Entries Tagged with "Quantum"


Peter Lynds___Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity

Published on Saturday, July 22nd, 2006

There is no clock; “time” is an illusion
• Time has no indivisible unit.
• There is no “now,” only sequences of events.
Peter Lynds
Time, Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Indeterminacy, Discontinuity, Relativity, Cosmology, Imaginary Time, Chronons, Zeno’s Paradoxes.
It is postulated there is not a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined. It is concluded it is exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is also shown to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally
conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis.
Peter Lynds___Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity
Ground-breaking work in understanding of time
Peter Lynds Homepage

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Quantum entanglement

Published on Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006

I’ve deliberately left out the mathematical equations which go with this article. If you wish to see all equations click on the bottom reference. Myswizard

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. Nevertheless, classical information cannot be transmitted through entanglement faster than the speed of light.

Quantum entanglement is closely concerned with the emerging technologies of quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used for experiments in quantum teleportation. At the same time, it produces some of the more theoretically and philosophically disturbing aspects of the theory. The correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in experiment, naively appear to be inconsistent with the seemingly obvious principle of local realism, which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement give rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Background
Entanglement is one of the properties of quantum mechanics which caused Einstein and others to dislike the theory. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen formulated the EPR paradox, a quantum-mechanical thought experiment with a highly counterintuitive and apparently nonlocal outcome. Einstein famously derided entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.”

On the other hand, quantum mechanics has been highly successful in producing correct experimental predictions, and the strong correlations associated with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement have in fact been observed. One apparent way to explain quantum entanglement is an approach known as “hidden variable theory”, in which unknown deterministic microscopic parameters would cause the correlations. However, in 1964 Bell derived an upper limit, known as Bell’s inequality, on the strength of correlations for any theory obeying “local realism” (see principle of locality). Quantum entanglement can lead to stronger correlations that violate this limit, so that quantum entanglement is experimentally distinguishable from a broad class of local hidden-variable theories. Results of subsequent experiments have overwhelmingly supported quantum mechanics. It is known that there are a number of loopholes in these experiments. High efficiency and high visibility experiments are now in progress which should accept or reject those loopholes. For more information, see the article on Bell test experiments.

Observations on entangled states naively appear to conflict with the property of Einsteinian relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This occurs for two subtle reasons: (i) quantum mechanical measurements yield probabilistic results, and (ii) the no cloning theorem forbids the statistical inspection of entangled quantum states.

Although no information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, because a classical information channel is involved.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Quantum entanglement”.


Tags:

EPR paradox

Published on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006

In quantum mechanics, the EPR paradox (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) is a thought experiment which demonstrates that the result of a measurement performed on one part of a quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on the result of a measurement performed on another part, regardless of the distance separating the two parts. Although this may seem incompatible with special relativity, which states that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, this is not the case. “EPR” stands for Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, who introduced the thought experiment in a 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory. It is sometimes referred to as the EPRB paradox for David Bohm, who converted the original thought experiment into something closer to being experimentally testable.

Although originally devised as a thought experiment that should expose quantum mechanics’ incompleteness, actual experimental results, carried out when technology later became available, do demonstrate the non-local effect, effectively retorting against the EPR trio’s original purpose. The “spooky action at a distance” that so disturbed EPR consistently occurs in numerous and widely replicated experiments. Einstein never really accepted quantum mechanics as a “real” and complete theory, struggling to the end of his career (and life) for an interpretation that could comply with his Relativity without implying “God playing dice”, as he condensed his dissatisfaction with QM’s intrinsic randomness and (still to be resolved) counter-intuitivity.

The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as “locality”, “realism”, and “completeness”), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor — as it turns out — does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed.

Description of the paradox
The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, known as quantum entanglement, to show that measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. This effect is now known as “nonlocal behaviour” (or colloquially as “quantum weirdness”). In order to illustrate this, let us consider a simplified version of the EPR thought experiment due to Bohm.

Measurements on an entangled state
We have a source that emits pairs of electrons, with one electron sent to destination A, where there is an observer named Alice, and another is sent to destination B, where there is an observer named Bob. According to quantum mechanics, we can arrange our source so that each emitted electron pair occupies a quantum state called a spin singlet. This can be viewed as a quantum superposition of two states, which we call I and II. In state I, electron A has spin pointing upward along the z-axis (+z) and electron B has spin pointing downward along the z-axis (-z). In state II, electron A has spin -z and electron B has spin +z. Therefore, it is impossible to associate either electron in the spin singlet with a state of definite spin. The electrons are thus said to be entangled.

The EPR thought experiment, performed with electrons. A source (center) sends electrons toward two observers, Alice (left) and Bob (right), who can perform spin measurements.
Alice now measures the spin along the z-axis. She can obtain one of two possible outcomes: +z or -z. Suppose she gets +z. According to quantum mechanics, the quantum state of the system collapses into state I. (Different interpretations of quantum mechanics have different ways of saying this, but the basic result is the same.) The quantum state determines the probable outcomes of any measurement performed on the system. In this case, if Bob subsequently measures spin along the z-axis, he will obtain -z with 100% probability. Similarly, if Alice gets -z, Bob will get +z.

There is, of course, nothing special about our choice of the z axis. For instance, suppose that Alice and Bob now decide to measure spin along the x-axis. According to quantum mechanics, the spin singlet state may equally well be expressed as a superposition of spin states pointing in the x direction. We’ll call these states Ia and IIa. In state Ia, Alice’s electron has spin +x and Bob’s electron has spin -x. In state IIa, Alice’s electron has spin -x and Bob’s electron has spin +x. Therefore, if Alice measures +x, the system collapses into Ia, and Bob will get -x. If Alice measures -x, the system collapses into IIa, and Bob will get +x.

In quantum mechanics, the x-spin and z-spin are “incompatible observables”, which means that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty principle operating between them: a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for both variables. Suppose Alice measures the z-spin and obtains +z, so that the quantum state collapses into state I. Now, instead of measuring the z-spin as well, Bob measures the x-spin. According to quantum mechanics, when the system is in state I, Bob’s x-spin measurement will have a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of -x. Furthermore, it is fundamentally impossible to predict which outcome will appear until Bob actually performs the measurement.

Incidentally, although we have used spin as an example, many types of physical quantities — what quantum mechanics refers to as “observables” — can be used to produce quantum entanglement. The original EPR paper used momentum for the observable. Actual experimental realizations of the EPR scenario often use the polarization of photons, because it is easy to prepare and to measure.

Reality and completeness
We will now introduce two concepts used by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, which are crucial to their attack on quantum mechanics: (i) the elements of physical reality and (ii) the completeness of a physical theory.

The authors did not directly address the philosophical meaning of an “element of physical reality”. Instead, they made the assumption that if the value of any physical quantity of a system can be predicted with absolute certainty prior to performing a measurement or otherwise disturbing it, then that quantity corresponds to an element of physical reality. Note that the converse is not assumed to be true; there may be other ways for elements of physical reality to exist, but this will not affect the argument.

Next, EPR defined a “complete physical theory” as one in which every element of physical reality is accounted for. The aim of their paper was to show, using these two definitions, that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory.

Let us see how these concepts apply to the above thought experiment. Suppose Alice decides to measure the value of spin along the z-axis (we’ll call this the z-spin.) After Alice performs her measurement, the z-spin of Bob’s electron is definitely known, so it is an element of physical reality. Similarly, if Alice decides to measure spin along the x-axis, the x-spin of Bob’s electron is an element of physical reality after her measurement.

We have seen that a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for both x-spin and z-spin. If quantum mechanics is a complete physical theory in the sense given above, x-spin and z-spin cannot be elements of reality at the same time. This means that Alice’s decision — whether to perform her measurement along the x- or z-axis — has an instantaneous effect on the elements of physical reality at Bob’s location. However, this violates another principle, that of locality.

Locality in the EPR experiment
The principle of locality states that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to make, as it seems to be a consequence of special relativity, which states that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality. It is generally believed that any theory which violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus deeply unsatisfactory.

It turns out that quantum mechanics violates the principle of locality without violating causality. Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining “+” and 50% of obtaining “-”, completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the “no cloning theorem”, which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting “+” and 50% of getting “-”, regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice’s.

However, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein derided the quantum mechanical predictions as “spooky action at a distance”. The conclusion they drew was that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory.

It should be noted that the word locality has several different meanings in physics. For example, in quantum field theory “locality” means that quantum fields at different points of space do not interact with one another. However, quantum field theories that are “local” in this sense violate the principle of locality as defined by EPR.

Resolving the paradox

Hidden variables
There are several possible ways to resolve the EPR paradox. The one suggested by EPR is that quantum mechanics, despite its success in a wide variety of experimental scenarios, is actually an incomplete theory. In other words, there is some as-yet-undiscovered theory of nature to which quantum mechanics acts as a kind of statistical approximation (albeit an exceedingly successful one). Unlike quantum mechanics, the more complete theory contains variables corresponding to all the “elements of reality”. There must be some unknown mechanism acting on these variables to give rise to the observed effects of “non-commuting quantum observables”, i.e. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such a theory is called a hidden variable theory.

To illustrate this idea, we can formulate a very simple hidden variable theory for the above thought experiment. One supposes that the quantum spin-singlet states emitted by the source are actually approximate descriptions for “true” physical states possessing definite values for the z-spin and x-spin. In these “true” states, the electron going to Bob always has spin values opposite to the electron going to Alice, but the values are otherwise completely random. For example, the first pair emitted by the source might be “(+z, -x) to Alice and (-z, +x) to Bob”, the next pair “(-z, -x) to Alice and (+z, +x) to Bob”, and so forth. Therefore, if Bob’s measurement axis is aligned with Alice’s, he will necessarily get the opposite of whatever Alice gets; otherwise, he will get “+” and “-” with equal probability.

Assuming we restrict our measurements to the z and x axes, such a hidden variable theory is experimentally indistinguishable from quantum mechanics. In reality, of course, there is an (uncountably) infinite number of axes along which Alice and Bob can perform their measurements, so there has to be an infinite number of independent hidden variables! However, this is not a serious problem; we have formulated a very simplistic hidden variable theory, and a more sophisticated theory might be able to patch it up. It turns out that there is a much more serious challenge to the idea of hidden variables.

Bell’s inequality
In 1964, John Bell showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EPR thought experiment are actually slightly different from the predictions of a very broad class of hidden variable theories. Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics predicts much stronger statistical correlations between the measurement results performed on different axes than the hidden variable theories. These differences, expressed using inequality relations known as “Bell’s inequalities”, are in principle experimentally detectable. For a detailed derivation of this result, see the article on Bell’s theorem.

After the publication of Bell’s paper, a variety of experiments were devised to test Bell’s inequalities. (As mentioned above, these experiments generally rely on photon polarization measurements.) All the experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

However, the book is not completely closed on this issue. First of all, Bell’s theorem does not apply to all possible “realist” theories. It is possible to construct theories that escape its implications, and are therefore indistinguishable from quantum mechanics, though these theories are generally non-local — they are believed to violate both causality and the rules of special relativity. Some workers in the field have also attempted to formulate hidden variable theories that exploit loopholes in actual experiments, such as the assumptions made in interpreting experimental data. However, no one has ever been able to formulate a local realist theory that can reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.

Implications for quantum mechanics
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is only a “paradox” because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. Several different conclusions can be drawn from this, depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. In the old Copenhagen interpretation, one concludes that the principle of locality does not hold, and that instantaneous wavefunction collapse really does occur. In the many-worlds interpretation, locality is preserved, and the effects of the measurements arise from the splitting of the observers into different “histories”.

The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a “measurement” can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.

Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. In quantum computation, entangled quantum states are used to perform computations in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.


Tags: , ,

Quantum mind

Published on Tuesday, March 14th, 2006

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a protoscientific hypothesis that posits a connection between consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics. There are many blank areas in understanding the brain dynamics and especially how it gives rise to consciousness. The hypothesis claims that quantum mechanics is capable of explaining conscious experience.

Introduction
The nature of consciousness and its place in the universe remain unknown. Classical models view consciousness as computation among the brain’s neurons but as yet has failed to describe an exact mechanism. Quantum processes in the brain have been invoked as explanations for consciousness and its enigmatic features. Some theories have been subjected to experimental tests and evidence indicating that quantum non-locality is occurring in conscious and subconscious brain functions has been claimed, however these results have not gained wide acceptance.

