Virtually reality

VIRTUALLY REALITY

This competition has been good for physics. Antirealist physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach inspired Einstein to rethink how we know what we know—or think we know. That set the course for all that followed in physics. When we accept we see the world through colored lenses, we can compensate. Some features of reality are relative to an observer, whereas others are common to all observers. Two people moving at different speeds may disagree on the distance between places, the duration of an event or, in some cases, which of two events came first. The dispute between them is unresolvable. But the arith metic combination of distance and duration—the spatiotemporal distance—is a fact common to both, an “invariant.” Invariants define objective truth.

IN ADDITION TO THE GENERIC CONCERNS that physicists of the past shared, physicists today have come up against many specific and unexpected limits to knowledge. Almost no matter which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose, some things about the quantum world are beyond us. For instance, if you shoot a photon at a half-silvered mirror, it might pass through, or it might reflect off, and there’s no way you can tell what it will do. The outcome is decided randomly. Some think the photon does what it does for no reason at all; the randomness is intrinsic. Others think there is some hidden reason. Still others think the photon both passes through and reflects, but we are able to see only one of these outcomes. Whichever it is, the underlying causes are cloaked.

Particles are easy to manipulate, which is why quantum physics is commonly described in terms of particles. But most physicists think the same rules apply to all things, even living things. Thus, it is not clear when the photon makes its choice to pass through or reflect, if indeed it ever chooses. When it hits the mirror, the combined system of the two enters a state of indecision. When a measuring device registers the path, it, too, is caught between the possibilities. If you send your friend to see what has happened to you that person sees both eventualities. Physicists have yet to find any threshold of size or complexity of a system that forces the outcome. (Size and complexity are important in defining what the options are, but not in the final selection.) For now they know of only one place where the ambiguity is resolved: in our own conscious perception. We never experience photons doing two mutually contradictory things at once. Therefore, physicists are left with an unwanted element of subjectivity in their theory.

To Christopher A. Fuchs of the University of Massachusetts Boston, the lesson is that observers are active participants in nature, helping to construct what they observe, and a fully third-person perspective is impossible. The mathematics of quantum theory jumbles together subjective and objective elements. His “QBist” interpretation tries to strip away the subjective elements and reveal the real structure that lies within, much as Einstein did with relativity theory.

Philosopher Richard Healey of the University of Arizona has a related “pragmatist” view that quantum theory is a representation not of the world but of the interface between the world and a human or another agent. We can use it to judge the probabilities of things that might happen, just as a technical stock trader buys and sells based on market trends rather than economic fundamentals. Such a trader can become rich without a clue what the companies are doing. Unlike Fuchs, Healey doesn’t think that a description of physical reality is tucked inside quantum theory. That, he thinks, will require an entirely new theory. At the opposite pole, if you do take quantum theory to be a representation of the world, you are led to think of it as a theory of co-existing alternative realities. Such multiple worlds or parallel universes also seem to be a consequence of cosmological theories: the same processes that gave rise to our universe should beget others as well. Additional parallel universes could exist in higher dimensions of space beyond our view. Those universes are populated with variations on our own universe. There is not a single definite reality.

Although theories that predict a multiverse are entirely objective—no observers or observer-dependent quantities appear in the basic equations—they do not eliminate the observer’s role but merely relocate it. They say that our view of reality is heavily filtered, and we have to take that into account when applying the theory. If we do not see a photon do two contradictory things at once, it does not mean the photon is not doing both. It might just mean we get to see only one of them. Likewise, in cosmology, our mere existence creates a bias in our observations. We necessarily live in a universe that can support human life, so our measurements of the cosmos might not be fully representative. Parallel universes do not alter the truth that we experience. If you suffer in this universe, it is little comfort that near duplicates of you thrive elsewhere. But these other worlds are corrosive to the pursuit of broader truth. Because the other universes are generally not observable, they represent an insuperable limit to our direct knowledge. If those universes are utterly unlike our own, our empirical knowledge is not merely limited but deceived. The laws of physics risk descending into anarchy: they do not say that one thing happens rather than another, because both happen, and which we see is blind luck. The distinction between fact and fiction is just a matter of location.

