Cosmic Schrodinger's Cat

Massive astrophysical objects governed by subatomic equation: The Schrödinger Equation makes an unlikely appearance at the astronomical scale

This is one of those unexpected discoveries that obviously caught the astronomers off-guard and speechless for the most part. Theoretical physics is not necessarily their strength, with these kinds of astronomical studies focusing more on General Relativity. The fact they found this means they can now examine it for fractal recursions in nature across vast scales ranging from the most extreme cosmic scales to the smallest subatomic measurable today.

Mathematicians have already developed the applicable equation, which is a multidimensional multifractal composed of a notably classical appearing Fractal Dragon, emerging from a more humble Mandelbrot. Sort of a fractal hour-glass shape, blurred and twisted in the middle, but that's just a silhouette of a higher dimensional figure. There are four well established teams of scientists worldwide that have been searching for decades for just this sort of fractal recursion in nature using different rudimentary approaches. It could provide proof that the wave-function never collapses, and the classical world is merely part of the larger quantum.

 

This is very interesting, though not wholly unexpected. The distribution of mass throughout the universe is already almost 100% correllated to how quantum randomness would predict it to be.

The quantum realm is so weird that scientists have a hard time discussing it outside of the mathematical framework that describes it. They are far more comfortable looking at reality in terms of classical physics. Therefore they simply write it off as a description of reality at a different level and does not play much of a role in reality as we experience it. But I feel that quantum mechanics plays a bigger role in the make up of our reality than we give it credit for.

We already know that if we break people and the objects around us down to their smallest bits--quanta--that the Schrodinger equation governs reality--people just haven't thought of it in those terms.

This is very interesting----how do you understand this? Are you saying that particles do not exist, or are you saying that they exist simultaneously to the wave?

In my own concept of this, I argue that the particle---i.e. a physical space-time position, happens within the shortest possible time frame---1 Planck Time at 1 Planck Length. After working with this for a little bit, I realized that the particle would experience space-time just as light does: light time = light distance. In other words, there is no experience of time at the speed of light, and therefore no experience of space. In yet other words, light does not really exist in the reality (filled with light and other electromagnetic radiation (which is also light in a manner of speaking)) that we experience. If it is also true that particles only have a position for a period where light time equals light distance then they too do not exist within the reality we experience. In fact, it would be impossible for any partcle of mass to fit into 1 Planck distance anyway. If it is true then that the position of a particle happens within this small point (which I call the Quantum Now), then we would never actually have the position of a whole particle of mass, and in any given moment, a whole particle does not even exist--and even when 1 Planck distance worth of particle exists, it exists for the exact same light time as light distance so that, like light, it doesn't even really exist in a physical sense.

So the question now becomes, what makes an electron or a neutron different from light? Quantum information. In that area then is the information of a proton, or an electron, or a neutron (and this is Planck's Equation at work---E=hf) and if needed, the next thing to manifest there is also a piece of that particle----or collectively with the trillions and trillions of other particles----we percieve an object (to reduce it into its most simplistic terms).

Or another question---if that is the case, then how is it possible to measure the mass of a whole proton, for example, or to observe a proton for example. It would simply require something like 20 quintillion Planck times---roughly about the time it takes for a photon to cross the diameter of a proton.

But in this sense, there really is no collapse, just as there really is no particle----it is all phenomena----or quantum information if you prefer...

 

Wouldn't discoveries like these change the dynamic of prior theories? Or their validity? Physics and mathematics aren't exactly fluid. When I read things like this, it seems like they can be, though.

 

Galileo introduced modern science to exact measurements, Newton then invented the calculus, but all the evidence indicates what we now require is systems logic. Such systems logics can treat energy and information as indivisible and, at times, indistinguishable and interchangeable. If a photon hits your eye it is both noise and information, until you place it in context. One photon hitting your eye is a negligible amount of energy, but a trillion trillion can give you a sunburn. Whether you perceive the photon as information or energy, depends on whether an atomic bomb just exploded nearby or a firefly.

The problem with quantum information, is that people still treat it classically, as ultimately distinguishable from noise. Assuming 42 really is as good an explanation as any other, then the laws of physics and types of particles are all ultimately, simply the default. They would appear to exist merely because we would not be conscious of their existence if they were any different. The dreamer and the dream are one, and that means all the exact measurements being taken in physics have to be combined with natural philosophy to make more sense, and natural philosophy can be considered an applied science.

Thus far, physics has largely avoided the issue, preferring to "Shut up and calculate", but the computers are about to spit out the numbers, forcing them to confront a mountain of their own evidence. That's what Bohr originally meant by "Shut up and calculate", was the problem was simply too foreign for modern physics to confront, and it would be best to wait until they accumulated enough measurements to make the situation blatantly obvious.

 

For others reading this---42 refers to a post of mine, post #42, in the thread, The Holographic Universe in the Philosophy section (correct me iof I'm wrong.