Supporters argue that the brain can no longer be seen as simply a vast piece of organic clockwork, but as a subtle device amplifying quantum events and that quantum computation would surely be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, and biology has had 4 billion years to solve the decoherence problem and evolve quantum mechanisms.

The main argumentative line can be summed up as follows: Human thought, based on the Gödel result, is sound, yet non-algorithmic, and the human thinker is aware of or conscious of the contents of these thoughts. The only recognized instances of non-algorithmic processes in the universe, based on accepted physical theories are purely random or the reduction of the quantum mechanical state vector. Randomness is not promising as the source of the non-algorithmicity needed to account for consciousness, therefore certain quantum mechanical phenomena must be responsible.

Critics deride this comparison as a mere “minimization of mysteries,” ( A term coined by David Chalmers, the idea that since quantum and consciousness are both mysteries, they must be related.) and point out that the brain is too warm for quantum computation, which in the technological realm requires extreme cold to avoid “decoherence” (i.e. the loss of seemingly delicate quantum states by interaction with the environment.)

Some modern “New Age” writers have used the theory to support the belief that the human mind commands special powers - psychic forces - that transcend the material universe.

Various quantum theories of mind

Vibrations of the aether
A relation between consciousness and quantum effects has been pondered for nearly a century, and even before that Newton himself had proposed that vibrations of the aether might be excited by, and in turn, excite the brain. This speculation forms the conceptual foundation for the modern study of quantum consciousness.

Modulating quantum jumps
The first modern pioneer of this field was biologist Alfred Lotka, who in 1924, proposed that the mind controls the brain by modulating the quantum jumps that would otherwise lead to a completely random existence. However, the first detailed quantum model of consciousness was by a physicist, Evan Walker. In 1970 he proposed a synaptic tunneling model in which electrons can “tunnel” between adjacent neurons, thereby creating a virtual neural network overlapping the real one. It is this virtual nervous system that for Walker produces consciousness and that it can direct the behavior of the real nervous system. In short the real nervous system operates by means of synaptic messages while the virtual one operates by means of quantum tunneling.

Bose-Einstein condensates
In 1989 the British psychiatrist Ian Marshall examined similarities between the holistic properties of Bose-Einstein condensates and those of consciousness. In 1968 the British physicist Herbert Fröhlich had suggested that condensation similar to Bose-Einstein can be achieved in Nature by biological organisms which are in a non-equilibrium state. In Marshall’s hypothesis, the brain contains a Frölich-style condensate, and, whenever the condensate is excited by an electrical field, conscious experience occurs. Marshall theory contends that the brain would maintain its dynamical coherence due precisely to the properties of such a condensate.

Synaptic quantum uncertainty
John Carew Eccles speculated in 1986 that the synapses in the cortex may respond in a probabilistic manner to neural excitation; a probability that, given the small dimensions of synapses, could be governed by quantum uncertainty.

Consciousness as the observer
The philosopher Michael Lockwood noted that special relativity implies that mental states must be physical states. He argued that sensations must be intrinsic attributes of physical brain states. Thus in quantum terms each sensation corresponds to an observable event in the brain; this makes the observer, in quantum mechanics, conscious of the physical world.

Conscious matter
Nick Herbert, a physicist, has been even more specific on the similarities between Quantum Theory and consciousness. Herbert thinks that consciousness is a pervasive process in nature and that it is as fundamental a component of the universe as elementary particles and forces. James Culbertson, a pioneer of research on robots, has even speculated that consciousness may be a relativistic feature of space-time. In his opinion, too, consciousness permeates all of nature, so that every object has a degree of consciousness. This view is referred to as Conscious Matter.

A tripartite model
The American physicist Henry Stapp’s model of consciousness is tripartite in that each event is driven by three quantum processes operating in concert. The first a mechanical, deterministic process that predicts the state of the system given its state at a given time. The second is conscious choice. In the formal Quantum Theory it is implied that something can be known only when Nature is asked a question. This implies,the third that in turn consciousness has a degree of control over Nature because each time something is learned there is a change in the state of the universe, which directly corresponds to a change in the state of the brain. In Q.M. terms; there occurs a reduction of the wave function compatible with the fact that something has been learned.

Quantum solitons
Stuart Hameroff, A. Nip, M. Porter and J. A. Tuszynski have claimed that the neuronal cytoskeletons are primary residence for consciousness and that the specific protein organization and functions help the quantum mind control overall brain dynamics according to the received electromagnetic input. He proposes that when the microtubules strongly interact with the local electromagnetic field solitons could be generated and could propagate along intraprotein conduction aromatic acid pathways. Thus quantum soliton creation could be induced in microtubules via interaction with the local electromagnetic field. See Quantum brain dynamics

Thought as a hologram
Many properties of the brain are the same properties that are commonly associated with holograms: memory is distributed in the brain and memories do not disappear all of a sudden, but slowly fade away. To psychologist Karl Pribram, a sensory perception is transformed in a “brain wave”, a pattern of electromagnetical activation that propagates through the brain just like the wavefront in a liquid. The various waves that travel through the brain can interfere. The interference of existing waves (a memory), and a fresh perceptual wave (sensory input) generates a structure that resembles a hologram that is experienced as thought. Pribram refers to this as Holonomic brain theory

A string theory model
A string theory model was developed by D. Nanopoulos in 1996 that was further refined into a QED-Cavity model by N. Mavromatos in 2000 suggesting dissipationless energy transfer and biological quantum teleportation.

Quantum neurophysics
The Heisenberg and Von Neumann tradition has always viewed the brain as a quantum measuring device but others, claim that brain substrates can hold second-order quantum fields, which cannot be treated as mere measuring devices. This is the position of Kunio Yasue, a Japanese physicist who has developed quantum neurophysics. Yasue presents the brain as a macroscopic quantum system wherein the classical world can originate from quantum processes. Not a connectionist, the fact that neurons are organized inside the brain is not relevant to Yasue. See Quantum brain dynamics for references.

Space-time theories of consciousness
Alex Green has developed an empirical theory of phenomenal consciousness that proposes that conscious experience can be described as a five-dimensional manifold. As in Broad’s hypothesis, space-time can contain vectors of zero length between two points in space and time because of an imaginary time coordinate. A 3D volume of brain activity over a short period of time would have the time extended geometric form of a conscious observation in 5D. Green considers imaginary time to be incompatible with the modern physical description of the world, and proposes that the imaginary time coordinate is a property of the observer and unobserved things (things governed by quantum mechanics), whereas the real time of general relativity is a property of observed things.

Quantum spin-mediated consciousness
The spin-mediated consciousness theory, initially proposed by biophysicist Huping Hu with his collaborator Maoxin Wu is a theory that says quantum spin is the seat of consciousness and the linchpin between mind and the brain, that is, spin is the mind-pixel. According to this theory, Quantum consciousness is intrinsically connected to the spin process and emerges from the self-referential collapses of spin states and the unity of mind is achieved by entanglement of these mind-pixels.

The Orch OR model
The theory espoused by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff is Quantum-gravitational Consciousness, and currently it is one of the best developed and the most popular. The Orch OR model presumes that the microtubule network within neurons acts like a quantum computer. The tubulins are in superposition and the collapse of the wave function is driven by the quantum gravity. Penrose and Hameroff believe that conscious information is encoded in space-time geometry at the fundamental Planck scale and that a self-organizing Planck-scale process results in awareness.

M-theory
This approach by B. Flanagan builds on his work in mind/brain identity theory, positing an identity between photonic fields and their concomitant perceptual fields. Pointing to the symmetries and phase relations observed with color and sound, this work was extended to include considerations from Kaluza-Klein theory, gauge theory, fiber bundle theory, string theory, Chern-Simons theory and M-theory.

Quantum mysticism
The implications of Quantum mind theories have not been missed by believers of the paranormal, anxious for scientific justification of their beliefs. Some have claimed that quantum mechanics has eliminated the separation between mind, body and the world. The term “quantum consciousness” now shows up in the popular literature in connection with astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, angels, precognition, telepathy, alien abduction, acupuncture, and even how to achieve multiple orgasms. The writings of Fritjof Capra and Deepak Chopra have been instrumental in popularizing the view that there exists a connection between mysticism and quantum mechanics.

Criticisms
Broadly, the arguments against the possibility are:

First, comparatively large and high temperature items like neurons just do not exist in persisting states of linear superposition capable of exhibiting interference effects, and quantum mechanics offers no reason to think they should. All brain scale systems spend their time in well defined classical states; their behavior, even after interaction with thoroughly quantum systems like a decaying atoms, can be described perfectly well with ordinary probability calculus. It turns out that effective classicality extends, under almost all conditions, far below the neural level to that of medium-sized molecules.

Secondly, the truth of decoherence is that, regardless of whether there are any conscious observers around or not, objects which would be expected to behave in an essentially classical manner, do exactly that. Interaction between objects and their environments, both external and internal, does the job of ‘observation’ erroneously accorded only to conscious observers, effecting a process which is experimentally indistinguishable from state vector reduction.

Thirdly, none of the theories explains how the activity of single synapses enters the dynamics of neural assemblies, and they leave mental causation of quantum processes as a mere claim. Thus they are essentially unsatisfactory with regard to a sound formal basis and concrete empirical scenarios and lack compelling argument or evidence that requires that quantum mechanics play a central role in human consciousness.

Pseudonomenalism
Quantum theories of mind are among the few classes of theories acceptable in the philosophical stances of pseudonomenalism and mind/brain identity theory.

Many-minds interpretation
There is another type of quantum theory of mind called the many-minds interpretation that is invoked as a conservative version of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory and does not involve collapse of the QM wave function.

Consciousness causes collapse
Consciousness causes collapse is the speculative theory that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse and that the process of measurement in quantum mechanics is consciousness itself.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Quantum mind”.


Tags: , , , , ,

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics__Henry P. Stapp

Published on Monday, March 13th, 2006

Book Description
“Scientists other than quantum physicists often fail to comprehend the enormity of the conceptual change wrought by quantum theory in our basic conception of the nature of matter,” writes Henry Stapp. Stapp is a leading quantum physicist who has given particularly careful thought to the implications of the theory that lies at the heart of modern physics. In this book, which contains several of his key papers as well as new material, he focuses on the problem of consciousness and explains how quantum mechanics allows causally effective conscious thought to be combined in a natural way with the physical brain made of neurons and atoms. The book is divided into four sections. The first consists of an extended introduction. Key foundational and somewhat more technical papers are included in the second part, together with a clear exposition of the “orthodox” interpretation of quantum mechanics. The third part addresses, in a non-technical fashion, the implications of the theory for some of the most profound questions that mankind has contemplated: How does the world come to be just what it is and not something else? How should humans view themselves in a quantum universe? What will be the impact on society of the revised scientific image of the nature of man? The final part contains a mathematical appendix for the specialist and a glossary of important terms and ideas for the interested layman. This new edition has been updated and extended to address recent debates about consciousness.

Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness_But Quantum Mechanics Can by Henry P. Stapp

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (The Frontiers Collection)

Advanced Reading


Tags: , , , , ,

Quantum suicide and Quantum immortality

Published on Monday, March 13th, 2006

Quantum suicide

In quantum mechanics, quantum suicide is a thought experiment which was independently proposed in 1987 by Hans Moravec and in 1988 by Bruno Marchal, and further developed by Max Tegmark in 1998, that attempts to distinguish between the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger’s cat experiment. The experiment essentially involves looking at the Schrödinger’s cat experiment from the point of view of the cat.

In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered depending on the decay of some radioactive atom. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the non-dead physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die.

Unfortunately, the physicist will be unable to report the results because, from the viewpoint of an outside observer, the probabilities will be the same whether many worlds or Copenhagen is correct.

A variation of this thought experiment suggests a controversial outcome known as quantum immortality, which is the argument that if the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then a conscious observer can never cease to exist.

Quantum immortality

Quantum immortality is the controversial speculation deriving from the quantum suicide thought experiment that states the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that conscious beings are immortal.