Virtual borliq

Bu musobaqa fizika fani uchun yaxshi bo’ldi. Antirealist fizika fanlari doktori Ernst Mach Eynshteinni qanday bilishimiz, nimani bilishimiz yoki bilamiz deb o’ylashimiz haqida qayta fikr yuritishga undadi. O’sha hodisa fizikada sodir bo’lgan barcha narsa uchun asos vazifasini o’tadi. Biz qabul qilganimizda, dunyoni rangli linzalar orqali ko’ramiz, zararni qoplay olamiz. Voqelikning ba’zi o’ziga xos xususiyatlari kuzatuvchiga bo’g’liq. Turli xil tezlikda harakatlanayotgan ikkita odam bir hodisa mobaynida yoki ikki hodisa bir vaqtda sodir bo’lgan holatlarda nuqtalar orasidagi masofa haqidagi fikrlari bir biridan farq qilishi mumkin. Ular o’rtasidagi kelishmovchilikni hal qilishning iloji yo’qdir. Ammo masofa va davomiylikning arifmetik kombinatsiyasi spatiotemporal(ham vaqtga ham fazoga tegishli) masofa o’zgarmas, ikkisi uchun ham umumiy faktdir. O’zgarmalar obyektiv haqiqatni ta’riflaydi.

O’tmishdagi olimlar ilgari surgan umumiy fikrlarga qo’shimcha ravishda, bugungi kunda fizika fani olimlari bilimga bo’lgan ko’plab kutilmagan va mahsus cheklovlarga qarshi chiqishdi. Siz tanlaydigan kvant texnikalar haqidagi tushuntirishlar deyarli ahamiyatsiz, kvant dunyo haqidagi ba’zi bir narsalar bizning imkoniyatim chegarasidan tashqaridadir. Masalan, agar siz kumushga yarim bo’yalgan oynaga fotonni yo’naltirsangiz, nur undan o’tishi mumkin, yoki u oynada aks etishi mumkin va sizda u nima qilishini aytishga yo’l yo’q. Xulosaga tasodifan qaror qilinadi. Ba’zilar foton umuman sababsiz o’zi vujudga keltiradigan hodisani qiladi deb o’ylashadi. Tasodifiylik o’ziga xosdir. Hanuzgacha boshqalar foton ham jism orqali o’tadi ham aks etadi., ammo biz bunday xulosalarning faqat bittasini ko’ra olamiz. Qaysi bo’lishidan qat’iy nazar, ajratib ko’rsatilgan sabablar yashiriladi.

Zarralar bilan ishlash oson, shuning uchun kvant fizikasi odatda zarra____. Ammo ko’plab fiziklar bir xil qoidalar jonsiz va hatto jonli narsalar uchun ham mos keladi deb o’ylashadi. Shuning uchun agar mabodo fotogen tanlaydigan bo’lsa ham, u o’tib ketish yoki aks etish tanlovini qachon qilishi noma’lum. Foton oynaga urilganda, ikkisining birlashgan tizimi beqrorlik holatiga kiradi. O’lchayotgan asbob o’tishni qayd qilsa, u ham ehtimolliklar orasida qo’lgan tushadi. Agar siz do’stingizni nima sodir bo’lganini ko’rish uchun jo.natsangiz. o’sha odam ikkala holatni ham ko’radi. Fiziklar hali natijaga ta’sir qiladigan tizimning murakkabligiga yoki o’lchamga kirishga imkon topishlari kerak. Hozircha ular faqat noaniqlik holati hal qilinadigan joyni bilishadi: o’zimizning shaxsiy topilgan yo’limizda. Biz hech qachon bir vaqtda ikkita mavjud bo’lmagan narsalarni vujudga keltirgan fotonlar ustida tajriba qilmaganmiz. Shuning uchun fiziklar ularning nazariyasidagi subyektivlikning qirilmaydigan elementi bilan qolishdi.

