Why Did Nature Choose Quantum Theory?

Nature did certainly not choose a theory. Will Bayesian structures explain why quantum theory has a record of success? I would rather expect that there are still some deeply hidden unjustified mathematical assumptions, which can be revealed as related to possible fallacies. What about Dedekind's notion of number? Do Heaviside's complex calculus and Minkowski's spacetime fit to reality? What about Hilbert space and compactification? Were all influential experiments including Stern/Gerlach's correctly interpreted? I see a lot of work to do.

I do not see a strict separation between quantum and macro world quantifiable. I am not aware of any strictly speaking reversible process, at least in the macro world. Maybe the quantum world is just an albeit useful fiction?

Eckard

Perhaps quantum mechanics is the inevitable foundational theory in *all* possible universes, and nature doesn't have a choice. (Kind of like how logic/mathematics must apply to all possible universes, which I believe to be true.)

If that is the case, then we should be asking: Why does nature prefer a classical world with an arrow of time? Why did nature choose decoherence? Maybe there are possible universes in which the 2nd law doesn't apply and all events are time-reversible and deterministic. But such universes probably would not include sentient beings....

One possible way to think about this is that quantum mechanics is the mot general form of probability. It defines probabilities on L^2 spaces, which is the measure theoretic version of probability theory. If the universe is the set of all possible outcomes, or configurations, the quantum mechanics might be the optimal basis.

Cheers LC

Very interesting, I believe the question "why choice/choose" cannot be applied to certain uncertainties, if that makes sense?..for instance if something can evolve from nothing, then can the opposite be true, can something degrade from existance to a non existance? for energy and mass for instance.

If one applies the logic of Einstiens E=mc2, then zero mass of quantum scale entities, can and will yield equal source energies?..reverse a large galactic mass backwards, one arrives at a zero point field "bit", do the same to a single proton and one arrives at the same zero point field.

The smallest empty nothing "quantum" field, has the potential to become the largest "relative" something.

Choice is inherent to a conscious glitch entity, the universe cannot choose to be something or nothing?, at least the universe has glitches that have evolved to make this, or that logical judgement.

From any location within a Relative landscape "large scale", the quantum realm becomes less detectable to glitches within this relative domain,(the larger the haystack, the harder the needle is to find)likewise from any location within the quantum "small scale", the more detectable the large scale becomes( the needle feels the haystacks mass, even though it covers the non observeable horizon, the needle picks up the vastness of the haystack, or the insignificantness of its virtual existance.

It is like asking if there will be a telescope built so powerful oneday,that it will be able to look outside the Universe?

A choice is made by human beings, themselves being part of nature, we think about theories and try to find proof for it, untill now no theorie was able and will be able to give the final answer. Nature as we experience it is causal and 4 dimensional, it has limits, untill now Planck length and time, velocity of light, but every limit is there to exeed, we always try to reach our own limits, we are curiuos...If we cannot reach these limits physically we try to reach them with our consciousness, and create theoretical worlds, this is not the choice of nature but one of the causes of nature. Our Quantum theory covers a lot of "facts" as we seem to observe them, but also brought us a new way of thinking about cause and event. However our universe is causal, when cause and event are mixed up we tend to say that it is chaos. Just imagine now a fifth dimension where there is no causality, and all the pas and future "events" are probabilities ans "present" as that, our consciuosness creates in this "chaos" life-lines that we experience as the causal reality.

When reaching the lower limit we approach this what I call Total Simultaneity , but physically we just cannot exeed this limit. So also entangled particles that seem to react simultaneously at any distance are linked in this what you also can call fifth dimension. It is all just another thought based on the knowledge of today, I am sure that in another 100 years we have other perhaps more suitable ideas, but we will never know the whole truth.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Hi Wilhelmus,

I think we know the whole truth at any moment in time, but this truth includes the underlying errors to be discovered. In this way our understanding is evolving from a lower truth to a higher truth.

This sounds like trying to be "positive" using the right words, but I think it reflects how we operate in the sciences more accurately than by saying we progress by moving from error to truth.

Don L.

Hi Don,

We are the profilers of our Universe, the crime scene is the part of the Universe that we are conscious about. When Hubble in 1920 became aware that the points that everybody thought to be stars in our own galaxy were other galaxies, then our crime scene inflated and a lot of new "proof" was added, we are now in the same state perhaps the megaverse is going to be the crime scene, and we ... we are remaining the same human being with our intelligence and the perceptance of "our" reality that influences our profiling.

If the Universe, Megaverse is infinite our profiling is effectuated on a point on a endelss line, in infinity, then we can ask ourselves is there progress in infinity ?

I am also positive , it is already a great progress to accept that we will never will be able to to know the whole truth, the point on the endless line that we are on is A LOCALITY in eternity, think about that and enjoy it.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

This discussion is so much fun! I appreciate your bridge into consciousness, and I love the questions you're asking about time.

It is my understanding that physics considers time to be a 4th dimension. If that is the case, how is entanglement affected when we remove the factor of time?

If measurement of one particle occurs in time, and then we remove time, is the second particle still affected? If there is no time, does reversibility exist, or is what we would call reversibility actually a new creation of what we expect to see?

Without the arrow of time organizing sequences of events, changes would occur multidimensionally, dimensions essentially superimposed on one-another in a present moment; reintroducing time and recording the changes could offer a glimpse into how dimensions of consciousness interact (the beginning of that telescope that goes beyond the Universe). Truly, consciousness does not need time. Human minds use time to interact with each other and engage in the enjoyment of discovery and linear appreciation.

Is there progress in infinity? That depends entirely on who's counting the beans - who's defining progress? If we think it's good and right to progress, then our study of the megaverse/multiverse is dependent entirely on our application of time. What if there is no time until we apply it?

When you say that the concepts of teleportation, nonlocality, entanglement and interference have been rejected by nature, what are you saying? Nature, as an alternate name for the universe, by nature includes the infinite creative ability that turns stars into galaxies once our minds have the capacity to conceive of that notion and then apply the inspiration, time and ingenuity to create physical instruments that reveal our unconscious knowing. How can Nature reject its own creation?

Thank you!

Kerri

Hi Kerri, I like your way of thinking about consciousnes. If you are interested pls take some time to read my essay : Realities out of Total Simultaneity.

I propose a 5th dimension behind the Planck length and time, where all the possible future and past events of all probable universes are "present", it is our consciousnes that realises a "life-line", a causal time line that we experience as "reality", so by ordering these events we create the causality that is the arrow of time in our 3+1dimensional universe.

Entanglement can be the cause of our existance, by "observing" CBR we create a universe with the so called "fine tuned" constants, all the other universes are "present" as probabilities to be alligned by other consciuosnesses, and so forming for them new "realities". All these realities are "staying" as traceble moments/places in the Total Simultaneity, so history is existing as "life-lines" in Total Simultaneity, the (all possible) futures are there too, ready to become reality for a consciousness.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

Hello Wilhelmus! Thank you for sharing your paper with me! Isn't it fun how we are dancing with the same concepts of creation and using different language to describe it! Every bit of information is there to be accessed in whatever way our minds and the very cells of our bodies are prepared to receive it!

I have another picture of cause and effect to share. This came from an event I facilitated a few years ago - it is a dance in consciousness, so come along for a moment...

"In everyday life, we know intuitively that effects cannot occur before the events that caused them" This is an assumption made in the absence of experience to the contrary... changes can be made in consciousness that alter past events such that that the physical reality of now is also altered. Acceptance of this premise will depend on one's willingness to accept a shift of consciousness as an "event" of cause and/or effect.

In consciousness it is possible to go "back" to an event, to rewrite the choices and subsequent sequences of events and see a marked difference in the current physical world. The effect is the enactment of a different response/choice to stimulus which happens before the cause of a different/new response, the "cause" defined by examination of the option to change the initial choice. Not provable by any scientific method I'm aware of, however, and I am very interested in discovering technology that can translate this sort of subtle energy exchange.

A-effect(new choice) B-cause(realization of option for new choice) C-change

------------I------------------------------------I--------------------------l------- (perceived time)

A 4 month old cat eats a poisoned mouse, not having the wisdom to avoid a mouse that doesn't move naturally and doesn't smell healthy. Over the next 5 months, the cat's digestive tract develops problems and bleeds consistently.

The consciousness of the 9 month old cat is addressed and taken back in "time" to the option/choice of not eating a mouse that doesn't move naturally or smell healthy. In the dimension of consciousness, the cat chooses instead to not eat the mouse.

The day following the event of the consciousness-time reversal, the cat's actual physical body is observed to have grown in size and vivacity, and the intestinal bleeding, which conventional medicine couldn't treat, ceases within days.

- What is the cause of the cessation of bleeding and when did it occur?

- Who is measuring time and what time are they measuring from?

- Is physics ready to quantify questions like this that directly address the dynamics of consciousness and time?

- What if there are two more laws of physics waiting to be discovered, and they address directly the dimensionality of consciousness?

I am so grateful that the information, theories and passion are shared in these sorts of forums.

Being free,

Kerri

Good afternoon Kerri,

I fully understand your cat. Once having eaten a poisened mouse he is sick, cause sick mouse event sick cat.

However the cat can with his conscious make contact with this what I call Total Simultaneity (from now on TS) and be "aware" that the mouse is sick and be aware that this results in his sickness, as a matter of fact this iqs like a memory about a fact that happened. In TS it happened becuase there all possible "causes" and all possible "events" are together (but none of them is aligned like here in the 3+1D causal deterministic universe. With animals they call this "instinct". With humans they call it "clairvoyance".

Now for the fact that you saw your cat the next day after eating the sick mouse and just being well. Here you can wonder if it is you or the cat whose consciousness has chosen another time-line and so carry on with a barnd new future, I tend to say that if you knew the cat had eaten a sick mouse, it is you who worried and loving your cat has chosen with your consciousness another time-line in TS. If you did not know you followed your cat's consciousness.

You mention that consciousness is another dimension, I like to see the consciousness as an intermediaire between our 3+1D Universe and the 5th (TS), that has a sort of entanglment with moments/places in TS and causing the DECOHERENCE, the cause of space/time. So there is in my opinion still auniverse where the bleeding of your cat did not stop, only it not your actual Universe any more, however those space/time quanta are still "present" in TS, there however the consciousness of your cat no lonfger present so no more events there...

About measuring time : This is one of the most basic questions, in my opinion time is the result from awareness of our consciousness of the past, the past is back into TS, the future is also there, the now is not existing. Measuring time in our Universe is only an agreement between humans to paralise their events, and have the idea that they are moving all on the same bases. Time is an individual experience.

Physics is a science that is looking also for answers by deducting and experimenting , however when your consciousness is changing life-lines you will enter another arrow of time.

This also gives answers about reincarnation (your consciousness touches life-lines of other individuals).

You can even say that people believing in God are also right in away of speaking, because their consciousness touches another consciousness that is for them incomprehensible, you could even say their consciousness touches the 5th dimension, which is for us "untouchable" and is the ALL.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

interesting reading :

http://physicsessays.org/search?sortby=newestdate&q=amrit

Amrit Sorli

I think he has a bit the same ideas as I have on time, only more materialistic

Wilhelmus

In quantum vacuum time is a numerical sequence of material change.

Density of quantum vacuum generates gravity and influences speed of material change, what we call on old language "relativity".

see more on www.spacelife.si

yours amritAttachment #1: Mass_and_gravity_have_origin_in_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_GRF_2012.pdf

dear Stefano and Jonathan,

Do you think: Is it still possible that there is a massless Higgs vacuum particle giving still mass to other particles?

E.g. giving mass to Quarks and Leptons by a continuous collision process, changing linear oscillating Higgs particles into gravitons and acting as the engine for Quarks and Leptons "eigen" energy and so called dark energy?

See perhaps: http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0002v4.pdf

http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/

Kerri,

you can certainly pack a lot of questions into a small comment box. Would like to talk about them, especially time, but not straight away.I'll think about them for a while.

There are some other things that you mentioned- eg. The bridge into consciousness. Trouble is such a thing allows access to knowledge that really should be out of bounds and that kind of extraordinary is uncomfortable to think about. The other is the "time traveling" cat. If the cats consciousness is involuntarily taken back it finds its still a kitten and eats the mouse all over again. Then you temporarily have an even more wretched cat that doesn't want to play even if time and toys are provided.

IMO The event belongs to a non existent former iteration of the Object universe, which led to changes that persist in the current Object reality. It has been superseded and does not exist to be altered. But no doubt the present biological response could, by -falsifying- the internal records of it. Which leads on to questions of the relative survival value of comforting delusions compared to the painful truth.