Explanation of the thought experiment
Imagine that a physicist detonates a nuclear bomb beside him. In almost all parallel universes, the nuclear explosion will vaporize the physicist. However, there should be a small set of alternative universes in which the physicist somehow survives (ie. the set of universes which support a “miraculous” survival scenario). The idea behind quantum immortality is that the physicist will remain alive in, and thus able to experience, at least one of the universes in this set, even though these universes form a tiny subset of all possible universes. Over time the physicist would therefore consider himself to be living forever. There are some parallels with this concept in the anthropic principle.

Another example is that provided by quantum suicide where a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered, or not triggered, by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a fifty-fifty chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct, then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die, therefore “proving” himself to be immortal, at least from his own point of view in probability.

strong>Required assumptions and controversy
Proponents point out that while it is highly speculative, quantum immortality violates no known laws of physics assuming two controversial assumptions are true:

1. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, which does not indicate the existence of parallel universes.

2. All of the possible scenarios in which the proposed physicist (or any entity being argued about in the thought experiment) can die support at least a small subset of survival scenarios.

A potential criticism of the theory is that the second assumption is not a necessary consequence of the many-worlds interpretation and may require the violation of laws that are still thought to be conserved across *all* possible realities. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics does not necessarily imply that “everything is possible”, only that all outcomes that *are* possible will branch off from any given instant in time. Most physical laws of the universe still cannot be broken - for example, the second law of thermodynamics is still considered to be conserved in all probabilities, theoretically preventing a parallel universe in which this law is violated from ever branching off. This has implications that, from the point of view of the physicist, it is possible to reach a particular configuration of reality where the physicist’s survival actually becomes impossible, because a survival scenario in that reality would at that point require a violation of a law of the universe that is not thought to be violated in any possible reality.

For example, in the nuclear-bomb scenario above, once the bomb detonates, it is difficult to effectively describe a scenario in which the physicist continues living that does not violate basic biological principles. Living cells simply cannot remain alive at the temperatures found at the core of a nuclear reaction under any known subsets of modern science. For quantum immortality to be true, either the bomb would have to misfire (or otherwise not detonate) or an event would have to take place which made use of scientific principles that are not yet proven or discovered. Another example is natural biological death from old age, which may not be escapable in any parallel universe (at least without more advanced technology than is currently known).

Another potentially problematic area is that quantum immortality would also imply that a conscious being could “cause” itself to experience highly improbable events in its own probability simply by repeatedly placing itself in situations in which it is highly likely that the being will die. Even though in most parallel universes the being would die, the only ones that the being could possibly subjectively experience would be the ones in which it experiences the unlikely survival scenario. This may turn out to be a violation of some sort of property of causality, the nature of which is still not well understood in quantum physics.

Although quantum immortality is motivated by the quantum suicide thought experiment, Max Tegmark, one of the inventors of this experiment, has stated that he does not believe that quantum immortality is a consequence of his work. He argues that under any sort of normal conditions, before someone dies they undergo a period of diminishment of consciousness, a non-quantum decline (which can be anywhere from seconds to minutes to years), and hence there is no way of establishing a continuous existence from this world to an alternate one in which the person continues to exist.

Fictional depictions
The Greg Egan novel Quarantine explores topics related to quantum immortality.

Other science fiction stories exploring these and related ideas include “All the Myriad Ways” by Larry Niven, and “Divided by Infinity” by Robert Charles Wilson.

The film Donnie Darko loosely explores quantum immortality.

Terry Pratchett’s short story Death, and What Comes Next has a philosopher arguing the principle with Death, who has come for him.

In the Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy series, it could be argued that the Infinite Improbability Drive resembles this idea when the Heart of Gold rescues Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect - Ford and Arthur should certainly die when thrown out of an airlock into outer space - but instead, they experience a rescue wherein the basic laws of the universe seem to have been rewritten, which is similar to what some conjecture would happen were a consciousness to perceive its death as so inevitable as to require a massively improbable event.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Quantum suicide”.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Quantum immortality”.


Tags: , ,

Quantum Zeno Effect

Published on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006

Quantum Zeno effect

In plainer language this is about the theory that the more something happens, the more likely it is to continue happening. I use it here in reference to the effects of hearing, reading and practicing the ways in which we can accelerate our process toward enlightenment. In Dr. Hawkins last lecture he discusses the theory in regard to that journey. If we are diligent in our practice, we are infinitely collapsing the wave function and our eventual enlightenment is assured…Myswizard

The quantum Zeno effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon first described by E.C. George Sudarshan and Baidyanaith Misra of the University of Texas in 1977. It describes that situation that an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. This occurs because every measurement causes the wavefunction to “collapse” to a pure eigenstate of the measurement basis.

Given a system in a state A, which is the eigenstate of some measurement operator. Say the system under free time evolution will decay with a certain probability into state B. If measurements are made periodically, with some finite interval between each one, at each measurement, the wavefunction collapses to an eigenstate of the measurement operator. Between the measurements, the system evolves away from this eigenstate into a superposition state of the states A and B. When the superposition state is measured, it will again collapse, either back into state A as in the first measurement, or away into state B. The probability that it will collapse back into the same state A is higher if the system has had less time to evolve away from it. In the limit as the time between measurements goes to zero, the probability of a collapse back to the original state A goes to one. Hence, the system doesn’t evolve from A to B.

In reality, collapse of the wavefunction is not a discrete, instantaneous event. A measurement could be approximated by strongly coupling the quantum system to the noisy thermal environment for a brief period of time. The time it takes for the wavefunction to “collapse” is related to the decoherence time of the system when coupled to the environment. The stronger the coupling is, and the shorter the decoherence time, the faster it will collapse. So in the decoherence picture, the quantum Zeno effect corresponds to the limit where a quantum system is continuously coupled to the environment, and where that coupling is infinitely strong, and where the “environment” is an infinitely large source of thermal randomness.

Experimentally, strong suppression of the evolution of a quantum system due to environmental coupling has been observed in a number of microscopic systems. One such experiment was performed in October 1989 by Itano, Heinzen, Bollinger and Wineland at NIST (PDF). Approximately 5000 9Be+ ions were stored in a cylindrical Penning trap and laser cooled to below 250mK. A resonant RF pulse was applied which, if applied alone, would cause the entire ground state population to migrate into an excited state. After the pulse was applied, the ions were monitored for photons emitted due to relaxation. The ion trap was then regularly “measured” by applying a sequence of ultraviolet pulses, during the RF pulse. As expected, the ultraviolet pulses suppressed the evolution of the system into the excited state. The results were in good agreement with theoretical models.

The quantum Zeno effect takes its name from Zeno’s arrow paradox, which is the argument that since an arrow in flight does not move during any single instant, it couldn’t possibly be moving overall.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Quantum Zeno Effect”.


Tags:

Consciousness

Published on Thursday, December 15th, 2005

Consciousness

Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neurology, and cognitive science.

Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness which is experience itself and access consciousness which is the processing of the things in experience (Block 2004), while others consider this distinction to be mistaken (Dennett 1991). Many cultures and religious traditions place the seat of consciousness in a soul separate from the body. Conversely, many scientists and philosophers consider consciousness to be intimately linked to the neural functioning of the brain dictating the way in which the world is experienced.

Humans (and often other animals as well) are variously said to possess consciousness, self- awareness, and a mind, that contains our sensations, perceptions, dreams, lucid dreams, inner speech and imagination etc.. Each of us has a subjective view. There are many debates about the extent to which the mind constructs or experiences the outer world, the passage of time, and free will.

An understanding of necessary preconditions for consciousness in the human brain may allow us to address important ethical questions. For instance, to what extent are non-human animals conscious? At what point in fetal development does consciousness begin? Can machines ever achieve conscious states? These issues are of great interest to those concerned with the ethical treatment of other beings, be they animals, fetuses, or in the future, machines.

In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to one’s environment; this contrasts with being asleep or being in a coma. The term ‘level of consciousness’ denotes how consciousness seems to vary during anesthesia and during various states of mind such as day dreaming, lucid dreaming, imagining etc. Nonconsciousness exists when consciousness is not present. There is speculation, especially amongst religious groups, that consciousness may exist after death or before birth.

Etymology
“Consciousness” derives from Latin “conscientia”, which primarily means moral conscience. Literally, “conscientia” means knowledge-with, that is, shared knowledge. The word first appears in Latin juridic texts by writers such as Cicero. Here, conscientia is the knowledge that a witness has of the deed of someone else. In Christian theology, conscience stands for the moral conscience in which our actions and intentions are registered and which is only fully known to god. Medieval writers such as Thomas Aquinas describe the conscientia as the act by which we apply practical and moral knowledge to our own actions (Aquinas, De Veritate 17,1 c.a.). René Descartes was the first to use “conscientia” in a way that does not seem to fit this traditional meaning, and consequently, the translators of his writings in other languages like French and English coined new words in order to denote merely psychological consciousness. These are, for instance, “conscience psychologique”, “consciousness”, and “Bewusstsein”. See Catherine G. Davies, Conscience as Consciousness, Oxford 1990, and Hennig, Cartesian Conscientia.

Consciousness and language
Because humans express their conscious states using language, it is tempting to equate language abilities and consciousness. There are, however, speechless humans (infants, feral children, aphasics), to whom consciousness is attributed despite language lost or not yet acquired. Moreover, the study of brain states of non-linguistic primates, in particular the macaques, has been used extensively by scientists and philosophers in their quest for the neural correlates of the contents of consciousness.

Cognitive neuroscience approaches
Modern investigations into and discoveries about consciousness are based on psychological statistical studies and case studies of consciousness states and the deficits caused by lesions, stroke, injury, or surgery that disrupt the normal functioning of human senses and cognition. These discoveries suggest that the mind is a complex structure derived from various localized functions that are bound together with a unitary awareness.

Several studies point to common mechanisms in different clinical conditions that lead to loss of consciousness. Persistent vegetative state (PVS) is a condition in which an individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but maintains sleep-wake cycles with full or partial autonomic functions. Studies comparing PVS with healthy, awake subjects consistently demonstrate an impaired connectivity between the deeper (brainstem and thalamic) and the upper (cortical) areas of the brain. In addition, it is agreed that the general brain activity in the cortex is lower in the PVS state. Some electroneurobiological interpretations of consciousness characterize this loss of consciousness as a loss of the ability to resolve time (similar to playing an old phonographic record at very slow or very rapid speed), along a continuum that starts with inattention, continues on sleep and arrives to coma and death.

Loss of consciousness also occurs in other conditions, such as general (tonic-clonic) epileptic seizures, in general anaesthesia, maybe even in deep (slow wave) sleep. The currently best supported hypotheses about such cases of loss of consciousness (or loss of time resolution) focus on the need for 1) a widespread cortical network, including particularly the frontal, parietal and temporal cortices, and 2) cooperation between the deep layers of the brain, especially the thalamus, and the upper layers; the cortex. Such hypotheses go under the common term “globalist theories” of consciousness, due to the claim for a widespread, global network necessary for consciousness to interact with non-mental reality in the first place.

Brain chemistry affects human consciousness. Sleeping drugs (such as Midazolam = Dormicum) can bring the brain from the awake condition (conscious) to the sleep (unconscious). Wake-up drugs such as Anexate reverse this process. Many other drugs (such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, MDMA) have a consciousness-changing effect.

There is a neural link between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, known as the corpus callosum. This link is sometimes surgically severed to control severe seizures in epilepsy patients. This procedure was first performed by Roger Sperry in the 1960’s. Tests of these patients have shown that after the link is completely severed, the hemispheres are no longer able to communicate, leading to certain problems which usually arise only in test conditions. For example, while the left side of the brain can verbally describe what is going on in the right visual field, the right hemisphere is esentially mute, instead relying on its spatial abilities to interact with the world on the left visual field. Some say it is as if two separate minds now share the same skull, but both still represent themselves as a single “I” to the outside world.

The bilateral removal of the Centromedian nucleus (part of the Intra-laminar nucleus of the Thalamus) appears to abolish consciousness, causing coma, PVS, severe mutism and other features that mimic brain death. The centromedian nucleus is also one of the principal sites of action of general anaesthetics and anti-psychotic drugs.

Neurophysiological studies in awake, behaving monkeys performed by neuroscientists (e.g., Steven Wise, Mikhail Lebedev, Nikos Logothetis) point to advanced cortical areas in prefrontal cortex and temporallobes as carriers of neuronal correlate of consciousness.

Philosophical approaches
Some philosophers suggest that consciousness resists or even defies definition. Others believe it can be usefully distinguished between phenomenal consciousness and access or psychological consciousness, while still others disagree. There are many philosophical stances on consciousness, including: behaviorism, dualism, idealism, functionalism, phenomenalism, physicalism, emergentism, and mysticism.

Phenomenal and access consciousness
Philosophers call our current experience phenomenal consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness is simply experience, it is moving, coloured forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the centre. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia. The hard problem of consciousness was formulated by Chalmers in 1996, dealing with the issue of “how to explain a state of phenomenal consciousness in terms of its neurological basis” (Block 2004). Daniel Dennett(1988) identifies qualia with the results of judgements and consequent behaviour, he extends this analysis (Dennett (1996)) by arguing that phenomenal consciousness can be explained in terms of access consciousness, and hence denies the existence of both qualia and the “hard problem”.

Access consciousness is the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and the control of behavior. So when we perceive, information about what we perceive is often access conscious; when we introspect, information about our thoughts is access conscious; when we remember, information about the past (e.g. something that we learned) is often access conscious; and so on. Chalmers thinks that access consciousness is less mysterious than phenomenal consciousness, so that it is held to pose one of the easy problems of consciousness. Dennett disagrees, asserting that the totality of consciousness can be understood in terms of impact on behavior, as studied through heterophenomenology.

Events that occur in the mind or brain that are not within phenomenal or access consciousness are known as subconscious events.

The description and location of phenomenal consciousness
Although it is the conventional wisdom that consciousness cannot be defined, philosophers have been describing phenomenal consciousness for centuries. Rene Descartes wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in the seventeenth century, and this contains extensive descriptions of what it is to be conscious. Descartes described conscious experience as imaginings and perceptions laid out in space and time that are viewed from a point. Each thing appears as a result of some quality (qualia) such as colour, smell etc. Other philosophers, such as Nicholas Malebranche, John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant, also agreed with much of this description, although some avoid mentioning the viewing point. The extension of things in time was considered in more detail by Kant and James. Kant wrote that “only on the presupposition of time can we represent to ourselves a number of things as existing at one and the same time (simultaneously) or at different times (successively)”. William James stressed the extension of experience in time and said that time is “the short duration of which we are immediately and incessantly sensible”. These philosophers also go on to describe dreams, thoughts, emotions etc.

When we look around a room or have a dream, things are laid out in space and time and viewed as if from a point. However, when philosophers and scientists consider the location of the form and contents of this phenomenal consciousness there are fierce disagreements. As an example, Descartes proposed that the contents were brain activity seen by a non-physical place without extension (the Res Cogitans) which he identified as the soul. This idea is known as ‘Cartesian Dualism’. Another example is found in the work of Thomas Reid who thought the contents of consciousness are the world itself which becomes conscious experience in some way. This concept is a type of Direct realism. The precise physical substrate of conscious experience in the world, such as photons, quantum fields etc. is usually not specified. Other philosophers, such as George Berkeley, have proposed that the contents of consciousness are an aspect of minds and do not involve matter at all. This is a type of Idealism. Yet others, such as Leibniz, have considered that each point in the universe is endowed with conscious content. This is a form of Panpsychism. The concept of the things in conscious experience being impressions in the brain is a type of representationalism and representationalism can be a form of indirect realism.

Some philosophers, such as David Armstrong and Daniel Dennett, believe that conscious experiences exist in terms of judgements or beliefs about things in the world, and is therefore meaningless except when separated from behavior, while other philosophers insist that experience constitute qualia which cannot be understood in terms of belief.

It is sometimes held that consciousness emerges from the complexity of brain processing (see for instance the Multiple Drafts Model of consciousness). The general label ‘emergence’ applies to new phenomena that emerge from a physical basis without the connection between the two explicitly specified. Some theorists hold that phenomenal consciousness poses an explanatory gap, and have proposed scientific theories such as Quantum mind, space-time theories of consciousness and Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, to explain the correspondence between brain activity and experience. As yet there is little evidence from brain studies to support these theories. Evidence from parapsychology of psychokinesis or telepathy, if substantiatied, might support the theory that the location of consciousness is not confined to the brain.

Access consciousness
There have been numerous approaches to the processes that act on conscious experience from instant to instant. Philosophers who have explored this problem include Gerald Edelman, G. Spencer-Brown, Edmund Husserl and Daniel Dennett.

Some philosophers have concentrated on reflexive processes to link one instant to the next, some on discriminations, differerences and differentiation between things in conscious experience and and others on the overall behaviour of the organism.

G. Spencer-Brown provides an example of the analysis of consciousness as a process, the process in this case being differentiating one thing from another.G. Spencer-Brown proposes in Laws of Form that the root of cognition is the ability to perceive dualism, i.e., in its most simple construct, the capability of differentiating a “this” from a “that.” A mathematician, he captured this concept of elementary content-in-context in an abstraction: an algebraic and tautological symbol he referred to as the “Mark,” also referred to as a “distinction.” Francisco Varela, a co-founder of the Integral Institute, and Humberto Maturana also identify “distinction” as the elementary act of cognition. By definition, this concept extends the notion of “consciousness” well beyond that solely evidenced by humans and lends itself to the idea of a “scale” of consciousness.

Physical approaches
Even at the dawn of Newtonian science, Leibniz and many others were suggesting physical theories of consciousness. Modern physical theories of consciousness can be divided into three types: theories to explain behaviour and access consciousness, theories to explain phenomenal consciousness and theories to explain the quantum mechanical (QM) Quantum mind. Theories that seek to explain behaviour are an everyday part of neuroscience, some of these theories of access consciousness, such as Edelman’s theory, contentiously identify phenomenal consciousness with reflex events in the brain. Theories that seek to explain phenomenal consciousness directly, such as Space-time theories of consciousness and Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, have been available for almost a century but have not as yet been confirmed by experiment. Theories that attempt to explain the QM measurement problem include Pribram and Bohm’s Holonomic brain theory, Hameroff and Penrose’s Orch-OR theory, Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory and the Many-minds interpretation. Some of these QM theories offer descriptions of phenomenal consciousness as well as QM interpretations of access consciousness. None of the quantum mechanical theories has been confirmed by experiment, and there are philosopher who are that QM has no bearing on consciousness.

There is also a concerted effort in the field of Artificial Intelligence to create digital computer programs that can simulate consciousness.

Spiritual approaches
Spiritual approaches to consciousness involve the idea of altered states of consciousness or religious experience. Changes in the state of consciousness or a religious experience can occur spontaneously or as a result of religious observance. It is also maintained by some religions and religious factions that the universe itself is consciousness.

In shamanic practice the change in state of consciousness is induced by mind altering drugs or as a result of activities that induce trance. The experience that occurs is interpreted as entering a real, but parallel, world. In many polytheistic religions a change in emotional state is often attributed to the action of a god, for instance love was ruled by Aphrodite and Eros in Ancient Greek polytheism. In Hinduism the change in state is induced by the practice of yoga. Yoga means “joining” and is intended to produce a state of oneness between the practitioner and the divine. In Islam and Christianity the change of state can occur as a result of prayer or as a religious experience.

The change in state of consciousness in Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam is reported to be quite similar. The pursuit of yoga and the Buddhist Jhanas involve feelings of oneness with the world that give rise to a state of rapture. This is also reported by those undergoing some forms of Christian (or Islamic) religious experience, for instance James (1902) provides the following report:

I cannot express it in any other way than to say that I did “lie down in the stream of life and let it flow over me.” I gave up all fear of any impending disease; I was perfectly willing and obedient. There was no intellectual effort, or train of thought. My dominant idea was: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me even as thou wilt,” and a perfect confidence that all would be well, that all was well. The creative life was flowing into me every instant, and I felt myself allied with the Infinite, in harmony, and full of the peace that passeth understanding. There was no place in my mind for a jarring body. I had no consciousness of time or space or persons; but only of love and happiness and faith.
Meditation is used in some forms of yoga such as Raja Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Transcendental meditation, the Buddhist Jhanas, the Buddhist Immaterial Jhanas (there are several versions of the jhanas in different types of Buddhism), in the practices of Christian monks and Islamic scholars such as Sufis. Meditation can have a calming influence on practitioners as well as changing the state of consciousness. Therevada Buddhism views the Jhanas and some yogic practices view the early stages of meditation as a preliminary “serenity meditation” in which it is demonstrated that states such as rapture are delusions, products of mind rather than the soul. In most types of Buddhism serenity meditation is followed by a philosophical “insight meditation” that focusses on the idea that the universe is consciousness only, one that is perhaps indistinguishable from Monism.

Functions of consciousness
We generally agree that our fellow human beings are conscious and that much simpler life forms, such as bacteria, are not. Many of us attribute consciousness to higher-order animals such as dolphins and primates; academic research is investigating the extent to which animals are conscious. This suggests the hypothesis that consciousness has co-evolved with life, which would require it to have some sort of added value. People have therefore looked for specific functions of consciousness. Bernard Baars (1997) for instance states that “consciousness is a supremely functional adaptation” and suggests a variety of functions in which consciousness plays a role: prioritization of alternatives, problem solving, decision making, brain processes recruiting, action control, error detection, planning, learning, adaptation, context creation, and access to information. Antonio Damasio (1999) regards consciousness as part of an organism’s survival kit, allowing planned rather than instinctual responses. He also points out that awareness of self allows a concern for one’s own survival, which increases the drive to survive, although how far consciousness is involved in behaviour is an actively debated issue. Many psychologists, such as radical behaviourists, and many philosophers, such as those who support Ryle’s approach, would maintain that behaviour can be explained by non-conscious processes akin to artificial intelligence and might consider consciousness to be epiphenomenal or only weakly related to function.

Tests of consciousness
As there is still not a clear definition of consciousness, no empirical tests currently exist to test consciousness as a whole. Some have even argued that empirical tests of consciousness are intrinsically impossible. However, some researchers have devised tests to detect what they feel are certain aspects of consciousness. A test similar to this was used in the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” by Philip K. Dick to see if a person was a robot or an actual human. In the Ridley Scott movie, Blade Runner, which was inspired by that book, it is known as the “Voigt-Kampf” test and tests the subject for empathy.

Turing Test
Alan Turing proposed what is now known as the Turing test to determine if a computer could simulate human conversation undetectably. This test is commonly cited in discussion of artificial intelligence. The application to consciousness is that, according to some philosophers, anything capable of passing the Turing test as well as a person is necessarily conscious. Other philosophers say that a philosophical zombie could pass the test yet fail to be conscious. This matter is heavily disputed. Still others take it for granted that computers can think since this is what they were designed to do; Edsger Dijkstra’s commented that “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim”.

A thought experiment which is intended to show problems with the Turing Test is as follows. Imagine a computer in which are stored a very large number of questions and a very large number of actual human responses to these questions. If the number of questions and answers was large enough, then the computer would be able to mimic consciousness by a purely mechanical procedure. Of course, this is a purely hypothetical example, because any attempt to create a lookup table for all possible responses would entail a device of truly gigantic proportions. For this reasons, some consider this thought experiment to be misleading. See Chinese room.

Mirror test
With the mirror test, devised by Gordon Gallup in the 1970s, one is interested in whether animals are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. Such self-recognition is said to be an indicator of consciousness. Humans (older than 18 months), great apes (except for gorillas), and bottlenose dolphins have all been observed to pass this test.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Consciousness”.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Quantum electrodynamics (QED)

Published on Tuesday, December 13th, 2005

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a quantum field theory of electromagnetism. QED describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of the electromagnetic force and has been called “the jewel of physics” for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.

Physical interpretation of QED
It is a well-known classical fact that light takes the quickest path between two points, but how does light `know where it’s going’? That is, if you know the start and end points, you can figure out the path that will take the shortest time, but when light is emitted it doesn’t have a fixed end point, so how is it that it always takes the quickest path? The answer is provided by QED. Light doesn’t know where it is going, and it doesn’t always take the quickest path. In fact, according to QED, it takes EVERY possible path between the start and end points. Each path is assigned a probability (interestingly, this is a complex number-valued probability) and the actual path we observe is the weighted average of all of the paths. This average path is the one that the classical theory predicts, the quickest path between the two points. A very nice exposition from this point of view of QED is provided in Feynman’s classic: QED: The strange theory of light and matter (see below).

