Quantum Physics


Debating the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics

Why is quantum mechanics like cricket?

Because for me, no matter how many times the rules are explained, I can’t seem to get my head around what the game is actually about.

Is quantum theory a system of equations? A description of the behavior of invisible particles? A philosophy for the post-post-modern age?

And how strange is it that we even have to ask? Unlike other scientific theories, quantum physics is so slippery that its formalism—the equations that add up to a mathematical representation of what we humans call reality—is divorced from its physical interpretation. Sure, we can solve the Schrödinger equation for the case of a particle stuck in a box, but what is that telling us about how the natural world really works?

This isn’t a question you’d even think to ask about classical mechanics. Remember Newton’s Second Law, the one relating force to mass and acceleration? Its formalism is F=ma, and its interpretation is pretty simple: If you want to know the force an object is exerting, just multiply its mass by its acceleration.

That’s F=ma. But what about:


“Quantum mechanics needs an explanation worse than other theories do because others always had a physical picture that guided the formulation of the mathematics,” explains John Cramer, a physicist at the University of Washington who also happens to be the author of his own interpretation of quantum mechanics—more on that later. Newton had his (possibly apocryphal) apples, his inclined planes, his cannonballs. Werner Heisenberg, one of the “fathers” of quantum mechanics, by contrast, had some elegant mathematics, a vision more akin to numerology than to a picture of the physical world, in Cramer’s view.

“The Copenhagen interpretation is like a religious text,” says MIT physicist Max Tegmark. “It leaves a lot open to interpretation.”

Yet Heisenberg, like his colleague Niels Bohr, felt that quantum mechanics needed no further interpretation. This view, which is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation, holds that there is no “objective reality” lurking beneath the formalism. If the equations say that I have a 50% chance of measuring a particle in a certain state—say, spin up—and then I go ahead and measure it in that state, what more is there to say? To guess at what the particle was doing before I made the measurement would be worse than speculation; nothing can be said about the particle except in the context of a measurement. “Reality” is no more and no less than what our instruments and senses reveal it to be. The Copenhagen interpretation may give you a headache, but according to Anton Zeilinger, the University of Vienna physicist most famous for his teleportation experiments, “It works, is useful to understand our experiments, and makes no unnecessary assumptions.”

Still, many physicists find this notion unsatisfying. “Quantum mechanics is full of strange things that cry out for an interpretation,” says Cramer. There’s the problem of “spooky action at a distance,” the apparent connection between “entangled” particles that seems to violate the finite speed of light; and there’s Einstein’s famous discomfort with the idea that no reality exists outside of our own perceptions. As Einstein put it: “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”

There’s also a niggling problem with exactly what defines “looking at it”—or, in quantum-speak, what defines a “measurement.” If we truly cannot say anything definite about a particle until after we’ve measured its state, then the act of measuring it must be pretty special. But why? What happens in that moment? Physicists often talk about it as the “collapse of the wavefunction”—that is, the moment when all of the possible particle states represented in the probability equation called the wavefunction collapse into a single, measured state. The instantaneous collapse of an entity that wasn’t physically real to start with is weird in itself. But physicist Steven Weinberg pointed to another weak link in this interpretation in a 2005 article in Physics Today: “The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe.”

If not Copenhagen, then what? Let’s take a quick tour of a handful of the (many!) competing interpretations of quantum mechanics.

  • Copenhagen interpretation: This is the interpretation we’ve just met, and the one you’ll see in most physics books—though even Heisenberg and Bohr didn’t always agree on the particulars. To put it in terms of our cricket analogy, let’s say that you’re following a cricket match on your cell phone. Actually let’s make it a baseball game because, as I’ve already confessed, I don’t understand cricket. So you’re using one of those apps that updates the box score every time you press “refresh,” but you can’t actually see the game in progress. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no game—just the results you get when you ping the server. So it’s no use talking about whether the batter is getting into the pitcher’s head, or the appearance of the rally squirrel, or even the trajectory the ball takes on its way into the first baseman’s glove. The box score is real; the game isn’t.
  • Consistent histories: The Copenhagen interpretation applies to a situation in which an observer (the baseball fan) makes a measurement (checks the score) on some external system. But what happens when the observer is himself part of the system—say, the shortstop? That’s the problem that a special breed of physicists called quantum cosmologists encounter when they attempt to study the entire universe as a single quantum system. The Copenhagen interpretation falls short in this case, but the consistent histories interpretation, developed in the 1980s and early 1990s, does away with external “observers” and “measurements”—they are treated as part of one big system.
  • Many worlds: We talked earlier about the problem of the collapsing wavefunction. But what if the wavefunction never actually collapses? What if every possibility it represents really does happen in its own universe? With every measurement, each universe branches off into countless others, each of which in turn branches into ever more universes. The many worlds interpretation was first proposed in the 1950s by the young physicist Hugh Everett, and though it never gained much traction at the time, its star is now ascending: In the film Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives, Tegmark called the many worlds interpretation “one of the most important discoveries of all time in science,” and he and his colleagues recently posited that Everett’s parallel universes might be congruent with the parallel universes proposed by cosmologists. Of course, plenty of physicists can’t stomach the idea of a multiplicity of fundamentally unobservable universes. Yet—back to baseball for a moment—there is something appealing about an interpretation that insists upon the existence of a universe in which the baseball rolls squarely into Buckner’s glove; an interpretation that guarantees that every heartbreaker in our universe is shadowed by a heroic comeback in another; an interpretation in which the Red Sox and the Yankees win, year after year after year.
  • Transactional interpretation: The transactional interpretation might solve some of quantum theory’s biggest quandaries, if you can get your head around the idea of a wave with negative energy that travels back in time. The transactional interpretation was first proposed in the 1980s by John Cramer, and suggests that the wavefunction includes not just one but two probability waves—the familiar one that travels forward in time, plus an exotic twin that travels backward. When they meet, they exchange a “handshake” across space-time, says Cramer; at other points, they cancel each other out completely, removing any telltale traces of the journey backward in time.

So, is there any way to know which interpretation is right or wrong? “Unless you can catch an interpretation deviating from the mathematics, you can’t rule it out,” says Cramer. And though some experiments could maybe, possibly tip the scales in favor of one interpretation or another, there is no consensus that any of the contenders above have been favored or nixed by experiment. Perhaps, some physicists argue, the pursuit of an interpretation is a flawed endeavor. “There is no logical necessity of a realistic worldview to always be obtainable,” wrote Christopher Fuchs and Asher Peres in a Physics Today opinion piece titled, transparently, “Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’.” “If the world is such that we can never identify a reality independent of our experimental activity, then we must be prepared for that, too.” Perhaps the interpretation problem isn’t a problem of quantum physics at all, but a problem of human beings.

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Kate Becker

    Kate Becker is the editor of The Nature of Reality, where it is her mission to blow your mind with physics. Kate studied physics at Oberlin College and astronomy at Cornell University, and spent seven years as senior researcher for NOVA and NOVA scienceNOW. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

    • Pingback: Debating the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics « NOVA's Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality | Science - Quantum Phenomenon and Possibilities | Scoop.it()

    • Sid

      It’s kind of reassuring to know that people smarter than I am are befuddled by quantum physics. Great post, Kate.