 

So in other words, you have no idea what they are talking about

 

Well I saw it on a big bang theory episode, so I kinda know.

 

According to Wikipedia, 42 is the natural number between 41 and 43, but any 42 of your personal preference will suffice for the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

 

It all depends on your frame of reference---and how deep into the nature of reality you want to look. Physical reality as it is perceived follows the rules of Newtonian or classical physics. If we go deeper into the nature of reality, we find that those rules do become fluid----because, in my own philosophy, we are moving from the acutality of physicality to the potentiality that deeper levels represent. From our physical perspective it appears that it is all about bringing an absolute potentiality (where infinite futures are possible) into a specific actuality (that has only one present and leaves only one past).

 

Ah yes----I guess you did reference that before.

...maybe I was writing from an alternate universe----WAIT!! In your universe did Americans vote in a reality TV star who gained power and wealth from his father and is rapidly destroying America as we know it?! ;-)

 

I don't...understand... I mean this quite literally.

 

Karma's a bitch! Our's is a metaphorical multiverse where all the karmic universe collide.

 

We are spirits in the material world, where actuality and potential depend on your karma.

 

I prefer to use the generic term, 'mind.' This leaves it open to individual interpretation, follows Western philosophical tradition, and can equally apply to anything from a universal mind, to the individuated mind of an individual, and anywhere in between. It can even apply to quantum information.

Though, since I argue that physically only the present exists, mind must therefore transcend physicality.

 

The Measurement Problem
John D. Norton
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
University of Pittsburgh

The Measurement Problem

excerpt:

Responses to the Measurement Problem

One of the largest of the recent literatures in philosophy of quantum theory has sought to resolve the measurement problem and we can only have the briefest glimpse of them here. Generally speaking, most of those responses fall into five groups.

1. Accept the standard account.
2. Complementarity.
3. Hidden variable theory.
4. New dynamics.
5. No collapse theories, "many worlds."

 

Modern science is about to prove that they themselves are full of crap, merely spouting tautological and self-contradictory bullshit that just happens to be extremely useful. The metaphors we use to communicate are all arranged according to the proximity of syntax in the brain, meaning, all of modern science, language, and concepts are demonstrably metaphorical and require a systems logic, rather than semantics, in order to make more sense out of the mess. From a linguistic point of view, what we all require is more heart, or more compassion, joy, and courage with the question being how do these arise. Whether we are doing all the thinking and feeling or the universe is doing it for us should always remain debatable and the metaphors themselves can appear to "turn the light bulb on" or even take on a life of their own.

Its my own humorous interpretation of John Wheeler's "Participatory Anthropic Principle" where we appear to have no choice in the matter, but to participate in creating our own universe because, surprise, you always have to decide what is you and what is the universe.

 

There is yet another category, that of words have no demonstrable meaning whatsoever except in specific contexts because, DUH! We ourselves must decide if they have any intrinsic meaning whatsoever. Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am!", but that's just what he thought. Murphy was always the optimist in my family after a few drinks, while I required more proof! Modern science is about to confront their own evidence they are full of shit. The enduring bullshit that can be spoken of is not the enduring bullshit, requiring a metaphorical systems logic that isn't on that list, because physicists and academics in general have stunted senses of humor.

Karmic universes are merely one of four rudimentary metaphors that can express things the other root metaphors cannot. There is currently a race to discover the four root metaphors and systems logic, while I am a master of the 12,000 year old art. Thankfully, not all of us are impressed with academia's nonstop gibberish and support of the establishment, and have deliberately worked on our sense of humor.

 

We have had some lively debates on this forum over the measurement problem. It is pretty controversial. Ontologically, the biggest question of all over the measurement problem is whether or not our 'human' measurement/observation determines the outcome, i.e. whether we create the reality.

One problem with the argument is that I don't think anyone takes into consideration the implications of decoherence. There is the assumption that the measurement itself creates the only collapse and that it collapses either as a wave, or a particle based on whether we measure it for a particle, or don't measure it and leave it as a wave. Measuring the particle creates decoherence, and decoherence coincides with a collapse. But everyone forgets that there is decoherence all through the experiment. At the very least, there is decoherence at the measurement and at the screen or other device where the result is recorded, in other words there is at least 2 collapses when a measurement is made, and probably more, and that even when no measurement is made there is still at least one collapse (at the screen or recording device)--meaning that even a wave involves a collapse. This destroys many of the arguments because it is saying that it is not the collapse itself that determines that a particle is there---it is the quantum information that is signalling a particle. And even in the case of the interference pattern indicating a wave, there is a collapse of particles only instead of indicating that there is a particle, they are indicating a wave. Or we could argue that there is never a collapse burt simply information moving through the system.

Philosophically, this presents a very phenomenalist picture of reality---it doesn't matter about the particle---it is the phenomena that is generated that is most important. I believe the reason that scientists are not factoring decoherence completely into the results is that the math focuses on the measurement and the prediction, which is all about whether there is a particle, or the spin, or other qualities of the particle they choose to measure. They also treat both the wave and the particle as physical, whereas I argue that the wave is nonphysical which makes this problem more obvious.

The question of whether or not human intention (via a measurement/observation) shapes reality is a question of materialism vs. idealism. But it also involves a related argument of materialism vs essentialism--i.e. whether the ground of Being is essence or existence. The materialist argument is that the ground of Being is existence, whereas the essentialist one is that essence is the ground of being. Essentialism generally goes with idealism---as even the Ancient Greek word for essence or form is 'idea,' (eidos). (However, I should point out that we could still make an essentialist argument even if we agreed that the human observation was not required to create a collapse into a particle). I have argued about the measurement problem for some time, but I have now moved onto other issues in Quantum Mechanics that I think are just as problematic for a materialist conclusion----for example---the problem of form and inertia: in a universe of quantum uncertainty how does any object maintain a consistent form from one moment to the next? Quantum Information is basically the form or essence that gives rise to physicality at the atomic and subatomic levels. Scientists currently dismiss the issue by saying that the quantum world is separate from the classical world. I have been arguing that such an argument is a cop-out and that it certainly does. The article in the OP is yet another example that Quantum Mechanics does play out in the world we understand as real----the world of classical physics.

 

According to their own evidence, the Quantum Measurement Problem is not limited to the realm of uber tiny quanta and the evidence to support this is showing up in astronomy today, with each new astronomy headline contradicting the last one. It is an issue related to existence itself being ultimately metaphorical, or paradoxical, reality and the dream. The clearest way to test the issue is by studying the human mind and brain, with Roger Penrose's theory of quantum vibrations in the brain having already received its first two experimental confirmations. It means a quantum computer interface can theoretically be entangled with the operator, thus it provides the self-evident truth, and the fuzzy logic contained in my poetry expresses how such an interface can be organized.

I'm currently in the process of building a work station for the device, but graphics cards and memory prices are through the ceiling. The mathematicians and computers can finish my poetry, but they have no comprehension of how to systematically construct the interface which combines fractal and continuum mechanics, because they require a more egalitarian tribal sense of humor and aesthetic appreciation, capable of expressing both integrals and differentials. You might as well ask the Three Stooges to do brain surgery. For all their vaunted objectivity, academics fail to recognize jokes, and might as well be from another planet as far as I am concerned. That they continue to stoically beat their heads against the quantum measurement problem, and contradict their own evidence that it is not merely a question of size, almost 100 years later, is a measure of just how well they have been conditioned to follow the all-mighty dollar.

Its so bad, you would not believe how many millions and billions are being spent on research that even the physics community at large insists is utterly pointless and proves nothing. Nobody ever accused academics of bowing out gracefully unless, of course, money is involved. Mathematically, what I'm working on is also related to the Monstrous Moonshine Conjecture which has, to everyone's surprise, been established on a firm foundation providing a clear way to test infinities on even macroscopic scales. It means time itself is never quite what you think it is... going down the nearest rabbit hole or off into the far flung reaches of space, where the illusion of continuity begins to give way to noise.

 

I agree. We have disenchanted the universe---that is why there is so little heart, compassion, and joy in such questions.

In my own interpretation, having been heavily influenced by existentialism at an early age, I do place a strong emphasis on free will or existential freedom. The mind is not only passive and reactionary, but it is also active and creative. There is the mind of the universe, which at the deepest level may incorporate everything and everyone into one (and by deepest, I mean the furthest dimension from physicality), but that breaks down into a physicality where every point of the universe is subjective. Living beings represent individuated mind with varying degrees of sentience. Their individuation begins with an a priori 'I am' understanding or awareness. The level of inderstanding of course varies with the degree of sentience (but you chase a cockroach, for example, in an attempt to kill it and then explain to me that there is no self-interest in its will to survive.) We each have an understanding of reality---some of it is conscious, the rest is unconscious. This is generally an a priori in itself---the way things were, and therefore how we understand them to be, or the way things happen, or will happen, that makes sense and so it is. It is in this area where we most actively create the reality around us---but as you say---where is the limit of what we create (or dream) and where is it the universe.

The universe of course has its own path---creation of reality through the universal mind---the flow of the Tao. a rock on a distant dead planet orbitting a dying star is obviously not being created in each moment by any sentient life form as we understand it. But we can generally assume that in each moment it is just as much there as the computer I am posting this on. But the reality around us is certainly influenced by us, by the universe, and collectively by those around us.

But there is authentic intention, where we can specifically shape reality---in fact, we can shape it in any way we want, the catch being that we have to authentically believe in the change and that we can do it. We cannot fake this belief---it has to make logical sense to us and seem natural. There were some very interesting experiments done at MIT regarding the power of intention. The results were far better than one would have expected.