Alternative Models of Reality

Georgina Woodward

John,

a falling coin object is not necessarily heads up or tails up it can be in between, unlike the quantum bit produced by measurement that can only be heads or tails. So I disagree that for every definite time and position in space it has definite heads or tails state.

So I suppose we could ask: where is the quantum bit prior to measurement?, and can say it doesn't exist because it is measurement that constrains the result into only two possible outcomes. So the quantum bit is in some significant way different from actual state the object prior to measurement.

If the model of reality used does not have an Object reality component but only the Image reality, output of sensory data processing component then the quantum states in mathematical state or phase space exist abstractly until being resolved into a definite observed reality. Leading to speculation such as do all of the different states exist in different universes? and if we select one outcome does the other non selected also have an observed reality in another universe? However if there is an Object reality, what the state will be found to be is in part determined by the state of the coin itself prior to observation as well as in part the where, when and how it is measured. There is a concrete reason for the outcome, the orientation of the coin.

The probabilities measured are IMO formed from many measurements that have each been influenced by; the starting state of the coin, how the coin was thrown and the characteristics of the coin in motion and the when, where and how of measurement. Initial condition, forces applied, characteristics of change (involving such things as mass and shape (aerodynamics)...time, place and sampling method. They, the probabilities are not just abstract attributes of a system without origin. If all of the different variables are known, they can be represented is an equation that represents the evolution of the system, giving the probabilities of different outcomes.

Both you and I require that the coin exist prior to state measurement, even though the quantum bit does not. That requires a model of reality in which there are beables, those things that exist without requiring observation for their existence. Though that reality must co-exist with the observed reality which is the output of our sensory data processing. The explanatory framework diagram sets out the relationship of the facets of reality and how they relate to different areas of physics.Attachment #1: 5_RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf

Georgina Woodward

Here then is a difference between probabilistic outcomes of quantum systems and singular 'definite' outcomes of classical and relativistic macroscopic physics.

There are probabilities because there are many factors contributing to what the outcome will be. For the coin example, initial conditions, attributes of object such as mass and shape,any deformity, (aerodynamics), the forces applied to the coin, the physics of dynamics including velocity of flight and amount of spin and possibly also the attributes of the medium, such as density and amount of turbulence and always where, when and how the state is is measured.There are many variables affecting its becoming what it is, and what it is will interact with the where, when and how actions of measurement to give an outcome.

The observation of a macroscopic object is usually just a matter of receiving the EM data reflected or emitted from its surface, already in the environment, and processing it into a corresponding Image reality. Once the data has been produced and is in the environment there is no probability involved in what it will be seen to be only the where, when and how components that decide what data will be received and from what viewpoint. Different where, when, and hows can give different Image reality outputs -and that is relativity. Not probabilistic as it is selection from the set of data already in the environment, that is not usually changing in information content, although data distribution can be affected by for example convection currents, that will give a wobbly rather than rigid appearance.

Bill Grossman

1. Can Cosmic Inflation and Dark Energy be explained using Quantum Gravitational Dynamics? (A merger of Quantum Loop Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics)

2. Could the potential energy of quantum meta-states be a source of Dark Energy and modulate the inflation field as well?

3. Where does space come from? Could it be from potential energy of quantum meta-states?

Any fundamental theory of quantum gravity should be consistent with the evolution of the cosmos. One of the current mysteries of the evolution of the cosmos is the creation of space during the inflationary period of the big bang and the measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe. There is no doubt that a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity is a hot topic of physics. At this time, the leading candidates are String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. The theories have yet to explain how space is created in the evolution of the cosmos. Quantum Gravitational Dynamics is a merger of Quantum Loop Gravity and Quantum Electrodynamics.

Alan Guth first proposed cosmic Inflation in order to explain how space is created during the Big Bang (or Big-Bounce?), he proposed that there is an inflation field, which is somehow activated during the earliest moments of the Big Bang. He offers no explanation on where the energy needed to activate this field comes from. The existence of this field and its partner particle, the Inflaton, has yet to be proved, nonetheless, Inflation is beautifully powerful theory, which solves many problems of cosmology. Since it is currently the best theory to explain the evolution of the early cosmos and how much space is created, I am going to accept it as a valid way to explain the evolution of the expansion of the early universe. Is it possible that the creation of space is derived from the sum of the potential energy of all the potential quantum meta-states of the early universe interacting with the Spin Networks of Quantum Gravitational Dynamics?

Another example of the exponential creation of space is the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The speed at which the volume of space is increasing has been consistently measured to be greater than the speed of light by measuring the red shifts of super novae in receding galaxies. The existence of Dark Energy was proposed in order to explain the cause of this observed inflation of the universe especially in areas of deep space. To date, finding the source of this Dark Energy has been elusive. One leading explanation is that it is related to the void energy of empty space. This has been observed in the Kasimir Effect.

The law of Conservation of Energy is one of the fundamental laws of physics, I assume it to be valid and consistent. So where is the Inflation Field energy and Dark Energy coming from? Is it possible that the observation of the accelerated expansion of the universe is related to the potential energy of all the potential quantum meta-states of empty space interacting with the Spin Networks of Quantum Gravitational Dynamics? Potential energy can be converted to other forms of energy thus satisfying the law of energy conversion. Can Quantum Gravitational Dynamics be used to predict the potential energy of all of the energy states of the early universe as well as all of the potential energy states of empty space? Once the numerical value of this energy has been predicted then it should be compared to the amount of Dark Energy required to cause the expansion of space. The current value of the Dark Energy has been calculated to be about 70% of the total energy of the universe. . This is an enormous amount of energy and has to come from somewhere.

A consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that you can not know the exact quantum state of a quantum system such as empty space as well as its rate of change. This means that the energy of empty space is nonzero. A corollary of this is that the minimum size of discrete space has to be large enough to contain some virtual energy.There is a vacuum radiant energy that has been shown to exist in the Kasmir effect and it is caused by virtual particles, which exist as open loops in Quantum Gravitational Dynamics. These loops can interact with each other as well as with spin foam of space becoming closed loops.

According to David Bohm, " the potential energy of so-called empty space is due to the ability of the virtual radiant energy's ability to generate an electromagnetic field." (Quantum Theory 1951). It is also conceivable that radiant energy can interact with other fields as well such as the spin networks of space increasing space in the process.

These virtual particles have been observed to exist when measured in particle accelerators. Thus there are many potential metastable states of these interactions, which can be expressed as probabilities of each metastable states. Using Feynman's methodology of Quantum Electrodynamics, there is sum scalar vector of all of those potential meta-states. One possible outcome is that empty space may be self-propagating thus resulting in the observed accelerated expansion of the universe.

Since the temperature of the early universe is much higher than the temperature of empty space, I presume that potential meta-states of the early universe during the big bang are far more energetic and robust. Could the potential meta-states of the early universe interact with the inflation field thus modulate it?

Thank you for listening. Please respond with your thoughts.

Akinbo Ojo

Bill,

Without imposing my thinking on the subject on yours, may I just ask some leading questions...

1. IF (in capitals), space is expanding and entropy is increasing, might this not suggest a common production process for the two, since both are in the same direction of time? Or at least a relationship, since Mother Nature is usually very frugal in her ways.

2. What is the meaning of the equation

dS = dE/T?

Given a system of low entropy, how can you quantitatively increase the entropy in the system?

3. If the second law of thermodynamics is correct for our universe and has been correct for all time, meaning the more you look to the past, the lower the entropy of the universe will be and therefore at the beginning, S = 0. If we add the third law of thermodynamics, which guides us what the temperature would be at the lowest possible value of entropy, would the very beginning at time zero be hot or cold?

4. Ludwig Boltzmann has the equation S = k log W inscribed on his tombstone, where S is entropy, k is Boltzmann's constant, log stands for natural logarithm and pay attention here, W stands for the NUMBER OF WAYS the system can be realized by assigning different positions and momenta to the various participants. If space is not infinitely divisible into positions because of a limit at the Planck length ~ 10-35m, in a system of given small size, are there a maximum number of positions and momenta available or is the number infinite?

5. Following from 5., if the thermodynamic equations are infallible, what will physically happen if entropy has to be further increased after the maximum, W for that system size is attained?

6. If your opinion to 6. is that system size will be compelled to increase in obedience to thermodynamic law, is this an explosive mechanical process at high pressure à la Big Bang?

7. Have you calculated what the temperature of the universe will be if it contained all the matter,~ 1052kg (1068J) at the very beginning, say about Planck size before 'inflationary scenario' complication? Do you obtain 1047K or 1032K that fits the model?

8. What really is energy? We use the term often in physics, but what exactly is it? Is it something or a much ado about nothing in the final analysis?