Kerri,

Thoughts on that heap of questions. Briefly this is what I currently think about them, (so explained from the perspective of the explanatory framework I am using rather than text book physics), and have previously discussed on the blog forum, in plain English. Don't know enough physics and realize I need further education to communicate well with mathematically minded physicists.

IMO the 4th dimensions belongs to space-time. Space-time is made from data in the environment amalgamated into an output when received and processed together. It is what is processed together into the same output not what is produced together which gives the present-now. That makes it "messed up". The data comes from different iterations of the object universe not all the same one. (Only the youngest exists as the others are superseded.)

Entanglement thought. The particles created by splitting from a single particle have to exist within the same Uni-temporal Now, ALWAYS, until detected and destroyed. So out of all of the things that might be observed in space-time those entangled particles belong to the same iteration of the universe, not different ones, if they are observed simultaneously (as well as being produced simultaneously). If they have an opposite characteristic at creation then they will retain that difference , as they are the same kind of thing and fluctuate in the same kind of way. Though they can be separated in space-time and if there is a spatial separation there is also a temporal separation- in the underlying foundational reality which is not observed they always exist simultaneously to each other, with the same relationship of their characteristics. There is still sequential change giving passage of time but no relationship of space to time in that foundational reality.

Reversibility exists theoretically in space-time. Data could be input in either "direction". but there is no rewind. The space-time from data input is superimposed on the object reality. The object Universe in motion continues in motion and nothing has sufficient force to stop it and rewind it. The -foundational change- and the -data production- is one way only and not reversible.Its that foundational object reality that we are part of /living in but the experience is the space-time image reality from data interception and processing.

Re arrows of time: 2 arrows. What -is- becoming the new what -is- superseding the former. Thats the traditional arrow of time which doesn't quite fit with space-time. It is the actualisation of the object universe preceding observation. Not in space-time but in the foundational reality. Then there is the other one. Data being formed from actualisations and then being observed as the present-now. The event always precedes its present observation and the order of events depends upon sequence of data interception. This gives future to present direction . Its going to be observed because the data exists on the path taken by the observer through space, making it a prewritten future. Then it is observed as the present then was observed making it past.Without space-time ordering of events there is still an underlying order. which is the sequence of the arrangements of the whole universe superseding each other. The structures rather than the the fabrication from data within it.

Non locality and entanglement makes sense now in a simplistic way. The observed space-time reality not being the underlying foundational or source reality allows spooky action at a distance and opens up the possibility that things can occur outside of the constrains of the physics of space-time.It also poses the question so what is out there in space existing simultaneously in the same uni-temporal Now, with the space-time observer rather than the space time image.We seem to be moving in such a way that we are always "looking out of the rear view window" at what was rather than what co exists or lies ahead. Not going to speculate on what can be done here as I would at least like to give the impression of being sensible.

You asked "How can nature reject its own creation?" Nature is not just space-time. The space-time universe has been fabricated from received data that has then been interpreted. The image reality is not the underlying stuff of the universe. I don't think the Object universe requires a birth as it is probably a process, endless feedback and recycling and not just an object with a beginning and an end. So rather than being a one off creation event it is endless creation in action. At the risk of sounding a bit theological it would be the foundational creator and creation process and observation of that creation rather than a singular supernatural and final creation event.

I agree with John Merryman "there is no objective judge here". But I reckon that the more questions an explanatory framework can consistently answer the more likely to be "barking up the right tree" at least. Please disagree or comment/ add your own thoughts. I really would appreciate any feedback.

Kerri,

just thought I should add this. I think the difference between the objects that are entangled and those that are not is that the entangled ones are part of the same arrangement or iteration of the Object universe. Everything that is within uni-temporal Now is co existing in the unobserved foundational or Source reality, together in space. So -those- objects and particles in those relationships can affect each other. Due to positions, separations, orientations, scale and so on forces act and changes occur.

That is different from objects that -appear- together in a space-time present which are only there together in the observed positions and relationships and forms because data from the environment has been amalgamated to create that Image reality output. The positions and relationships can be different according to different observers.

