Is Quantum Physics even Physical?

[joinfree]

1. Christian has written [1], that Metrology Standard Instruments (like thermometer, meter, clock, ampermeter, etc), are the invariants. They are not allowed to change in time and place, and scale.
2. The laws of macro-world and the laws of micro-world are different [2, 3].
3. Let us reduce the size of Instruments until they reach the micro-level.
4. Micro-standards enter area of alien, different laws.
5. Then, the reduction of size changes the Standards. But standards are not allowed to change (by point 1).
6.Conclusion: Quantum Physics is not Physical. I would point your mind to the serious theoretical problems: the Quantum Field Theory still is not completely renormalized. For example, QFT predicts huge Cosmological Constant, but it is measured small.

References:

[1] Quote: “measurement standard is that it must be realized and may not change with time” arXiv:1409.5338, Christian Baumgarten (2017) Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time. Quantum Structural Studies: pp. 225-331. https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q0041

[2] Analysis is in https://www.proza.ru/2018/02/20/679
, with rejection of Bohm's Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in the paper: Sofia, Journal of Modern Physics, year 2016, volume 7, pages 1091-1097 (this good paper was retracted due to a mistake, which nevertheless do not alter the result of Sofia, the body of the paper is still readable here:
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016062014172156.pdf

[3] What does it all mean? What violated is scale-invariance. Indeed, by transforming the metric x -> q x, t -> q t, with changing according parameters (mass, charge, etc) we would reduce the size of macro-system, but its processes will not change: “Men In Black [1997] Orion's Belt”

However, is known, that in micro-world the laws are different, and, thus, the scale invariance is violated.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Quantum_Physics_even_Physical

 

[mnorian]

Let Non-ontology mean non-physicality?
1. Christian has written [1], that Metrology Standard Instruments (like thermometer, meter, clock, ampermeter, etc), are the invariants. They are not allowed to change in time.
2. The laws of macro-world and the laws of micro-world are different [2].
3. Let us reduce the size of Instruments until they reach the micro-level.
4. Micro-standards enter area of alien, different laws.
5. Then, the reduction of size changes the Standards. But standards are not allowed to change.
6. Conclusion: Quantum Physics is not Physical.

[1] Quote: “measurement standard is that it must be realized and may not change with time” arXiv:1409.5338, Christian Baumgarten (2017) Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time. Quantum Structural Studies: pp. 225-331.

[2] Analysis is in Gaps in physical picture will never be filled (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру, with rejection of Bohm's Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in the paper: Sofia, Journal of Modern Physics, year 2016, volume 7, pages 1091-1097 (this good paper was retracted due to a mistake, which nevertheless do not alter the result of Sofia, the body of the paper is still readable.)

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/post/I...hysical_Let_Non-ontology_mean_non-physicality

No; it's all mental.

 

[Floof]

Ah Quantum physics, my favorite field of study outside religion and computer science. One of the fields that brought me to God actually.
I wouldn't say it's mental but it's technically, at least for the most part, theoretical. It's a beautiful field of study, things on the Quantum level aren't typically observable though so if that's what you mean by non-physical then you're correct.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let Non-ontology mean non-physicality?
1. Christian has written [1], that Metrology Standard Instruments (like thermometer, meter, clock, ampermeter, etc), are the invariants. They are not allowed to change in time.
2. The laws of macro-world and the laws of micro-world are different [2].
3. Let us reduce the size of Instruments until they reach the micro-level.
4. Micro-standards enter area of alien, different laws.
5. Then, the reduction of size changes the Standards. But standards are not allowed to change.
6. Conclusion: Quantum Physics is not Physical.

[1] Quote: “measurement standard is that it must be realized and may not change with time” arXiv:1409.5338, Christian Baumgarten (2017) Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time. Quantum Structural Studies: pp. 225-331.

[2] Analysis is in Gaps in physical picture will never be filled (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру, with rejection of Bohm's Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in the paper: Sofia, Journal of Modern Physics, year 2016, volume 7, pages 1091-1097 (this good paper was retracted due to a mistake, which nevertheless do not alter the result of Sofia, the body of the paper is still readable.)