Physically, QED describes charged particles (and their antiparticles) interacting with each other by the exchange of photons. The magnitude of these interactions can be computed using perturbation theory; these rather complex formulas have a remarkable pictorial representation as Feynman diagrams [1]. QED was historically the theory to which Feynman diagrams were first applied. These diagrams had been invented from Lagrangian mechanics.

History
In 1900, Max Planck introduced the idea that energy is quantized, in order to derive a formula for the observed frequency dependence of the energy emitted by a black body. In 1905, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by postulating that light energy comes in quanta called photons. In 1913, Bohr explained the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, again by using quantization. In 1924, Louis de Broglie put forward his theory of matter waves.

These theories, though successful, were strictly phenomenological: there was no rigorous justification for quantization. They are collectively known as the old quantum theory. The phrase “quantum physics” was first used in Johnston’s Planck’s Universe in Light of Modern Physics.

Modern quantum mechanics was born in 1925, when Heisenberg developed matrix mechanics and Schrödinger invented wave mechanics and the Schrödinger equation. Schrödinger subsequently showed that the two approaches were equivalent.

Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in 1927, and the Copenhagen interpretation took shape at about the same time. Starting around 1927, Paul Dirac unified quantum mechanics with special relativity. He also pioneered the use of operator theory, including the influential bra-ket notation, as described in his famous 1930 textbook. During the same period, John von Neumann formulated the rigorous mathematical basis for quantum mechanics as the theory of linear operators on Hilbert spaces, as described in his likewise famous 1932 textbook. These, like many other works from the founding period still stand, and remain widely used.

The field of quantum chemistry was pioneered by Walter Heitler and Fritz London, who published a study of the covalent bond of the hydrogen molecule in 1927. Quantum chemistry was subsequently developed by a large number of workers, including the American chemist Linus Pauling.

Beginning in 1927, attempts were made to apply quantum mechanics to fields rather than single particles, resulting in what are known as quantum field theories. Early workers in this area included Dirac, Pauli, Weisskopf, and Jordan. This area of research culminated in the formulation of quantum electrodynamics by Feynman, Dyson, Schwinger, and Tomonaga during the 1940s. Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum theory of electrons, positrons, and the electromagnetic field, and served as a role model for subsequent quantum field theories.

The theory of quantum chromodynamics was formulated beginning in the early 1960s. The theory as we know it today was formulated by Politzer, Gross and Wilzcek in 1975. Building on pioneering work by Schwinger, Higgs, Goldstone and others, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam independently showed how the weak nuclear force and quantum electrodynamics could be merged into a single electroweak force.

QED was the first quantum field theory in which the difficulties of building a consistent, fully quantum description of fields and creation and annihilation of quantum particles were satisfactorily resolved. Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman received the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for its development, their contributions involving a covariant and gauge invariant prescription for the calculation of observable quantities. Feynman’s mathematical technique, based on his diagrams, initially seemed very different from the field-theoretic, operator-based approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but was later shown to be equivalent. The renormalization procedure for making sense of some of the infinite predictions of quantum field theory also found its first successful implementation in quantum electrodynamics


Tags: , , , , ,

The Heisenberg Principle, Quantum Mechanics, Wave collapse, etc.

Published on Tuesday, October 4th, 2005

Being an observer of the non-linear (spiritual realm), I am aware of the fact that science, i.e. Quantum Mechanics has the capability of going to the very end of the linear realm. Scientists, in recent years, have finally come to the realization that reality can only be explained to the edge of the cliff, (so to speak) through science and mathematics, and beyond that we must enter that which one has no actual physical explanation. Having experienced the world of the non linear, I can attest to the fact that it is entirely experiential. Although there are wonderful studies and writings by many scientists in their respective fields regarding the world of non duality, as David Hawkins calls it, much of science is lacking the capacity to prove what humans have long been searching for…Proof that something lies beyond our physical reality. To bring science and the non linear together in one place would most likely take the rest of my life and add an unending list of references as well as objective and subjective studies to this website. I feel no obligation to prove what it is I already know, but for the sake of bringing the two together here, I will give these subjects my best attempt at explanations.

All of the information provided here, is reiterated through various reference materials. Please be aware that although articles from the Wiki Encyclopedia contain fact, they also reflect the opinions of the writers. See future articles on the subjects of linear, non linear, duality and non duality and the spiritual realms.
Myswizard

Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics is a theory in physics which primarily tries to explain the behaviour of extremely small bodies, such as atoms and molecules. Scientists generally agree that it is a very accurate and successful theory, and it has very important applications in today’s world as all electronic devices depend on Quantum Mechanics in some way. It is also important in understanding how large objects such as stars and even the whole Universe are the way they are.

Despite how successful Quantum Mechanics is, it does have some controversial elements. For example, the behaviour of microscopic objects is very different from our everyday experience, and some of its results appear to contradict other successful theories, such as the Theory of Relativity - simplified.

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, expresses a limitation on accuracy of (nearly) simultaneous measurement of observables such as the position and the momentum of a particle. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

It is sometimes called the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle (a title prefered by Niels Bohr),
Understanding uncertainty
Consider an experiment in which a particle is prepared in a definite state and two successive measurements are performed on the particle. The first one measures the particle’s position and the second immediately after measures its momentum. Each time the experiment is performed, some value x is obtained for position and some value p is obtained for momentum. These values, however, may be different for each trial. In other words, there is an uncertainty in the outcome of the measurements. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle provides a quantitative relationship between the uncertainties of p and x as measured by their standard deviations in the following way: If the particle state is such that the first measurement yields a dispersion of values Δx, then the second measurement will have a distribution of values whose dispersion Δp is at least inversely proportional to Δx.

Sound analogy
There is a precise, quantitative analogy between the Heisenberg uncertainty relations and properties of waves or signals. Consider a time-varying signal such as a sound wave. It is meaningless to ask about the frequency spectrum of the signal at a moment in time. In order to determine the frequencies accurately, the signal needs to be sampled for a finite (non zero) time. This necessarily means that time precision is lost. In other words, a sound cannot have both a precise time, as in a short pulse, and a precise frequency, as in a continuous pure tone. The time and frequency of a wave in time are analogous to the position and momentum of a particle in space.

Overview
An uncertainty relation arises between any two observable quantities that can be defined by non-commuting operators. The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle’s momentum. Heisenberg himself may have offered explanations which suggest this view, at least initially. That disturbance plays no role in the uncertainty principle can be seen as follows: Consider a particle prepared in a definite state, and measure either the momentum or the position of the particle, but not both. After repeating this experiment a large number of times, we will obtain probability distributions of values for both these quantities and the uncertainty relation still holds for the dispersions Δp, Δx of the values.

The Heisenberg uncertainty relations are a theoretical bound over all measurements. They hold for so-called ideal measurements, sometimes called von Neumann measurements. They hold even more so for non-ideal or Landau measurements.

Correspondingly, any one particle cannot be described simultaneously as a “classic point particle” and as a wave. The fact that either one of these descriptions is appropriate at least in separate cases is called wave-particle duality; a change of appropriate descriptions according to measured values is known as wavefunction collapse.) The uncertainty principle, as initially considered by Heisenberg, is concerned with cases in which neither of these two descriptions is fully and exclusively appropriate, such as a particle in a box with a particular energy value; i.e. systems which are characterized neither by one unique “position” (one particular value of distance from a potential wall) nor by one unique value of momentum (incl. its direction).

Formulation
If several identical copies of a system in a given state are prepared, measurements of position and momentum will conform to a determined probability distributions. This is a fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics. If we compute the standard deviation Δx of the position measurements and the standard deviation Δp of the momentum measurements, then where is Planck’s constant (h) divided by 2π. (In some treatments, the “uncertainty” of a variable is taken to be the smallest width of a range which contains 50% of the values, which, in the case of normally distributed variables, leads to a larger lower bound of h/2π for the product of the uncertainties.) Note that this inequality allows for several possibilities: the state could be such that x can be measured with high precision, but then p will only approximately be known, or conversely p could be sharply defined while x cannot be precisely determined. In yet other states, both x and p can be measured with “reasonable” (but not arbitrarily high) precision.

In everyday life, we do not usually observe these uncertainties because the value of Planck’s constant (h) is extremely small.

Other characterizations
A number of additional characterizations have been developed including the ones below.

Expression of finite available amount of Fisher information
The uncertainty principle alternatively derives as an expression of the Cramér-Rao inequality of classical measurement theory. This is in the case where a particle position is measured. See Stam (1959). The mean-squared particle momentum enters as the Fisher information in the inequality. See also extreme physical information.

Generalized applications
The uncertainty principle does not just apply to position and momentum. In its general form, it applies to every pair of conjugate variables. An example of a pair of conjugate variables is the x-component of angular momentum (spin) vs. the y-component of angular momentum. In general, and unlike the case of position versus momentum discussed above, the lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of two conjugate variables depends on the system state.

History and interpretations of the principle
Main article: Interpretation of quantum mechanics

Albert Einstein was not happy with the uncertainty principle, and he challenged Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg with a famous thought experiment (See the Bohr-Einstein debates for more details): we fill a box with a radioactive material which randomly emits radiation. The box has a shutter, which is opened and immediately thereafter shut by a clock at a precise time, thereby allowing some radiation to escape. So the time is already known with precision. We still want to measure the conjugate variable energy precisely. Einstein proposed doing this by weighing the box before and after. The equivalence between mass and energy from special relativity will allow you to determine precisely how much energy was left in the box. Bohr countered as follows: should energy leave, then the now lighter box will rise slightly on the scale. That changes the position of the clock. Thus the clock deviates from our stationary reference frame, and again by special relativity, its measurement of time will be different from ours, leading to some unavoidable margin of error. In fact, a detailed analysis shows that the imprecision is correctly given by Heisenberg’s relation.

Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form—but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials. For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method.

It is this interpretation that Einstein was questioning when he said “I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe.” Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation responded, “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do.”

Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was in error. His reasoning was that all previously known probability distributions arose from deterministic events. The distribution of a flipped coin or a rolled dice can be described with a probability distribution (50% heads, 50% tails). But this does not mean that their physical motions are unpredictable. Ordinary mechanics can be used to calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the forces acting on it are known. And the heads/tails distribution will still line up with the probability distribution (given random initial forces).

Einstein assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics which underlie the observed probabilities.

Neither Einstein nor anyone since has been able to construct a satisfying hidden variable theory, and the Bell inequality illustrates some very thorny issues in trying to do so. Although the behavior of an individual particle is random, it is also correlated with the behavior of other particles. Therefore, if the uncertainty principle is the result of some deterministic process, it must be the case that particles at great distances instantly transmit information to each other to ensure that the correlations in behavior between particles occur.

The uncertainty principle in popular culture
The uncertainty principle is often misunderstood or misstated in the popular press. One common incorrect formulation is that observation of an event changes the event. This may be true in some cases for some events, but it has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

In some science fiction stories, a device to circumvent the uncertainty principle is called a Heisenberg compensator, most famously in Star Trek for use on the transporter; however, it is not clear what circumventing means.

In Stephen Donaldson’s Gap Cycle science fiction book series, one of the characters postulates a socio-political version of the uncertainty principle: namely, that by determining his precise “location” in the current political landscape, he is prevented from simultaneously calculating the likely direction of political events in the near future.

Humor
The unusual nature of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and its distinctive name, has made it the source of several jokes. It is said that a popular item of graffiti at the physics department of university campuses is the slogan “Heisenberg may have been here.”

In another uncertainty principle joke, a quantum physicist is stopped on the highway by a police officer who asks “Do you know how fast you were going, sir?”, to which the physicist responds, “No, but I know exactly where I am!”.

In the show Futurama there is a close finish in a horse race, a “quantum finish” they say, and a photograph reveals who won, when the professor yells out “No fair! By oberserving the results you’ve changed them!”

Consciousness causes collapse
Consciousness causes collapse is the speculative theory that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse. It is an attempt to solve the Wigner’s friend paradox by simply stating that collapse occurs at the first “conscious” observer. Supporters claim this is not a revival of substance dualism, since (in a ramification of this view) consciousness and objects are entangled and cannot be considered as distinct. The consciousness causes collapse theory can be considered as a speculative appendage to almost any interpretation of quantum mechanics and most physicists reject it as unverifiable and introducing unnecessary elements into physics.

The process of “measurement” in quantum mechanics is regarded as consciousness itself. However, it is not explained by this theory which animals, living creatures, or objects have consciousness, that is, the right to collapse the wavefunction. It is also not clear whether measuring devices might also be considered conscious, though generally measuring devices are considered simply a “chain of observations” that only ends at a conscious entity. Some even suggest that some beings have a “higher consciousness” and therefore more capability to collapse the wavefunction, whereas others believe all conscious entities have an equal capability.

It has been claimed that the theory that meshes well with ancient Eastern mysticism and philosophy, including Hinduism and Taoism, which stress “Oneness”.

Amit Goswami, a retired theoretical physicist, supported this theory in some of his writings, including The Self-Aware Universe. The Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner also supported it.

The view is also presented in the popular and controversial documentary What the Bleep Do We Know!?, alongside some unrelated biological discussions.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Quantum Mechanics)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Heisenberg Principle and Consciousness causes collapse”.


Tags: , , , , ,

Stanford Link

Published on Tuesday, October 4th, 2005

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Quantum Mechanics)


Tags: , ,

Quantum Mechanics

Published on Sunday, September 18th, 2005

I have this definition of Quantum Mechanics (Physics), because the Heisenberg Theory, Schrödinger equations, wave collapse, etc. are scientifially as close as you can get to the spiritual realm. When an intention goes out into the universe (as well as prayer), you are collapsing the wave function, which in turn, creates change. By providing this science, you can get an idea of how this relates to creation and the non-linear, I often refer to on my site. I hope this adds some clarity to ( Spirituality), which is difficult to explain in scientific terms…Myswizard

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental physical theory that extends, corrects and unifies Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electromagnetism, at the atomic and subatomic levels. It is the underlying framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, quantum chemistry, and particle physics. The term quantum (Latin, “how much”) refers to the discrete units that the theory assigns to certain physical quantities, such as the energy of an atom at rest (see Figure 1, at right). Fig. 1: The wavefunctions of an electron in a hydrogen atom possessing definite energy (increasing downward: n=1,2,3,…) and angular momentum (increasing across: s, p, d,…). Brighter areas correspond to higher probability density for a position measurement. The angular momentum and energy are quantized, and only take on discrete values like those shown.

Quantum mechanics is a theory of mechanics, a branch of physics that deals with the motion of bodies and associated physical quantities such as energy and momentum. It is a more fundamental theory than Newtonian mechanics, in the sense that it provides accurate and precise descriptions for many phenomena where Newtonian mechanics drastically fails. Such phenomena include the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and below (in fact, Newtonian mechanics is unable to account for the existence of stable atoms), as well as special macroscopic systems such as superconductors and superfluids. The predictions of quantum mechanics have never been disproven after a century’s worth of experiments. Quantum mechanics incorporates at least three classes of phenomena that classical physics cannot account for: (i) the quantization (discretization) of certain physical quantities, (ii) wave-particle duality, and (iii) quantum entanglement. However, in certain situations, the laws of quantum mechanics approximate the laws of classical mechanics to a high degree of precision; this is often expressed by saying that quantum mechanics “reduces” to classical mechanics, and is known as the correspondence principle.

Quantum mechanics can be formulated in either a relativistic or non-relativistic manner. Relativistic quantum mechanics (quantum field theory) provides the framework for some of the most accurate physical theories known, though non-relativistic quantum mechanics is also frequently used for reasons of convenience. We will use the term “quantum mechanics” to refer to both relativistic and non-relativistic quantum mechanics; the terms quantum physics and quantum theory are synonymous. It should be noted, however, that certain authors refer to “quantum mechanics” in the more restricted sense of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

Most physicists believe that quantum mechanics provides a correct description for the physical world under almost all circumstances. It seems likely that quantum mechanics fails in the vicinity of black holes, or when considering the observable Universe as a whole. In these regimes, quantum mechanics conflicts with the predictions of general relativity, the dominant theory of gravity. The question of compatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity remains an area of active research.

The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first half of the 20th century by Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli and others. Some fundamental aspects of the theory are still actively studied.

Description of the theory
There are a number of mathematically equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics. One of the oldest and most commonly used formulations is the transformation theory invented by Paul Dirac, which unifies and generalizes the two earliest formulations of quantum mechanics, matrix mechanics (invented by Werner Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (invented by Erwin Schrödinger).

In this formulation, the instantaneous state of a quantum system encodes the probabilities of its measurable properties, or “observables”. Examples of observables include energy, position, momentum, and angular momentum. Observables can be either continuous (e.g., the position of a particle) or discrete (e.g., the energy of an electron bound to a hydrogen atom.)

Generally, quantum mechanics does not assign definite values to observables. Instead, it makes predictions about probability distributions; that is, the probability of obtaining each of the possible outcomes from measuring an observable. Naturally, these probabilities will depend on the quantum state at the instant of the measurement. There are, however, certain states that are associated with a definite value of a particular observable. These are known as “eigenstates” of the observable (”eigen” meaning “own” in German).

A concrete example will be useful here. Let us consider a free particle. Its quantum state can be represented as a wave, of arbitrary shape and extending over all of space, called a wavefunction. The position and momentum of the particle are observables. An eigenstate of position is a wavefunction that is very large at a particular position x, and zero everywhere else. If we perform a position measurement on such a wavefunction, we will obtain the result x with 100% probability. An eigenstate of momentum, on the other hand, has the form of a plane wave. It can be shown that the wavelength is equal to h/p, where h is Planck’s constant and p is the momentum of the eigenstate.

Usually, a system will not be in an eigenstate of whatever observable we are interested in. However, if we measure the observable, the wavefunction will immediately become an eigenstate of that observable. This process is known as wavefunction collapse. If we know the wavefunction at the instant before the measurement, we will be able to compute the probability of collapsing into each of the possible eigenstates. For example, the free particle in our previous example will usually have a wavefunction that is a wave packet centered around some mean position x0, neither an eigenstate of position nor of momentum. When we measure the position of the particle, it is impossible for us to predict with certainty the result that we will obtain. It is probable, but not certain, that it will be near x0, where the amplitude of the wavefunction is large. After we perform the measurement, obtaining some result x, the wavefunction collapses into a position eigenstate centered at x.

Wave functions can change as time progresses. An equation known as the Schrödinger equation describes how wave functions change in time, a role similar to Newton’s second law in classical mechanics. The Schrödinger equation, applied to our free particle, predicts that the center of a wave packet will move through space at a constant velocity, like a classical particle with no forces acting on it. However, the wave packet will also spread out as time progresses, which means that the position becomes more uncertain. This also has the effect of turning position eigenstates (which can be thought of as infinitely sharp wave packets) into broadened wave packets that are no longer position eigenstates.

Some wave functions produce probability distributions that are constant in time. Many systems that are treated dynamically in classical mechanics are described by such “static” wave functions. For example, a single electron in an unexcited atom is pictured classically as a particle moving in a circular trajectory around the atomic nucleus, whereas in quantum mechanics it is described by a static, spherically symmetric wavefunction surrounding the nucleus (Fig. 1). (Note that only the lowest angular momentum states, labelled s, are spherically symmetric).

The time evolution of wave functions is deterministic in the sense that, given a wavefunction at an initial time, it makes a definite prediction of what the wavefunction will be at any later time. During a measurement, the change of the wavefunction into another one is not deterministic, but rather unpredictable, i.e., random.

The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics thus stems from the act of measurement. This is one of the most difficult aspects of quantum systems to understand. It was the central topic in the famous Bohr-Einstein debates, in which the two scientists attempted to clarify these fundamental principles by way of thought experiments. In the decades after the formulation of quantum mechanics, the question of what constitutes a “measurement” has been extensively studied. Interpretations of quantum mechanics have been formulated to do away with the concept of “wavefunction collapse”; see, for example, the relative state interpretation. The basic idea is that when a quantum system interacts with a measuring apparatus, their respective wavefunctions become entangled, so that the original quantum system ceases to exist as an independent entity. For details, see the article on measurement in quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanical effects
As mentioned in the introduction, there are several classes of phenomena that appear under quantum mechanics which have no analogue in classical physics. These are sometimes referred to as “quantum effects”.

The first type of quantum effect is the quantization of certain physical quantities. In the example we have given, of a free particle in empty space, both the position and the momentum are continuous observables. However, if we restrict the particle to a region of space (the so-called “particle in a box” problem), the momentum observable will become discrete; it will only take on the values nℏπ/L, where L is the length of the box and ℏ is Planck’s constant divided by 2 π. Such observables are said to be quantized, and they play an important role in many physical systems. Examples of quantized observables include angular momentum, the total energy of a bound system, and the energy contained in an electromagnetic wave of a given frequency.

Another quantum effect is the uncertainty principle, which is the phenomenon that consecutive measurements of two or more observables may possess a fundamental limitation on accuracy. In our free particle example, it turns out that it is impossible to find a wavefunction that is an eigenstate of both position and momentum. This implies that position and momentum can never be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision, even in principle: as the precision of the position measurement improves, the maximum precision of the momentum measurement decreases, and vice versa. Those variables for which it holds (e.g., momentum and position, or energy and time) are canonically conjugate variables in classical physics.

Another quantum effect is the wave-particle duality. It has been shown that, under certain experimental conditions, microscopic objects like atoms or electrons exhibit particle-like behavior, such as scattering. (”Particle-like” in the sense of an object that can be localized to a particular region of space.) Under other conditions, the same type of objects exhibit wave-like behavior, such as interference. We can observe only one type of property at a time.

Unsolved problems in physics: In the correspondence limit of quantum mechanics: Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse, give rise to the reality we perceive?

Another quantum effect is quantum entanglement. In some cases, the wave function of a system composed of many particles cannot be separated into independent wave functions, one for each particle. In that case, the particles are said to be “entangled”. If quantum mechanics is correct, entangled particles can display remarkable and counter-intuitive properties. For example, a measurement made on one particle can produce, through the collapse of the total wavefunction, an instantaneous effect on other particles with which it is entangled, even if they are far apart. (This does not conflict with special relativity because information cannot be transmitted in this way.)

Mathematical formulation
In the mathematically rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, developed by Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, the possible states of a quantum mechanical system are represented by unit vectors (called “state vectors”) residing in a complex separable Hilbert space (variously called the “state space” or the “associated Hilbert space” of the system.) The exact nature of this Hilbert space is dependent on the system; for example, the state space for position and momentum states is the space of square-integrable functions, while the state space for the spin of a single electron is just the product of two complex planes. Each observable is represented by a densely defined Hermitian (or self-adjoint) linear operator acting on the state space. Each eigenstate of an observable corresponds to an eigenvector of the operator, and the associated eigenvalue corresponds to the value of the observable in that eigenstate. If the operator’s spectrum is discrete, the observable can only attain those discrete eigenvalues.

The time evolution of a quantum state is described by the Schrödinger equation, in which the Hamiltonian, the operator corresponding to the total energy of the system, generates time evolution.

The inner product between two state vectors is a complex number known as a probability amplitude. During a measurement, the probability that a system collapses from a given initial state to a particular eigenstate is given by the square of the absolute value of the probability amplitudes between the initial and final states.

The possible results of a measurement are the eigenvalues of the operator - which explains the choice of Hermitian operators, for which all the eigenvalues are real. We can find the probability distribution of an observable in a given state by computing the spectral decomposition of the corresponding operator. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is represented by the statement that the operators corresponding to certain observables do not commute.

The Schrödinger equation acts on the entire probability amplitude, not merely its absolute value. Whereas the absolute value of the probability amplitude encodes information about probabilities, its phase encodes information about the interference between quantum states. This gives rise to the wave-like behavior of quantum states.

It turns out that analytic solutions of Schrödinger’s equation are only available for a small number of model Hamiltonians, of which the quantum harmonic oscillator and the hydrogen atom are the most important representatives. Even the helium atom, which contains just one more electron than hydrogen, defies all attempts at a fully analytic treatment. There exist several techniques for generating approximate solutions.

For instance, in the method known as perturbation theory one uses the analytic results for a simple quantum mechanical model to generate results for a more complicated model related to the simple model by, for example, the addition of a weak potential energy.

