How a Trigger Can Potentially Make or Break an LHC Discovery

Triggering is an essential part of the Large Hadron Collider [LHC]; there are so many collisions happening each second at the LHC, compared to the number that the experiments can afford to store for later study, that the data about most of the collisions (99.999%) have to be thrown away immediately, completely and permanently within a second after the collisions occur.  The automated filter, partly hardware and partly software, that is programmed to make the decision as to what to keep and what to discard is called “the trigger”.  This all sounds crazy, but it’s necessary, and it works.   Usually.

Let me give you one very simple example of how things can go wrong, and how the ATLAS and CMS experiments [the two general purpose experiments at the LHC] attempted to address the problem.  Before you read this, you may want to read my last post, which gives an overview of what I’ll be talking about in this one.

Click here to read the rest of the article…

70 responses to “How a Trigger Can Potentially Make or Break an LHC Discovery

  1. Hawking’s goal: An elegant formula for the origin of Space and Time is far away. I would go for the origin of Space and Time by design.

    • Space/time is created by an awareness of being here (space) and now (time). This is the eternal awareness of the “Creator”. All quanta are manifested out of the fabric of space/time. They are all defined by their momentum/position in space/time. Without space/time they cannot exist.
      The universe is life-centric. It materializes around you as you live and breath. It is dependent on the observer, not the other way around.
      The origin of space/time is logical and self-evident.

      • Space is time dependent. Without time, there would be no space. Time is manifested by an awareness of being. Space is manifested by the need of a place to be aware of oneself in.

  2. I believe that OUR COMPLEX WORLD can not be described by EQUATIONS ALONE.
    WHY?
    Because we don’t know why the universe is as it is.
    An example: “Finetuning”: Why are the “fundamental constants” constant?
    My suggestion: because the sub-quantum FORM of particles and the Higgs vacuum lattice have a certain form and play a game with us..
    So I designed simple convertible shapes for real QUANTUM particle information use.
    At the same time I realized that black holes should also have some nuclear form and as a result I found that dark matter is related to black holes and Higgs particles have only energetic mass inside an oscillating Higgs vacuum lattice.
    Multiverse based mirror symmetric consciousness (entanglement) is assumed to be the base for all particle- wave -and human guidance or wavefunction collapse.

  3. In the shord period of long living particles, only the momentum is conserved – neither the mass nor the energy – making the material as illusion ?

    That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles.
    Virtual particles and the quantum foam are one of the craziest of the quantum phenomena. They have been experimentally observed, and indeed it could be that a quantum fluctuation similar to virtual particles was the thing that pulled the trigger on the creation of the universe itself.

    • It may be better to think of virtual particles not violating conservation laws but instead being due to uncertainty. If I have a specific particle I cannot be exactly sure of where it is and that this relates to its momentum. If I measure its position more exactly its momentum becomes less well known.

      The same is true of energy and time. If I have a volume of space I can be pretty sure it has ‘no energy’ over a certain period of time, but not *exactly* sure. If I measure the time more and more exactly. (Shorter times) then I become less sure of the energy. (This works for things like particle interactions too.) So virtual particles can be seen not as the universe magically getting some extra energy for a bit but rather energy itself becoming less exact in short periods of time.

      • Thank you Kudzu, I think it is clear, if gravity is the parameter of mass, there will be no free fall of different masses at same rate (newton’s product of mass between them). So mass is the property of Space.
        Here time is relative – makes the mass, due to non-conservation of Energy. The only thing left is momentum, may be the factor.
        Warped spacetime due to mass came from rubber sheet topology (I understand less) – I could not understand, whether it is same as disturbance in ather, dark matter or higgs field.
        At the absence of gravitational waves or quantum foam (higgs particle ?) proofs, is an issue ?
        Forgive me if there is mistakes.

      • /virtual particles can be seen not as the universe magically getting some extra energy for a bit but rather energy itself becoming less exact in short periods of time./ – Kudzu.
        “TIME DILATION AND REST MASS CANNOT COEXIST”

        At event origin one Charge is separated and leads to Black hole evaporation. If one charge is “pulled”, the remaining charge must be the “same” as pulling charge – do repelled out of event origin (even in electricity we cannot decide which is +ve and -ve, we decide by attraction)
        So no singularity, NO rest mass.
        We can experimentally prove Proton decay at event origin – with the same (opposite of) Higgs mechanism.
        If W and Z bosons could get mass at higher energy, Photons also (depends on proton mass ?).
        If Photons get massive, speed of light will change to keep Photon Massless – so Constancies of heavens will change.

    • It is founded on illusion. Only the eternal self-awareness is real. The manifestation is called “Maya” by the Hindus. It is being created around you, for you.
      All quanta are disturbances in space/time manifested out of the imagination of the eternal self-awareness.
      Therefore all possibilities must always continue to exist.

  4. Conservation of momentum means “almost nonrepeating pattern” – a mathematical infinity. It reacts only as a positive pressure (spacetime curve or Quantum foam). If the momentum slows down, the volume unfolds as more space, and creates negative pressure ?

    • Involution : More heavy less momentum. There is no black hole.
      In order to reconcile quantum mechanics with black holes, only Dark-energy star.
      There is a phase transition in the phase of space occurs at the event horizon.

      • Action due to inaction, nonconservation due to conservation : Spontaneous breakdown of symmetry is a concept that is applicable only to systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom.
        Noticeable asymmetries still awaiting a convincing explanation in which spontaneous symmetry breaking may play a role:
        1. matter dominance over antimatter in the near universe
        2. dominance of left-handed molecules over right-handed in
        living matter.

  5. Dark matter physically occupies three dimensional space. Dark matter is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

    The Milky Way’s halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

    The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

    The Milky Way’s halo is the deformation of spacetime.

    What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

    A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.

    Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
    A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.

    What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the dark matter.

    Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the Dark matter.

    Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

    • I believe then you are referring to some sort of Pilot Wave theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

      Would this make the universe non-random? Is there a way to tell which slit the particle will go through?

      • In pilot-wave theories the wave-function wave is thought to be physically real. I disagree with this. I agree with de Broglie’s Double Solution theory. In de Broglie’s Double Solution theory there is the physical wave which guides the particle and the associated wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.

        They are considered to be chaotic.

        NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

        “Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”

        The “subquantic medium” is the dark matter.

        John Bush at MIT is currently working with ‘walking droplets’. I think referring to what he is working on as a “fluidic pilot-wave system” can cause confusion. I think it should be referred to as a “fluidic guiding-wave system” as he is referring to the physical wave which guides the particle. That said, Bush is referring to the same phenomenon as de Broglie.

        ‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
        http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

        “The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

        The “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the dark matter.

        ‘The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets’

        In a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves.