    • Susan

      As one who actually experienced the world of q.p. it is so much fun to read and learn more from real physicists! I find it all so exciting. I can honestly say from what I observed all of it works and I didn’t have to do the math! Please keep searching for more clues….

    • Tim Bosanoz

      I am very dissappointed with the Nova series this season. I have watched the series from its begining. The program I watched last week had a scene depicting a person drawing a “blueprint” with white “ink” on blue paper, and using a scale as a straight-edge.I know it was used to illustrate another point of science, but it was just a stupid way to illustrate the science. For the record, blueprints have not been produced for 40 years! You didn’t draw them with white ink on blue paper! Further, you would never use a scale in that manner….you won’t show a scientist using a slide rule to stir a beaker of liquid! If you can’t get your scenes accurate ….how can I be sure your scientific content is accurate?! The recent program on Gothic architecture was very lame…..weak content with a lot of computer graphics. Very sad.

    • veritas

      Maybe Quantum Mechanics itself is just plain wrong.

    • quantum physicist

      The last sentence in this post is the key to all the puzzles about QM. Here are the basic points:
      1)Ordinary logic can be formulated in a mathematical way as a certain kind of algebra. Once one does that, once recognizes that any logical system AUTOMATICALLY defines a broader framework which contains quantum mechanics. That is, the commutative algebra of ordinary logic is unavoidably embedded in a non-commutative algebra. The standard QM interpretation of these other variables as “complementary observables”, such that when one set of mutually consistent questions have definite answers, a probability distribution is defined for all the other complementary questions. One can insist on dynamical laws such that one set of questions always has a definite answer. This is classical mechanics. Koopman formulated classical mechanics this way in the 1930s. Position and momentum are compatible and can have definite values, but there are other observables (which don’t have standard names) which are infinitely uncertain when this is the case. In classical mechanics you can ignore those observables. Quantum mechanics is a different interpretation of Newton’s equations, in which position and momentum are complementary variables, which can’t be simultaneously fixed with arbitrary accuracy.

      2)Collapse of the wave function is really nothing more than the conventional law of conditional probabilities. There’s nothing mysterious about it if you don’t try to think of the wave function as “real”, but instead think of it properly, as defining a probability distribution. The funniness comes in because probabilities in QM don’t satisfy the usual additivity rule, from which we derive the rules for conditional probability. The probability for either of two alternatives is not simply the sum of the individual probabilities. However, it’s been known since the 1970s, that for macroscopic systems, consisting of N atoms (I’m trying not to be too technical here), in typical states of finite energy (that is to say, not frozen into the ground state), the violations of the additivity rule for the probabilities of macroscopic things, like the position of a pointer needle, are small, of order 10^{- N}. Since N is of order 10^{20}, this number is so small that no experiment that could be done in many times the age of the universe, can ever detect the deviation from classical probability theory. Thus, once one has correlated a microscopic observable with a macroscopic one, one can apply the conditional probability rule and drop that part of the probability distribution whose predictions are falsified by experiment (the part that says the needle was up, when we measured it to be down). There’s nothing more mysterious or spooky or action at a distance in this, than there was in throwing out that part of the weather forecast that said Hurricane Katrina might hit Galveston instead of New Orleans.

      3)Since the human brain never had to deal with quantum probability rules in the course of its evolution, it’s not surprising that we have a hard time getting an intuitive feel for QM and really have to do the math to get it right. QM PREDICTS that macroscopic objects like people, trees, and tigers will obey the rules of classical mechanics, with slightly random initial conditions, up to exponentially small corrections. Our intuition was formed by situations in which quantum phase interference was completely and totally negligible to the level of reality our senses were designed to see (of course QM phases are crucial to the chemistry that makes our bodies work the way they do, but we didn’t gain observational access to that until long after our brains evolved).

    • BestCom

      I propose the EXCLUSIVE RELATIVITY theory to tie them together, as a unified theory. See

    • Abrir

      Einstens comment of his thought,” that he sometimes thinks that there is no reality outside of our own perceptions”. Could that be something like the movie Matrix with a slight deviation, that all living things are individual sparks of conciousness attached to a super conciousness, which allows us as individuals to think of a form of everyday living that is somehow in sink with each of us, to imagine a life in a world that doesn’t, exist except in the total consciousness of all of our minds. As a unified whole, that could be our universe, something that cannot not be defined in logic.

      • Mott Phys


    • Davidmac

      While watching the episode of Nova “The Fabric of the Cosmos” with Brian Greene, I saw that this Blog existed. I want to point out to anyone visiting that the whole question of how quantum mechanics can be explained in the manner that Einstein wished that it could be is possible from a deterministic viewpoint. How? All that is needed is a new theory that replaces matter and energy, as it is thought to be constructed, with an alternative. The theory is called ultrawave theory. It is a simple form of a string theory with an added twist; it has to incorporate a string-wave that travels at a ridiculously fast speed of 8.936E+16 m/s. What is best about the theory, is that it explains each and every mystery that exists in physics today. It does not require extra dimensions or any strange ideas other than a faster than light velocity. All matter particles can be constructed from the same material and described with the exact same equations. Mass exists with all particles including photons and neutrinos, which solves the dark matter mystery. Moreover, gravity can be shown to be quantized with the same numerical quantities that describe particles. So far the units have not been matched with those of gravity as Newton saw it, but it may be possible to do it with Einstein’s gravity equations. I should know pretty soon. If you want to know more go to http://www.ultrawavetheory.org.

    • Mott Phys

      think that when introduce the antisymmetric metrics tensor ,he indicates that the spacetime is incomplete,this past and future are incomplete,or better its are hiddan variables that if connect to generate the “present”.the spacetime are generated by opposite curvatures of spacetime that if intercept,gerateing
      the spacetime interval,that are associated to the constancy and linit to the speed of light.the the asymetries stronger observed in the charming quarks to
      particles and antiparticles are associated to asymmetry of space and time-time dilatation and contraction of space-then will have infinities curvatures of spacetimes parallel.

    • Anonymous

      As far as combining Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, here is my view:

      I believe that the probability of an electron being found in a specific location on the probability wave is not random, rather it is tied to space time slice (from the theory of relativity) which states that an observer traveling forward or backward from a given location that is very far away will see the past or the future of that location.

      Therefore, the effect the electron will make on all its observers when measured or the effect the observers will have on the electron when the electron is measured defines its location.

      So, the position on a probability wave is not random but is influenced by the entire universe affected, or the entire universe that can effect this position.

      We can use this theory to describe entangled particles, they are in entangled not because of spooky action at a distance but because the space time between them has not changed directly, or indirectly.

      Finally, we can use this theory to describe why electrons instantly change orbits when an atom is excited. This is because time for the observer passes
      instantaneously in relation to the electron when the electron changes orbits.

      What do people think?

      (Although I can read and comprehend about 15% of the modern physics equations, I cannot backup what was stated above with any solid math. I hope that a serious scientist takes a look at this as a serious theory. I know for a fact that one problem you will run into is: What are the actual results of the relationship proposed above. That is, If A and B happens in the space time what will be the resulting position of the particle in question.)

