Quantum Magic - Incoherent Decoherence

In my speculations about future physics I will be talking a lot about quantum theory; therefore it would only be fair for me to introduce the subject properly right now, so that my position about the whole subject is clear. 

Can Adam Warlock actually use magic?

Though there are infinitely many ways in which theory can be introduced, I will choose a way that, I think, is somewhat unusual. I will start with making fun of a representative collection of papers published in a book “Decoherence and the Appearance of Classical World in Quantum Theory”. 

“Decoherence and the Appearance of Classical World in Quantum Theory”, 

K. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.O. Stamanescu, H.D. Zeh, 

Springer, 1996

Although the book was published in 1996, not much has changed since then, especially when it comes to the confusion that accompanies the subject.

Erich Joos: Surely You are Joking?

The book is really funny (though being funny was probably not intended by the authors) from the very beginning. Right at the start of the introduction, written by Erich Joos, a theoretical physicist (PhD from the University of Heidelberg in 1983), one of the world champions of the “decoherence program, and the owner of the Decoherence Website “decoherence.de”, we see what this expert has to say about the most wonderful theory of all physics – the quantum theory:

Today there seem to be no phenomena which contradict quantum theory – perhaps with the sole exception that there are definite (“classical”) phenomena at all!

Was this intended to be a joke? What kind of a joke? A cruel one? A childish one? Or a silly one? Or, perhaps, all three together? On, the other hand, perhaps it is not a joke at all. Perhaps that is exactly what was in the author’s mind, and what is in the minds of the majority of physicists. I keep my mind open in this respect, but let us analyze the statement above starting with the word “phenomena”, or, more exactly “definite phenomena”. What are these? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary

A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν), plural phenomena, is any observable occurrence.

English Wikipedia adds to the above:

In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it.

So, anything that occurs, anything that happens, any event, or collection of events, that is just observable, not even necessarily observed, is a phenomenon. And, once it has happened, it is certainly definite! Therefore, according to Erich Joos, literally everything in the Universe contradicts quantum theory, and yet he says that “Today there seem to be no phenomena which contradict quantum theory”!

How can a mind tolerate such a contradiction within? Are we dealing here with one of those (medically highly interesting) cases where the right brain is not communicating with left brain? Or, perhaps, this kind of incoherent reasoning is caused by “environmentally induced decoherence”? Or, maybe, we are dealing with a “cognitive dissonance” case?

"What is the simplest way to define cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance is a mental conflict that occurs when your beliefs don’t line up with your actions. It’s an uncomfortable state of mind when someone has contradictory values, attitudes, or perspectives about the same thing."

To be continued 

P.S.1 For some reason three of my own papers (two with Ph. Blanchard) are quoted in this funny book:

P.S.2. What is a "phenomenon"? Here is an example:

Glenn Gould plays a Mozart rarity

Here is another example:

“When you are grateful, fear disappears and abundance appears"

-

@TonyRobbins

Of course negative thoughts create ripples of negative energy. Evil creatures are then crawling out of the cracks in the Reality stuff. We are responsible for our thoughts as they affect the whole universe. This is a thought. 

P.S.3. Still trying to understand the "ohmic resistance of the aether (aka vacuum)". Reading to this end Post's  <a href="https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?"> "Mach's Principle in a Mixed Newton-Einstein Context.</a>. It is written in a way that I fail to understand. Went from there to study a beautifully written book by Theodore Frankel "The Geometry of Physics", Chapter 2.8. Orientation and pseudoforms. Post refers to de Rham instead. But de Rham is unnecessarily complicated. Frankel Ch. 2.8-2.10 and 3. Integration of differential forms, is much more clear and still mathematically precise.

P.S.4. I have finished my review of a book (by G. Koczan) for the publisher. Sent out on Saturday. Here is the conclusion (translated from Polish):

"3 Summary

In conclusion, I state that the monograph "Defense of Aristotle's Physics" has all the hallmarks of an original and profound study dealing with an important yet controversial topic. Chapter 6 of this monograph is worth publishing in specialized journals of international scope, where it will certainly find due resonance.

The additions recommended by me should also be taken into account in the preparation of the final version of the monograph, the publication of which I recommend in good conscience.

It is not necessary for me to comment on the changes and additions made, since my private 

private correspondence with the author shows that he accepts critical remarks willingly, and the recommended changes are immediately implemented. In doing so, I rely entirely on the author's competence, the competence of which the reviewed monograph, with rich source support, is a great proof."

P.S.5. For only 20 E I ordered from Amazon "Gravitational Curvature: An Introduction to Einstein's Theory", Frankel, Theodore. The book has the so much needed chapter:

9 Electromagnetism in Three-Space and Minkowski Space 99

Twisted Forms and the Vector Product 99

E, B, and the (Heaviside-) Lorentz Force in Three-Space 100

Electromagnetism in Minkowski Space 102

Integration of Twisted Forms 103

The Charge-Current Three-Form in Minkowski Space 105

The Hodge *-Operator 106

The Laws of Gauss and Ampere-Maxwell 108

Faraday's Law and the Absence of Magnetic Monopoles 112