must find some ** REAL ** Axioms.

Information is fundamental (not just theories). And
we need a small set of axioms to drive the Quantum

Christopher Fuchs article (URL linked above) suggests
we start afresh, and find new crisp compelling principles.

Brassard says, "They should stir the soul!!"

We should be able to start out with an unknown
Quantum state {Tau} and make two copies of it.

Don't confuse this with broadcasting! That's where
you start out with an unknown quantum state, and 
the result, when combined, is a function which
lets you derive Tau once you do something. That's
not the same!

So he asks us to accept that as an axiom we must
reject "Confidentiality Possible". 

So what axioms should we accept?

How about 
- faster than light is impossible
- perfect broadcast is impossible
- perfect committment is impossible

Someone wanted to know why these were
chosen. "We wanted only *impossibility* 
axioms to add underlying formalism of a C".

Still, Quantum Mechanics has some basic features.
- non commutativity
- interference
- specific entanglement


Did God *really* say "Let the universe be
ruled by a C* algebra??"

Hey, here is another paper to look at. 

It's a toy theory in a quantum state.
It seems to have only one real axiom.

"Ignorance is at least as large as knowledge."

Another paper has five reasonable axioms. Sounds
good, right? Hardy's axioms.

Not so good. They include too much heavy
math, such as Hibbert Spaces. Ugh.

We've been holding workshops, and we're
very serious about this. The best names
in the fields have been coming out to
try to figure it out as a group.

"Workshop on Quantum Foundations in 
Light of Quantum Information"

"Quantum Logic meets Quantum Information"

Rolf Landauer once said, "Information is Physical."
(he said information gets its meating from the
physical world)

I Say, "Physics is Informational!!"

(very strange question period)

Q: Why are so many things impossible?
A: Well, either you say they are impossible, or
you have to conclude our original premises are awry.

Q: What about electrons and photons?
A: Electrons and Photons don't exist in my theory.
They *WILL* exist. (ha ha ha)

Q: (a very long, 10 minute question, asking whether
this theory proves what we know about psychology,
souls, parapsychology, and the unknown)
A: no.
(ha ha ha ha)

Q: (from a prominent chemistry professor) Has this
program been applied to thermodynamics?
A: I don't know, but it seems so reasonable, doesn't
it? An unavoidable consequence in Maxwell's Demons.

That's all I know.