    • Joultimo

      Mind is missing from our understanding of quantum mechanics. As quantum theory opens our eyes to infinite universes enhabited by our selves who made different choices then the ones we made in our universe, how can we not more easily see that we are the mind experiencing the universe we are in. Is there not some continuum within our mind that cocreates the universe we see, or focuses the infinitude of of potential universes into our individual and collective observable universe. When Einstein said he liked to know the moon was still there when he wasn’t looking, was he not missing the subtle continuum of mind that maintained the reality of the moons orbit around the earth for him. Electrons act as waves when going through the two slits, but act as particles when there actual trajectory is being recorded. The recording devices are are the way we bring our gross physical laws down to the subtle. From our observation or recording of a definitive slot penetrated by the elctron, mind transform a wave into a particle.

      • Abrir

        On noting the different comments, many of which sound very impressive. However no one comments on one aspect that to me is most profound, when one consider the size of the universe and its huge size. My question is, where did the mass come from, if there was nothing there prior to the big bang?Or if the mass was first energy,that converted to mass where did it come from. It almost seems like it could only be a philosopcal rather than a scientific debate. To me nothing can be defined with mathematics when you start supposedly with something the size of a molecule at the beginning, which also poses a question where did the small object come from? Also if the maximum speed possible is the speed of light, how did the expansion take place so fast?It does seem that the only explanations can be metaphysical.

      • Abrir

        On noting the different comments, many of which sound very impressive. However no one comments on one aspect that to me is most profound, when one consider the size of the universe and its huge size. My question is, where did the mass come from, if there was nothing there prior to the big bang?Or if the mass was first energy,that converted to mass where did it come from. It almost seems like it could only be a philosopcal rather than a scientific debate. To me nothing can be defined with mathematics when you start supposedly with something the size of a molecule at the beginning, which also poses a question where did the small object come from? Also if the maximum speed possible is the speed of light, how did the expansion take place so fast?It does seem that the only explanations can be metaphysical.

    • Anonymous

      If we accept the results derived from double slit experiments, that a particle can pass through both slits at the same time, there is no reason that particle cannot pass through three slits at the same time. We can then reasonably assume that the same particle can pass through n slits at the same time. Consider n is a very large number. Short of infinitely large for argument’s sake. That means the space between the first and the last slit is also immense.

      Now add in the fact that this happens in one single instant. If we apply the above to Einstein’s spacetime complementarity, we note that space is maximized while time is minimized in the above scheme.

      Leaving the quantum level, there could be one similar situation found at the beginning of the universe. Right before the big bang, one could speculate spacetime is mainly space. With little time component yet. Then comes the big bang. And spacetime begins operating. Going “forward”, the universe expands. Eventually, things cool down as space expands so much so that spacetime is again dominated by space with diminishing time. Ultimately reaching a state postulated by Roger Penrose, in a cyclic universe model, returning to a situation right before another big bang. In other words, this cyclic model can be described rather simply by the relative variation of space and time in the spacetime complementarity. Stemming from findings noted at the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics.

      Wonder if Brian Greene and others think this is reasonable?

      • Davidmac

        Let me comment on both parts of your post. First, the CCC universe proposed by Penrose is interesting, but I have my doubts that it can ever be tested. To me, it seems that the speedup of the expansion of the Universe that appears to be occurring precludes having any sort of cyclical type of universe. I know Roger would disagree with that statement, but I had a hard time understanding how he gets back to the crossover point without a prior contraction phase.

        The second thing was actually your first; the double slit experiment. As you have proposed something that I wondered about myself—multiple slits in a wider setting, althought not infinite—, determining what happens with single photons fired through multiple slits. I can’t believe it hasn’t been done before, and if it has why didn’t we hear something about it? My own theory of ultrawaves suggests that it is the size (frequency) of the photons that interacts with the material that the slits are in, which is why single photons produce the same interference pattern that multiple photons do. It is merely an apparent interference between waves that occurs, not an actual interference. I believe what more slits will show is that wave size dictated by frequency will show apparent interference patterns that change with frequency, so that more slits are involved with longer wavelengths. Of course, it is not possible to get more slits involved without widening the beam, which alters the results. We are left with changing the slit sizes instead. I do not know if this was done either, but it also would be problematic in trying to distinguish what was actually happening. Until someone can devise the apropriate experiment, we are not going to be able to determine if quantum theory is illusory or real.

    • Robert H. McEachern

      Most physicists utterly fail to distinguish between the properties of “reality” and the properties of their “descriptions of reality”. For example, all such descriptions, written in the English language, contain only 26 letters, a-z. One might assume from this property of the description, that this must correspond to some fundamental property of the entities being described; perhaps the universe is actually constructed from just 26 fundamental letters. This assumption is no more or less absurd than the one most physicists have made. Properties like the Uncertainty Principle, Superposition and Entanglement, are all properties of the mathematical language being used to describe the world – Fourier Analysis. Consequently, it is inevitable that these properties will appear in all such descriptions of reality, regardless of whether or not they are properties of the entities being described, just as it is inevitable that the 26 letters appear in all such descriptions written in English. To subsequently assume that such properties must be actual properties of the entities being described, is just that, an assumption, and not a very good one.

      Fourier analysis was developed, two hundred years ago, precisely to inject superposition into the description of solutions to partial differential equations, to render the equations solvable. Consequently, when Fourier analysis was adopted as the means to describe wave-functions mathematically, superposition was injected into Quantum Mechanical descriptions of reality. The same is true of the famous uncertainty principle; it is another property of Fourier analysis – it inevitably appears in any mathematical descriptions of phenomenon which are based on Fourier Transforms – Quantum or Classical.

      From the perspective of Information Theory (which deals with how many bits of “information” may be recovered from a received “message” or “observation”) mathematical equations are virtually devoid of information. That is, it takes very few bits to encode a set of equations into a message. In fact, and this is the important point, it takes far fewer bits than almost any “interpretation” which has be slapped onto the equations. The significance of this, is that as a consequence, the “interpretation” cannot possibly be contained “within” the equations. Thus, it is quite possible to have a valid set of equations, like those in quantum mechanics, that appear to describe reality with great accuracy, but to nevertheless have one or more completely wrong interpretations slapped upon it.

      The most common reason for these bad interpretations is when the properties of the “descriptions of reality” are assumed to correspond exactly with the properties of ”reality” per se. The most egregious example of this is Bell’s purported proof of his inequality theorem. Simply because the quantum mechanical descriptions of “spin” and “polarization” contain multiple components, Bell assumed that multiple components must exist in reality. This is tantamount to assuming that each “message” or “observation”, received when examining an object with “spin” or “polarization”, must contain multiple bits in the message – one for each component. Bell never considered the case that phenomenon like “spin”, may only encode one bit of information. His theorem cannot be proven in that case, but that case is consistent with all experimental observations. In effect, Bell unwittingly assumed that no Quantum message can ever contain fewer that three bits of information – even if only one may ever be recovered. The famous Copenhagen Interpretation requires no such assumption – it simply states that only one bit can ever be recovered, and we don’t know why. But a reason why becomes obvious if the message only contains a single bit in the first place, in spite of the fact that the mathematical description of that one bit requires more than one component, in order to complete the description.

      • Felipe

        In response only to your first sentence. In the natural sciences there is no such thing as reality (or truth), nor is there even the necessity to define it. There are just models that explain observations, and these models make predictions about new observations. Any ‘true’ science can only wish to describe predictions, not pin some sort of ‘truth equation’. I cannot emphasize this more, natural science is not about ‘reality’, its about describing it.