Bostondagi Massachuset universiteti olimi Kristofer Funchsga qaraganda, dars kuzatuvchilar kuzatgan narsalarini qurishda yordamlashgan holda, tabiatda ularning faol qatnashuvidir., va to’laqonli uchinchi odam ko’rinishi imkonsizdir. Kvant nazariyasi matematikasi subyektiv va obyektiv elementlarni aralashtirib yuboradi. Uning “QBist” nazariyasi subyektiva elementlarni yashirishga harakat qiladi va Eynshtein nisbiylik nazariyasi bilan amalga oshirganidek ko’p uning ichida mavjud bo’lgan haqiqiy strukturani ochib beradi.

Arizona universiteti olimi Richard Healey kvant nazariyasi olamning emas, inson yoki yana bir boshqa vakil va olam o’rtasidagi maydonning qismi bo’lgan aloqador pragmatist qarashga ega. Mahoratli tijoratchilar iqtisodiy asosiy tamoyillar ko’ra bozor talabiga asoslanib sotgani yoki sotib olaganidek, biz undan narsalarning sodir bo’lish ehtimolligi haqida qaror qilish haqida foydalanamiz, Bunday tijoratchilar kompaniyalar amalga oshirayotgan ishlarsiz ham boy bo’la oladi. Fuchsdan farq qilgan holda, Healey fizik reallikning tasviri kvant nazariyasi ichiga qo’yiladi deb o’ylamaydi. Bu narsa , u o’ylaydi, butunboshli yangi bir nazariyani talab qiladi. Teskari tomondan, agar siz kvant nazriyasini dunyoning bir qismi deb oladigan bo’lsangiz, u haqda birgalikda mavjud bo’la oladigan muqobil realliklar nazariyasi sifatida o’ylay boshlaysiz. Bunday ko’p tarmoqli dunyo yoki parallel olamlar kosmologik nazariya natijasi bo’lib ko’rinadi: bining olamni yuksaltirgan bir xil jarayonlar boshqalari uchun ham turtki bo’lishi zarur. Qo’shimcha parallel olamlar bizning tasavvurimiz ortidagi fazoning ko’proq hajmda mavjud bo’la olgan. Ushbu olamlar bizning olamimizdagi xilma xillik bilan to’ldirilgan.

Turma turlilikni taxmin qiladigan nazariyalar butunlay obyektiv bo’lishiga qaramasdan, ular kuzatuvchining rolini yo’qotmaydi, ammo faqatgina uni qayta joylashtiradi. Ularning aytishiga ko’ra, haqiqat haqidagi bizning qarashimiz anchagina filtrlanadi, va biz nazariyani qabul qilayotganimizda buni hisobga olishimizga to’g’ti keladi. Agar biz foton birdaniga ikkita bir biriga teskari narsani amalga oshirishini ko’rmasak, foton ikkisini ham qilmayapti degani emas. Bu biz faqatgina bittasini ko’rishimizni anglatadi. Shuningdek, kosmologiyada, bizning arzimagan mavjudligimiz kuzatishlarimizda noto’g’ri tushuncha xosil qiladi. Biz inson hayotini ta’minlaydigan olamda yashashimiz kerak, shuning uchun kosmos o’lchovi to’laligicha vakil bo’lmasligi mumkin. Parallel olamlar biz tajriba qiladigan haqiqatni o’zgartirmaydi. Agar siz bu olamda azob cheksangiz, sizning nusxangiz qayerda bo’lsa ham rivojlanishi biroz qulayroq. Ammo bunday boshqa olamlar kengroq haqiqat …. Boshqa olamlarni umuman olganda kuzatib bo’lmasligi sababli, ular bilimimizga bo’lgan yo’qotib bo’lmas cheklovni o’rnatadi. Agar o’sha olamlar biznikidan butunlay farq qiladigan bo’lsa, bizning imperik bilimimiz nafaqat cheklamaydi. Fizika qoidalari anarxiyani kamaytirgan holda xavf ostida qoldi: ikkisi sodir bo’lganganligi sababli, ular bir narsa boshqasiga qaraganda yaxriroq bo’ladi deb aytishmaydi. Fakt va uydirma o’rtasidagi farq bu shunchaki joy bilan bog’liq.