Now, this is speculative and tentative. We know that energy is consumed (-ve) to increase radius and thus potential energy, and such energy is released (+ve) as heat, gravitational waves (for GR people) and electromagnetic radiation when radius and potential energy is reduced. In other words,

Eq.1. increase (+) in potential energy and radius of system = (-)decrease in energy in form of heat, radiation.

Eq.2. decrease in potential energy and radius of system = increase in energy in form of heat, radiation.

So these two 'energy types' appear to be OPPOSITE each other, but both energies all the same.

If we put all the energy terms on one side, can I suggest that if the mathematics is not flawed we could write Eq.1 as:

increase (+) in potential energy and radius of system + increase in energy in form of heat, radiation = 0,

since (-) changes to (+) and decrease changes to increase?

If I am correct, then for a system whose balance sheet was initially ZERO, and which must remain so, ANY increase from zero radius MUST be accompanied by an increase in energy in the form of heat, radiation, etc. This energy balancing must continue always till current era.

I think Edward Tryon reasoned in similar way some 40 years ago.

This may satisfy the condition given by those who do not like to eat free lunch. If the increase in energy from zero is simultaneously accompanied and balanced by increase of radius from zero, then perhaps no free lunch after all and no contravention of energy conservation law as the net energy change is zero.

Well let me pause here for now.

Regards,

Akinbo

[deleted]

Akimbo, I like your line of reasoning. Have you come across any equations on how space may propagate as entropy and/or potential energy increases?there's a really good book on entropy and time by Sean Carol called From Eternity to Here. I just read this book recently and did not see any mention on how increasing entropy is related to space

Akinbo Ojo

Dear Anonymous,

That the time direction of space expansion and the thermodynamic time arrow point in the same direction is not new. Others, including Roger Penrose, one of the co-authors of the singularity theorems in General relativity discussed the topic in an interesting way in his book, The Emperor's New Mind, see chapter 7: Cosmology and the Arrow of Time.

Your actual meaning may not be clear to me. But let me post based on what I think I understand you to be saying...

First, when you say, "how space may propagate". Think well and let's reason together. What do you mean by 'propagate'? Can a space leave where it was and go to another location? If it can what does it leave behind? If it can what happens to the space that was at the location it is propagating to?

The moral of this is that space does not propagate from one existing place to another existing place leaving a space behind. Space moves from nowhere (no existence, no space, nothing) to somewhere (existence, some place, something) and back again, i.e. vice versa. And from the Big bang till now, the size of the somewhere has been increasing (a la Hubble expansion). If there is a Big crunch somewhere will become nowhere. Nothing is left behind. Actually, what we call Something is arrangement of Nothing in such a way that it gives the impression of Something.

As for how, "entropy is related to space", if you look at that same Penrose book you will see a diagram of tiny balls distributed among a grid of cells. You can use this to illustrate the concept of entropy and the 'number of ways the system can be arranged'. For example, given a scenario of one ball and two cells, with one ball permitted per cell, there are only two ways the system can be arranged. If you increase the number of cells to 10 and one ball, there will be 10 ways the system can be arranged. If you increase the balls to two, the number of ways the system can be arranged is increased. So generally, increase in entropy is achievable either by increase in the size of the compartment or increase in the number of constituents or both. That is how entropy is related to space.

Note that if space is not infinitely divisible, there is a maximum number of guest rooms that you can carve out of a hotel because of the restriction at 10-35m. If you have a need for more guests to cause more 'disturbance', which is another nickname for entropy, the size of the hotel must be increased! That is another way in my opinion how increasing entropy is related to space.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bill Grossman

Hi Akinbo

When I say can space propagate I don't mean move I mean replicate. I'm trying to figure out what is it that's causing the universe to expand? I'm wondering if it could be potential energy? Can this be somehow tied in with quantum loop gravity?

Thank you, Bill

Georgina Woodward

NB.It is the space-time visible universe that appears to be expanding.

Akinbo Ojo

Hello Bill,

I see what you mean. By replicate, if you mean (using my hotel room analogy), dividing a room in two or three like binary fission of bacteria, I think I would rather new rooms of Planck size are built from scratch (from nothing, 'ex nihilo'). Quantum loop gravity and String theory believe resultant light velocity cannot be relative to an observer so I don't know how they can be tied in.

To your comment, "I'm trying to figure out what is it that's causing the universe to expand?"

As I suggested earlier, the 'it' cannot be a force which would need a reaction to be effectual, 'it' cannot be an object or a thing since these occupy and need space to exist, IMHO it must then be a law, which the universe is merely obeying. And I suggest the law is the second law of thermodynamics. Luckily, this law is not a new, ad hoc law invented for this purpose. It is already well known.