        • I find this problematical in that it represents a particle bouncing off of a flat field, from which it is a separate entity, instead of within a three dimensional field which it is a part of. Particles are concentrations within a four dimensional field consisting of the x.y. and z axises and time.
          The universe is cohesive. Particles might seem to be acting independently, but they are part of a whole, a unity.

      • Professor Steinberg is performing experiments with weak measurement. This can be considered to give information about which slit the particle exits.

        ‘New ‘Double Slit’ Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle’
        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

        “Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits.”

        However, the same results can be determined just by using the mathematics associated with quantum mechanics.

        “David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although “it’s quite cool to see strange predictions verified”, the results could have been obtained simply by “calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics”.”

        Which is missing the point and an example of what is wrong in mainstream quantum mechanics. The calculations do not explain what occurs physically in nature.

        What waves in a double slit experiment is the dark matter.

        • In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the dark matter passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the dark matter, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

          • No one has yet proven the existence of dark matter or dark energy. The universal fields are cohesive and particles have neither a beginning nor end: they have no edges or borders, even when designated a “particle”. The waves the particles are formed from go on to a potential infinity/eternity (infinite space/time – unless space/time curves back upon itself which would be virtual eternity/infinity as an edge can never be perceived much less “approached”. The edges of the universe will always appear equidistant in all directions, no mater where the observer is.).

            The “particle” is a bunching up of the fields in an apparent “place”, a concentration in (or, it can possibly be said, “on”) the field.

            Ultimately there is but one space in one time. ALL particles are one in that space/time. Hence the behaviors of entangled particles regardless of the apparent space/time separating them.

            It is very doubtful dark matter and dark energy exist as they are merely assumptions that are required for certain theories, like the Big Bang, to have any validity. Those theories all possess major flaws, even with those assumptions being made.

            For instance, scientists spend a lot of time speculating about the size and shape of the universe. Yet the universe can have no “edge”. It is “the” universe; the “one” unity. It can’t have an edge because there is “no place” “outside” it. It can’t have a “shape”.

            Ultimately, the sum of all things in the universe, and all energy fields = 1.
            Nothing exists by itself. All of the parts are cohesive and 1 thing in space/time.

            What we call a “particle” is actually a wave “function”, or the interaction of several wave functions creating what we regard as a single wave function, creating a wave that appears to us as a particle, a type of standing wave..

            The “function” is the function, or purpose, of the wave; i.e., quark, electron, positron, etc.

            The wave function goes through both slits at the same time and we perceive that as the particle being in two places at once. But it is the wave function that is passing through the slits, not an actual particle, and the wave function behaves like a wave.

            The universe can be approximated as various wave functions meant to produce different effects and particles through the interaction of the waves created by those wave functions.

            Thus all electrons would be a result of, and part of, the electron wave function and would act as though they are a single electron. We can’t see most of this harmonization, but it is evident and provable through entangled pairs.

            It is why people talk about a Higgs “field”.

            This would also be true of all quarks and other quanta and, through increasingly complex combinations, all matter, living and inert.

            These wave functions “collapse” into the observable universe by creating increasingly complex wave combinations and combinations of combinations. What most don’t see, is that it is collapsing into “reality” around us each instant we live.

            It is doing this in such a way that there is a continuity to everything. When we watch a movie, the quantum field collapses so we can watch the movie from beginning to end and it makes sense.

            It is doing it in such a way that all newborns grow in a rational way and have “expected” life spans. It does it in a way so that it follows genetic code.

            It is why the counter top remains the counter top even though it is changing and aging each instant and why its parts will eventually be reconstituted back into the quantum field in a never ending fashion.

            .It is why we get what we ask for and why miracles happen.

            It is why gluttons, drug addicts, the sexually promiscuous, thieves, murderers, and other abusers and ne’re-do-wells suffer, and why saints are blessed.

            It is why faith works.

            The universe is life-centric and harmonized between lives so it all makes sense from instant to instant. The life in all things is also one life just as electrons are all manifested out of one field and Higg’s bosons out of another. Life is one even though it manifests as so many different individuals making up so many different life forms.

            The universe acts like it is one thing, the universe, because it is ONE thing, even though it appears to us as a myriad of parts. It is one, life-centric, field of energy materializing around us at the speed of light, which is why the speed of light is the constant required to make sense of our perceptions of space/time. Life forms “perceive” at a slightly slower rate than the speed of light. The quantum field is always materializing just fast enough that we don’t actually “see” it happening. The materialization stays ahead of us.

            This is where quantum physics and spiritual mysticism merge.

            Sorry, I digress. 😉

            It seems to me that is is logical to assume that the basic harmonic frequencies of the CMBR are the result of the primary wave functions of the universe and that the interaction of the waves created by those wave functions interact in such a way as to create all the quanta and complex structures that make up the universe.

            The fact that the tones seem to be becoming more scattered and chaotic over time are a reinforcement of this theory as it indicates that the waves are creating an increasing number of “particles”. the more they interact over time.

          • In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit. When you do not detect the particle it forms an interference pattern. This is evidence of the associated wave in the dark matter.

          • I think the truth is probably closer to the Relational Interpretation proposed by Carlo Rovelli. I believe you are also incorrect about the particle going directly to a point on the screen once it is detected. The observer changes slightly how it acts once it is observed, but not as you state.
            This Wiki site offers several different theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment .
            I am very suspicious of any theory that involves dark matter and dark energy.

          • The particle is always a point. It is guided by its associated wave in the dark matter.

          • The particle is dealt with mathematically as a point, but it is not a point separate from the quantum fabric. It is a concentration in a four dimensional field consisting of x, y, z axises and time. It is infinite in all directions.
            You also seem to be missing the importance of the observer on what is materialized.
            You believe in locality and the separation of particles. I believe in a non-local continuum where all things are manifested in, and part of, a single whole.
            Ne’re the twain shall meet. 😉

          • When you observe the particle you destroy its cohesion with its associated wave in the dark matter.

  6. Hi Doc;
    How great to be where you are and to be so involved in CERN.

    It seems to me that the Higgs boson coming in at a mass of 26 indicates that all possibilities exist. SuSy and Multi……..
    This could well be that a primary element of the universe is that all possibilities MUST be able to exist before each instant of the universe is manifested.

    It also seems to me that an infinite array of temporary particles can be produced the closer CERN gets to light speed.
    I would think, however, that the more the facility is used, the more time could be devoted to setting up triggers that would capture the other events as you describe, and even other, just random, possibilities based upon a logic program.

    Quantum physics shows that, before we make a measurement on a particle, it exists in all possible states. When we make a measurement on a particle, it causes all possible states to “collapse” into a definite state, from which we can predict future states over time. All particles are waves of energy made up of complex interactions of other, more basic, waves. “State” refers to the momentary primary position and momentum of the center of the wave, or waves, making up the particle in three physical and one time dimension.

