Quantum Physics for Burning Questions by George Schoenfelder

Mr. Schoenfelder,

Thank you for an extremely interesting, thought provoking, and clearly written essay. It seems safe to predict that your essay will not be faulted for lack of ambitious reach, and I do not say that sarcastically; the clear development which you present for your complicated and ambitious thesis is certainly commendable.

Your scheme of framed quantum dynamics (FQD) clearly relies on there being a constant, inexhaustible supply of positronium (Ps) to act as the "grease in the cogs," so to speak. Inasmuch as Ps decays in a matter of nanoseconds, how do you envision this being the case?

I'm intrigued by your quote from Kurakin, "The whole universe makes the choice." If this is truly somehow possible via quantum entanglement without violating Bell's Theorem it opens up a world of interesting possibilities. I've not yet read this "must read" paper, but certainly will now put it high on my list.

Your comments on the role of time in your scheme ("Time is simple--no state change no time of any kind.") are of considerable interest to me, and are not inconsistent with a view of time which I outline in another essay which may be found among the current FQXi collection.

Cheers

Dear J.C.N. Smith,

Thank you for you interest and gracious words.

In regards to your question "Inasmuch as Ps [positronium] decays in a matter of nanoseconds, how do you envision this [Ps is the "grease in the cogs"] being the case?"

My answer is that FQD is congruent with quantum field theory's (QFT) vacuum polarization, Dirac's sea and Wheeler's quantum foam. In the latter and "In quantum field theory, the vacuum is no longer simply empty space; it is literally seething with activity. Virtual particles, such as electron-positron pairs, can pop into existence and disappear...these particle-antiparticle pairs produce an effect called vacuum polarization," says Robert Scherrer in his 2006 textbook Quantum Mechanics. Their "pop" and disappearance is an issue of "measurement" rather than no-thing-ness.

Yes Ps is the "grease in the cogs" but I suggest much more. In FQD atomic systems "swim and motor" in a sea of Ps by individually pulling and pushing them around, step by computational quantum step as "charges move in a coordinated way".

In response to your kind words regarding my statements of time, I read your well-written paper on time and completely agree with it on the classical level. However, it does not take into account "hidden time" as does the traditional state of the art. In addition to the Kurakin, I recommend, Zewail, Ahmed (2002). Voyage through Time: Walks of Life to the Nobel Prize, because he measures proteins on their femtosecond time scale and thus provides insight to the enormity of what brains do in conscious real-time. A good read of the state of the art of entanglement and its "spooky" instantaneousness is Aczel, Amir D. (2002). Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics.

Thank you for the opportunity to responded to your questions.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Thank you for responding to my questions, and also for the recommended readings. I have read the Aczel. Will look into the others as time allows.

You wrote, "I read your well-written paper on time and completely agree with it on the classical level. However, it does not take into account "hidden time" as does the traditional state of the art." I'm not clear on why you've concluded that my concept of time applies only at the classical level. As I conceive of the notion it includes the evolving configuration of the universe at all levels, with macro configurations being linked (as they surely must be in reality) with some perhaps not as well understood or directly observable quantum level "configurations." Would welcome your further ideas here.

There are so many new essays to read these days that I may not check back as often as I'd like, but will do so as feasible.

Cheers

As an addendum to my previous post, the essay submitted by George Ellis, 'On the applicability of quantum physics,' is of considerable interest in connection with the issues we've touched on.

Cheers

Dear J.C.N. Smith,

Thank you for your continued interest.

I hold your paper in high esteem because like you I think atomic arrangement, rearrangement, configuration, and reconfiguration are not only the keys to time but to physics and biology in general. On the other hand, hidden time has been neglected in all papers that I have seen so far, except Kurakin's and mine. Hidden time is the result of our interpretation of the single and double slit experiments and entanglement.

