New vocabulary..for Art..Revolution

Quantum theory vocabulary

…..Voss-Andreae is aware, however,
that his artwork cannot be held up as
definitive, objective representation of
quantum concepts, as quantum physics,
he says, does not support objective reality
[28].
Relying on the phenomenology of
most of the objects he makes, Voss-
Andreae does not attempt to shy away
from materiality. Materiality, however,
contradicts the principle of indeterminacy
of quantum superposition. Nevertheless,
these objects can hint at the
unknown reality beyond their physical
structure. Quantum Man and Night Path
are material imaginings of a state that is
ordinarily beyond our perception. They
represent two separate theories of superposition:
one, in which superposition in
our physical world does not collapse, and
a corollary theory, where all possible positions
collapse into one outcome. Perhaps,
of the two works, Quantum Man,
because it resembles the human form,
is more successful in conveying the idea
that wave/particle superposition is part
of our extended reality

,,,,,

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Classical vocabulary

(Translated by google?!)

Yaara Zach is interested in creating split objects. In the series “Dancers” (2016), three punch bags were cut and spread like round carpets that look like dresses in motion. In the transformation of the object into a linear object, there is a dimension of assimilation or camouflage, passive defense tactics used by animals and plants for survival, but also for courtship and procreation.

The series “crutches” (2016) consists of four sculptures created especially for the exhibition “Workers’ Movement”. The sculptures are characterized by role-playing games between predator and prey, between male and female and active and passive. The physiological and psychological response of fight or flight, which is used in times of danger to the needs of evolutionary survival, is also associated with situations that arise during arousal and sexual desire.

The “Workers’ Movement” exhibition will close at the end of the month. Waiting for you during the holiday hours (http://www.uri-rami-museum.co.il/node/180)….Curator, Smadar Keren,

6 Conclusion
We have seen various approaches to the question of the quantum-to-classical
transition. We now want to summarize what they can offer to answer this
question and point out what they have in common or where they differ.
Let us start with the most commonly used approach, the decoherence pro-
gram. We have seen that the interaction with an uncontrollable environment

The Feynman Vocabulary

MOTIVATION

Technical

not only explains quite well, why we do not see superpositions of macroscopic
objects, but also shows that the interaction even selects a preferred (pointer)
basis. However, macroscopic superpositions are not
per se
excluded, since
one could always (at least in principle) reduce the environment’s influence.
Several experiments, e.g. interference of large molecules, have shown that
we are able to control the environment better and better, maybe arriving at
a point where we are faced with a real cat paradox. In addition, the deco-
herence program is inherently quantum mechanical and therefore not able
to resolve the problem of outcomes. A further interpretation is needed to
explain why measurements have definite outcomes.
Now what can the collapse theories, presented in this work, tell us about
the quantum-to-classical transition? Although they are based on the modi-
fication of the Schr ̈odinger equation, they lead to predictions similar to de-
coherence. This is not surprising, since in both cases a macroscopic super-
position evoles into a classical mixture. In fact, the time evolution of a
system in both the decoherence and collapse theory can be described by a
masterequation of the Lindblad form. However, the two approaches differ
on a fundamental level. In the case of the decoherence program, coherence
becomes destroyed only locally (and is still existing in the larger system-
environment), whereas the collapse theory achieves a ”real” loss of coherence
on a fundamental level, i.e. independent of any interaction with some envi-
ronment. Contrary to the decoherence program, the real physical collapse
of each state vector explains why we have definite outcomes in every mea-
surement. Furthermore, the collapse theory provides a real boarder for the
observability of superpositions, i.e. superpositions are
a priori
excluded at
some level. However, the mechanism provided by the collapse theories suffers
from the preferred basis problem. This means that the choice of the operator
in the additional term of the Schr ̈odinger equation determines in which basis
the collapse can be achieved. This seems to be unsatisfying. Furthermore
the modification lacks a physical motivation in general.
Anyhow, we want to emphasize that it is not a matter of taste, which
approach one prefers. We point out again that, due to the modification of
the Schr ̈odinger equation, the collapse theory is a real rival theory, concerning
standard quantum mechanics. However, since decoherence effects are found
to be much stronger in the present experimental setups, it is still impossible to
test collapse models against quantum theory. Hopefully, future experiments,
e.g. with huge molecules, will become sensitive enough, to confirm or exclude
collapse theories.
Since the approach of coarse-grained measurements only differs conceptu-
ally from decoherence on the one hand, and is still demanding a generalization
on the other hand, we do not want to say much about it. However, in the
28

authors view it is an interesting idea. Especially due to the fact that the
realistic assumption of imprecise measurement apparatuses can lead to the
emergence of classicality.
Finally, we have seen that there exist a lot of explanations for the ap-
pearance of a classical world in quantum theory. However, there still exist
an important issue which we have not talked about. Even if it was possible
to explain the nonobservability of macroscopic superpositions, to answer the
question of the quantum-to-classical transition we still would have to explain
explicitly the emergence of classical physics, i.e. to show that it is possible
to derive Newton’s laws from quantum theory.