    Our observation of the universe is a “measuring” of the universe that causes all possible wavefunctions to collapse into the observable universe. I think a lot of you folks so deep into the science fail to see that. You don’t make it real in your own lives or see it materializing around you.

    You miss the life-centric nature of the universe.

    I talk more about how these things tie together at http://www.captcass.com/cosmologicaltheories.htm

    In any event, I look forward to your postings on the events at CERN and the outcomes of the next run. Good luck on getting more triggers put in.
    Cass

  7. When the particle is strongly detected exiting a single slit it loses its cohesion with its associated wave in the dark matter, It continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

  8. ‘EPR program: a local interpretation of QM’
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

    “Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther). “

  9. For the time between years: Mind and the Wave Function Collapse, John Hagelin in conversation with Henry Stapp

  10. Mayb in addition these thoughts and accounts of Henry Stapp (dating Nov. 7, 2014, his impressions from SAND2014):
    SAND2014: My Talks, and more.

    The topic of the SAND2014 conference was “The Entanglement of Life”. The initials SAND stands for Science And Non Duality, and the word “Entanglement” was universally understood to be, from the science perspective, the phenomena of quantum entanglement.

    Many of the speakers were of high academic standing, and a large part of the large audience seemed reasonably well informed about quantum mechanics. The entire audience appeared to be acutely interested in these matters, pertaining to the science-based understanding of the connection between our minds and our brains. In this context, and in response to questions from the audience, I felt free, and even obliged, to give accounts of my own understanding of some things that were more detailed than what I have said before. I give here an edited account of what I said, or was trying to say, supplemented by some pertinent background explanations.

    I gave one half-hour talk on “Quantum Theory of Consciousness: How Quantum Mechanics Works in your Daily Life”; and participated in two hour-long panels entitled “The Meaning of Entanglement” and “Quantum Theory of Free Will”. I emphasized in all of these talks that one cannot speak understandably about these things from a quantum mechanics (QM) perspective without contrasting it with the earlier ideas of classical mechanics (CM), which had prevailed in science from the time of Isaac Newton until the dawn of the twentieth century. The earlier theory, CM, was the scientific foundation of the industrial revolution, much as QM has been the basis of the computer-based ‘revolution’ of the twentieth century. Having clearly in mind the main ideas of the earlier CM is essential to an understanding QM because those earlier classical ideas are so firmly entrenched in educated Western minds that we all, even quantum physicists, tend to revert automatically to those classical ideas when we think about the external physically described world. Consequently, certain features of quantum mechanics seem “mysterious” simply because we intuitively try to comprehend them in terms of the concepts of CP. By virtue of this consequent “aura of mystery” about the quantum world some of the speakers felt licensed by the existence of quantum entanglement, and wave-particle duality, to jump directly to ideas of Eastern mysticism that allow, and even extol, the idea that basic physical statements can be, simultaneously, both true and false. On the other hand, standard orthodox quantum mechanics is formulated in terms of statements that are either true or false. One cannot carry out long complex calculations that all quantum physicists agree are based correctly on the fundamental quantum principles if the pertinent physical statements can, within the standard theory, be simultaneously both true and false: In the orthodox QM standard Aristotelian Logic is retained: the theory sorts things out in a way that allows the relevant physical statements to be either true or false. This is possible because QM uses a conceptual framework that is much richer than what CP provides.

    The basic premise of CP is that every pertinent property of the theory is “physically described”. That phrase means — by definition here — that the property is completely described by attaching mathematical properties to space-time points. The second premise of CP is that certain “local” laws of motion allow the physically described universe for all times to be mathematically determined from the physically described properties at early times: Classical Physics is thus said to be “locally deterministic”.

    Already before the appearance of conflicting 20th century empirical evidence, CP had several serious philosophical problems.. The first is that it did not describe certain definitely existing properties, namely the properties that we describe in the language of psychology, which describes our thoughts, ideas, and feelings. These definitely existing realities include our feelings of joy or sorrow, our aches and pains, our sensations of colors, tastes, and odors, and our feelings of mental intent. Thus CP, by not encompassing these aspects of reality, is ontologically incomplete. Moreover, there is nothing in that theory that gives any hint of, or rational toehold for, the existence of these mental qualities. Thus reality itself contains parts having within CP no logical connection to each other: It has two logically and dynamically disconnected parts, only one of which is even mentioned by CP. Furthermore, the mental part, with its capacity to survey the physical situation and form mental intentions about how to act to improve the situation, is completely devoid of any capacity to act to implement those intentions.

    By “standard” or “orthodox” QM I mean the theory created by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, Born, Bohr, and von Neumann during the late 1920s and early 1930s and elevated during the late 1940s, principally by Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman, to relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT). It is empirically tested by hundreds if not thousands of validated precise predictions. (I do not try here to introduce any deep quantum theory of gravity. At present such theories lack, in the realm of experiments on terrestrial objects, the strong empirical credentials of RQFT. Thus I am effectively assuming that an eventual consistent incorporation of gravity into QM will not greatly affect the main ontological conclusions about the mind-brain connection that emerge from contemporary RQFT.)

    The basic move made by the founders of QM, in face of the inability of the concepts of CM to account for the twentieth century empirical findings, was to argue that “science”, which stems from the Latin “scire”, which means “to know”, should be primarily about the only things that we really know exist, namely our conscious experiences: “our knowledge”. The proper aim of basic science was identified as the goal of providing a practically useful way of understanding the empirically observed structure of human experience. The conception of the physically described universe used in the earlier CM was recognized to be an idea that we human beings invented in order to account for the movements of the planets, and then assumed would hold also for miniature planets called particles, out of which the physically described aspects of the universe were assumed to be made. Thus the primary stuff of the quantum mechanically conceived universe became not the material-particle-based stuff of CP, but rather an aspect of reality left completely out of CP, namely our conscious experiences.

    The standard orthodox mechanics that emerged from this shift explains in a completely rationally coherent and easily understandable way the various phenomena that had seemed so mysterious when attempted to be viewed from the perspective of CP. Quantum mechanics achieves this rationalization by expanding the kinds of realities that make up the universe from one to three.

    Classical mechanics has only the one kind reality, the evolving physically described classical state of the universe, whereas QM has three: 1) The physically describable QM state (density matrix) of the universe; 2) The mentally described aspects (egos) of us observer/agents, each of which can initiate actions that probe the QM state; and 3) A “Nature” that first responds decisively to the ‘Yes/No’ probing actions of the observer/agents, and then restructures the quantum state of the universe to make it compatible with the response it has just delivered.