        • Pbarnes

          It’s fine that you make that point, but the title of this blog is “The Nature of Reality”, that sounds like ontology to me.

    • Dov

      Re Quantum Mechanics And Entanglement

      A. Essence Of Quantum Mechanics

      The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most probable cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.

      Energy-mass relationship governs also the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.

      Mechanisms do not set/determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states.

      The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

      B. Entanglement loophole closed

      “A long-distance experiment rejects a challenge to quantum physics.”

      An old USSR joke:

      Question: Is it true that the USSR-made car “Volga” makes a 90-degree turn at 100 km/hr?

      Answer: Yes…. but only once.

      – Is entanglement a “yes, but only once” affair for each entangled objects pair/group?

      and, if so indeed,

      – Are the states-of-systems of entangled objects decided upon separation of the objects, not upon their measurment?

      Dov Henis
      (Comments From 22nd Century)

    • Anonymous

      While we question the incomprehensibility of Quantum Mechanics, we seem to be ignoring the the physiology of perception. Why the two are not seen as directly related, at least on a level beyond science fiction, is puzzling because we have explicit evidence that reality is an illusion without the implications of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics merely scientifically supports why reality is an illusion; why it must be an illusion to appear real in the first place.

      Aside from the biological processes we ascribe to making sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch the legitimate perceptive means to “know” reality, there is a more foundation process on which these ride, namely that no experience is possible without the conception of it, including the perceptive abilities of our physical senses.

      We have physical experience dependent exclusively on conceptions that precede that physical experience. We have direct evidence of this, even the direct experience of it, but have no clue how to define it.

      For example, we know we can “see” things because we have discovered that when light reflects off an “object” and enters our “eyes”, that light is converted into an electro-chemical code that traverses our optic nerve to the vision center in our brain. Here that code gets matched against all the other codes of things “seen” until a match is found, upon which we now have recognition of what is being “seen”. If no match is found, we now have a new object to add to all the other image codes in our vision centers database. At the same time, the other sensory centers of the brain also receive what the vision center claims is “out there” so they too may relate information about this “object” and give us further confirmation of recognition depending on whether sound, smell, taste, and feel are associated with the vision we are having.

      This, basically is how we relate to physical reality; how recognize and “know” it. It’s the way we learn and discover and define what is around us. Then we discover Quantum Mechanics, and find out all this experience we’;ve been having and the means we’ve been using to understand it no longer seems to apply.

      But there is an obviousness to all this we apparently overlook. The reality we think is perceptible exclusively through our physical senses in fact never exists until it gets recognized in our brains. What we “see” is an unknown until first all the processes of vision above can be completed. From this, we can only conclude that the only place this reality does exist for real is in the centers of our brain that recognize and give us definition of what information our nerves relayed. This at least conforms to Quantum Mechanics definition of matter and energy’s elusive, less then physical nature as well. We can more easily understand the collapse of wave function as actually that “instant” of recognition of our sensory observations.

      But wait, there’s another obvious problem. If we have the direct evidence of physical reality’s less then physical nature as being really just concepts from neurological perceptions, the our physical identity too is really just a perception of substance that also is less then physical.

      Where then are these concepts originating? Where are these thoughts that give us experience, recognition, identity, and knowledge residing? How do they enable us each to have individual and unique identity as well as shared and collective experience? There is really only one explanation. We define it as consciousness, the ability to be aware. How then does this ability manifest itself into Quantum Mechanics, our biological identity, and the physical reality we perceive within and all around us?

      We have to go back to the collapse of wave function to get some glimmer of the answer to the above questions. If matter does not exist until it is observed, or even if it exists in every conceivable state possible as energy, and only observation forces it to appear physically real as a specific state, and we each consist of this matter, we cannot appear real until we too are observed into the identity we each see ourselves to be. We, like all around us, cannot exist until we are observed to exist. Who or what then is doing this observation? This is reality’s ultimate question and why it’s such a grand illusion.

      The answer lies just beyond that Big Bang we think gave us our origin. I believe that answer has a name and it is God. Draw your own conclusions.
      This is all of course just my humble opinion.

      • Mott Phys

        we look the microscopic world as a world made by layers.then what observer are the parts of event of quantum world,the asymmetries place the space and time in check,changes the things of made by ours instruments ,that altere a reality.then see just signals that many
        once modief in the spacetime
        the entanglement shows us that our perceptions of the evets manipulate the dates.then ocur a symmetry breakdown that permit
        localize the spins in the past time of the entanglement well as the
        future time of that occrrence,then ntrate of quantum states and substates that would be vector bundles that are the infinity subspacetimes that gives us the processes of energies that are
        or are modified by these layer,and altere the sansations that obtain when measure momentum x position.have then double vector states
        -that is our perception actuing to quantum world as one all.
        the reality is a somatory of all those layer that get obtain in discrte fields of space,through of noncommutative topological quantum fields
        and clifford ‘s algebras,that permit us associate in parts to nonassociativy rings that carry a discrete and continuos of spacetime
        structures,at the same time,then the singullarrities are defined as
        chaotics process of the spacetime,when seen by GTR,
        but the symmetry breakdown permits encounters these layes or superpositions of waves,with vector fields colapsed.
        then str and quantic mechanics inified by dynamics symmetry breakdown that permit understand the str and gte by the QM,as
        entity made by strings

    • Hakuin Suso

      There are two things that anyone knows without doubt. First, they exist. Second, they experience. The nature of our existence and that experience, however, have been hotly debated over the centuries.

      In part because experience appears separate from the experiencer, it is naively assumed the objects of experience have an existence of their own apart from the observer. This, however, is an assumption and, technically, not a very good one at that because there is no way to prove an object exists in every way shape or form outside of consciousness. This because in order to prove that things exist outside of consciousness means there would have to be a way of knowing that precludes consciousness. In other words, you’d have to know it exists without actually being aware it exists. You’d have to know it exists without actually knowing it exists. And such “knowing” is essentially the definition of an assumption.

      In light of the above, Einstein’s discomfort with the idea that no reality exists outside of our own perceptions is really just an indication of his ignorance of basic philosophic ideas debated for centuries. And his implication that the moon must exist whether were looking at it or not is just a sign of his simplistic and naive philosophical reasoning on the matter. Reasoning as naive and simplistic as Niels Bohr statement that quantum mechanics needs no further explanation. In fact, it does because QM cuts to the very heart of the assumption that matter and energy exist independently of any observer, and that consciousness can be left out of the equation when trying to understand the universe.

      Christopher Fuchs and Asher Peres are correct when they say that, “If the world is such that we can never identify a reality independent of our experimental activity (i.e, independent of consciousness), then we must be prepared for that”. But to add that this isn’t a problem of “quantum physics at all, but a problem of human beings” only continues the blind assumption that objects exist in every way, shape and form independently of consciousness. Or, specific to this subject, that quantum physics exists independently of the physicist.

    • Anonymous

      One might fairly ask, what difference does all of this make, to be using our tax dollars to interpret such gibberish, rather than instead using our scientific brains to figure out how to get rid of global pollution, WMD’s and similar nightmares our modern science and ‘education’ has produced.

      The obvious never seems to dawn on the proud minds of modern scientists, that human mathematics are never going to adequately describe the mind of God. After all, first there was God, then there was a universe and then there was human mathematics, rather than the other way around. At least, so the logic would seem.

      Why would anyone with 20 educational degrees or no degrees at all arbitrarily assume that human mathematics are ever going to explain how the universe ultimately functions? Get a life, go do something useful for a change.

    • Myunus

      Instead of ‘the world is such’ in the penultimate sentence, read ‘if we are such’ and the problem of interpretation is solved.

    • Myunus

      The problem of interpretation disappears if, instead of ‘if the world is such’ in the quotation, one reads ‘if we are such’.

    • Pbarnes

      Sorry to be comming to this discussion so late, but I received a book that I wanted a chance to read first. I highly recomend it to those of you who have “new age” ideas about the Uncertainty Principle. The book by Robert P. Crease is “The Great Equations”. I think the staff (or is it bloggORS vs BloggIES) should respond to moore of the comments. I realize not all comments need a response, or could bear one, but if the staff dosen’t put some more effort into this it is going to wither away. I I think many of the commentors would like your take on their ideas and the ideas of others. I, for example, would like your take on Mr. McEachern’s comment. He is effectively calling physicists pompous windbags and it seems to me with some justification. By saying “is” instead of “as if it were” they tend to stifle a thorough examination of the ontology, particularly in their own minds.

      My take on the Copenhagen (read Bohr’s) interpretation is that it says two things: 1) There is something going on at the micro level that we can’t explain with classical concepts, and 2) There is no way to find out more about the situation so just accept that the method works. It does not say that what is happening is not real or that it depends on our perception. Heisenberg insisted that his method (which is mathematically identical to the wave equation) was a statistical abstraction similar to the gas laws and gave a collective answer only. He apparently tired of arguing with Bohr and finally acquiesced.

      One thing most of the players agreed upon was that the wave equation was not a description of a particle, but gave the probability that the particle was in a particular place. There was no concept of a “collapsing wave function” this seems to be a later invention. What happens is that when a measurement is taken it physically jostles things around and the wave function must be recalculated to give future predictions.

      Perhaps part of the problem is the difference it the terms people use, “observation”, “measurement” and “perception”. The first includes the latter two, but measurement is the only one directly involved in qm. I have to say I’m with Heisenberg on this, I think we are talking about particle demographics. I have seen nothing to rule out this interpretation so it seemms strange to choose some esoteric ontology.

      A look at the three doors problem on “Lets Make A Deal” illustrates what happens in the macro world. There is a prize behind one of three doors and you choose a door, say door #3. There is a 1/3 chance you are right from your perspective, but the host can see the prize (he is perceiving it) and knows with 100% certainty which door it is behind. it is not in some state of superposition behind all three doors. The 1/3 proobability measures your knowledge of the situation only, nothing at all about the prize. Next the host opens an empty door, say door #1 and gives you the option of switching your choice to door #2, which you do with the knowledge that there is a 2/3 chance the prize is behind door #2. No wave function collapse , the prize didn’t move, yet the probability that the prize was behind door #2 changed. What happened is your knowledge of the situation changed.

      Now to look at something closer to the quantun world, yet still in the deterministic world. Consider shooting a very small grain of sand into a bucket of water. Because we don’t know how each molecule of water is bouncing around the description of the path of the particle will have to be a proobabilistic function with the temperature of the water and the momentum of the grain of sand as parameters. Once again it is clear this probability function is a measure of your knowledge, not the physical state of the grain of sand.

      Since quantum effects are clearly not random and follow strict, reliable rules unfailingly (as evidenced by the stunning success and reliability of these methods), the implication is that cause and effect hold in the quantum world making it a deterministic system just like the macro world. If this is true then the wave function must measure your knowledge, not properties of the real world.
      [it just occured to me that time, as we experience it, and cause and effect are two faces of the same thing – now that’s one to sleep on!]
      If this is true then any system where time operates “normally” is a deterministic system and any probabilistic description must measure our knowledge only.

      While the above is not a proof it seems to me to be a damn good hint that quantim mechanics is just particle demoographics. To claim otherwise without compelling evidence seems counterintuative, and as Bohr pointed out there is no way to get that evidence. I would add that Einstein’s intuition is as likely as anyone’s to be correct. I would go along with unseen actors on the stage, and I suspect the unseen actor is the stage itself.

      Which brings me to the real point of this comment – there is a question of some significence that I have not seen addressed. Is electromagnetic radiation necessarily quantatized, or we looking at a special case only, The overwhelmingly common case but a special case nonetheless? The situation is this – you have an emiter, a carrying medium and a detector. If the emiter only radiates pulses and the detector cannot discriminate between continuous waves and pulses then one dose not know if the medium can support continuous waves.

      I suggest an experiment using a cavity magnatron and an atomic source that can radiate at the same wavelength. The detector has me stumped though – maybe some twin slit arraingement. The whole experiment to be carried out in a hard vacuum so that the radiation cannot be absorbed and re-emited.

      If it turns out that space can support continuous waves then I have a simple, intuative ontology that ties everything together top to bottom, including dark energy and right handedness. I should qualify this by pointing out that I am not a physicist nor mathematician and can give only a “mechanical” description. Also while I can explain E=MC^2, gravitational lensing and time dialation in a gravitational field there are some effects of Special Relativity I can’t wrap my mind around and they seem to me to be illusion.

    • Robert H. McEachern

      In response to Pbarnes, let me say that, having been educated as a physicist myself, I did not intend to imply that physicists are “pompous windbags.” Rather, I believe that it is MOST unfortunate that Quantum Theory was developed a generation before Information Theory. If it had been the other way around, I believe that none of the mis-interpretations of Quantum Theory, that presently exist, would have ever come into being. From the perspective of Information Theory, there is nothing mysterious about why observations are quantized, why the minimum number of observable states is always two, or why quantized observations occur much more frequently in small systems rather than large.

      Information is always quantized, it only occurs in multiples of a unit known as a “bit”, and that smallest possible unit has exactly two states. If you think of any physical entity, particle, wave, or anything else, as a message, then any observation of that entity, can be thought of as an attempt to recover the information content of that message. Since Information is always quantized, so is any and all information recoverable from any observation. For large systems, this information content is so large. that it appears to be un-quantized (continuous) since the smallest unit is lost, far below the noise in the observations; since it cannot be seen, it was mistakenly assumed not to exist. But there is a strong correlation between the size (number of particles, waves etc.) making-up a “message” and the information content of the message. Hence, small systems, such as an individual particle, contain such small amounts of recoverable information, that it becomes rather obvious that one must be observing a very limited number of states, and thus a very limited number of bits; if there are only two states, then the message only contains one bit.

      Much more importantly, because Information Theory was only developed long after the development of QuantumTheory, the early developers of Quantum Theory were unaware of one of the most important discoveries of Information Theory; one’s ability to recover information from a message is STRONGLY dependent on a priori knowledge. Of course, it was obvious that a priori knowledge was critical to the recovery of information from SOME types of messages, just think how much easier it is to read an encrypted message if one knows the encryption key. But it was not at all obvious, that anything like that would actually apply, when simply attempting to observe a physical system. But it does.

      When Marilyn Vos Savant published her analysis of the “Lets Make a Deal” problem, over twenty years ago, it created a national furor. Many college math and statistics professors wrote in to say that she was obviously wrong – it was just a simple problem in random probabilities. But they were wrong, and she was right. It was not a simply problem in random probabilities, it was a simple problem illustrating how the game-show host’s use of a priori knowledge can significantly change both the probabilities of the observable states, and the “interpretation” of those results.