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/post/I...hysical_Let_Non-ontology_mean_non-physicality

It's not a valid argument - your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and the premises are vague, ill-formed, and, in some cases incorrect.

If quantum physics is non-physical then everything around you is non-physical; the universe appears to be built out of quantum mechanical parts.

The difference in laws you place such stock on is a feature of emergent behaviours and properties at different scales. You could, in principle, use the laws of the smaller (e.g. quantum) scale to deal with behaviours at the larger scale, but it would be prohibitively complicated. You don't need to consider the position and velocity of every atom or molecule in a gas to work out its temperature or pressure; when you take them in bulk their behaviour can be described at a higher-scale, emergent level using the gas laws. You don't need quantum physics to do basic chemistry, you don't need to be a chemist to do basic biology, and so-on. One uses the laws appropriate to the level of description one is dealing with.

 

[mnorian]

I wouldn't say it's mental but it's technically, at least for the most part, theoretical.

Consider this:

Theoretical physicists are an idealistic lot. Theirs is the noble struggle to understand the nature of the universe: to know, as Stephen Hawking put it, “the mind of God”. Yet physicists are human too. They are as flawed as the rest of us – subject to the whims of fashion, dogmas of unquestioning faith and flights of unadulterated fantasy

A giant of physics takes string theory, quantum mechanics and | Cosmos

 

[mnorian]

I wouldn't say it's mental but it's technically, at least for the most part, theoretical.

Niels Bohr and Penrose on similarities between Quantum physics; and brain quantum features:

4.7 Mental Quantum Features
It has been an old idea by Bohr that central conceptual features of quantum theory, such as complementarity, are also of pivotal significance outside the domain of physics. In fact, Bohr became familiar with the idea through the psychologist Edgar Rubin and, more indirectly, William James (Holton 1970) and immediately saw its potential for quantum physics. Although Bohr was always convinced of the extraphysical relevance of complementarity, he never elaborated this idea in concrete detail, and for a long time after him no one else did so either. This situation has changed: there are now a number of research programs generalizing key notions of quantum theory in a way that makes them applicable beyond physics.

Of particular interest are approaches that have been developed in order to pick up Bohr's proposal with respect to psychology and cognitive science. The first steps in this direction were made by the group of Aerts in the early 1990s (Aerts et al. 1993), using non-distributive propositional lattices to address quantum-like behavior in non-quantum systems. Alternative approaches have been initiated by Khrennikov (1999), focusing on non-classical probabilities, and Atmanspacher et al. (2002), outlining an algebraic framework with non-commuting operations. Other lines of thinking are due to Primas (2007), addressing complementarity with partial Boolean algebras, and Filk and von Müller (2008), indicating links between basic conceptual categories in quantum physics and psychology.

A formal move to incorporate quantum behavior in mental systems, without referring to quantum brain activity, is based on a state space description of mental systems. If mental states are defined on the basis of cells of a neural state space partition, then this partition needs to be well tailored to lead to robustly defined states. Ad hoc chosen partitions will generally create incompatible descriptions (Atmanspacher and beim Graben 2007). This implies that quantum brain dynamics is not the only possible explanation of quantum features in mental systems. Assuming that mental states arise from partitions of neural states in such a way that statistical neural states are co-extensive with individual mental states, the nature of mental processes depends strongly on the kind of partition chosen. If the partition is not properly constructed, it is likely that mental states and observables show features that resemble quantum behavior although the correlated brain activity may be entirely classical: quantum mind without quantum brain.

Intuitively, it is not difficult to understand why non-commuting operations or non-Boolean logic should be relevant, even inevitable, for mental systems that have nothing to do with quantum physics. Simply speaking, the non-commutativity of operations means nothing else than that the sequence, in which operations are applied, matters for the final result. And non-Boolean logic refers to propositions that may have unsharp truth values beyond yes or no, shades of plausibility or credibility as it were. Both versions obviously abound in psychology and cognitive science (and in everyday life).