Another method is the “semi-classical equation of motion” approach, which applies to systems for which quantum mechanics produces weak deviations from classical behavior. The deviations can be calculated based on the classical motion. This approach is important for the field of quantum chaos.

An alternative formulation of quantum mechanics is Feynman’s path integral formulation, in which a quantum-mechanical amplitude is considered as a sum over histories between initial and final states; this is the quantum-mechanical counterpart of action principles in classical mechanics.

Interactions with other scientific theories
The fundamental rules of quantum mechanics are very broad. They state that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space and the observables are Hermitian operators acting on that space, but do not tell us which Hilbert space or which operators. These must be chosen appropriately in order to obtain a quantitative description of a quantum system. An important guide for making these choices is the correspondence principle, which states that the predictions of quantum mechanics reduce to those of classical physics when a system becomes large. This “large system” limit is known as the classical or correspondence limit. One can therefore start from an established classical model of a particular system, and attempt to guess the underlying quantum model that gives rise to the classical model in the correspondence limit.

When quantum mechanics was originally formulated, it was applied to models whose correspondence limit was non-relativistic classical mechanics. For instance, the well-known model of the quantum harmonic oscillator uses an explicitly non-relativistic expression for the kinetic energy of the oscillator, and is thus a quantum version of the classical harmonic oscillator.

Early attempts to merge quantum mechanics with special relativity involved the replacement of the Schrödinger equation with a covariant equation such as the Klein-Gordon equation or the Dirac equation. While these theories were successful in explaining many experimental results, they had certain unsatisfactory qualities stemming from their neglect of the relativistic creation and annihilation of particles. A fully relativistic quantum theory required the development of quantum field theory, which applies quantization to a field rather than a fixed set of particles. The first complete quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, provides a fully quantum description of the electromagnetic interaction.

The full apparatus of quantum field theory is often unnecessary for describing electrodynamic systems. A simpler approach, one employed since the inception of quantum mechanics, is to treat charged particles as quantum mechanical objects being acted on by a classical electromagnetic field. For example, the elementary quantum model of the hydrogen atom describes the electric field of the hydrogen atom using a classical 1/r Coulomb potential. This “semi-classical” approach fails if quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic field play an important role, such as in the emission of photons by charged particles.

Quantum field theories for the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force have been developed. The quantum field theory of the strong nuclear force is called quantum chromodynamics, and describes the interactions of the subnuclear particles: quarks and gluons. The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force were unified, in their quantized forms, into a single quantum field theory known as electroweak theory.
It has proven difficult to construct quantum models of gravity, the remaining fundamental force. Semi-classical approximations are workable, and have led to predictions such as Hawking radiation. However, the formulation of a complete theory of quantum gravity is hindered by apparent incompatibilities between general relativity, the most accurate theory of gravity currently known, and some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. The resolution of these incompatibilities is an area of active research, and theories such as string theory are among the possible candidates for a future theory of quantum gravity.

Applications of quantum theory

Quantum mechanics has had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world. The individual behavior of the microscopic particles that make up all forms of matter - electrons, protons, neutrons, and so forth - can often only be satisfactorily described using quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is important for understanding how individual atoms combine to form chemicals. The application of quantum mechanics to chemistry is known as quantum chemistry. Quantum mechanics can provide quantitative insight into chemical bonding processes by explicitly showing which molecules are energetically favorable to which others, and by approximately how much. Most of the calculations performed in computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.

Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics.

Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to develop quantum cryptography, which will allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks exponentially faster than classical computers. Another active research topic is quantum teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum states over arbitrary distances.

Philosophical consequences

Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debate and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues such as Max Born’s basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability distributions took decades to be appreciated.

The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to Niels Bohr, was the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics when it was first formulated. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and do not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. He held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and consequently the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. “Loopholes” in the experiments, however, mean that the question is still not quite settled.

See the Bohr-Einstein debates

The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a “multiverse” composed of mostly independent parallel universes. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities because we can observe only the universe we inhabit.

The Bohm interpretation, formulated by David Bohm, postulates the existence of a non-local, universal wavefunction (Schrödinger equation) which allows distant particles to interact instantaneously. Based on this interpretation, Bohm has speculated that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. However, the Bohm interpretation is not popular among physicists, largely because it is considered very inelegant.
Fritjof Capra has drawn the parallels between Taoist thought and quantum physics in his book, ‘The Tao of Physics’.

History
In 1900, Max Planck introduced the idea that energy is quantized, in order to derive a formula for the observed frequency dependence of the energy emitted by a black body. In 1905, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by postulating that light energy comes in quanta called photons. In 1913, Bohr explained the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, again by using quantization. In 1924, Louis de Broglie put forward his theory of matter waves.

These theories, though successful, were strictly phenomenological: there was no rigorous justification for quantization. They are collectively known as the old quantum theory.

The phrase “quantum physics” was first used in Johnston’s Planck’s Universe in Light of Modern Physics.
Modern quantum mechanics was born in 1925, when Heisenberg developed matrix mechanics and Schrödinger invented wave mechanics and the Schrödinger equation. Schrödinger subsequently showed that the two approaches were equivalent.

Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in 1927, and the Copenhagen interpretation took shape at about the same time. Starting around 1927, Paul Dirac unified quantum mechanics with special relativity. He also pioneered the use of operator theory, including the influential bra-ket notation, as described in his famous 1930 textbook. During the same period, John von Neumann formulated the rigorous mathematical basis for quantum mechanics as the theory of linear operators on Hilbert spaces, as described in his likewise famous 1932 textbook. These, like many other works from the founding period still stand, and remain widely used.

The field of quantum chemistry was pioneered by Walter Heitler and Fritz London, who published a study of the covalent bond of the hydrogen molecule in 1927. Quantum chemistry was subsequently developed by a large number of workers, including the American chemist Linus Pauling.

Beginning in 1927, attempts were made to apply quantum mechanics to fields rather than single particles, resulting in what are known as quantum field theories. Early workers in this area included Dirac, Pauli, Weisskopf, and Jordan. This area of research culminated in the formulation of quantum electrodynamics by Feynman, Dyson, Schwinger, and Tomonaga during the 1940s. Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum theory of electrons, positrons, and the electromagnetic field, and served as a role model for subsequent quantum field theories.

The many worlds interpretation was formulated by Everett in 1956.

The theory of quantum chromodynamics was formulated beginning in the early 1960s. The theory as we know it today was formulated by Politzer, Gross and Wilzcek in 1975. Building on pioneering work by Schwinger, Higgs, Goldstone and others, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam independently showed how the weak nuclear force and quantum electrodynamics could be merged into a single electroweak force.

Founding experiments
• Thomas Young’s double-slit experiment proving the wave nature of light (c1805)
• Henri Becquerel discovers radioactivity (1896)
• Joseph John Thomson’s cathode ray tube experiments (discovers the electron and its negative charge) (1897)
• The study of black body radiation between 1850 and 1900, which could not be explained without quantum concepts.
• The photoelectric effect: Einstein explained this in 1905 (and later received a Nobel prize for it) using the concept of photons, particles of light with quantized energy
• Robert Millikan’s oil-drop experiment, which showed that electric charge occurs as quanta (whole units), (1909)
• Ernest Rutherford’s gold foil experiment disproved the plum pudding model of the atom which suggested that the positive charge and mass of the atom are almost uniformly distributed. (1911)
• Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach conduct the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which demonstrates the quantized nature of particle spin (1920)
• Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer demonstrate the wave nature of the electron 1 (1927)

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “quantum mechanics”.


Tags: , , , ,

Quantum Theory…Werner Heisenberg

Published on Tuesday, August 16th, 2005

Space and Motion


Tags: ,

The Holographic Universe

Published on Wednesday, June 29th, 2005

The Universe as a Hologram
Author unknown
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?3 SUNS

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect’s name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn’t matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein’s long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect’s findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect’s findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The “whole in every part” nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes. This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect’s discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.
Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium’s front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect’s experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate “parts”, but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these “eidolons”, the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be — every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of “All That Is.”

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a “mere stage” beyond which lies “an infinity of further development”. Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.

Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat’s brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious “whole in every part” nature of memory storage. Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram. Pribram’s theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage–simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word “zebra”, you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like “striped”, “horselike”, and “animal native to Africa” all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information–another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature’s supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram’s theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram’s belief that our brains mathematically construct “hard” reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called “osmic frequencies”, and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions. But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm’s theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is “there” is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really “receivers” floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram. This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram’s views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.

Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual ‘A’ to that of individual ‘B’ at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species’s anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman’s experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate. Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.

In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual’s consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations “transpersonal experiences”, and in the late ’60s he helped found a branch of psychology called “transpersonal psychology” devoted entirely to their study. Although Grof’s newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm. As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.

The holographic prardigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain — as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical. Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.

Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as “reality”. Even visions and experiences involving “non-ordinary” reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book “Gifts of Unknown Things,” biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then “click” off again and on again several times in succession. Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if “hard” reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is “there” or “not there” because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.

If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson’s are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality. What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams. Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry. Whether Bohm and Pribram’s holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect’s findings “indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality”.

Considered together, Bohm and Pribram’s theories provide a profound new way of looking at the world: Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time: The brain is a hologram folded in a holographic universe. For Pribram, this synthesis made him realize that the objective world does not exist, at least not in the way we are accustomed to believing. What is “out there” is a vast ocean of waves and frequencies, and reality looks concrete to us only because our brains are able to take this holographic blur and convert it into the sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world. How is the brain (which itself is composed of frequencies of matter) able to take something as insubstantial as a blur of frequencies and make it seem solid to the touch? “The kind of mathematical process that Bekesy simulated with his vibrators is basic to how our brains construct our image of a world out there,” Pribram states. In other words, the smoothness of a piece of fine china and the feel of beach sand beneath our feet are really just elaborate versions of the phantom limb syndrome.

According to Pribram this does not mean there aren’t china cups and grains of beach sand out there. It simply means that a china cup has two very different aspects to its reality. When it is filtered through the lens of our brain it manifests as a cup. But if we could get rid of our lenses, we’d experience it as an interference pattern. Which one is real and which is illusion? “Both are real to me,” says Pribram, “or, if you want to say, neither of them are real.”

This state of affairs is not limited to china cups. We, too, have two very different aspects to our reality. We can view ourselves as physical bodies moving through space. Or we can view ourselves an a blur of interference patterns enfolded throughout the cosmic hologram. Bohm believes this second point of view might even be the more correct, for to think of ourselves as a holographic mind/brain looking at a holographic universe is again an abstraction, an attempt to separate two things that ultimately cannot be separated.

Do not be troubled if this is difficult to grasp. It is relatively easy to understand the idea of holism in something that is external to us, like an apple in a hologram. What makes it difficult is that in this case we an not looking at the hologram. We are part of the hologram.

The difficulty is also another indication of how radical a revision Bohm and Pribram are trying to make in our way of thinking. But it is not the only radical revision. Pribram’s assertion that our brains construct objects pales beside another of Bohm’s conclusions: that we even construct space and time. The implications of this view are just one of the subjects that will be examined as we explore the effect Bohm and Pribram’s ideas have had on the work of other fields.

The Undivided Wholeness of All Things

As soon as Bohm began to reflect on the hologram he saw that it too provided a new way of understanding order. Like the ink drop in its dispersed state, the interference patterns recorded on a piece of holographic film also appear disordered to the naked eye. Both possess orders that are hidden or enfolded in much the same way that the order in a plasma is enfolded in the seemingly random behavior of each of its electrons. But this was not the only insight the hologram provided.

The more Bohm thought about it the more convinced he became that the universe actually employed holographic principles in its operations, was itself a kind of giant, flowing hologram, and this realization allowed him to crystallize all of his various insights into a sweeping and cohesive whole. He published his first papers on his holographic view of the universe in the early 1970s, and in 1980 he presented a mature distillation of his thoughts in a book entitled _Wholeness and the Implicate Order_. In it he did more than just link his myriad ideas together. He transfigured them into a new way of looking at reality that was as breathtaking as it was radical.

Enfolded Orders and Unfolded Realities

One of Bohm’s most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of projection, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the Implicate (which means “enfolded”) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order.