As Erwin Schrödinger said, "Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics (Aczel, 2001, p. 55)." I would expand his statement by adding the words of Einstein in quotes as follows: entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics making it "spooky" and "incomplete." Accepting that any phenomenon is instantaneous indeed is "spooky" and I am in good company in that something is missing and therefore quantum mechanics is "incomplete." Einstein's point was something is missing, hence the hunt for hidden variables and Bell's theorem. In my view there are only two missing things that make modern physics currently spooky, incredulous, and incomplete. They are 1) nature's use of quantum computation, 2) which is in hidden time as I describe both within FQD.

Thank you for steering me to the Ellis essay. I have posted a comment with him.

Please let me know what you think and other recommended readings.

Best regards,

George Schoenfelder

Hi George,

It will help my understanding of your paper greatly if you can clarify in which of the following two senses you mean the word "atomic": (1) pertaining to the entity that physics commonly calls "atoms," i.e. entities with a protonic nucleus orbited by one or more electroncs, or (2) pertaining to the concept of fundamentality and indivisibility that were the reasons why physicists decided to assign the name "atoms" to the entities described in (1) in the first place. I've inferred from context that you mean sense (2), but I want to make sure before commenting in more detail.

Thanks,

Owen Cunningham

Dear Owen Cunningham,

Thank you for your interest and well-composed question about my meaning of "atomic."

In short, I mean both (1) and (2) from a functional point of view, rather than a geometrical point of view. Let me explain.

In the sense of your category (1), by "atomic" I mean the functional behavior of the elements of the periodic table, and how their collective behavior ultimately thinks and communicates at the macro level, as we are now. More specifically, proteins are "atomic" in that protein molecular behavior is an emergent result of the collective behavior of the "atomic" elements of the periodic table, which broadly speaking depends on their evolved arrangements. Whether electrons within atoms and molecules are really in "geometrical" orbits around protons made of quarks made of strings is less important than what they functionally do. Functionally atoms, molecules, and electron charges (whatever they are) change state. Their state changes depend on their previous atomic arrangement, which in turn affects their local environment differently. In other words, "atomic" means a locally functioning state machine. I still use the word "atomic" because this Turing model is backward compatible with the empirical record, as I explain at length in my books. See www.mindorigins.com.

In your sense (2), I do suggest that an appropriate interpretation of the empirical record is that atoms and molecules are self-governing. Embryogenesis is PROOF of this. In computer terms I mean atoms and molecules are bimodal Turing complete nodal machines, which means they are computationally and mechanically autonomous within their local environment until they halt. In this way, atomic systems are functionally fundamental and indivisible because they are always Turing complete, although their table-of-instructions, and therefore, individual behavior may change greatly in complexity, as they locally affect one another, as they make time in our brains. One way to think of positronium is that it has a relatively simple table-of-instructions, which halts quickly, and thus, gets pushed around a lot by other more sophisticated atomic arrangements.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Dear Owen Cunningham,

P. S. Thanks for your kind words on Wolfram's page.

George Schoenfelder

Hi George,

First off, I want to applaud you for taking an experimental (or at least gedankenexperimental) approach to digital physics. As I've lamented elsewhere in this forum, the digital physics community seems content with existence proofs, but no constructions. Congratulations on offering a construction.

I think you are largely in the right. I share your conception of the universe as a giant network of bimodal nodes. My questions pertain to the information being passed around by these CAMs. Do you have any conjectures as to its semantics or cardinality? Are they "network addresses," for instance? When you talk about "classical bits," do you literally mean "entities of only two possible values"? When you talk about qubits, do you mean "entities of an infinite number of possible values"? Depending on how these are defined, it seems there could be a risk of "data overflow," in the sense that a value greater than 1 cannot be mapped to a single binary bit.

Thanks,

Owen

Hi Owen,

I am delighted you wrote, "I share your conception of the universe as a giant network of bimodal nodes." To address your questions we must bear in mind that these bimodal nodes are atoms and molecules. Their behavior is discrete but not binary. Like a wise man recently wrote, "If the universe really is built on a notion of a [discrete] digit, it is not automatically a given that that digit must be binary."

The main discrete lines of spectroscopy are our windows to their electron "orbitals'" discrete states that depend on their arrangement. Even simple hydrogen has a huge discrete bandwidth (a broader term than semantics or cardinality) not to mention that of hemoglobin. Orbitals are classical because they directly affect biological systems and classical computation. When I say classical bits, it refers to a discrete electron state in the non-entanglement sense.

In contrast the fine discrete lines of spectroscopy are our windows to their electron "spins'" discrete up or down states that also depend on their arrangement. Entanglement deals with spins, instantaneous signaling, and quantum computation. When I say qubits, it refers to spins, instantaneous signaling, and quantum computation. To your question, by qubits I do not mean "entities of an infinite number of possible values." This is because Kurakin and I propose instantaneous signaling is not instantaneous at all but is in hidden time. I take this one step further and propose that the whole universe conducts quantum computation in hidden time as a natural process to coordinate movement at the Planck scale. Here I use the term protocol to encompass your question about "network addresses."

In either of the two atomic modes above "a risk of 'data overflow'" is not a problem. In the classical mode the huge bandwidth that is available is more than adequate and in the classical mode data processing is only local and over the short Planck time scale. In the case of the binary spin up or spin down of nature's version of quantum computation, the universe can signal and "spin" process as much as it needs to in hidden time.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Since "hidden time" seems to play a central role in the operations of your bimodal network, I'd be curious to know your reactions to the "emergent time" school of thought, best represented by Julian Barbour's winning essay to last year's FQXi contest. The general idea is that, instead of dynamics "consuming" time (e.g. "this action _takes_ X amount of time"), that time is a sequence of discrete moments, each of which is generated by an action. In that world view, I have a hard time understanding why, when a CAM is in "classical mode," its computations generate time Barbour-style, but in "quantum mode" its computations fail to generate time. My gut instinct is to declare "computation is computation is computation," and regardless of the "mode" in which a CAM computes, its computations should be generating time.

I finished the last sentence of the previous comment too quickly. It should end "...regardless of the 'mode' in which a CAM computes, its computations should either all generate time, or never generate time." The idea being, I can conceive of a universe in which computation counts as "dynamics" in the Barbour sense; and I can also conceive of a universe in which computation DOES NOT count as Barbourian dynamics. But I can't conceive of a universe in which sometimes it does, and other times it doesn't -- at least not without a more thorough explanation of WHY such a disparity might exist.

Hi Owen,

Yes. As you said, "computations should be generating time" because all computation requires a collection of state changes of some sort, as does time. (I said "collection" because one state change does not make much computation and much time.) But, if CAMs collectively change-spin states without collectively changing charge-distribution states, then the spin state changes would be a separate and different kind of computation and a different kind of time. I say this is "WHY such a disparity...exist[s]." Let me elaborate.

Here is where molecular biology is most essential to any discussion of time, and therefore physics. Proteins move because their physical charge distributions change state, see my essay's Figs. 1 and 11. For the sake of argument let us use the old concept of electron orbitals to describe charge distribution classical mode state changes. Biology and the brain's experience depend on protein orbital movement, as do computational silicon registers. No orbital movement in brains no experience of time. No orbital movement in silicon registers no classical computation. This means if reality has a means to conduct computation without moving orbitals, then that kind of computation would seem instantaneous to all brains and standard machines. That if is now a fact. The fact that entangled spin state changes seem instantaneous was the hint that lead to the nonstandard computational machines that have recently proven quantum computation an empirical fact.

In regards to Barbour, I completely agree that "time [both classical and hidden time] is [are] a sequence of discrete moments [which I define as frames], each of which is generated by an action." The key word is "action." In my FQD the "orbital" state change is one kind of action, and the "spin" state change is another kind of action. Since nature has a means of two distinctly separate types of action, it has two distinctly separate types of computation and time. The lesson of molecular biology is that the brain depends on its proteins to have orbital changes to directly experience time and does not directly experience spin changes. This is why what seems instantaneous is not, but is simply hidden to proteins and their brains.