      This has a direct bearing on the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Why? Because elementary particles possess no a priori knowledge of the other particles with which they interact. Hence, they do not, and cannot act as though they do have such knowledge. Hence, their interactions can be well-described, by a theory, such as Quantum Theory, that utterly fails to take any such a priori knowledge into account. Unfortunately for the physicists, the same cannot be said of their own interactions with such particles. To be more specific, in order to solve the differential equations that occur in QM, one needs to know not just the equations, but also the auxiliary conditions, such as initial conditions, boundary values etc. For any complex system, such as one containing a human observer, the information content of the system (such as the information content of the observers brain, regarding experimental set-ups etc.) is astronomically large in comparison with the information content of either the equations or the objects being observed. Whenever an observer makes use of such information, he is behaving in a way quite unlike any entity described by the equations of QM – they describe only entities without such information.

      As noted in my previous post, equations are virtually devoid of information. But the auxiliary conditions can be rich in information. So, if one observes an information-rich interpretation of the observations of such a system, where did this information come from? The equations? Or the auxiliary conditions? Well, it cannot come from the equations, for the simple reason that they do not possess any. Consequently, ALL interpretations are being generated from the auxiliary conditions, such as the a priori knowledge the observer has of the experimental set-up, and not just from the actual results of the observation (which, like the equations, are also “information sparse” in the case of most QM experiments). This is a behavior quite unlike that of the particles being observed.

      As in the “Lets Make a Deal” problem, the physicists have neglected the critical impact, that their own a priori information, regarding their own experiments, has on how THEY behave when attempting to interpret the results. Everything of any real interest in THEIR behavior, is being caused by the initial conditions in their brains, not the equations per se, or the experimental observations. For example, the results of the famous double slit experiment cannot reliably be interpreted as being due to interference, EXCEPT via the exploitation of a priori knowledge that the pattern resulted from a collimated beam being shot at the slits. It is only the observer, not the particles in the beam, or the equations of QM that know that fact. Without knowing such facts, for all the observer knows, you or I, could have secretly crept in and produced the results, after disabling his set-up. Ridiculous?

      As one last “food for thought” consideration, ask yourself why medical experimenters, unlike physicists, only accept “double blind” experiments as the gold-standard for interpreting results. It is because, they have learned, the hard way, that allowing the experimenters to have ANY a priori information about what is actually being investigated is a recipe for all sorts of bad interpretations of the investigation. The problem is not in the Physics. It is in the interpretations. But those exist only in the realm of meta-physics, not physics. Although few physicists have learned the value of “double-blind” experiments, most of them have learned to avoid meta-physics and just stick to the physics itself.

      • Pbarnes

        Thanks for the reply. If I read you right, Bohr was correct in saying there is no way to get more information, at least directly. by the way the pompous windbags was calculated to get a response.

        • Robert H. McEachern

          Bohr was not correct. There may very well be a way to get more information, but only by exploiting other, a priori known information, concerning such things as both WHAT to attempt to observe and HOW to implement that attempt. But often, that type of a priori knowledge can only be obtained by very inefficient means, such as “Trial and Error” or “dumb luck”. As a well-known example of this type of phenomenon, consider a STRONG password. It might be so strong that you could never deduce it or guess it. But if someone was dumb enough to write it down on a post-it stuck to a PC… well, it’s your lucky day.

          It is a misinterpretation of the Uncertainty Principle to state that estimates of observable variables are forever uncertain. Fourier’s original formulation of Fourier Analysis, from which the uncertainty principle arises, assumed you would never even try. It says nothing at all about what the outcome will be if you do try and you have suitable a priori knowledge to go about trying in a useful way. Many forms of modern communications, beginning with FM radio receivers and even you perception of visual color and auditory pitch, exploit this “loophole”. In a very real sense, this is exactly what the issue is with having a priori knowledge of sending a collimated particle beam into a double-slit experiment.

          Think of the role that a known alphabet has is attempting to read a note written by someone with band handwriting. Is some illegible character the tenth letter in the English alphabet? Is it the 123rd character? Or the 345th? or the 12856th? It CANNOT be any of the latter, because you know, a priori, that such letters a not allowed. Exploiting this type of knowledge GREATLY increases the probability of correctly recovering the intended message. Almost all forms of modern digital communications exploit this type of behavior. It is a major reason why you digital HDTV picture is so much cleaner than your old analog TV.

          • Pbarnes

            Thanks again for the further explanation. So we are left with no real idea of what is happening and no guide as to how to find out. Do you want to put your two bits in or just stand on you don’t know?

            This makes one view all theories with suspicion, particularly some of the twin slit experiments with particles. Back in the 80’s when these were kind of a fad you could clearly see the a priori “knowledge” shining through.

            Are there situations where information theory could rule out finding information even though it existed?

            I feel like I am stealing free class time, thanks again.

            • Robert H. McEachern

              We have a great deal of knowledge regarding what “is happening”. The real problem is that we have little knowledge about “why” it is happening. This ultimately boils down to the old question “why is there something rather than nothing?” Neither I nor anyone else has any good answer to that.

              There is no reason to view all theories with suspicion. Many, like QM, are well tested. The problem is that, in addition to the actual theories, there are all kinds of other associated things, such as interpretations, speculations etc.,that are not actually part of the theory, but are frequently, and incorrectly, viewed as though they were.

              For example, in two slit experiments, an “interference” pattern is observed. This is not in doubt. There is also no doubt about the fact that QM can predict that it will occur and what it will look like. But the question “Why does it occur?” still remains. Saying that “It looks just like an interference pattern produced by waves”, does not “prove” that it was caused by a wave phenomenon. It does not even provide much evidence to conclude that it was “probably” caused by a wave phenomenon. One might just as easily say that ‘It looks just like a quantized scattering pattern” produced by scattering particles off the slit’s structure. I might add that experiments, in which only the central post of the slits is present (a very thin wire) have been observed to produce an “interference” pattern. By why call that an “interference” pattern? Calling it a “scattering” pattern might make more intuitive sense. But none of this actually proves anything. It all remains outside of the actual theory.

              As an analogy, consider a yellow image on your computer monitor. You really do observe a “yellow” pattern. But if you examine the “yellow” pattern with a strong magnifying glass, you will then observe that there actually is no yellow light at all, coming from the screen. The fact that you really do see something that COULD HAVE BEEN caused by a single wavelength of “Yellow” light, does not provide any evidence that it actually was; other causes may be not only possible, but also more probable.

              In the particular cases of both color perception and the two-slit experiment, the ambiguity in the possible cause for the pattern’s appearance ultimately derive from the same source; neither is even attempting to directly measure or characterize ANY wave-like phenomenon. Both of them ultimately just count particles – they count the relative number of particles being detected at either different locations (two slit) or by different cone cells in the retina (color vision). From these particle counts, they subsequently INFER the existence of a wave phenomenon. But what they have actually MEASURED, does not even have the units of any wave-like phenomenon (units of frequency or phase). Note that in the case of color vision, the details of the INFERENCE are not even correct; The visual system infers the existence of a single wavelength, corresponding to “yellow”, but the light from the screen actually consists of green and red, with no yellow. And this remains a very useful thing for it do do, even though it is “wrong”!