    The probing actions of the observer/actors are called, “free choices on the part of the experimenters”, where “free choice” means here, *specifically*, “not determined by the physically described part of reality”. That condition means that these “free choices” of actions must come from mental aspects of reality, in concordance with our experience-based intuition. This ontological feature of QM is diametrically opposed to CM, which presumes that what we feel as “free choices” are completely determined by the physically described aspects of the universe.

    It is impossible to rationally understand how that CM understanding could be correct. That is because the physical description in terms of mathematical properties attached to space-time points, while it might trigger the occurrence of the sensation “red” in an observer’s stream of consciousness, cannot be that sensation. There is no intrinsic mapping between the two domains: and the classical physics idea of the physical was stripped by Newton of all mental properties. That disjunction is a core feature of classical mechanics. On the other hand, our collective human experiences can and do include the ideas of mathematical properties connected to space-time points, as the existence of such ideas in the minds of physicists attests. Thus the quantum conception, in which the mental aspects are basic, easily accommodates the physically described aspects, but the classical conception, in which the classically conceived physically described properties are basic, does not rationally accommodate the mental aspects of reality.

    I have in the past said very little about how these choices of our probing actions are determined, relying upon our first-hand experience of this process. Of course, many of our seeming choices are made without any conscious awareness. (e.g., turn right at the next intersection on my way home.) And many seeming decisions about physical actions may not involve any “free choice” at all, but may be merely part of the automatic (Schroedinger) mechanical evolution of the physically described universe, which includes our brains. And some decisions may stem from “free mental choices” that are too fleeting to be recalled.

    But a person’s actual conscious free choices are evidently based upon a person’s idea of him or her self, which is an idea formed from a life-time of experiences involving felt choices of probing actions followed by experienced feedbacks that are ascribed positive or negative values in the context of that person’s life. Thus “I” choose my probing actions based upon an experience-created conception of myself as an entity that has the capacity first to choose probing questions about the physically described world in which I am embedded, and then to evaluate the feedbacks that I receive.

    The probing questions must, according to QM, be of the Yes/No form: “Will my probing action elicit experiential response ‘R’, where ‘R’ is a description of possible experiential feedback, such as “I see the pointer on the measuring device lying between 6 and 7 on the dial?”, or “I hear the ‘click’ of a particle-detection device.”

    It might seem that the capacity merely to pose questions would not confer upon the poser any power to control its own actions. But a well-known property of QM known as the (anti) quantum Zeno effect allows a sufficiently rapid sequence of slightly different queries (about one’s perceived physically described body) to cause that body to move in an intended way. Von Neumann himself (p.366) makes important use of this basic feature of quantum mechanics.

    Thus “free choice” means ‘not completely determined by the physically described aspects of nature’, but determined instead, in part, by an observer’s mental image of himself, formed from his prior experiences as a causally effective agent’.

    Another key aspect of the idea of “Free Choice” is the idea that this choice can be conceived of as “locally generated”, without pertinent links to the past. When one considers the huge multitudes of ways that an observer/agent can elect to have the choice between two alternative possible experiments determined — without there being any effects of this “manner of choosing” on the predictions of QM — it become plausible that these choices can consistently be conceived to be “locally generated” in the region of the experiment in question. All of the “locality” puzzles stem from this assumption, which is accepted by all parties to the debates about locality.

    Within this orthodox framework there is a curious seeming conflict between two properties, one of which, PL, says that there is no transfer of information (about a free local binary choice made by an experimenter in a faraway experimental region about which of two alternative possible experiments will be performed in that region) to an observer situated in a nearby experimental region. This locality property is called the “No FTL signaling theorem”, which I think I was the first person to formulate and prove.

    The other property, PNL, asserts that it is impossible to impose (without violating some empirically well confirmed predictions of QM) the general condition that, independently of which one of two alternative possible experiments is chosen in a nearby region, the outcome there is independent of which local free binary choice between alternative possible experiments is made at essentially the same instant in a faraway region. The result is called the “No FTL (or essentially instantaneous) influence (or transfer of information) theorem”,

    This latter theorem is akin to Bell’s theorem, but is significantly stronger because it does not introduce “hidden variables” analogous to the hidden variables of classical statistical mechanics. That introduction of “hidden variables” undesirably brings classical concepts into QM, and leads to a “factorization” property that entails, in addition to the desired non-dependence of the outcome in region 1 upon the experimenter’s free local choice made in region 2, also a certain kind of non-dependence of this outcome in region 1 upon the outcome in region 2. This extra condition, which Shimony calls “outcome independence”, goes beyond the desired general non-dependence of the outcome in one region upon the free choice made by the experimenter in the other region.

    These two properties, PL and PNL, the first of which specifies a certain locality property, and the second of which specifies a certain nonlocality property, are both true in orthodox QM. In that theory the nonlocality property PNL is implemented by allowing “Nature” to be nonlocal, so that her choice of an outcome in region 1 can depend upon the choice of the probing action made by the experimenter in region 2. But this does not entail any gross abandonment of space-time structure, as some commentators proclaim. The grid of space-time points to which the various physically described properties are attached is not affected. Nor are the physically described bodies and brains of the far-apart observer/agents suddenly brought together in defiance of their space-time separation.. The nonlocal aspects arise purely from violation of the general locality demand that, no matter which of several alternative possible experiments is chosen in one region, Nature’s local response in that region cannot depend on a local free choice of a probing action made at essentially the same instant in a faraway experimental region. The nonlocal aspect is confined to “Nature”, which is thus required to have a certain global character or aspect.

    The no FTL signaling theorem is maintained in the face of this nonlocal character of Nature, by virtue of von Neumann’s rule that what can be known to an observer is restricted to what is represented in the “reduced density matrix of the universe” that is obtained from the full density matrix of the universe by taking the “trace” over variables about which the observer has no prior knowledge. The changes in the density matrix of the universe induced by the alternative possible choices made by the faraway observer leave that trace unchanged. Hence no increase in the knowledge available to the observer is generated by the choice made by the faraway observer/agent.

    The point here is simply that PL and PNL, when spelled out in detail, are two quite different mathematical properties, both of which are true without any contradiction in orthodox QM.

    The nonlocal aspect of QM is closely related to the ontological character of the quantum state of the universe. In CM the physically described state of the universe represents a material-type reality that cannot accommodate any faster than light transfer of information. But the quantum state, although also physically described, represents rather a collection “possibilities” or “potentialities” for future experiences. This quantum state suddenly changes when new information is created either by an agent’s choice of a probing action or by Nature’s response to such a probing action. Thus the ontological character of the quantum state is “mindlike”, in the sense that it can suddenly change over large regions in response to newly created empirical facts. But this non-locality is not self-induced. Nature, by virtue of her capacity to act in one region in a way that depends upon faraway local choices, is the source of the nonlocal aspects, and is thus not matter-like in character. Yet the physically described quantum state governed by these nonlocal quantum rules contains the large persisting seemingly material objects that we see around us, including our bodies and brains, through which our mental intentions act.

    The above account is meant to be a brief description of the ontological underpinnings of the detailed mathematical account of QM that was set forth in von Neumann’s seminal work, “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, and that was developed by the physicists named above into RQFT.

    It must be stressed that the official Copenhagen doctrine asserts that QM should be interpreted “pragmatically”, merely as a tool for making useful valid prediction about future experiences on the basis of information derived from past experiences. This allows quantum physicists to dodge metaphysical questions about the true nature of reality. But von Neumann’s formulation, ontologically construed, can nonetheless be very useful to physicists and laymen alike, quite independently of whether it is actually true. For it is a rationally coherent understanding of what is otherwise a mass is classically non-understandable rules.

    Von Neumann’s formulation seems geared for, and to invite, an ontological interpretation. I have thus summarized here my understanding of realistically construed orthodox von Neumann QM. It converts man’s conception of himself from the classical-physics-based image of a mechanical automaton, acting out a pre-ordained script of a meaningless life, to an agent empowered to initiate actions that he judges will contribute positively to the unfolding of a reality that becomes determined only by the grinding out of the actions that bring it into being.

    I was asked during the panel on “free will” about David Bohm’s mechanical version of QM. I answered that, in a conversion with Bohm, I asked whether only one single one of the multitude of “world trajectories” was real, and he strongly affirmed that only one was real.
    But I should have added to my answer that, as regard consciousness and free will, Bohm answered in two (essentially identical) articles that his original Model was devoid of consciousness and free will, but suggested bringing these two properties into an elaborated version involving an infinite tower of informational fields each of which “informed” the field below it. Thus causally effective consciousness was, in that suggested model, brought in by an infinite regress.

    This elaboration by Bohm of Bohmian mechanics points to a recognition by Bohm that causally effective consciousness needs to be part of an adequate model of reality, and that the original “Bohmian mechanics” does not supply it. [See David Bohm (1990): “A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter”, Philosopical Psychology, 3:2, 271-286]

    In the panel on “free will”, panelist Chris Fields brought up Conway and Kochen’s Famous “Free Will Theorem”, which asserts that if reality is “local” and observers have “free will” then electrons must also have “free will”. I rejected the seemingly absurd (panpsychism) conclusion that something as simple as an electron could possess “free will”, by noting first that the needed locality assumption is proved false by my non-locality theorem PNL, mentioned above; and second that within orthodox QM it is not the electrons that make the choices of which outcome will occur, but rather nonlocal Nature, which can be far better equipt to make the choice of outcome than a simple localized electron.

  11. Or, you could understand in a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

  12. Thank you, Margot. Very well put. You, too, however, miss the point that what your are calling “Nature”, the “non-local reality”, is alive. “All is one in the Creator”, the Harmonizer…….It is “made” of consciousness…….and it is passing eternity through us.
    One participates at a much deeper level in the creation if one learns to love the Creator and to simply ask it for things and have faith in that it loves us.
    Mysticism meets science.
    I have a lot of examples of this in my own life. A great one is my story of the red marble. I own the world’s first and only “Sea Glass Museum” in the town with the highest concentration of sea glass in the world. I spend a lot of time on our beaches looking for gems.

    I landed my kayak at the beach one day and found 2 marbles right away. They were just plain old marbles, but still, marbles are as rare as reds, about 1 in 5,000 and to find 2 together is unheard of..

    So I said, “Lord, (I use “Lord” but it is just a convenient term to show my respect. The Creator has no sex.) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I’ve got a blue, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red. Please, Lord?”

    So I went back picking and put that thought aside. After about two hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to do, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything special just lying there.

    Just before the end there is this HUGE red marble. It’s 15/16ths of an inch. It is a Christiansen “Bloody”. He was the first guy to machine make marbles between 1906 and 1917. All his marbles are collectables. Mine is worth $200 just as a marble, much less a sea glass marble. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms A WAVE!

    I MMMMEEEaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn!

    I go, “Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc.” When I bend down to pick up the marble, there are also 2 pieces of jewelry quality RED glass! I go, “Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” and dance around a bunch with tears in my eyes. Reds are 1 in 5,000 pieces! It takes months to just find one.This is the Creator telling me the marble is not just a coincidence.

    This is how to make the quantum experience, and quantum knowledge, real on a personal level.

    I learned to safely wash my hands in acid when I was 22. I am 65 now. Once I learned the power of faith, I set off on a lifelong mission to build that faith. What I have learned of QM over the course of those years has always reinforced what I have experienced.

    The only “true” reality is non-local and is one….and it is conscious of itself being. It manifests and harmonizes all else.

    Thanks again for the great post!

    • Washing your hands in acid gradually is called toughening of the skin.Guitar players do a similar thing to there fretting fingers…… Through exposure!! Not magic…..

      • Totally wrong. There was no build up of conditioning. Just a day of fasting and prayer. I did it both with and without faith. I lost several layers of skin the time I did it with doubt. You can read more about it here: http://www.captcass.com/symbolofunity.htm#13.7

        • So you lost skin the first time? Then it regrows tougher?…..Sorry Cas I’m not against what you say in principle, but having a lucky day finding a few marbles is hardly a modern miracle. But good for you if it brought you faith who am I to argue with that.

          • No. I lost the skin the second time. This site is not the place to post the whole story, but if you go to the link I provided it is all explained, including why I lacked faith (had doubt) the second time.
            My life is filled with things like the red marble: “miracles” great and small. Luck has nothing to do with it. That’s the point……..”Ask and you shall receive.”

    • These were Henry Stapp’s words, not mine. Happy New Year!

  13. Happy New Year Prof Strassler, please come back soon. We need info 🙂 Best wishes.

  14. I’ did not want to start a religious discussion, more a (theoretical )physics discussion actually. 🙂 About collapse of wave function and maybe teleology and contextuality – well that discussion might fit better into the biology department . 🙂 Well, the new year has begun and, I guess, there will be exciting physics facts to discuss to round up the picture and have discussions on maybe safer grounds.