Regards,

Akinbo

Quantum Antigravity

Hello,

I have made a theoretical as well as an empirical scientific discovery of quantum gravity and quantum antigravity.

Present quantum gravity theories suffer from too many space dimensions, and from too few experiments that could provide conclusive verifying, or falsifying empirical evidence. On the contrary, my hypothesis is simple, clear, and easily empirically verifiable:

https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com

Should anybody need clarification, I am more than happy to answer any questions.

Naturally, I am also open to meritorious criticism, and any suggestions for improvement.

I am sure other researchers could greatly contribute to further development of this hypothesis (almost a theory).

Thank you so very much! :)

Bill Grossman

A more fundamental question that no one ever asks is where does 'charge" come from? Why are some particles charged? One obscure thing that I read is that is is caused by the particles spinning in other dimensions. The math has been worked out. But you have to believe in extra dimensions.

pjackson

John,

What orientations are then "possible" apart from Heads and Tails?

In a quantum rather than binary system are there not complementary (inverse) values for intermediate angles between 100% heads or tails?

And who decided whether I lie under the glass coffee table to observe the ('collapsed' to binary) outcome, or look down from above?

Is it not true that we use a lot of hidden assumptions which we perhaps need to identify and remove?

Best regards

Peter

Georgina Woodward

Yes John including variations of edge up. So the outcome of viewing the sequence of orientations is not either this or that, a quantum bit, in each frame but there are many different orientations, including neither heads up nor heads down. The behaviour of the object is fundamentally different from the quantum bits. The quantum bit is information that can be measured. On,off; up,down; left, right. Outcomes. Catching the coin and holding on the palm of the hand, or flipping onto the back of the non catching hand, or letting it fall on the floor are all ways of measuring the quantum state.Under normal circumstances it will lie flat exhibiting only one of two possible outcomes. When, where and how the measurement is taken together with the orientation of the coin upon measurement generates the state measured. That state does not preexist the measurement because it is formed in part by the measurement procedure/apparatus itself.If you look at the coin palm open when it is caught it gives the opposite outcome to flipping the coin onto the back of the non catching hand and then looking. So how it is measured has a part to play in what the state is found to be.

Georgina Woodward

I wrote " When, where and how the measurement is taken together with the orientation of the coin upon measurement generates the state measured." That is a simplification, I should think such things as momentum. angle of the coin when it strikes the hand or floor and how that surface interacts, its elasticity and topology will also be important in determining the outcome. IE how the measurement apparatus interacts with the subject.

pjackson

John,

We find what we ask for. If we simply ask 'head/tails'? we get H or T. But ask 'what angle in the y axis'? (or z etc.) we find a different angle in each case. We may also ask and find 'rate of spin' etc. So you're right, but only if using the simplest view.

So in that view we say QM is 'spooky' as it's predictions can't be reproduced classically. But look with better vision and all of nature appears out of the mist! You may need a blindfold to achieve it, so put one on and try this, playing 'Bob' (Georgina, can you play Alice?); You just hold your fingers out, feel the motion of what you touch, and answer the question.

Now what we need to reproduce QM is to find is two different sets of complementary (inversely changing) 'values' in spherical co-ordinates (Dirac's '2 paired 4 stack spinors') which change by the cosine^2 of the 'angle' of detection to be zero at 90 degrees and the reverse at 180. Lastly, you must find differently at the same angle, and the same at opposite angles!

OK, We stand side by side, 1km apart, me in the centre with a sphere spinning on a horizontal axis (either spin, at random). I send it along it's axis to John and a clone the other way to Georgina. It stops before you, still spinning, and you touch the equator.

Q1. Is it spinning clockwise or anticlockwise? ...Of course you can't tell!

Q2. Is it spinning up or down? Now you're 100% certain and find the same, OK?

Now John go round to the other side and face 180^o back the other way,

Q3. NOW is the spin 'up or down?. ...You should find the OPPOSITE.

Now both go round 90^o so you both face me, ..and each touch the pole.

Q4. Are they spinning 'up' or 'down'? ...Of course again you can't tell!

Q5. Are they spinning clockwise or anticlockwise? You'll find the opposite again! But if one of you goes 180^o round and touches the other pole - you'll now report the same! (100% 'correlated') spin.

The states are then 'superposed' and not emergent UNTIL the observer interaction. Now you can float around over and under the sphere on ANY orientation and do the same, with exactly the same set of results! relative to the ('entangled') spin axis.

If you both go to 45^o. You'll find a lower value of both 'states'. The surface speed (Angular Momentum) values change inversely with changing angle round the sphere. Not only that, speed (momentum) changes by the COSINE of the angle!! Now draw graphs of your findings, and with just the tiniest pinch of a secret DFM ingredient borrowed from QED (squaring cos and the wavefunction) you guys have just reproduced almost the entire predictions of QM "classically" just as Bell predicted (you may be shocked if you wish, you have seen the future!).

The bells and whistles are added here, with a soupçon of higher order uncertainty to ward off a fully deterministic existence; Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. (Perhaps my last 2 essays may also help explain John).

Then again if you prefer binary mathematics to thinking and just ask, 'north' or 'south'? or 'heads or tails'? than that is all you'll find.

Do ask questions if the experiment wasn't clear. Was it? Best wishes,

Peter

Georgina Woodward

John,

it does make sense. Until a viewpoint is established, where, when and how the observation is made, such as the location of the camera in your example, there is no one direction from which an observation is being made and all possible viewpoints are valid. The problem is with the demand for one answer to the question regarding state. A cup looked at from above and below is simultaneously concave and convex. Only deciding which viewpoint will be considered resolves the decision into the cup is seen to be concave or the cup is seen to be concave.

Whether considering a macroscopic object or something at a very small, un-observable to the human eye scale, it is necessary to have one viewpoint to have one outcome. Measurement and observation provides that.

Peter's description of the two observers observing the spinning sphere from different viewpoints is correct, so I agree with Peter's "The states are then 'superposed' and not emergent UNTIL the observer interaction. Now you can float around over and under the sphere on ANY orientation and do the same, with exactly the same set of results! relative to the ('entangled') spin axis."

Georgina Woodward

Im recent posts I have been restricting the discussion to beables that can be considered in lots of different orientations.As prior to observation all possible viewpoints are equally valid. That is somewhat different from a radioactive particle being both decayed and non decayed until measurement, fixing what the state will be found to be, and observation making the state known.

It seems there are different kinds of scenario to consider, ones in which superposition of all possible states (not just the ones that are observable) is a true representation of what is in Object reality; and those in which superposition is only an abstract representation of what might be, as the outcome of measurement is unknown. In Object reality an actualized particle object (beable) can not be both decayed and not decayed simultaneously.A coin can have every orientation, as any viewpoint is subjective and does not reflect the absolute state of the coin.

Therefore it is necessary to consider the nature of the beable under consideration. See above but also the decision must be made, is it an object or sensory data under investigation. As sensory data too is a part of Object reality. An actualised radioactive particle a-particle can't be both decayed and un-decayed in Object reality. However there can be sensory data in the environment produced preceding decay, produced at decay and produced subsequent to decay. Considering d-particle and output result r-particle (representation of particle):If the particle has decayed either outcome could be found depending upon when and where the sampling measurement is taken. If a sample of earlier data is measured no detection will be found if later data a detection can be made.

So neither a blanket yes supposition exists in reality or a blanket no it is only abstract is correct, its a bit more complex involving questions of what kind of beable and what part of reality is being considered.

Which answers the question is the wave function a representation of what actually exists or just an abstract representation because we lack information- the answer is it depends.Firstly because of the arguments above and because it does include the interaction with the measuring apparatus. Until measurement that part of the Schrodinger equation does not apply and so it is representing possibilities not yet come to pass, giving predictions, not existent actualities.

Georgina Woodward

Once upon a time a quick Google search using RICP or FQXi images would make my explanatory framework diagrams appear, but no more. Which is a bit sad. I don't know why they have vanished or why they were so readily available previously for that matter.I maybe should have thanked someone though I don't know who

While I don't want anyone using the diagrams themselves just for personal profit I am happy for them to be used by others if I am credited with their origination. I am also happy for them to be used in discussion of them and associated ideas and for them to be adapted by others as part of their work, if again credited as the source of the underlying idea. Adapted from ....

The earlier diagram clearly shows the Image reality contained within the Object reality. There is no where else for it to be because the Object reality contains everything that exists. The later diagram shows the Image reality on a different level to try to convey that this is a different type of reality, an emergent reality that both exist wholly within the Object reality but is not a part of that reality. It is a fabricated reality. Like the story world that can be produced from the letter written in a book. Formed from the processing of information not having existence independent of observation.

I have added some of the more recent ideas shared on FQxi pages on my reality in physics web site. It has been rather neglected for a few years. I will try to do more updates soon to make it a happening site rather than just another neglected black hole.Attachment #1: 4_Corrected_NEW_RICP_DIAG.pdf Attachment #2: 6_RICP3D_high_def_essay_version..pdf

pjackson

John,

..so until that observation is physically made the observer may find ANY of the zillion possible states. They are then 'superposed', until observation.

Zeilinger and others have proven beyond any doubt that the interaction with the lens changes the 'approaching' light signal (re-polarises, Doppler shifts wavelength etc), and indeed that the new (absorbed and re-emitted) photons have "NO MEMORY" of their previous history. i.e. see experiment 5;

"Change of the State by Measurement".

Each observer than has some influence over the state found. In the simplest case; if he is approaching the object it will be found more blue. That 'discrete field' interpretation is consistent with both QM (Copenhagen) and SR (Postulates).

Bragg; "advancement is not about finding new things but about finding new ways of looking at things we think we're 'familiar' with."! i.e. the ability to root out and abandon our hidden assumptions.

Best wishes

Peter

PS. Georgina. Thank you. I can see the fog ever lifting as you write.

Georgina Woodward

In QM experiments orientation relative to measuring apparatus rather than orientation relative to background is being considered.Thus until measurement occurs a vast number of different orientations exist from which a sample will be taken.The twilight zone for coins and cups and electrons is Object reality. It isn't strange its just that no observer perspective has been imposed.

The twilight zone for decayed and non decayed particle and associated cats is a mathematical space in which everything that is known is held until measurement is carried out and a definite outcome is known. I'm comfortable with them being there. The probabilities for different outcomes can be found either from the Schrödinger equation,using what is known about the system, or by measurement over many samples of the system. The probabilities for different outcome belong to the system set up in that particular way in general, not to any individual case. But can be applied to an individual case for the purpose of prediction. Likewise the average number of children in UK families is found by looking at many different families and so belongs to UK families in general not any individual family. Nevertheless it can be used to predict the number of children in one family in particular.

Georgina Woodward

Continued....Abstract and true but not part of either uni-temporal Object or space-time Image reality, so represented as outside of reality; as are all purely theoretical things, including possibilities and probabilities.

Georgina Woodward

When a possibility or a probability is actualised, comes to be, such as when a measurement is taken, fixing the outcome, that state is a part of Object reality.

When a manifestation is formed wherby it can be known, eg. a flash, ring of a bell, peak on a graph, observation, it is formed into a part of Image reality.

In both cases measurement and observation, it is no longer a probability or possibility under consideration but a part of reality.If a wave function has been used to describe the system it is no longer applicable and therefore might be said to have "collapsed" Even though it was not a thing in reality capable of collapse.

pjackson

John,

Georgina is correct, but perhaps for your 'comfort zone' look at it as being asked about the future. Let's say you've been on a space trip, are returning to Earth, but instruments are out so you don't know where you'll parachute in to.

You are asked as an intelligent being;

"Which country might you land in"?

Now you know you'll only land in ONE, yet you have to say; "It might be any among 200". Your landing site is then a 'superposition' of 200 countries right up until you land, when they all 'collapse' to just one.

Only a rather non-intelligent being with poor vision might answer; "north or south hemispheres", which is the equivalent to 'heads or tails'. Only a dumb question deserves a dumb answer.

I think THAT is what Bragg meant by 'finding a new way of seeing' to see beyond what we've long assumed to be the only answer. And perhaps Einstein summed it up with "we din't yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature HAS REVEALED to us!"

Akinbo Ojo

I like the way Peter and Georgina have put forth their case. Straight forward, intelligent and to be commended. But IMHO in error. They have stated things the way Einstein and Schrodinger and their group believed is the way Quantum Mechanics should operate. But the upper hand in the struggle as at today belongs to Niels Bohr and his group, even if I am inclined to the former.

Using Schrodinger's cat as example, the QM status today is that the cat is both dead AND alive, not dead OR alive.

Using Peter's interesting analogy: QM interpretation today will answer, "I will land in ALL the countries" and not "It might be any among 200". But when the location is then checked (measured), it will reveal that you have not landed in ALL countries but ONE, which to my understanding is the concept of wave function collapse.

Note that I am an unbeliever in QM and refrain from much discussion about its claimed success.

Regards,

Akinbo

« Previous Page Next Page »