Jump to content
Science Forums

Solving The Riddle Of Quantum Reality


Recommended Posts

Greetings,

I have just had an article published in an SCIE journal titled:

" The Experiential Basis of Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum Uncertainty, the Creation and Collapse of the Wave Function, and Quantum Nonlocality.”

 

https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/1254

 

Long story short; the article solves the nearly one-hundred year old mystery regarding why quantum reality appears and behaves as it does. In so doing it demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that is being created in the brain and is not what is actually “out there,” where it appears to be. Now this should have been obvious to us for some time, given even what little we know about how the central nervous system functions, but human beings are clearly programmed to be fully invested in the view of physical reality presented to us by our central nervous systems as being what is actually there, and to not question that view.

And also, Einstein wins again.

 

In any case, I have pasted in the abstract from the article below. 

 

Steven Kaufman

Abstract

In this work a very simple model of physical experiential creation is developed and then used to provide a single, consistent, and clear solution to the riddles posed by the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum physics. By providing a unitary framework for understanding all of these heretofore inexplicable phenomena, this model demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known. What this model also demonstrates is that the way in which physical reality is created is through a specific type of relation that takes place at a level of reality that is more fundamental than the physical level of reality. Understanding that physical reality has to be created in order to be known first makes it possible to recognize the experiential mechanism that produces wave-particle duality. Recognizing that experiential mechanism then makes it possible to identify and define the fundamental limitation that exists in the creation of physical experience that produces quantum uncertainty. Following that, that same experiential mechanism and limitation is then used to explain both the creation and collapse of the wave function, as well as quantum nonlocality. Ultimately, this model of physical experiential creation, by providing a single solution to all of these heretofore insoluble riddles, allows for the unification of classical and quantum physical experiential reality, by demonstrating that the only difference between determinate classical physical reality and indeterminate quantum physical reality lies in the relational conditions under which each of these physical experiential realities is created. What this model also makes clear is that the probability or randomness that is so much a part of quantum theory is not an actual feature of reality, but is only an artifact of the process by which quantum physical reality is created, thereby vindicating Einstein for his never-relinquished view that reality is not fundamentally probabilistic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know virtually nothing concerning the details of QM, but I have some familiarity with some of the conceptual problems.  On principle, I agree with Einstein on this one.  J.S. Bell never said, as some claim, that his theorem, by eliminating the possibility of "hidden variables" given the assumptions of accepted theory, "proved" QM was correct.  Bell merely thought that some of the fundamental underlying theories needed to be altered.  He said, for example, that the easiest solution would be to abandon SR and revert to a Lorentzian theory of relative motion.

 

I'm also told that Bohm (and others) had credible models which were deterministic, not probabilistic.

 

I just read your abstract (not the whole paper), and from that it's hard to tell what you mean by the phrase "physical reality."  I take it to be some sort of mental state and, if so, it seems to me to be a misnomer to call it "physical" (as opposed to say, "conceptual") reality.  Can you clarify your intended meaning?

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This excerpt, from your paper, helps clarify your meaning, I think.

 

Additionally, understanding physical reality to be a reality that has to be created through an act of observation makes it possible to identify a truly objective level of reality—i.e., a level of reality that actually exists independent of the act of observation—that is more fundamental than what we experience as physical reality. 

 

 

My request for clarification was premature.  The more I read of your paper, the clearer the distinction you're making here becomes.  That said, if I was writing the paper, I probably would have chosen some term other than "physical reality" to correspond to what I think your intended meaning for that term is.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A metaphysics paper isn't a physics solution...perhaps I missed it but where is there any physics in this paper ?

 

I agree that this is just a metaphysical treatise, although I must admit that I say this without having read it all.

 

But of course the question being addressed is inherently a metaphysical one involving ontology.

 

Any interpretation of existing "physics" presupposes some ontological assumptions.  And that holds with respect to both the experimental (observation and measurement) and theoretical (hypothetical explanations of the sense data collected) aspects of physics.

 

If the adoption of some ontological assumptions in advance means that an analysis of the "facts" in that light is not "physics," then there is no such thing as physics.  

 

There is an inextricable interrelationship between physics and metaphysics.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A metaphysics debate should still involve some of the physics theories involved in this particular case some discussion on how modern physics explains the particle wave duality.

 

Ie the Compton wavelength is the determining factor behind the pointlike characteristics. There should at the very least be some discussion of constructive and destructive interference patterns as per the two slit experiment.

 

There is literally no discussion of anything relating to physics in the paper to even count it as metaphysics. It should at least be examining how physics views the duality.

Edited by Shustaire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A metaphysics debate should still involve some of the physics theories involved in this particular case some discussion on how modern physics explains the particle wave duality.

 

Ie the Compton wavelength is the determining factor behind the pointlike characteristics. There should at the very least be some discussion of constructive and destructive interference patterns as per the two slit experiment.

 

There is literally no discussion of anything relating to physics in the paper to even count it as metaphysics. It should at least be examining how physics views the duality.

 

OK, yeah I see, and agree with, your point here.   As I said, I didn't read the whole paper, but I guess I would have expected some "illustrations" (no matter how hypothetical) of how the ideas being advocated would apply to a few particular conceptual difficulties in QM.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...