  15. I understand and agree. But I also believe that knowing what we know about the effects of the observer, we have to eventually tie the spirit to the science. I consider this spirituality, not religion. To me religion is what we do or don’t do for our personal well being and the well being of our society…..like brushing your teeth every day…….
    You can test what I have said so you get your own results. It is as repeatable as any other experiment. All you have to do is ask for something. That is how I learned that it worked. 🙂
    Just asking is a sign of faith……
    Hopefully CERN will give us a bunch more to consider.
    Happy New Year!
    May the Force be with you. 🙂

    • Stapp talked about Nature responding to the inquiries of the observer. It wopuld help to harmonize randomness with purpose. If the universe can’t be said to be purposeful (apart from an evolutionary direction maybe if one interprets evolutionary history), most of the organisms in the universe definitely are. It’s again a discussion about the role of some consciousness, identical with abstract immaterial wholeness of Nature, on that fundamental level which then seems to be sensitive to the observer’s desire and able to “restructure the quantum state of the universe to make it compatible with the response it just delivered”. I am following this question up in the field of genomics and molecular genetics. So amazing – the enormous complexity of layers of intelligence to structure the response of genes/epigenome/RBPome/miRNAome to an individual’s subjective “inquiries” and appraisal of environmental stimuli….

      • PS: I am actually very interested in more details regarding the transition from subjectivity to objectivity which occurs when the subjective impulse of thought gets translated through the DNA into biomolecules like MicroRNAs, neuropeptides and other complex proteins which comprise the biochemistry of thought. This transition also represents the junction point between the quantum-mechanical and the classical in the structure of the human physiology.

        • Me, too. I was thinking about that just today. Our consciousness pervades us while the mind, or ego, seems limited to the brain and it is in the brain where spirit and matter seem to mix the most at the quantum level.
          That interaction affects the whole organism at the quantum level.
          I see the changes as being both within the individual, at all its levels of consciousness, cell, organ, etc., and in the surrounding local environment, which relates to the experiences I talk about above.
          I don’t think it can be said that we, as “individuals”, are separate from our “surroundings”. We are part of the quantum field.
          Life forms are, apparently, the most complex overlaying of wave functions in the quantum field as they have a degree of self direction. I would like to find the quantum equation that explains how that works. It is my grail….
          🙂
          .

          • Regarding non-separability from surroundings – yes, on a quantum level that is certainly true. MiRNAs are about 2.9 angstrom-sized, pretty small for biomolecules, together with other classes of small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). They specifically inhibit messenger RNAs and thus prevent protein synthesis and they regulate lots of processes on the brain and elsewhere. However, there are certain proteins which are needed for the metabolism and regulation of these miRNAs and siRNAs currently the object of advanced research. Still smaller in terms of scales, when it comes to picometer then we are pretty much on the level of water molecule and then hydrogen and helium atom , i.e. out of the realm of biological molecules…. And then gamma rays wave length which is 1 picometer, and then even smaller the Uranium nucleus with 15 femtometers and the chlorine nucleus with only 6 femtometers, the helium nucleus with only 3 femtometers, and then with 100 attometers it gets more into the unmanifest area…. where objects have not been confirmed anymore. Then into the weak force and quarks and high energy neutrino (in the 15 zeptometer range). The normal neutrino is still much more refined in the yoctometer range and then pretty much nothing objective anymore, only quantum fields and then at some point Planck scale. What are the mechanisms that make these miRNAs, siRNAs, and RBPs (RNA-binding proteins) act purposefully and regulate gene expression? . Certainly environmental stimuli – but not only. Some researchers have pointed to subjective appraisal of such environmental stimuli in a number of cases, i.e. the subjective processing of environmental stimuli (“experience”) plays a role and sometimes even purely imagined or symbolic cognitive representations of environmental conditions. Can we really deny the role of the “observer”, the subject, consciousness (collapse of wave function”). Founding fathers of quantum physics have already posited that consciousness plays a role.

  16. I’m just wondering if a techie could devise a way for CERN to use volunteers’ PC’s via the net to increase memory and computing power to enable more triggers and more captures.
    I’d gladly volunteer my computer’s time……
    Any techies out there?

  17. What becomes a real head twister is that it should be consciousness at all levels having an effect. That means that each level of consciousness is having an effect: cell, organ, limb, the whole, etc. Much of that should be overlapping algorithms and common functions but, still, the number of cells is tremendous.
    Considering the number of cells we are made of, and “not made of”, like the bacteria in our guts, can we even hope to decipher those overlaying layers of consciousness and their associated wave functions in the quantum world?
    I would expect we can only do it through a normalization, which means we can’t really do it.
    I think a total understanding will always elude us. It is beyond us. If, as in other things in QM, we could fix a moment in time, we could then predict the future. That would eliminate free will and I do not believe that is possible.

    • Well, the mind (subjectivity) of an individual is certainly multi-branched as mind expresses itself in grosser level , but it is also unified at the source (“pure consciousness”, non-local). I wouldn’t think of mind in terms of consciousness of each single cell of the body (including microbiome). But certainly they are all kept together by that individual’s consciousness in a way. Anymore thoughts on this by others?

  18. I was reflecting about that a little more. There are models of the human mind having may layers, surface layers (diversified) and a non-local aspect to it at the source of thought. On that level (source of thought), Henry Stapp’s “Nature” and human consciousness maybe can be said to be unified. Interestingly to me, the thinking process has been compared to “an automated switchboard, spontaneously activating and organizing the laws of nature in a coordinated way for the fulfillment of any specific desire” (Hagelin, 1989). In the spontaneous mechanics of desiring, for example, a simple mental impulse automatically activates dozens, if not hundreds, of laws of nature. Through the desire to open a window, for example, the muscles move and the body rises and walks toward the window, guided by the sense of sight and touch. Even a child with no intellectual understanding of the laws of nature knows how to rise and move through this simple and spontaneous mechanics of desiring. This natural ability to utilize natural law spontaneously is built into the hardware of the human brain physiology. The range of natural law which is spontaneously utilized by the mind depends on the natural range of one’s comprehension—the degree of alertness at more refined levels of consciousness, more fundamental levels of nature’s functioning. The spontaneous ability to use natural law in a coordinated manner thus is already programmed into the hardware of the human brain physiology. Its utilization simply depends on the range of natural law that is lively in the awareness.Desiring from the level of the quantum vacuum state (Henry Stapp’s “Nature”) spontaneously makes use of the entire range of natural law. That then could mean that individual awareness would function from the same, unified and holistic level from which nature conducts the evolution of the entire universe. But this would require the expansion of the conscious awareness to incorporate more profound and unified levels of natural law. Sounds pretty revolutionary and far advanced, I know…. But it’s a self-consistent model 🙂 .

  19. Very good. But it seems to me the brain is not the ultimate answer.. Both the sperm and ovum have “life”. Life is a river that flows through each new generation from the last. Because of this, arguments about “when life begins” drive me nuts.
    When the sperm and ovum merge into a single cell, the “life” remains as one and it then uses the genetic code within the fertilized egg to build a new person, dog, bird, etc. The life found within the sperm and ovum is the same life or when they merged there would be two “lives” acting within the egg.
    In some way this is a quantum level process, and the “life” is intricately involved and necessary for the process to happen.
    This is why I said earlier that consciousness acts at each level, cell, organ, limb, etc.