Pylkkänen (2015) has even suggested to use this intuitive accessibility of mental quantum features for a better conceptual grasp of quantum physics.

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Consider this:

Theoretical physicists are an idealistic lot. Theirs is the noble struggle to understand the nature of the universe: to know, as Stephen Hawking put it, “the mind of God”. Yet physicists are human too. They are as flawed as the rest of us – subject to the whims of fashion, dogmas of unquestioning faith and flights of unadulterated fantasy

A giant of physics takes string theory, quantum mechanics and | Cosmos

Lol! Penrose is a fine one to talk about quantum mechanics being 'faith' (at least it demonstrably works), given his Chopra-esque 'Orch-OR' theory of consciousness, which itself stretches the lunatic fringe of quantum woo to bold new vistas.

 

[dgiharris]

Consider this:

Theoretical physicists are an idealistic lot. Theirs is the noble struggle to understand the nature of the universe: to know, as Stephen Hawking put it, “the mind of God”. Yet physicists are human too. They are as flawed as the rest of us – subject to the whims of fashion, dogmas of unquestioning faith and flights of unadulterated fantasy

A giant of physics takes string theory, quantum mechanics and | Cosmos

I find the above statement offensive to the point of absurdity.

The thing that bothers me about the statement you quote is that it unwittingly makes theoretical physicists no better than crack smoking pot heads just dreaming stuff up on whatever whim blows their way.

All theoretical physics is bound together by logic, reason, and mathematics. Now, it just so happens that they are so far out in math space that they could be putting together mathematical constructs that aren't appropriate for this observable universe, however that doesn't mean they aren't grounded in science, logic, and mathematics.

There are going to be a billion failures in theoretical physics, I mean, afterall it is "Theoretical". However, those failures are vital, crucial even to our eventual success. Those failures help us move forward and achieve a greater understanding of the universe.

Whereas the "Whims and Fancies" of random Joe Schmoe types doesn't advance mankind one iota.

In any event, I know you were quoting a source, so my post isn't directed at you...

Just sayin...

 

[mnorian]

Lol! Penrose is a fine one to talk about quantum mechanics being 'faith' (at least it demonstrably works), given his Chopra-esque 'Orch-OR' theory of consciousness, which itself stretches the lunatic fringe of quantum woo to bold new vistas.

All theoretical physics is bound together by logic, reason, and mathematics. Now, it just so happens that they are so far out in math space that they could be putting together mathematical constructs that aren't appropriate for this observable universe, however that doesn't mean they aren't grounded in science, logic, and mathematics.

There are going to be a billion failures in theoretical physics, I mean, afterall it is "Theoretical". However, those failures are vital, crucial even to our eventual success. Those failures help us move forward and achieve a greater understanding of the universe.

Yes; but as Beck and Eccles emphasize here:

Conclusions
The historical motivation for exploring quantum theory in trying to understand consciousness derived from the realization that collapse-type quantum events introduce an element of randomness, which is primary (ontic) rather than merely due to ignorance or missing information (epistemic). Approaches such as those of Wigner, of Stapp, and of Beck and Eccles emphasize this (in different ways), insofar as the ontic randomness of quantum events is regarded to provide room for mental causation, i.e., the possibility that conscious mental acts can influence brain behavior. The approach by Penrose and Hameroff also focuses on state collapse, but with a significant move from mental causation to the non-computability of (particular) conscious acts.

Any discussion of state collapse or state reduction (e.g. by measurement) refers, at least implicitly, to superposition states since those are the states that are reduced. Insofar as entangled systems remain in a quantum superposition as long as no measurement has occurred, entanglement is always co-addressed when state reduction is discussed. By contrast, some of the dual-aspect quantum approaches utilize the topic of entanglement differently, and independently of state reduction in the first place. Inspired by the entanglement-induced nonlocal correlations of quantum physics, mind-matter entanglement is conceived as the hypothetical origin of mind-matter correlations. This reflects the highly speculative picture of a fundamentally holistic, psychophysically neutral level of reality from which correlated mental and material domains emerge.