Due to page constrains, the big thing I do not discuss in my essay, but I do in my book, is how hidden time solves the single photon double slit dilemma. Namely, how does one photon know there are two slits? Mark my words, how hidden time solved this problem without wave mechanics will someday revolutionize physics because it is so fundamental.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

George,

One of the ideas that occasionally floats into physics discussions is the idea of multiple temporal dimensions; instead of saying that there are n-1 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, the idea could be that there are n-1 spatial dimensions and 2, or more, time dimensions. Could your idea of "hidden time" be modeled in this way, I wonder? The idea that there are two varieties of time, differing in what entities can generate it and what entities can perceive its passage, seems like it might be a way to bring your proposed model into something that could be explored symbolically.

In general, I respect your rigor and thoroughness (and hence would welcome any comments you have on my paper). It pains me to see your community rating so low. I hope the judges recognize the value of your proposal more clearly than the FQXi community seems to have.

Owen,

I will comment on your last paragraph first.

So far I have only read about 35% of the papers and I consider some of your iconoclastic thought processes among the best. I don't plan to vote until I have read them all. Perhaps the more sophisticated voters have the same style, which may explain my low rank so far.

Your ideas of "recruitment" are similar to those of Kurakin's and mine regarding "signaling."

Your idea that mass results from "stack depth" is congruent with my architecture of FQD. This is because in FQD the more complex a CAM (the number of electron "orbits" being like stake depth) the more "behavior is going on" within it. More complex behavior means the less likely it is to make a change to its directional behavior--mass being the resistance to the change of directional motion.

I think we mostly differ from our backgrounds. Yours is mostly "Man-made computers." In contrast, although an electromechanical engineer, for the last 9 years since becoming a writer, I have been studying molecular biology's methods of computation, which as you astutely point out is not limited to bits.

By the way, I compliment you in your levelheaded handling of your critics.

In regards to you questions of spatial and temporal dimensions, I said in my essay, "Most likely the fourth spatial dimension of general relativity resulted from hidden time and nature's use of quantum computation inadvertently being incorporated within Riemannian geometry and tensors." Terry Padden in his superb essay is thinking along these lines but he has not focused on the incredulity of "spooky" instantaneous signaling as Kurakin and I have. As I have said, time results from computational state changes. Since there are two types of computation, classical and quantum, there are two resultant time scales, one not hidden the other hidden. The way to simulate FQD and make predictions is outlined in my first paragraph of section 7, page 8. I say, "In this way, we can use video game technology to model FQD" because they are architecturally so similar.

I have posted on Terry Padden's page comments that I am sure you will appreciate. I have also posted it below.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Dear Terry Padden,

You wrote what needed to be said and you said it excellently. Congratulations on both counts.

For brevity I will only comment on your point 3. I quote you, and then my comments follow immediately.

"3. Brain & Mind:" The mind is what brains do. Brains do what proteins do (If you have a problem here read the second paragraph in my essays section 2, page 2.). Proteins do what atomic systems do. The law of atomic systems is evidenced by the empirical record of quantum mechanics. I suggest the word brain be used rather than mind because the latter has too much historical baggage within its sweeping philosophical definition.

"Temporary expedients are always reasonable but the absence of Mind [brain] from physics is irrational and unreasonable." This is essentially what I say in my essay's second paragraph.

"The Mind is excluded empirically because physics only accepts physical, i.e. material, entities." The body and brain are one, because they are both made of the same "physical" things, namely proteins, which in turn are made of the "physical" elements of the periodic table. The computational brain is as inseparable from the human body as software is inseparable from hardware. This is because atomic systems inseparably behave as both. I will elaborate on this later.

"The Mind is too difficult for physics and mathematics." This is not true for the brain. On the contrary, it is quantum mechanics that shows why the brain can do what it does at the required level of molecular biology. This is why my paragraph 2, section 2, page 2 is so important, i.e. brains are protein-regulated. Proteins are self-governing electromechanical machines. That is why brains can come from eggs and sperm. Proteins have a lot in common with teletype machines because they know how to read and write to their local environment.