    • I have noticed that you place a lot of emphasis on “life” – and I totally agree!!. I think also that Stapp viewed what he called ” Nature” as absolutely and vitally “alive” in the sense that you emphasized so much (so is the quantum vacuum state, if it is only due to the quantum /uncertainty principle, as we know the deeper we go into more microscopic levels, the more alive it gets). But don’t think the story of genes is finished when ovum and sperm come together. There are constant feedback-loops to the genetic level. Environmental stimuli, experiences, subjective processing all influence the epigenome. Also, recently a flood of papers have shown that “junk” DNA is actually a giant field of “raw” DNA sequence resources for rapidly evolving new genes. That explains nicely why it is there – it’s a useful set of templates/resources/raw materials for evolution to work with. I agree that consciousness acts on every level – like in the example of responding to the desire to open the window, a conscious desire or subconscious impulse which then sets a whole “production line” to work to produce the action, most importantly of course the brain, as the physiological correlate of consciousness which then activates the production line through the well known steps.
      As I understand, you see “life” (which I would equate with consciousness and maybe quantum vacuum state, abstract, unmanifest, yet alive, vibrant with potential, and as vacuum state of all quantum fields the source of all the laws of nature) as the reservoir of the evolutionary potential that then expresses itself purposefully in exchange with, i.e. at the same time limited, channelled and supported by, the environment.

  20. But I do agree that life (“consciousness”) is more and ultimately transcendental to brain and physiology (as quantum vacuum state is to quantum fields) and not just merely epiphenomenon associated with higher-order biological systems that emerge spontaneously from lower-order inert, fundamentally random processes as in which the lower-order physical layers of nature are believed to be non-sentient, with no ability to experience anything and no ability to choose what occurs in natureare merely presumed to be activated by the inherent dynamism of fundamentally random fluctuations of quantum fields that provide the motivating power for motion, but have no meaning and direction because they are random and inert. It is not clear in this view when, where, and how the order via a ‘predisposition’ could possibly provide in any way orderly or even ‘evolutionary pathways’ in nature.

  21. I believe there is a consciousness that exists eternally alone and that it is the only true reality. The only reason it exists is because it is aware of itself existing. This is a terrible state of being…eternally alone in darkness. This is the total vacuum state. The “I Am That I Am”.
    This is a state of infinite potentials and possibilities. It is also the origin of space/time. I am “here” (space) “now” (time).
    Fortunately it can imagine “light” and out of that light create worlds to live in to help it stay sane as it passes through eternity. I think the quanta are manifested out of harmonic “disturbances” in the fabric of space/time. I see the quantum process as the manifestation of that light. That it is all so logical is simply elegant, like the whole universe.
    That is what we are. We are it. It is passing eternity through its life forms.
    This also explains a lot about the human condition. We have war, family, love, hate, peace, drama, humor, sickness, etc., because it creates “full” lives for itself, adventurous lives. All creatures have to keep “looking over their shoulders” for good reason.
    To me, understanding the quantum process reinforces this. How to show mathematically that this is the process, however, eludes me.
    From my mystical experience, I can see it very clearly, however. The world makes perfect sense to me and is made magical through faith, whether one believes in a creator or not.

  22. Quantum vacuum state thinking “I am (only) one – may I be many” ?! Possibly 🙂 I like that idea. That depends of course on whether at some point the multiverse stopped or will stop to exist (in the long corridors of time) or was not yet existing….

  23. I see us as each at the center of our own, locally centered, universe. Our effect on the universe as a whole is very small, but our effect becomes more intense as we get closer to the observer.

    If you and I traveled off in opposite directions for 13Gy, we would still see a full universe surrounding us stretching 13.8Gy in all directions. We would each be at the center of our observable universes and neither of us would be in the others’ observable universe.

    In our immediate surroundings things would be materializing around us like they do here. We would have food and drink come our way and have something to do that keeps us busy and is somehow “creative”.

    When living beings interact, that interaction has to be harmonized or normalized. It can be said it is a normalization of multiverses because the individual universes centered around each individual have to be harmonized so the quantum field produces a logical, coherent shared universe.

    Among humans this involves socialization, much of which is based on shared
    interests, like work or family. These things are easy to harmonize.

    Work involves a shared commitment to a job or task and most interaction (normalization) relates to the shared goal.

    Family is a bit more chaotic, as we all know, because there are more free will choices to be made on a wider range of subjects. (And there are 2 sexes.) 🙂

    Most humans share very much of what they do. Our meals, sleep, romance, work, etc., pretty much are common to us all, no matter where you live on the planet. Your neighbor is usually doing “what” you are doing about when you are doing it.

    This means our social interactions, and normalization, or harmonization,. are algorithmic and should be expressible using quantum mechanics..

    Could it be said that the existence of a universe depends on there being an observer? And can it be said that the quantum concept of multiverses is fulfilled by the overlapping of our lives and “universes”?

    I am hoping quantum mechanics will finally be able to answer these questions.

    I am taking a Quantum Mechanics course at MIT online. It is really great that they put up so many free courses. I am through the fifth lecture. A great way to take a course. No time limits. No pressure. You can which a lecture over and over until you fully understand it.and have the math down. Math you are rusty on or don’t know is easily researched online.

    So far i don’t see a path mathematically to prove what i want to prove. But it is still great to see I have been on track theory-wise all these years. I believe my theories fit what we know through QM.

    Margot, are you a “freelancer” or part of the establishment?

    • I am a freewhatever. No, not part of the establishment :-). I should probably take those MIT courses. Just trying to come to terms with observation, collapse of wave function and neural event….. “Each human experience is an aspect of a psycho-physical event whose psychologically described aspect is that experience itself, and whose physically described aspect is the reduction of the cloud of potentialities to those that contain the neural correlate of that experience…. These psycho-physical actions/events are of two kinds. An action of the FIRST kind is a choice of how the observed system is to be probed. Each such action decomposes the continuous cloud of potentialities into a set of mutually exclusive but collectively exhaustive separate components. An action of the SECOND kind is a choice ‘on the part of nature’ of which of these alternative possible potentialities will be ‘actualized.’ The actions of the second kind are predicted to conform to certain quantum probability rules. An action of the FIRST kind is called by Bohr ‘a free choice on the part of the experimenter.’ It is controlled by no known law or rule, statistical or otherwise.” (Henry Stapp)

      • “The interaction of the various parts of the brain with their environment has the effect of reducing an extremely complex conceptualization of the state of the brain to something everybody can readily understand. The quantum state of the brain is reduced by these interactions to a collection of parallel potentialities, each of which is essentially a classically conceivable possible state of the brain. The word ‘essentially’ highlights the fact that each of the classical possibilities must be slightly smeared out to bring it into accord with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: the potential location and velocity of the centre of each particle is smeared out over a small region. This conception of the quantum brain is intuitively accessible, and it is made possible by (environment-induced) decoherence. This picture of the brain captures very well the essence of the underlying mathematical structure, and it can be used with confidence.” (Henry Stapp)

  24. I think the “smearing” blends everything together into the cohesive field we see and experience. This allows for the harmonization and joining of all the parts smoothly in a unified field without ever absolutely defining what any of the primary parts are.

