Archive

Posts Tagged ‘quantum physics’

Collapsing The Wavefunction

February 17, 2014 Leave a comment

Matter On The Grid

January 26, 2012 3 comments

From the irrational logic in a prior post, I “think” the quantized universe may be modeled as the following space time grid:

As shown on the left below, before the “collapse“, all matter is in the form of a superposition of infinite possibility energy waves governed by Shrodinger’s wave equation. After the instantaneous collapse of the wave function caused by a “conscious observer“, we get finite objects moving through space and time on the grid.

Alas, I’m on board with Einstein’s mental model:

I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it – Albert Einstein

Note: Take this post (and all my other ones) with a grain of salt. I have no freakin’ idea what I’m talking about. I’m collapsing the wave function as I go.

Discrete, Not Continuous?

January 9, 2012 9 comments

I’m in the process of reading my seventh layman’s book on quantum physics. It’s written by quantum physicist William Bray and its long winded title is: “Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul“.

Mr. Bray writes something fascinating about space and time that I don’t recall seeing in any of the other QP books:

On a Planck scale, each moment exists in an isolated region (we call a Planck interval) of space-time existing only in the past or future to another point, and never in the present. No two things anywhere in space-time share a common present, no matter how close they are to one another, all the way down to 10**(-35) meters, or 10**(-44) seconds, apart. – William Bray (p. 31). Kindle Edition

In other words, Mr. Bray asserts that space and time are not continuous dimensions, they’re discrete. The universe is not analog, it’s digital. The movement of energy and matter in time is herky-jerky, jump-to-jump, like a motion picture. However, it “looks” smooth and continuous because of the lack of resolution and sensitivity of our woefully inadequate senses and sense-extending tools. D’oh!

Here’s what Wikipedia says about Planck time:

Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval that was directly measured was on the order of 12 attoseconds (12 × 10**(−18) seconds)…. All scientific experiments and human experiences happen over billions of billions of billions of Planck times, making any events happening at the Planck scale hard to detect.

My interpretation is that we will never be able to mechanistically detect what happens between two adjacent planck time points.

So, what do you think exists between two adjacent, discrete, planck time points? Could it be that bits of infinite consciousness leak into the finite universe?

After doing some superficial research on Mr. Bray, I’ve become quite skeptical:

  • There are no recommendations/testimonials from peers on the inside or backside covers of the book.
  • Googling on “William Joseph Bray” doesn’t reveal that much.
  • He’s got a facebook page, but I’m not a member so I didn’t get to see it.
  • I discovered his web site, and his credentials seem to be too extensive to be believable.

Nevertheless, the book is a fascinatingly refreshing and novel read. In a nutshell, his main theme is that consciousness is not caused by bio-chemical processes in the brain, it’s quite the opposite. Infinite consciousness lies outside of the finite physical universe and it thus paints the universe into being by “collapsing the wavefunction“. Consciousness is the ultimate observer and it creates you and me and everything else in the universe.

Don’t forget, BD00 is a self-proclaimed L’artiste, so don’t believe a word he sez. What do you think?

Tainted Observations

Based on his rudimentary understanding of quantum physics, BD00 thinks there is no such thing as a truly objective observer. Every observation is tainted by the instantaneous and unconscious coupling of personal (a.k.a subjective) beliefs, desires, and fears  to the observed. The closer one is to a perceived “mess“, the more the taint.

Happressed

December 26, 2010 Leave a comment

Ray (the “singularity” dude) Kurzweil‘s web site has summarized Science magazine‘s breakthrough of the year: the world’s first quantum machine. The gizmo is a tiny, but visible to the naked eye, metal “paddle” whose vibrational frequency can be controlled.

No big thing right? Well, here’s what some rocket scientists from UC Santa Barbara achieved:

First, they cooled the paddle until it reached its “ground state,” or the lowest energy state permitted by the laws of quantum mechanics (a goal long-sought by physicists). Then they raised the widget’s energy by a single quantum to produce a purely quantum-mechanical state of motion. They even managed to put the gadget in both states at once, so that it literally vibrated a little and a lot at the same time—a bizarre phenomenon allowed by the weird rules of quantum mechanics.

Wild and exciting stuff, no? A  macro object composed of a collection of atoms (not just some singular, invisible, sub-atomic particle) operating in two supposedly mutually exclusive states at once. Just think of any point of reference on the paddle. The scientists proved (<- this is a key word as you’ll see below) that they could force it appear in two places at once. It’s sort of like being both ecstatically happy and depressed at the same time?

When I read about this breakthrough, I frantically searched the web for a video of the event. Hell, I want to actually see and experience what it looks like. Sadly, I was disappointed. I found this clip from Gizmodo that explains the absence of any visual evidence:

“It’s important to realize that they didn’t actually observe it in a superposition. All they said was that the paddle is large enough that it could be observed by the naked eye, but not while it is in a superposition state.”

