Masticationpedia

Difference between revisions of "Logic of medical language: Introduction to quantum-like probability in the masticatory system"

Logic of medical language: Introduction to quantum-like probability in the masticatory system (view source)

Revision as of 17:17, 20 September 2022

98 bytes removed ,  2 years ago
no edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:
For the second time we find ourselves faced with an epistemological study of a topic on which most of the dental rehabilitation disciplines are based, that of 'Malocclusion' which in the light of what has been said in the previous chapters deserves clarification.
For the second time we find ourselves faced with an epistemological study of a topic on which most of the dental rehabilitation disciplines are based, that of 'Malocclusion' which in the light of what has been said in the previous chapters deserves clarification.


In the first chapter <u>'Introduction</u>' we have already mentioned the patient in figure 1 in which it would be irreverent towards the orthodontic discipline not to consider a state of 'Malocclusion' but in some way we have also questioned the 'Information Axiom' by replacing the classic orthodontic dogma with a neurophysiological vision of the system status of the patient. From this approach it was clear that reality is very different from how it appears and how it wants to be interpreted if the mesoscopic components of the system itself are not observed.
In the first chapter <u>'Introduction</u>' we have already mentioned the patient in figure 1 in which it would be irreverent towards the orthodontics discipline not to consider a state of 'Malocclusion' but in some way we have also questioned the 'Axiomatic Information' by replacing the classic orthodontic dogma with a neurophysiological vision of the system status of the patient. From this approach it was clear that mesoscopic reality is very different from macroscopic reality to which, we are used to.


But if it gives us so much, then what should we expect from the patient in figure 2 undergoing orthognathic surgery (read descriptive caption).
But if this is an anomaly, then, what should we expect from the patient in figure 2 undergoing orthognathic surgery (read descriptive caption) ?


<center>
<center>
<gallery widths="350" heights="282" perrow="2" mode="slideshow">
<gallery widths="350" heights="282" perrow="2" mode="slideshow">
File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|'''Figura 1:''' Patient n ° 1 with open bite and right posterior crossbite which in orthodontic terms is considered to be suffering from 'Malocclusion'.
File:Occlusal Centric view in open and cross bite patient.jpg|'''Figura 1:''' Patient n ° 1 with open bite and right posterior crossbite which in orthodontic terms is considered 'Malocclusion'.
File:Chirurgia Ortognatica 1.jpeg|'''Figura 1:''' Patient n ° 2 treated with orthognathic surgery for a III class. The restoration of 'normal occlusion' is formally optimal, at least, with respect to the occlusal image of patient n ° 1. Apart from a slight deviation of the incisal central line and the partial mandibular edentulism, the patient reports a remarkable aesthetic satisfaction and good chewing function with great satisfaction of the maxillofacial surgeons.
File:Chirurgia Ortognatica 1.jpeg|'''Figura 1:''' Patient n ° 2 after orthognathic surgery therapy for a III skeletal class. The restoration of 'Normal occlusion' is formally optimal, at least, with respect to the occlusal image of patient n°1. Apart from a slight deviation of the incisal central line and the partial mandibular edentulism, the patient reports a remarkable aesthetic satisfaction and good apparent masticatory function with great satisfaction of the maxillofacial surgeons.
</gallery>
</gallery>
</center>
</center>


The patient treated with orthognathic surgery (Fig.2) subjected to trigeminal electrophysiological examinations returned an extremely severe 'system state' picture with marked asymmetries of trigeminal reflexes so as to induce a neurophysiopathological study. This data points to a 'Malocclusion' even if the intermaxillary relationships objectively appear in a much more congruent condition occlusally than that of patient n ° 1 in figure 1.
The patient treated with orthognathic surgery (Fig.2) subjected to trigeminal electrophysiological examinations returned an extremely severe 'System state' picture with marked asymmetries of trigeminal reflexes so as to induce a neurophysiopathological study. This data points to a 'Malocclusion' even if the intermaxillary relationships objectively appear in a much more congruent condition occlusally than that of patient n ° 1 in figure 1.


Having said this, it makes us think: but can the profound reality of a system state be reduced only to a macroscopic observation, which from now on we will call 'Observable' if such a complex system is a set of mixed states? Furthermore, sharing an interpretation of 'normocclusion or malocclusion' through a classical statistical description or a statistical inference between normocclusion and malocclusion could be compared to the 'Schrödinger's Cat' in which we observe and interpret only the external macroscopic event without knowing anything about it, what is happening at least mesoscopic in size?


Having said this, it makes us think:


'Can the profound reality of a 'System state' be reduced only to a macroscopic observation (Observable) if such 'Complex system' is a set of mixed states? Furthermore, the sharing of an interpretation of "Normocclusion or Malocclusion" through a classical statistical description has nothing to do with a quantum interpretation of reality because in the classical we observe macroscopic phenomena (mandibular movements, TMJ, etc.) while in reality quantum we are dealing with mesoscopic phenomena such as synaptic transmissions.


Here comes a very extravagant and risky but contextually significant argument, what in quantum physics is called superposition of states in a system.
Here comes a very extravagant and risky but contextually significant argument, what in quantum physics is called superposition of states in a 'System'.


{{q2|I am perplexed about what has been said because at this point I no longer have those axiomatic certainties of the past .... give me a concrete example to understand where you want to go.|
{{q2|I am perplexed about what has been said because at this point I no longer have those axiomatic certainties of the past .... give me a concrete example to understand where you want to go.|
Line 59: Line 60:


The apparent paradox arises from the fact that in quantum mechanics it is not possible to classically describe objects, and a probabilistic representation is used: to show the fact that a particle can be placed in different positions, for example, it is described as if it were simultaneously in all the positions it can take. To every possible position corresponds the probability that observing the particle it is in that position. The observation operation, however, irremediably modifies the system since once observed in a position the particle definitively assumes that position (ie it has probability 1 of being there) and therefore it is no longer in a "superposition of states".
The apparent paradox arises from the fact that in quantum mechanics it is not possible to classically describe objects, and a probabilistic representation is used: to show the fact that a particle can be placed in different positions, for example, it is described as if it were simultaneously in all the positions it can take. To every possible position corresponds the probability that observing the particle it is in that position. The observation operation, however, irremediably modifies the system since once observed in a position the particle definitively assumes that position (ie it has probability 1 of being there) and therefore it is no longer in a "superposition of states".


Returning to the case of the cat, however, it should be noted that the above description is incorrect<ref>Stefan Rinner, Ernst Werner: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.2935.pdf ''On the role of entanglement in Schrödinger's cat paradox''], Central European Journal of Physics 02/2008; 6(1):178-183</ref>. The same conclusion of Schrödinger, who nevertheless never uses the term "paradox", is expressed in very different terms: Schrödinger refers to the ''' wave function of the whole system ''', not to that of the cat. In fact, quantum theory states that the atom + cat system is described by the quantum correlation state.
Returning to the case of the cat, however, it should be noted that the above description is incorrect<ref>Stefan Rinner, Ernst Werner: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.2935.pdf ''On the role of entanglement in Schrödinger's cat paradox''], Central European Journal of Physics 02/2008; 6(1):178-183</ref>. The same conclusion of Schrödinger, who nevertheless never uses the term "paradox", is expressed in very different terms: Schrödinger refers to the ''' wave function of the whole system ''', not to that of the cat. In fact, quantum theory states that the atom + cat system is described by the quantum correlation state.
Line 74: Line 73:
It is interesting to see how Schrödinger managed to create with an imaginary experiment to involve the consequences of quantum theory to the macrospic world represented by the cat.
It is interesting to see how Schrödinger managed to create with an imaginary experiment to involve the consequences of quantum theory to the macrospic world represented by the cat.


====The mathematical formalism====
====The mathematical ormalis====
The cat experiment is connected, as mentioned, to the problem of measurement. A quantum system is in a superposition of two states <math>A</math> '' and <math>B</math> '' (mathematically represented by the 'ket' <math>|A\rangle+|B\rangle</math>); an observation of it forces the system to go definitively or in the <math> |A\rangle</math> or in the <math> |B\rangle</math>. The presence of the cat causes the superposition in which the atom is found to be "transferred" to the overall system (atom + cat). The atom, therefore, is no longer in a superposition, just as the cat is not.
The cat experiment is connected, as mentioned, to the problem of measurement. A quantum system is in a superposition of two states <math>A</math> '' and <math>B</math> '' (mathematically represented by the 'ket' <math>|A\rangle+|B\rangle</math>); an observation of it forces the system to go definitively or in the <math> |A\rangle</math> or in the <math> |B\rangle</math>. The presence of the cat causes the superposition in which the atom is found to be "transferred" to the overall system (atom + cat). The atom, therefore, is no longer in a superposition, just as the cat is not.From this first presentation we understand the meaning of the argument
 
From this first presentation we understand the meaning of the argument


The only way to understand the condition of the cat remains to open the box and check if the cyanide ampoule is broken and consequently the cat is dead.
The only way to understand the condition of the cat remains to open the box and check if the cyanide ampoule is broken and consequently the cat is dead.
Gianni
Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, member, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
11,492

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.masticationpedia.org/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/12834"