    I believe that since the universe is a magnificent self deception, none of its primary elements can actually ever be definitely defined. It is literally built on the faith that this and that will work together to create that. This is way QM works.

    Again, I don’t think we can seat the root in the brain. The brain itself is a quantum expression. It is an algorithmic overlay of wave functions before it is a physical thing.

    I relate it all more to “consciousness”, which involves many more layers or wave functions which are really just disturbances in the original, solitary, consciousness. .

    According to De Grasse, if we trace back the harmonic tones of the CMBR through time., they become a “cosmic scream”. This would, in my view, be the panic of the eternally alone erupting in a kind of madness. QM works because it needs it to work. It doesn’t matter exactly how it works at its most basic level, it is merely imagined as working.

    What is called “Nature”, that I call the Creator, builds the universe around us to move us forward in a logical sense. If it can work in what we want and keep everything harmonized, it does so. If not, it doesn’t. Everyone can’t win the lottery, for instance. Sometimes the answer is no. Mostly, it is yes, and our world moves forward as we expect it to.

    It creates us and our world, but we make a large contribution in creating the next instant, month, year, etc.

  25. Although QM has been shown to work again and again, it can never define what is actually happening at the most basic level because that level is assumptive, built on assumptions, and is defined by how “particles” act when they are actually in a continually changing state and can never be defined absolutely, or, therefore, the interactions between particles.
    There is a possibility that the universe only appears to be logical and following laws because we are examining it. It is possible that it only seems to work that way so it makes sense to us.
    I doubt that, though, as I can make sense of this. 🙂

    • Well, yes, quantum mechanics is pretty much in the area of manifestation of course. I am currently reading a paper (not yet published) on how Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp, Max Tegmark, David Bohm, and Albert Einstein defined laws of nature. The paper analyzed the different theories under the aspect of questions like the following:
      Are the laws invented or discovered, emerging or foundational? I.e. do they precede phenomena governed by them, or are they (or some) emergent with them? Are they independent of or dependent on us as observers, ontological or epistemological, are they eternal, or do they change according to contexts? How does the order implied by the laws reconcile with fundamental quantum randomness? What about laws and free will: Do the laws or anything else including us have any power to choose what happens? Where in nature are these laws – e.g. in a transcendental realm, in a mental realm, in a physical realm?

      Maybe to close the discussion at this point? What do you think? I don’t want to abuse the blog too much for discussions that don’t interest the majority.

      Wishing for 2015 and the LHC working at 13 TeV to really bring evidence beyond the standard model of physics for a new physics – so much desired and needed to maybe verify string and M theory… let’s hope for the best.

  26. Yes, OK. i don’t want to abuse the professor’s hospitality either and we are getting way of course here. Nice discussion, though. Nice to know someone else is considering these things.

  27. By-the-by, I sent the following to Rolf Heuer, the Director General at CERN, tonight.
    “Hello Dr. Heuer;
    I would be willing to let you use my computer for additional computing capability for your next run at CERN, as I am sure millions of others would be willing to do. This could add a tremendous amount of capability to your computing systems, allowing you to add a lot of triggers and random captures for analysis. I believe this could be easily accomplished through a simple networking program.
    Hope this can help.
    I am really looking forward to the next run.”

  28. Just one more point. 🙂
    I don’t mean to imply that the universe is chaotic, resulting from “divine panic”.
    I believe it is constructed very deliberately, even though the founding “particles” might never be able to be exactly defined. The basis is more likely harmonic waves in the fabric of space/time interacting in such a way as to locally manifest “particles”. This probably is evidenced by the harmonic tones of the CMBR.
    Take the moon for example. We still are not sure of where it came from. There are some interesting theories, but we just don’t know.
    Without it existing at just the right range of distance from us, life as we know it could not exist. The tides created by the sun by itself would be so high they would sweep over all the continents every 24 hours.
    It helps create the weather through its gravitational influence on the atmosphere. It pulses the atmosphere with tides, just like we find in the oceans.
    Without its effect on the tides, we might not have ocean currents or the fluctuations in the jet stream.
    It rotates and revolves around the Earth at the same period, so we always see the same side, helping to sustain its mystery for thousands of years.
    It is just the right size and distance from us to create perfect eclipses of the sun.

    This system has to be just the right distance from the sun for it to work and be sustainable.

    I believe a lot of “thought” goes into the whole creation; thus its elegance. Even the quanta have been given a lot of thought. But I think they will probably always remain finitely undefinable because they are created through faith out of imagination in the void of space/time. .They are the stuff of dreams.

    • HI Cass,

      Where did you get the theory that the Earth without the moon, would cause the suns gravitational influence on the ocean to be as you stated above?

  29. I’m not sure. I think it was a special on the moon and its creation. I can’t remember what show or channel but the whole program was about the moon.There would only be one high and one low tide a day without the counterbalance of the moon and the tides would be huge.

  30. It might have been one of the “Universe” series.

  31. I think it involved the wobble of the Earth, too. If there were no moon the Earth would wobble more than it does now. This would create a sloshing of the oceans? I’ll do some research and see if I can find it. I’m terrible about remembering where I learn stuff. If I ever had to footnote I’d be lost.

    • Ok, I do believe the moon has been a great allie to the evolution of life here on Earth. But I did not think, and have not heard of it been that detrimental to stable ocean tides.. There are ofcoarse theories of the moon only recently been captured by the earth, but I don’t really want to go into them arguments here.

      However it is quite amazing the sun, moon and earth relationship.

  32. I seem to stand corrected. I can’t find anything saying the tides would get huge if there were no moon. Everything says the tides would be less extreme. I might have been having a senior moment….. 🙂
    I’ll keep looking, though…..
    I do love that mooooon!

    • OK, I now stand uncorrected. 🙂 I found my source regarding the moon. It is the series “The Universe”, S4/E02, “The Day the Moon Was Gone”. It says we would have 50 foot tides and that the Earth’s tilt would gyrate greatly, like Mars, affecting climate, currents, etc.
      Why it predicts such high tides when other sources do not, I do not know…….but there you go.

      • Sorry, if the moon just all of a sudden disappeared, there would be 50 foot tsunamis as the water surged towards the gravitational pull of the sun. After that they would settle down to lower tides than we have today. The overall impact of no moon, however, would dramatically change everything we know about our planet today.