Sci-tech. glossary

№	word	definition	translation	transcription
	ambiguity	something that is not clear because it has more than one possible meaning	noaniqlik	[ˌæmbɪˈɡjuːəti]
	contradictory	contradictory statements, information, ideas, or beliefs disagree with each other and cannot both or all be true	soxtalik	[ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkt(ə)ri]
	corrosive	a corrosive substance contains chemicals that can cause damage	o’yuvchi	kəˈrəʊsɪv
	dispute	a serious disagreement, especially one between groups of people that lasts for a long time	kelishmovchilik	[dɪˈspjuːt]
	generic	relating to or suitable for a range or class of similar things	umumiy	[dʒəˈnerɪk]
	invariants	a function, quantity, or property which remains unchanged when a specified transformation is applied.	o’zgarmas	[ɪnˈvɛːrɪənt]
	manipulate	to influence someone, or to control something, in a clever or dishonest way	ta’sir qilmoq	[məˈnɪpjʊleɪt]
	observe	to notice someone doing something, or to notice something happening	kuzatmoq	[əbˈzɜː(r)v]
	photon	a unit of energy in the form of light	foton	[ˈfəʊtɒn]
	probability	a measure of how likely something is to happen		[ˌprɒbəˈbɪləti]
	quantum	a unit used for measuring very small amounts of energy	kvant	[ˈkwɒntəm]
	randomness	the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization; unpredictability.	tasodifiylik	[ˈrandəmnəs]
	spatiotemporal	belonging to both space and time or to space–time.	fazo vaqti	[ˌspeɪʃɪəʊˈtɛmp(ə)r(ə)l]
	stock	an amount of something that you keep so that you can use it when you need it	ulush	[stɒk]
	threshold	a limit at which an arrangement changes. for example a tax threshold is the level of income or profit at which you start to pay a tax	cheklov	[ˈθreʃˌhəʊld]

Subtitle terminology

№	word	definition	translation	transcription	synonym	antonym
	align	to give your support publicly to a group, political party, or country	yordamlashmoq	[əˈlaɪn]	coordinate	skew
	allegiance	strong loyalty to a person, group, idea, or country	sodiqlik	[əˈliːdʒ(ə)ns]	deference	dishonor
	correlation	connection or relationship between two or more things that is not caused by chance. a positive correlation means that two things are likely to exist together, a negative correlation means that they are notcorrelation between	aloqa	[ˌkɒrəˈleɪʃ(ə)n]	relationship	contradiction
	distortion	a change that makes something no longer true or accurate	o’zgarish	[dɪˈstɔː(r)ʃ(ə)n]	exaggeration	beauty
	inconsistent	containing parts that do not match each other	farqlilik	[ˌɪnkənˈsɪstənt]	conflicting	definite
	limbo	a situation or state where you are not certain and you have to wait to find out what will happen next	kutish	[ˈlɪmbəʊ]	oblivion	sureness
	misinformation	false or incorrect information, especially when it is intended to trick someone	yolg’on	[ˌmɪsɪnfə(r)ˈmeɪʃ(ə)n]	falsity	truth
	partisanship	prejudice in favor of a particular cause; bias.	tarafdorlik	[ˌpɑː.tɪˈzæn.ʃɪp]	partiality
	polarization	to form two very different groups, opinions, or situations that are completely opposite to each other, or to cause this to happen	qarshilantirmoq	[ˌpəʊləraɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n]	emission	collection