              Your question “Are there situations where information theory could rule out finding information even though it existed?” reminds me of the ancient Greeks. In Plato’s “Meno”, the title character, Meno, asks Socrates how it is ever possible to discover knowledge. In Grube’s translation (lines 80d):

              “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?”

              But to answer your question, yes. There is a relationship, sort of a generalization of the uncertainty principle, known as the Shannon Capacity Theorem. It takes the form of the uncertainty principle multiplied by an additional term that depends of the “signal-to-noise ratio”. It states that the number of “bits per second” of information that can ever be recovered from an observation is always less than the value specified by this more generalized uncertainty principle. Note that the limit is not on the number of bits that can be recovered, but on the rate at which they can be recovered.

              In the case of the two-slit experiment, the signal-to-noise ratio is basically just a function of the number of particles. If only a single particle is sent through the slits, the Shannon Capacity reduces to the familiar uncertainty principle. But then, there is no interference pattern either. In both this case, and the color vision system, if you know a priori that only a single energy state (single wavelength) exists within a multi-particle beam being detected, this fact, together with the details of the particles’ detected distribution (position of the nulls, in the two-slit experiment), enables one to INFER what that single wavelength must have been, with an accuracy that is dependent on the number of detected particles (signal-to-noise ratio). As the number of particles used to create the “interference” pattern is increased, one can more accurately MEASURE the position of the nulls in the interference pattern, and, combined with the a prior knowledge that only one energy state exists, INFER a more accurate estimate for a wavelength “associated” with that energy.

            • Pbarnes


    • Toddlincoln8

      Information without interpretation is mere nonsense.

    • Roger Garcia

      Well, there are negative numbers in Mathematics but there there aren’t negative numbers in Nature. Negative numbers comes from a conventional reference system like the one Descartes’ invented. In nature there are opposite properties as is in Magnetic and EM charges that we call negative and positive but there is no directions in space or time other than one. So the reality described and modelled by Maths isn’t totally, completely and fully real.

      The Physical Reality we deal with using Maths., extracted from our experience that isn’t absolute for real, that what we have is a representation, a map, a model of the reality developed by our mind that exists, totally and fully, only inside it.

      May be we trust Maths too much when we should always keep in mind that the Physical Reality we model with Maths., Is just that, A MODEL.

    • Gene

      Perhaps the difference between phenomenae at microscopic levels, and at larger levels, is that occurrences on a large scale involve the average of microscopic events, in effect cancelling each other out.

      For example, compressed air in a balloon involves molecules striking the sides. However, the molecules striking the left side would be approximately equal to those striking the right side, such that they do not impel the balloon to go anywhere. There is no wind, because the effects of wind cancel one another out. One can just assume it is as if there were no such molecules acting at all.

    • Gene

      Continuing the below, a large object may have many quantum events taking place within it. However, there are so many, that an effect created by one cancels out an opposite effect created by another, such that it is as if the events were not taking place at all.

    • Wayne Kelsey

      Quantum physics is and will be at the forefront of human curiosity for some time. Mankind will have come a long, long way before we understand all of the energy forces and inter-actions between those forces in our universe. Bohr fit things together- took them apart- gave up- and kept on plugging. Broca’s Brain with those uncanny thought experiments gave us many new insights, but the past centuries’ guru has been superseded by supersymetry and the like. Neutrino eigenstates was a very good clue to the complexities of those forces and just what the operational boundary lines might look like outside our dimensional realm. A lot of physicists pondered the possibility of that phenomenon and what the ramifications would eventually lead us to. As we ponder what is taking place at the edge of the continuum and what happens to energies as they leave the known and disappear into a black hole and many other fascinating functions of our universe, we as humans must come to understand one easily understood thing- this is home. It is where we live- and where we come from. Therein lies the challenge: What’s goin’ on down home?

    • Rgarciam

      “Perhaps the interpretation problem isn’t a problem of quantum physics at all, but a problem of human beings.”

      That is what most probably happens. If we analyse how information is perceived by our senses and processed in our brain we would realize the lot of flaws that come together with it into its storage in our neurons and then, again, when we process that information to choose or take decisions, whatever they would be.

      The Galaxtic Phycicist, Paul Diract, wisely said that QM isn’t a finished work, it is a theory that MUST BE UP GRADED TO FIT IN PROPERLY. He was Autist, fundamentally, a logical Guy with very little if so, emotional imput into his thoughs, which means that he had a sort of a more evolved brain. Besides, there is another warning, our mind and our language aren’t evolved enough to properly handle the Quantum and the Cosmic Reality. The Nano and the Macro Realities. We are in between.

      In addition, we, as humans, have a BIG psychological imput underlying any idea we pop up and so, it is an emotional problem what means that in logical terms we are crippled and so, in a need for a deep up grading if we are to ever match Mother Nature, Universe or Physical Reality’s deepest mysteries..

      Perhaps, we are in the brink of a mayor Cosmic change. The orbital period of our Galaxy and of our solar system too, is 200 – 250 million years, the age of Dinosours and all sort of BIG BIG organisms. Then, chances are that IF we, as species, last some million years we could catch up a similar trend but in mental terms of course. I doubt that we will do, so we will disappear painless and gloryless.

      Please, don’t start praying as a fanatical believer because it has never worked nor is going to work. 🙂

    • Rgarciam

      Two things I guess we should be always aware, first, Science develops, for obvious reasons, JUST A MODEL, A MAP OF THE REALITY THAT ISN’T AND NEVER WILL BE THE REALITY. Second, we CAN’T pretend that because there are a very large bunch of emotional believers, the Physical Reality, Universe or Nature has a creator and as a consequence, ours is the only and unique universe ever existed. It can’t be that way because whatever exists out there is eternal and infinity NO MATTER WHAT. Just because we are here isn’t enough reason to believe that ours is the only and firsts mind ever.

      We should be prepared to accept our infinitesimal and temporarily condition and so our incapacity to put the cork to the bottle, it will remains open for ever. However, we should always try, just for fun.

      Corollary: We shouldn’t have scruples thinking about the size and age of the Universe (so called Multiverse). I mean, one eternal and infinite where our is inside. It will help to expand our perception of an infinite and eternal Physical Reality where an infinite number of microverses like ours, exist in all stages of evolution from BB to Big Crunch sort of. I guess, this scenery is infinitely more logical that that one inherited from the bible that, unfortunately, pervades and obstructs the human mind of all ages. We MUST be free of such a myth if we are entitled to accomplish something really relevant.

    • Phyllis Mclemore

      There are some physicists that have found the answers. You can go to their colleges to get a bachelor’s degree teaching that we literally live in parallel realities that vibrate at such different frequencies from each other that they are literally vibrating within each other. Literally.

      I have got a big sense of humor.

      Our reality vibrates so fast that everybody forgets that the spin of the electron makes us non solid. We are literally our souls on earth vibrating as a series of waves and coils. We are electromagnetic wave packets. We are one with our bodies while we are on earth. And then we leave these bodies through literal tunnels. That is what energy does. It makes tunnels to get from here to there. We are energy. This is the secret behind magic and miracles.
      People are 100% energy that vibrates light. I don’t get the disconnect between physicists. On this post several blogs down I did not find this explanation. It is at the heart of what Bohm and Brennan and Tiller and Pribram and Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Dirac and Broglie and Bohr say.