Each of the examples discussed in this overview has both promising and problematic aspects. The approach by Beck and Eccles is most detailed and concrete with respect to the application of standard quantum mechanics to the process of exocytosis. However, it does not solve the problem of how the activity of single synapses enters the dynamics of neural assemblies, and it leaves mental causation of quantum processes as a mere claim. Stapp's approach suggests a radically expanded ontological basis for both the mental domain and status-quo quantum theory as a theory of matter without essentially changing the formalism of quantum theory. Although related to inspiring philosophical and some psychological background, it still lacks empirical confirmation. The proposal by Penrose and Hameroff exceeds the domain of present-day quantum theory by far and is the most speculative example among those discussed. It is not easy to see how the picture as a whole can be formally worked out and put to empirical test.

The approach initiated by Umezawa is embedded in the framework of quantum field theory, more broadly applicable and formally more sophisticated than standard quantum mechanics. It is used to describe the emergence of classical activity in neuronal assemblies on the basis of symmetry breakings in a quantum field theoretical framework. A clear conceptual distinction between brain states and mental states has often been missing, but this ambiguity has recently been resolved in favor of brain states. Their relation to mental states is ultimately left open; some of Vitiello's accounts suggest a vague inclination toward a dual-aspect approach.

The dual-aspect approaches of Pauli and Jung and of Bohm and Hiley are conceptually more transparent and more promising. On the other hand, they are essentially unsatisfactory with regard to a sound formal basis and concrete empirical scenarios. Hiley's work offers an algebraic framework which may lead to theoretical progress. A novel dual-aspect quantum proposal by Primas, based on the distinction between tensed mental time and tenseless physical time, marks a significant step forward, particularly as concerns a consistent formal framework.

Maybe the best prognosis for future success among the examples described in this overview, at least on foreseeable time scales, goes to the investigation of mental quantum features without focusing on associated brain activity to begin with. A number of corresponding approaches have been developed which include concrete models for concrete situations and have lead to successful empirical tests and further predictions. On the other hand, a coherent theory behind individual models and relating the different types of approaches is still to be settled in detail. With respect to scientific practice, a particularly promising aspect is the visible formation of a scientific community with conferences, mutual collaborations, and some perspicuous attraction for young scientists to join the field.

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes; but as Beck and Eccles emphasize here:

Conclusions
The historical motivation for exploring quantum theory in trying to understand consciousness derived from the realization that collapse-type quantum events introduce an element of randomness, which is primary (ontic) rather than merely due to ignorance or missing information (epistemic). Approaches such as those of Wigner, of Stapp, and of Beck and Eccles emphasize this (in different ways), insofar as the ontic randomness of quantum events is regarded to provide room for mental causation, i.e., the possibility that conscious mental acts can influence brain behavior. The approach by Penrose and Hameroff also focuses on state collapse, but with a significant move from mental causation to the non-computability of (particular) conscious acts.

Any discussion of state collapse or state reduction (e.g. by measurement) refers, at least implicitly, to superposition states since those are the states that are reduced. Insofar as entangled systems remain in a quantum superposition as long as no measurement has occurred, entanglement is always co-addressed when state reduction is discussed. By contrast, some of the dual-aspect quantum approaches utilize the topic of entanglement differently, and independently of state reduction in the first place. Inspired by the entanglement-induced nonlocal correlations of quantum physics, mind-matter entanglement is conceived as the hypothetical origin of mind-matter correlations. This reflects the highly speculative picture of a fundamentally holistic, psychophysically neutral level of reality from which correlated mental and material domains emerge.