"(3)...the things that produce all our science, our Minds [brains], don't exist for science." I beg to differ. The brain's a priory associative learning method is founded in changing itself by trial and error as science does. In this way science did not come out of the blue. Instead the tools of science have been evolving mutation by mutation for a very long time. Thus, the brain is a good place for science, because it literally grows associatively via gene-expressed proteins throughout adulthood.

As promised above I will now elaborate on how atomic systems behave as both software and hardware. They are hardware because they are made of physical charges. Spectroscopy teaches that atomic systems are software because their electrons only change physical states in highly organized and consistent ways. In other words, atomic systems CONSISTENTLY follow rules. Otherwise, spectroscopic chemical analysis would be impossible. Consistently following rules via a table-of-instructions is the main stay of software. Electrons changing state within a p-n junction register is the main stay of artificial intelligence. It follows that a reasonable model of atoms is the Turing machine.

Once atomic systems are modeled as Turing machines, then a first principle of intelligence is its atomic table-of-instructions. A first principle of memory storage is its present eigenstates. A first principle of active memory storage is to "write" to another atomic system's eigenstates. First principles of memory access and measurement are the "reads" of another's eigenstates. A first principle of information processing (In the sense of its Latin root informare, to form, to shape, to organize.) is to "write" to another atomic system's eigenstates. Please note that all these first principles are what brains do. In other words, brains result from what atoms do and not vice versa.

Understanding the brain is not as big a problem for physics as previously imagined; reasons include. 1) Brains are made and operated by proteins that are atomic systems. 2) Atomic systems are the specialty of quantum mechanics. 3) Atomic systems, brains, and physics are all rooted in computation. 4) The function of science and computation is prediction. 5) Computers combined with mathematics and measurements are doing well predicting complex atomic systems such as the weather, which in scope is as complex as brains.

In summary, both natural brain intelligence and artificial intelligence are enabled by atomic systems, which operate at the level of quantum mechanics.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder,

You state:

"What is consciousness? Not so easy. See the next section. As a reminder of why this is integral to physics, in the Copenhagen interpretation consciousness has been considered a mechanism of reality.

How is free will reconciled with the laws of physics? From the perspective of the molecular-self, once proteins are considered self-governing they each individually have a unique will because they initiate a unique behavior."

Does this mean that my Bendix alarm clock has free will, because it initiates a unique behavior. What about my spark distribution system in my auto? What am I missing?

In my essay I define consciousness as awareness plus free will.

Is your definition the same or different?

If one reads Albert's "Molecular Biology of the Cell", or Robert's "Embryology, Epigenesis and Evolution", one comes to understand that random motions are unlikely to explain embryogenesis, but are you saying that proteins are aware and have volition? And if so, how does this awareness encompass our brain?

You and I are concerned with the same problem but have found two apparently quite different solutions. It may be worth while for us to question each other as a way to strengthen our models.

Thanks for your essay and your efforts to include consciousness as part of physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you too "for your essay and your efforts to include consciousness as part of physics."

Addressing whether your "Bendix alarm clock has free will." Either the free will of brains is due to the collective behavior of their constituent parts or not. If not, show me how not. What am I missing? On the other hand, spectroscopy shows that oxygen has a highly specific and sophisticated behavior that reacts to its environment. I dare say my brain would be at a loss without it. I say that proteins are self-governing. For example, hemoglobin freely chooses oxygen in one local environment and its actions exchange it for carbon dioxide in a different local environment. Sometimes it along with its parent molecular-self pays the consequence of death and annihilation when hemoglobin makes a mistake and freely chooses carbon monoxide. The pre-renaissance concept of free will has connotations of choice, self-governance, consequence of action, etc. that is unique to each individual person. Hemoglobin and all protein behavior fit that description well enough that I say that this medieval idea may not need to be abandoned along with that era's idea of indulgences, for example. So yes technically, atoms and clocks have a limited free will. On the other hand, they lack a genetic time scale and are in my view not conscious. This means their limited free will lacks the ultimate consequence of action of losing its collective billions of year old genetic legacy along with its consciousness, which is implied by the original idea of free will.