      In the book “The Holographic Universe” Bohm says that electrons behave in plasmas like interconnected wholes–coordinated and collective movements more like a ballet dance. He said that all points in space are equal to all other points in space. He said that it is meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from anything else. At the subquantum level location ceases to exist. It is called non locality and must look like a spiders web where all the intersections are vibrating the same speed. So the subquantum level is where the spider’s web vibrates so fast that we think it is not there, yet it is creating us; and with this creativity we are creating ourselves from this subquantum level–transforming this level of energy into us–wave packets full of a series of waves and coils we call bodies. I have got to have pictures.
      Bohr said that subatomic particles are not independent things, but are part of an undivided system. Brennan says that we are magnificent powerful beings of energy and light that live forever, literally.

      We and everything else vibrates frequencies and when you see that big picture like a spider web you see how the spider can know where the bug is. It is the theory of everything. It is how prayer can go around the world. It is energy and the imagination that starts the wave packet to get there. They are ONE because the spider web is really big. It is not as if we fall off the side of the spider web. What I understand is that this energy being that people call God is so big that we can’t see the edges. We are like atoms within its body it is so big.

      The all of reality is like the spider web and schools of electrons and quarks– and faster than light wavicles– vibrate within it originating with the intent of the spider web, which is this God like creature that wants to know everything. Driven with energy to know and create, this vast, magnificent spider web expands with information that we get for it because we want to learn just like our parent–THE SPIDER WEB. OMG!!! That is why Jesus said that God is his mother and father. Jesus said that we are light and that we come from the light. He was trying to teach us physics–the magic of the electron. But who could understand without a Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland???
      It is this century within the spacious NOW that we find out we are not solid because physicists are splitting atoms and finding quarks, etc OMG!!! We are all vibrating this God that everybody thinks is way over there or maybe nonexistent!!! Our electrons are vibrating this God and nobody is telling anybody, hardly.
      Since we are all wave packets vibrating on this spider web, being all that the spider web consists of–which is energy–then why is it that the world still has wars and prisons and murder and racism? Why doesn’t the world know that it is not solid? So it can stop being afraid thinking that it dies. The fear causes the wars and the prisons and the racism–and the greediness of Wall Street.
      Because physicists have not taken this information to grade schools, kids are still being bullied. The kids being bullied are still growing up to bully others—all because they do not know they vibrate with the speed of electrons making them magnificently magical and miraculous now–with death and disease not in sight.
      There is nothing to fight for. This is a temporary reality. It vibrates only because so many beings have forgotten that they are 100% energy vibrating all that God is right now. We are already perfect and innocent. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It really is a stage, a movie, where energy beings are acting out their intents–which become more wave packets.
      In the Course of Miracles books I understand all these same things—that people are wave packets in the body of a being that vibrates so fast we cannot see the end. We are ONE with God already. Now we don’t have to stay on earth. Once you find out that you are a vibrating wave packet that shines so much light– in the body of a God that is itself energy, then there is no death. It is a step from one frequency to the next. That is what death is. A step in frequency.
      We are the wave packets, the spiders, the bugs, etc that reach out for the spider web to experience what is there. Literally. This is the only thing that explains everything and I get this from physicists that discuss it in books like “The Hands of Light” by Barbara Brennan and “The Holographic Universe” by Talbot.

      There is no getting around the fact that at the core of the core is energy. No matter what it is called it is still vibrating and people don’t know how to start that vibration because they don’t know what the purpose is. Our world is in such a state of agitation because it does not know its one purpose. Our one purpose above all is to act like the electrons and quarks and quanta, etc that swim as ONE in oceans of plasmas. We are these quanta. They vibrate us. You can’t take quanta out of the atom. Which means you can’t take it out of people. When we don’t act as ONE we get sick. The world is sick because it is not acting in the best interest of all.
      What makes that spin go around the electron? I know that physicists don’t know and that is why they are afraid to tell society. They are in practice to know how everything looks “solid” when actually it is not. Some say words like “weird” to explain the behavior of quanta when people are the weird ones when they DON’T act like quanta
      The atom vibrates with the subatomic particles that occupy it, that also vibrate. How else do they move? why is this not mentioned enough? Nobody told me in grade school that I am vibrating the energy of this magnificent web that constantly expands and is magical. And it is a miracle because there is not one person anywhere that can create a quanta.

      Human beings are miracles because they don’t know how their atoms spin and vibrate and are very dependent on this spin. That is how this spin becomes our parents–everybody’s parents!!!! Maybe that is why Higgs Boson is called the God particle. Might as well be. And it vibrates within atheists, too.
      too much writing—-eyelive4ever@yahoo.com

    • Corey Duncan

      i believe that energy and everything in the quantum world is not in our dimension, rather in the fourth dimension until we probe it into our dimension. any thoughts or debates?

    • scriabiniste


      I’m certain
      That a fundamental explanation
      Of our universe’s laws
      Is more than ‘just because’
      And that whoever rolled the dice
      Would out of courtesy
      Have been a bit less randomly

      Copyright 2013 Emanuel E Garcia

      from “Wandering Bark”

    • M. Suisse

      A comparison of quantum interpretations, from the previously unexplored view of impedances at the quantum level, maybe be found here http://vixra.org/author/peter_cameron
      This comparison takes into account the PBR theorem as well as results from recent surveys.

    • Excellent explanation! For the wildest applications see STEP3: A Supreme Being’s Guide To Existence http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I8UQSKA

    • IdPnSD

      Mathematics itself is false. How can it then be used to describe nature? Real numbers are not real; they are false, because they are not objects of nature. Real numbers do not grow on trees, nor can be mined from ground. Can you use something false to describe something real?

      Can you describe any property of any object of nature using mathematics. Let us consider an electron. Can you isolate an electron? You cannot. All objects in the universe are simultaneously interconnected with all other objects of nature. You cannot even isolate earth. If you try to isolate earth, then all humans will die, the environment of earth will vanish. Same thing will happen to an electron.

      Uncertainty Principle (UP) is derived from Fourier Transform, which uses infinity. If real numbers are not objects of nature how can infinity be an object of nature. No finite number can be an approximation of infinity. If you replace infinity in Fourier Transform, by any finite number then uncertainty will vanish. Take a look at Heisenberg’s proof copied from his book at here https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/category/f-ch6-quantum-mechanics/

      Since UP uses infinity, no experiment on QM can be tested, because you have to wait for infinite time, which is not possible. Thus – “It works, is useful to understand our experiments, and makes no unnecessary assumptions.” – is a false statement.

    • An electron cannot be a point (tiny sphere-like).
      Think of all the things you can be absolutely sure an electron is doing, like… storing and releasing energy (vibrations) in exacting amounts and frequencies
      They are also what must be holding atoms to other atoms.
      And in elements they form in the exact pattern(s) needed. etc.
      A point is not going to do all that (plus a lot more).
      A point can spin, move in a straight line or remain at rest.
      A point cannot vibrate.
      And since everything would absolutely have to be connected, the only way something could “spin” and remain connected is with universal joints or some kind of axle. That means “spin” is eliminated and the point in question can only move in a straight line or remain at rest.

      An electron cannot be a “vague” thing.

      Strings (not the string theory type) easily explains everything. Nothing else is even in the ballpark.