D’oh! Upon reflection, this makes sense to me based on my layman’s knowledge of quantum physics. Prior to observation by, uh, an observer, so-called reality exists as a superposition of an infinite set of continuous matter waves that can be modeled by Erwin Schrodinger‘s unassailable wave equation. At the moment of observation, poof!, an observer “collapses” the wavefunction into a singularity – in effect creating his/her own reality. The mysterious question to me is: “Why do most people seem to see essentially the same reality when they observe an object at the same point in space and time?“. After all, what are the chances that my collapsed wavefunction will coincide with yours?

Quantum Progress

September 15, 2009 Leave a comment

Kuttner and Rosenblum’s “Quantum Enigma” is the best book on quantum physics that I’ve read to date. The table below is my attempt to chronologically summarize some of the well known, brilliant people that led us to where we are today. I found it fascinating that most of the people developed their insights as a result of noticing and pursuing nagging “anomalies” in their work. I also found it fascinating that Einstein was constantly challenging quantum theory even though the math worked flawlessly at predicting outcomes.

The quote that I like most is Bohr’s: “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet”. Well, I don’t understand quantum physics, but I’m still shocked by it. However, since I’ve been consuming all kinds of spiritual teachings over the past 15 years, I’m not surprised by what quantum physics says. Academically “inferior”, but much wiser spiritual teachers have been saying the same thing for thousands, yes thousands, of years. From the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Jesus, to Krishnamurti,  Tolle,  and Adyashanti; they didn’t need exotic and esoteric math skills to develop their ideas and thoughts.

Q Physics

Collapsing The Wavefunction

August 8, 2009 Leave a comment

I’m in the process of reading a third book on quantum physics. It’s called “The Self-Aware Universe”, and it is written by physicist Amit Gotswami. According to Q-physics, no localized object exists until a conscious observation is made. The universe is comprised of non-localized, infinitely distributed “waves” described by Schrodinger’s wave function equation. The wave function equation characterizes the “waviness” of matter and it displaces Newton’s F=ma as the universal law of motion. Even though Newton has been convincingly dethroned as the king of “materialistic reality”, Q-physics is consistent with Newton’s classical physics for “big” objects, which are all comprised of quantum waves. Thus, for (almost) all practical purposes, Newton’s laws can be leveraged in the macro world to “control” and enhance our environment to some extent.

When a subjective and conscious observation is made and discrete objects are “detected” at a point in space and time, the instantaneous collapse of the wave function occurs. The figure below woefully attempts to graphically depict this mysterious and miraculous process. On the left, we have “no”-things, just an infinite collection of waves. On the right, we have a bunch of (supposedly) independent “some”-things after the collapse. If, as most rational and educated people think, conscious observation is subjective and person specific, then why is there so much consensus on the post-collapse appearance of the world? In other words, why do most people see the same set of objects after they each independently and subjectively collapse the wave function? If you’re thinking that I have an answer for this subjective vs. consensus enigma, then you’re mistaken. I’m dumbfounded but enamored with the mystery of it all. How about you?

Wavefunction Collapse

Suppose that you and I separately “collapse the wave function” and (miraculously?) agree on the appearance of the external world the engulfs us. Referring to the example above, assume that we transcend the first communication barrier between us and we agree that a post-collapse triangle exists, a rectangle exists, a pair of ellipses exist, etc.

Now assume that the group of objects that we’ve manifested (created ?) is comprised of people and some type of observable behavior emanating from that group is “bothering” us. Also, assume that we want to influence the group to change it’s behavior so that we are less distressed. What do we do? We consciously form a personal System-Of-Interest (SOI) and we try to understand what’s causing us the distress. We try to make sense of the dynamic interactions taking place between those people encircled in our own personal SOI and then we act to change it. Here’s where our original consensus starts to diverge. Since, as the figure below illustrates, our personally created  SOIs will most likely be different, our interpretation of who and what is causing us our distress will be different. Thus, our ideas and thoughts regarding corrective actions will be different.

SOIs

Note that even though we initially agreed on the number and types of objects=people present in our collapsed wave function worlds, the number and nature of the connections between those people are likely to be different for you and me. In the SOI example above, my SOI on the left contains three people and yours on the right only contains two. My SOI on the left doesn’t include the pink ellipse in the “problem” sub-group but yours on the right does. Your SOI doesn’t include an interface ‘tween the gray ellipse and blue diamond but mine does. Thus, our interpretations of what ails us will most likely differ. Add a third, fourth, fifth, etc., SOI to the mix and all kinds of diverging interpretations will emerge.

Now, apply this example to a work environment. If I’m the “boss” and you disagree with my interpretation of the problem situation, but are “afraid” of speaking truth to power because of standard stifling corpo culture norms, then you may just go along with my interpretation even though you’re pretty sure that your interpretation and solution is “right”. Since I’m the boss, all knowing and all powerful, I’m always “right” – even if I’m not. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: