Is There Really No Reality Beneath Quantum Theory? by Hou Ying Yau

Dear, Hou-Ying Yau. The so-called virtual particles can not be observed, since, otherwise, would be "real"

But these virtual particles, not observable, are the foundation of ad-hoc method of renormalization, which leads to the unwanted infinities. It contradicts the Copenhagen interpretation, since no observable particles, not real, according to this interpretation, are what determine all calculations, and therefore are real deterministically. Excellent, your point of view. One of the keys, I agree: the loss of information of a system that deep down, most likely, is not as indeterministic as presented now by the quantum theory.

It is possible that the interference of measurement or observation, with a local system disturbs a unitary space-time-energy, non-local, because in reality the space-time-energy would be a continuous quantized, not separable.

The information he lost to the observer causes. This appears to the observer probabilistic knowledge, but this does not mean that there is no underlying reality independent of the observer, as evidenced by the existence of unobservable particles, but that influence the so-called "real" world. For example, the effect Cassimir, measured experimentally

Dear Hou Ying Yau,

You have picked an important topic and generated a new approach. I agree that the properties of an uncharged particle include 4-momentum, time and space, and I agree that the particles are physically real and localizable. In my approach, (The Nature of the Wave Function), I do not focus on the Planck scale. You discuss whether the amplitude of the matter waves can have a physical interpretation related to the principles of space-time relativity. I first assume 'flat space' and then I apply the weak field equation of general relativity to arrive at a wave function for non-relativistic QM. Unlike you, I have not considered information loss. Although our approaches are somewhat different, we both agree there *is* reality beneath quantum theory.

I am happy to see yet another essay that accepts the reality of the particle and a physical significance for the wave function. Both theory and recent experiments seem to be pointing this way.

Best of luck in the essay contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing selected works for adding End Notes.

You are off the deep end in math and more abreast of present day physics.. Good Luck!

Impressed by considering the 4 parameters, E, p, t, and x to uncover determinism in quanta.

Simply, mass and energy, respectively, as the inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron where sphere and tetrahedron have equal surface-to-volume ratios at ANY size, e.g. equivalent "activity" as free energy , unbounded as size approaches zero. Conclusion, birth and death via the angular frequency proportional to E.

Comment? (may use in end notes)

I assert that there is a fundemental causal entity from which all of physics is built.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1368

As such, a virtual quantum particle might be akin to a Non-Relativistic system of an observable relativistic particle.

James,

Thanks for sharing the information. I will take a look.

Hou-Ying Yau

Dear Hou Ying Yau,

Uncertainty principle on quantum mechanics reveals the inconsistency of observables for the observer that evolves from the assumed discrete point-like particles nature of the universe. Thus we may think of the universe is having consistency in continuum and fluidity, in that quantization of string dynamics may resolve paradox.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Hou-Ying Yau,

If we can consider the continuous exchange of virtual particles like photons and gravitons between real particles as observation interactions, if we can say that particles by interacting observe one another, then they certainly exist, to each other, even if we are not observing them.

The question as to whether there is an underlying reality, beneath quantum mechanics is in fact the question whether there exists an absolute, objectively observable reality even if we might not be able to observe it objectively, undistorted by out observation interaction. The problem is that if we live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, and this universe is to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, should add to nothing, then it cannot be ascribed particular properties as a whole since this would violate conservation laws. This means that a Self-Creating Universe has no physical reality as a whole: if in a SCU particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, the consequence of which is that an observation interaction necessarily affects the observed.

If, as I argue in my essay ('Einstein's error'), at the most fundamental level (quantum level) we cannot divide events in cause and effect in a SCU, then in such universe the speed of light doesn't refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. In a SCU there's nothing weird or paradoxical about the EPR 'paradox': experimental proof of the validity of the EPR 'paradox' in fact indicates that we do live in a SCU.

Anton

Anton W.M. Biermans,

"The problem is that if we live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, and this universe is to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, should add to nothing, then it cannot be ascribed particular properties as a whole since this would violate conservation laws. This means that a Self-Creating Universe has no physical reality as a whole: if in a SCU particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, the consequence of which is that an observation interaction necessarily affects the observed.

If, as I argue in my essay ('Einstein's error'), at the most fundamental level (quantum level) we cannot divide events in cause and effect in a SCU, then in such universe the speed of light doesn't refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. In a SCU there's nothing weird or paradoxical about the EPR 'paradox': experimental proof of the validity of the EPR 'paradox' in fact indicates that we do live in a SCU."

Why does "a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, and this universe is to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, should add to nothing, then it cannot be ascribed particular properties as a whole since this would violate conservation laws."

In a self creating universe: You get the conservation law out of nothing? Presumably then: You can get anything, maybe even everyting, out of nothing. Is that your starting point?

James

James

Reason says that what comes out of nothing should add to nothing, so conservation laws in physics are the expression of this rational 'belief'. A SCU is a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it cost: nothing. Only if we believe that there is a God who created the universe (which I don't) such conservation laws do not hold.

The insight that the universe (with us inside of it) doesn't exist as a whole, has no reality as 'seen' from without, so to say, may be hard to accept as we seem to crave an absolute kind of existence, wishing for Someone in Whose eyes we exist, for our existence to transcend the universe itself, to be immortal, as if we have a gene that encodes a longing for God.

Alas, it is this wish which confuses the mind of even physicists which think themselves to be atheist but are not as long as they cling to causality like kids to their mother's skirts.

Anton

Anton,

Thank you for your reply. I will post a message for you in your forum.

James

Dear Hou-Ying

Beautifully written, well argued and agreeable. I too have determined an entirely deterministic interpretation of QM, including the Copenhagen interpretation. If a lens is part of the process of detection, prior to conversion and interpretation, then if there is no lens there can be nothing to interpret.

Bohr told Heisenberg, when he was about to fail his thesis, that he must learn how a lens worked before he could talk sense about physics. Perhaps we misinterpret and he actually did so!?

You've certainly earned a good score and I hope you do well. I'd also be very interested in how you view my own approach to what is essentially the same subject, deriving SR from QM with a few tweaks to interpretation of both.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Yau,

I am also an independent researcher with some interests in emergent quantum mechanics (EQM). The bounded Hamiltonian and constraint equation you proposed are different from typical. How do you see they can relate to EQM?

Best Wishes

Andy