He uses these terms because he sees the manifestation of all forms in the universe as the result of countless enfoldings and unfoldings between these two orders. For example, Bohm believes an electron is not one thing but a totality or ensemble enfolded throughout the whole of space. When an instrument detects the presence of a single electron it is simply because one aspect of the electron’s ensemble has unfolded, similar to the way an ink drop unfolds out of the glycerine, at that particular location. When an electron appears to be moving it is due to a continuous series of such unfoldments and enfoldments.

Put another way, electrons and all other particles are no more substantive or permanent than the form a geyser of water takes as it gushes out of a fountain. They are sustained by a constant influx from the implicate order, and when a particle appears to be destroyed, it is not lost. It has merely enfolded back into the deeper order from which it sprang. A piece of holographic film and the image it generates are also an example of an implicate and explicate order. The film is an implicate order because the image encoded in its interference patterns is a hidden totality enfolded throughout the whole. The hologram projected from the film is an explicate order because it represents the unfolded and perceptible version of the image.

The constant and flowing exchange between the two orders explains how particles, such as the electron in the positronium atom, can shapeshift from one kind of particle to another. Such shiftings can be viewed as one particle, say an electron, enfolding back into the implicate order while another, a photon, unfolds and takes its place. It also explains how a quantum can manifest as either a particle or a wave. According to Bohm, both aspects are always enfolded in a quantum’s ensemble, but the way an observer interacts with the ensemble determines which aspect unfolds and which remains hidden. As such, the role an observer plays in determining the form a quantum takes may be no more mysterious than the fact that the way a jeweller manipulates a gem determines which of its facets become visible and which do not. Because the term hologram usually refers to an image that is static and does not convey the dynamic and ever active nature of the incalculable enfoldings and unfoldings that moment by moment create our universe, Bohm prefers to describe the universe not as a hologram, but as a holomovement.”

The existence of a deeper and holographically organized order also explains why reality becomes nonlocal at the subquantum level. As we have seen, when something is organized holographically, all semblance of location breaks down. Saying that every part of a piece of holographic film contains all the information possessed by the whole is really just another way of saying that the information is distributed nonlocally. Hence, if the universe is organized according to holographic principles, it, too, would be expected to have nonlocal properties.

The Undivided Wholeness of All Things

Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm’s fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out of the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of “parts,” as it is to view the different geysers in a fountain as separate from the water out of which they flow. An electron is not an “elementary particle.” It is Just a name given to a certain aspect of the holomovement. Dividing reality up into parts and then naming those parts is always arbitrary a product of convention, because subatomic particles, and everything else in the universe, are no more separate from one another than different patterns in an ornate carpet.

This is a profound suggestion. In his general theory of relativity Einstein astounded the world when he said that space and time are not separate entities, but are smoothly linked and part of a larger whole he called the space-time continuum. Bohm takes this idea a giant step further. He says that everything in the universe is part of a continuum. Despite the apparent separateness of things at the explicate level, everything is a seamless extension of everything else, and ultimately even the implicate and explicate orders blend into each other.

Take a moment to consider this. Look at your hand. Now look at the light streaming from the lamp beside you. And at the dog resting at your feet. you are not merely made of the same things. You are the same thing. One thing. Unbroken. One enormous something that has extended its uncountable arms and appendages into all the apparent objects, atoms, restless oceans, and twinkling stars in the cosmos.

Bohm cautions that this does not mean the universe is a giant undifferentiated mass. Things can be part of an undivided whole and still possess their own unique qualities. To illustrate what he means he points to the little eddies and whirlpools that often form in a river. At a glance such eddies appear to be separate things and possess many individual characteristics such as size, rate, and direction of rotation, et cetera. But careful scrutiny reveals that it is impossible to determine where any given whirlpool ends and the river begins. Thus, Bohm is not suggesting that the differences between “things” is meaningless. He merely wants us to be aware constantly that dividing various aspects of the holomovement into “things” is always an abstraction, a way of making those aspects stand out in our perception by our way of thinking. In attempts to correct this, instead of calling different aspects of the holomovement “things,” he prefers to call them “relatively independent subtotalities.”

Indeed, Bohm believes that our almost universal tendency to fragment the world and ignore the dynamic interconnectedness of all things is responsible for many of our problems, not only in science but in our lives and our society as well. For instance, we believe we can extract the valuable parts of the earth without affecting the whole. We believe it is possible to treat parts of our body and not be concerned with the whole. We believe we can deal with various problems in our society such as crime, poverty, and drug addiction, without addressing the problems in our society as a whole, and so on. In his writings Bohm argues passionately that our current way of fragmenting the world into parts not only doesn’t work, but may even lead to our extinction.

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE_ by Michael Talbot

Consciousness as a More Subtle Form of Matter

In addition to explaining why quantum physicists find so many examples of interconnectedness when they plumb the depths of matter, Bohm’s holographic universe explains many other puzzles. One is the effect consciousness seems to have on the subatomic world. As we have seen, Bohm rejects the idea that particles don’t exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it the wrong way, by once again trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.

Because all such things are aspects of the holomovement, he feels it has no meaning to speak of consciousness and matter as interacting. In a sense, the observer is the observed. The observer is also the measuring device, the experimental results, the laboratory, and the breeze that blows outside the laboratory. In fact, Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in various degrees of enfoldment and unfoldment in all matter, which is perhaps why plasmas possess some of the traits of living things. As Bohm puts it, “The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron.”

Similarly, he believes that dividing the universe up into living and nonliving things also has no meaning. Animate and inanimate matter are inseparably interwoven, and life, too, is enfolded throughout the totality of the universe. Even a rock is in some way alive, says Bohm, for life and intelligence are present not only in all of matter, but in “energy,” “space,” “time,” “the fabric of the entire universe,” and everything else we abstract out of the holomovement and mistakenly view as separate things.

The idea that consciousness and life (and indeed all things) are ensembles enfolded throughout the universe has an equally dazzling flip side. Just as every portion of a hologram contains the image of the whole, every portion of the universe enfolds the whole. This means that if we knew how to access it we could find the Andromeda galaxy in the thumbnail of our left hand. We could also find Cleopatra meeting Caesar for the first time, for in principle the whole past and implications for the whole future are also enfolded in each small region of space and time. Every cell in our body enfolds the entire cosmos. So does every leaf, every raindrop, and every dust mote, which gives new meaning to William Blake’s famous poem:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.
The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space

If our universe is only a pale shadow of a deeper order, what else lies hidden, enfolded in the warp and weft of our reality? Bohm has a suggestion. According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!

Some physicists refuse to take this calculation seriously and believe it must somehow be in error. Bohm thinks this infinite ocean of energy does exist and tells us at least a little about the vast and hidden nature of the implicate order. He feels most physicists ignore the existence of this enormous ocean of energy because, like fish who are unaware of the water in which they swim, they have been taught to focus primarily on objects embedded in the ocean, on matter. Bohm’s view that space is as real and rich with process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy. Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so called empty space. It is a part of space. To explain what he means, Bohm offers the following analogy: A crystal cooled to absolute zero will allow a stream of electrons to pass through it without scattering them. If the temperature is raised, various flaws in the crystal will lose their transparency, so to speak, and begin to scatter electrons. From an electron’s point of view such flaws would appear as pieces of “matter” floating in a sea of nothingness, but this is not really the ease. The nothingness and the pieces of matter do not exist independently from one another. They are both part of the same
fabric, the deeper order of the crystal.

Bohm believes the same is true at our own level of existence. Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small “pattern of excitation” in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. “This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation,” states Bohm. In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things.

This infinite sea of energy is not all that is enfolded in the implicate order. Because the implicate order is the foundation that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it also contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be; every configuration of matter, energy, life, and consciousness that is possible, from quasars to the brain of Shakespeare, from the double helix, to the forces that control the sizes and shapes of galaxies. And even this is not all it may contain. Bohm concedes that there is no reason to believe the implicate order is the end of things. There may be other undreamed of orders beyond it, infinite stages of further development.

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE _Michael Talbot

“We have to begin to view the Universe as ultimately constituted not of matter and energy, but of pure information!” - Michael Talbot

Meaning is Simultaneously Both Mental and Physical

Our current worldview does not provide us with a context with which to understand PK (psychokinesis ). Bohm believes viewing the universe as a holomovement does provide us with a context. To explain what he means he asks us to consider the following situation. Imagine you are walking down a street late one night and a shadow suddenly looms up out of nowhere. Your first thought might be that the shadow is all assailant and you are in danger. The information contained in this thought will in turn give rise to a range of imagined activities, such as running, being hurt, and fighting. The presence of these imagined activities in your mind, however, is not a purely “mental” process, for they are inseparable from a host of related biological processes, such as excitation of nerves, rapid heart beat, release of adrenaline and other hormones, tensing of the muscles, and so on. Conversely, if your first thought is that the shadow is just a shadow, a different set of mental and biological responses will follow. Moreover, a little reflection will reveal that we react both mentally and biologically to everything we experience.

According to Bohm, the important point to be gleaned from this is that consciousness is not the only thing that can respond to meaning. The body can also respond, and this reveals that meaning is simultaneously both mental and physical in nature. This is odd, for we normally think of meaning as something that can only have an active effect on Subjective reality, on the thoughts inside our heads, not something that can engender a response in the physical world of things and objects. Meaning can thus serve as the link or ‘bridge’ between these two sides of reality,” Bohm states. “This link is indivisible in the sense that information contained in thought, which we feel to be on the ‘mental’ side, is at the same time a neurophysiological, chemical, and physical activity, which is clearly what is meant by this thought on the ‘material’ side.”

Bohm feels that examples of objectively active meaning can be found in other physical processes. One is the functioning of a computer chip. A computer chip contains information, and the meaning of the information is active in the sense that it determines how electrical currents flow through the computer. Another is the behavior of subatomic particles. The orthodox view in physics is that quantum waves act mechanically on a particle, controlling its movement in much the same way that the waves of the ocean might control a Ping-Pong ball floating on its surface. But Bohm does not feel that this view can explain, for example, the coordinateddance of electrons in a plasma any more than the wave motion of water could explain a similarly well-choreographed movement of Ping-Pong balls if such a movement were discovered on the ocean’s surface. He believes the relationship between particle and quantum wave is more like a ship on automatic pilot guided by radar waves. A quantum wave does not push an electron about any more than a radar wave pushes a ship. Rather, it provides the electron with information about its environment which the electron then uses to maneuver on its own.

In other words, Bohm believes that an electron is not only mindlike, but is a highly complex entity, a far cry from the standard view that an electron is a simple, Structureless point. The active use of information by electrons, and indeed by all Subatomic particles, indicates that the ability to respond to meaning is a characteristic not only of consciousness but of all matter. It is this intrinsic commonality, says Bohm, that offers a possible explanation for PK. He states, “On this basis, psychokinesis could arise if the mental processes of one or more people were focused on meanings that were in harmony with those guiding the basic processes of the material systems in which this psychokinesis was to be brought about.”

It is important to note that this kind of psychokinesis would not be due to a causal process, that is, a cause-and-effect relationship involving any of the known forces in physics. Instead, it would be the result of a kind of nonlocal “resonance of meanings,” or a kind of nonlocal interaction similar to, but not the same as, the nonlocal interconnection that allows a pair of twin photons to manifest the same angle of polarization which we saw in chapter 2 (for technical reasons Bohm believes mere quantum nonlocality cannot account for either PK or telepathy, and only a deeper form of nonlocality, a kind of “super”nonlocality”, would offer such an explanation).

Extract from:
THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE_ by Michael Talbot

In Part Two of _The Holographic Universe_, “Mind and Body,” Michael Talbot discusses the psychological aspects of the holographic model. According to Bohm, “In a universe in which all things are infinitely interconnected, all consciousnesses are also interconnected. Despite appearances, we are beings without borders. Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.” (p. 60) The holographic theory, according to the author, can explain many psychological phenomena. Some of these include psychic phenomena, the ability to see “auras”, psychosis, the power of the mind to heal using visualization techniques, effects of placebos on healing, lucid dreaming and altered states of consciousness. The power of the mind is awesome and remains untapped. The author believes that by understanding the holographic model we can learn to access these powers. “In the implicate order, as in the brain itself, imagination and reality are ultimately indistinguishable, and it should therefore come as no surprise to us that images in the mind can ultimately manifest as realities in the physical body.”

Holographic Universe


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,