Each of the examples discussed in this overview has both promising and problematic aspects. The approach by Beck and Eccles is most detailed and concrete with respect to the application of standard quantum mechanics to the process of exocytosis. However, it does not solve the problem of how the activity of single synapses enters the dynamics of neural assemblies, and it leaves mental causation of quantum processes as a mere claim. Stapp's approach suggests a radically expanded ontological basis for both the mental domain and status-quo quantum theory as a theory of matter without essentially changing the formalism of quantum theory. Although related to inspiring philosophical and some psychological background, it still lacks empirical confirmation. The proposal by Penrose and Hameroff exceeds the domain of present-day quantum theory by far and is the most speculative example among those discussed. It is not easy to see how the picture as a whole can be formally worked out and put to empirical test.

The approach initiated by Umezawa is embedded in the framework of quantum field theory, more broadly applicable and formally more sophisticated than standard quantum mechanics. It is used to describe the emergence of classical activity in neuronal assemblies on the basis of symmetry breakings in a quantum field theoretical framework. A clear conceptual distinction between brain states and mental states has often been missing, but this ambiguity has recently been resolved in favor of brain states. Their relation to mental states is ultimately left open; some of Vitiello's accounts suggest a vague inclination toward a dual-aspect approach.

The dual-aspect approaches of Pauli and Jung and of Bohm and Hiley are conceptually more transparent and more promising. On the other hand, they are essentially unsatisfactory with regard to a sound formal basis and concrete empirical scenarios. Hiley's work offers an algebraic framework which may lead to theoretical progress. A novel dual-aspect quantum proposal by Primas, based on the distinction between tensed mental time and tenseless physical time, marks a significant step forward, particularly as concerns a consistent formal framework.

Maybe the best prognosis for future success among the examples described in this overview, at least on foreseeable time scales, goes to the investigation of mental quantum features without focusing on associated brain activity to begin with. A number of corresponding approaches have been developed which include concrete models for concrete situations and have lead to successful empirical tests and further predictions. On the other hand, a coherent theory behind individual models and relating the different types of approaches is still to be settled in detail. With respect to scientific practice, a particularly promising aspect is the visible formation of a scientific community with conferences, mutual collaborations, and some perspicuous attraction for young scientists to join the field.

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yes, I've read that, and the stuff published by Penrose & Hameroff, Stapp, and others. They're all highly speculative, extend macro-scale QM effects beyond what has been observed, and resort to hand-waving when it comes to explaining just how their ideas actually produce, mediate, or contribute to consciousness, for which none provide a suitable definition. In the end, they get no further than conventional neuroscience contributions, but disguise this behind a raft of unjustified QM flummery. Just my opinion, of course - if solid evidence is presented that macro-QM effects occur, or are in some way necessary, I'll reconsider.

Having said that, it would not surprise me if we find evidence of QM effects at the neuronal scale as optimisations of, for example, synaptic function, as has been found in some other biological systems.

 

[joinfree]

It's not a valid argument - your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and the premises are vague, ill-formed, and, in some cases incorrect. ....

@friends, Please reread. I have added text and video.

 

[mnorian]

@friends, Please reread. I have added text and video.

So your just reposting whatever Dmitri Martila posts to researchgate,net?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dmitri_Martila

Along with the video from "Men in Black"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@friends, Please reread. I have added text and video.

Yeah - still not a valid or sound argument.

Oh, and 'Men In Black' was a comedy sci-fi film, full of scaling impossibilities/errors. Unless your thread is itself a joke, or you're using MIB for some sort of analogy or metaphor, it only looks foolish.

 

[mnorian]

So your just reposting whatever Dmitri Martila posts to researchgate,net?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dmitri_Martila

Along with the video from "Men in Black"?

OK; I found out thru another thread; that the OP is Dmitri Martila; but that doesn't make the arguments on researchgate anymore plausible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The answer is there in the name, quantum physics. Quantum physics is simply the study of how the physical universe operates at the atomic and subatomic level; it just so happens that things at the atomic and subatomic level can get pretty weird, at least by comparison to classical physics.

However. And that's a big however. The weird of quantum physics is not the sort of woo that is sometimes claimed by some people. It's weird, but not new age weird.

-CryptoLutheran