Sure, I consider consciousness as awareness plus free will. However, people with blindsight are unconsciously aware of objects. They also have the free will to act on them. This begs the questions "Why is the subconscious mind not conscious?" and "Why are there these two kinds of mind?" What do you think?

You asked me, "What am I missing?" I don't think we differ so much in what facts we know. I would say we differ more in how we weight certain facts differently. Due to the weight differences our interpretations are different. For example, I give more weight to mechanisms of molecular biology and chemistry than to mechanisms of gravity in understanding how our conscious brains work. I think I understand how a lack of oxygen could terminate my conscious experience. I fail to understand how gravity would play a part in that kind of detail. What am I missing?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder

Thanks for your reply. You state "Addressing whether your "Bendix alarm clock has free will." Either the free will of brains is due to the collective behavior of their constituent parts or not. If not, show me how not. What am I missing?"

George, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the atomic and molecular elements have consciousness. This would seem possible, but if so, I do not understand how the fifty trillion cells in our body, each composed of a million or so atoms and molecules, can combine to produce a 'human level' awareness. This seems to me to imply a consciousness field. How else can all of the individuals elements "share" their consciousness?

It seems analogous to saying that one billion individually conscious Chinese come together and form a "Chinese consciousness". I don't think that you believe this, but if I am wrong, please correct me. What I am asking is how the microscopic elements form a macroscopic awareness. If it doesn't happen for billions of people, why would it happen for billions of molecules?

And yet, I am quite certain that my consciousness is at the human level. If it is based on atomic level consciousnesses, how does it transcend atomic level awareness?

My answer is that it is the field that is conscious. The field is conscious of microscopic phenomena at the atomic level, but also of macroscopic phenomena at the neural network level. Just one continuum field, not divided, but neither is it constant.

I have a major problem with atoms or molecules "becoming aware" due to architectural constructions. The modern consensus of consciousness "emerging" through evolution is not credible for me. No one has ever come close to explaining how putting building blocks together in a specific order can produce awareness and free will. This problem disappears if the field has always been present. You seem to be saying that atoms are inherently conscious when they are created (and I assume, electrons and quarks?) I find this preferable to believing that atoms are not conscious until they are arranged in a specific order. But I can not understand how one arrives at a "group" consciousness with out a field.

To me there are only 'degrees' of consciousness. The term "subconscious" has no real meaning to me. My theory couples the motion of mass (ions, vesicles, blood flow, etc) in the brain-body to the consciousness field. There is such a range of motion, induced by breathing, sleeping, anesthesia, alcohol, LSD, etc, that I do not focus on a specific level of consciousness. All are various body-brain motion states that couple to the field.

When I began investigating the idea that a consciousness field is the explanation, I decided to try to guess at a field equation. This is what I do in the beginning of my essay. The last thing that I expected was that it would have any connection to gravity. But the simplest and most symmetrical relations fell out of the fact that, while gravity is analogous to the electric field, there was no analogy to the magnetic field. By asking if consciousness could provide a "gravito-magnetic" analog, I plugged in the terms and started investigating. To my surprise, the idea that the consciousness field bears the same relation to gravity and mass that the magnetic field does to the electric field and charge not only makes for beautiful equations, but explains dozens of things that are otherwise unexplained in physics.

The lack of oxygen starves the cells, and the constant motion in cells, neural and other cells, comes to a halt, so the motion-induced consciousness also comes to a halt. This isn't "gravity-dependent", it simply falls out of the field equations.

Unless you are really comfortable with electromagnetic field equations, the need for inflation at the big bang, and the "flat rotation curves" of galaxies, then just forget about gravity. It has almost nothing to do with your question about oxygen starvation.

Thanks for you considered reply,

Edwin Eugene Klingman