The change that is seen to occur is a result of the change in data input to the observer which creates the space-time image reality output. That is the prewritten future (data) becoming the observed present-now output. Its not the outcome of the observed present relationships giving the new observed present. I sort of mean the images don't form new images but the actualisations, new unobserved forms and relationships, provide the data by reflection or emission of EM which form the image output.The sequence of images formed from received data is the space-time reality for a particular observer.

The changes in the foundational or source reality have occurred giving the new unobserved actualisations which will provide the data for the space-time present output before any change is observed. The entire space-time continuum as imagined bang to crunch, or cold death, or whatever does not exist externally as data in the environment IMO but data is still and continuously being formed DEPENDENT upon the foundational or source reality...and the sequence of actualisations is the Source reality which is INDEPENDENT of the reality formed from the sequence of data input to the observers (space-time).

The main point of that explanation being that the entangled things have a foundational relationship and -potential to interact and affect to each other- rather than a superficial observed relationships which are having no affect. Instead the changes in space-time being like playing of a prerecorded story-the sequence of data input giving observed output.

Your thoughts?

Though there is potentially eternal change and so an infinite number of iterations of the universe only the youngest exists the other versions having been superseded. So the imagined infinity of Object universe forms, my kind of multiverse, is being continually added to but they do not actually exist. What does exist is -data- created within those prior arrangements which persists in the youngest iteration and that data can form -images of former arrangements-. Not an infinite amount of data though because, speculating, eventually the data is so old it has become background radiation and more is always being formed. Can't be left over from the big bang if there wasn't one. Too controversial?

Sorry that is a lot of writing but you did ask a whole lot of questions in one go.

Kerri,

you might have or might yet receive a little lesson in NZ English. Its a fascinating reflection of cultural identity. The first expression explained to me was "rattle your dags" which means hurry up. Dags are the little bits of dry poo that stick to the wool at the back end of the sheep and rattle as it runs! The Kiwis are said to have a number 8 wire mentality. No8 wire is the standard for sheep fencing but it has many other uses with self reliance, resourcefulness and ingenuity. I added a couple of expressions the first "she'll be right" seems to be used whenever there is a problem, mechanical breakdown or upset. It is neither dismissive nor sympathetic but reaffirmation of a cultural optimism in the face of any adversity.You might be able to remind me what the second expression was. Then I can then translate that one as well.

Bye for now, Georgina.

Whoever,

RE. whether the wavefunction is real or not: The observed "thing" in space time is formed from data. That data may "contain" a spread of time and space, as it may have been -produced- at different times and the source object may have had a sequence of different position when the data was produced. All of the data exists in the unitemporal Now, the youngest arrangement of the object universe. How the thing is observed depends on -which data- is selected but all of the possibilities -are out there- in the environment as data prior to observation. So the observed thing, observed or potentially observed in many different ways has an origin in the external unitemporal reality.

The "how" of those multiple possibilities of observation are very different from the possibilities for a quantum object it seems to me.

The wavefunction has to be spread across the different arrangements of the Object universe in sequence. When the object/particle is observed depends upon when the observation is made, which arrangement is selected, and that depends upon the observer's choice. Prior to the observer's choice it might be observed in any of those different universe arrangements, so its position might be -thought of- as being in all of them but only one arrangement of the sequence can exist. So it can't actually be spread across all of them simultaneously.

It seems to me a way of thinking about what is going on. The same way that the position of a particle changing overtime going through the sequence of arrangements of the Object universe might be thought of as string like. It might be helpful to think of it that way but it isn't a string though- because only the youngest arrangement exists the others superseded.

And this is not in space-time because it is nothing to do with what is created from data that was formed from the foundational reality. They are different facets of reality. The foundational or source one is independent and the space time one dependent on the foundational or source one. This structure of reality allows QM and space-time, wavefunctions and relativity but there is nothing supernatural about any of it.

The fun (for me) is not in talking for the sake of talking but in building the sandcastles. What happens next ideally is someone comes and stomps all over it and/ or tries to knock it down or at least tests it. The weaknesses can be addressed and it can be built again, only better. But if it can't be knocked down because, despite the odds against it, is actually very solidly built and beautiful then it would be nice for someone to actually comment on what is good in their opinion or what they particularly like about it. It would be interesting to hear/discuss how it might be further improved or modified to give something even better. However that does depend upon finding someone who is interested in interacting and discussing, who can appreciate what it is and what it does and its potential in the first place.