Thinking With a Forked Brain

This is a continuation of the previous post "Psychological interlude - Authority in Science", which is a continuation of "Quantum Magic - Incoherent Decoherence", which is a continuation of ... etc.

It seems to me that the thinking of those who write that “Today there seem to be no phenomena which contradict quantum theory – perhaps with the sole exception that there are definite (“classical”) phenomena at all!” is highly compartmentalized. Such a person “thinks with a forked brain, ”exactly as is the case with right-wing authoritarians. The Dictionary of Psychology tells us also that:

"So the picture of authoritarian followers after all these years of research is far from flattering – unless you are a potential dictator."

Indeed, the picture of many of the quantum theorists emerging from their “decoherence” papers is not very flattering. We will see it better after we delve into the subject somewhat deeper.

Further Incoherence

So, let us continue with the preface of the book about Decoherence. First we find a statement that quantum theory, “from a conservative point of view … may well be called inconsistent.” Next comes the admission that standard textbook arguments “are insufficient for several reasons”, and that “conventional treatments” (of the classical limit of quantum theory) “are flawed for a simple reason: they do not represent any realistic situation.”

So, we now know how really bad quantum theory is. It is in terrible shape, everything that is definite and real contradicts it. So, what to do?

The answer, from reading the contributions to this book and to other books and papers, lies in “decoherence”.

But what is this decoherence? Is it something that is objective? Or is it something that occurs only in the minds of some theoretical physicists? In order to answer this question we need to look into these minds.

What is this decoherence that is so fashionable nowadays? According to the French Wikipedia:

The quantum decoherence is a physical phenomenon capable of explaining the transition between them quantum physical rules and classic physical rules as we know them, on a macroscopic level. More particularly, this theory provides an answer, recognized as being the most complete to date, to the paradox of Schrödinger cat and at quantum measurement problem.

The theory of decoherence was introduced by Heinz Dieter Zeh in 1970

So, we learn that “it is a physical phenomenon”. Is it a definite phenomenon or not? If it is definite, then, according to Erich Joos, it would contradict quantum theory. That would be bad. So, I am deducing that it is not a very definite phenomenon. But, it is said that it is a “physical phenomenon”. So, let us check what Mr. Zeh has to say. According to Zeh’s article in the Decoherence book, this decoherence occurs when “the complete information about the passage of the particle is carried away (into the “environment”) in some physical form.”

Information and Environment: What is hidden by Decoherence

So, we have two new terms, one is information, the other one is “environment” – put in quotation marks by Zeh. Why in quotation marks? I checked the number of occurrences of “environment” in the book, and the result is 372. But I could not find even one precise definition. What I have found, however, is that

In quantum cosmology (where no environment exists), decoherence is only meaningful with respect to local observers (subsystems).

What is real? Is Nobel Prize real?

That there may be a problem with “environment of the Universe”, I can imagine, but then he goes to say that decoherence is meaningful only with respect to a local observer. But what exactly is “local observer”? And does that mean that before there were any observers in the universe, this mysterious decoherence did not happen? Is decoherence really something physical or it happens only in the mind of a physicist?

Can Quantum Phenomena Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?

 It is, in fact, a physicist who separates, in his mind, the Universe, in two parts; one part he calls “the system”, another part he calls “environment”. Then he starts calculating and comes up with some numbers. Another physicist will make the division in a different way, and will come up with a different set of numbers. So, it seems that all this decoherence business is another way of saying that quantum theory really is not able to get rid of subjectivity, and all this fashionable decoherence program is just a way to hide this fact under a pretentious name. Is that the case?

Well, I will show that it is even worse than that. But we need to talk about Schrödinger’s cat first.

To be continued

P.S.1. What is REAL? Here is an example:

Mark Knopfler & Emmylou Harris -
I Dug Up A Diamond
Real Live Roadrunning
Official Live Video

My wife likes this... so this is for her. Very REAL lyrics are here.

P.S.2. The first seven pages of ``Notes Aether Theory''.

P.S.3. Worth reading, it is REAL: More on my case, the law on misinformation, and why other doctors don't challenge their medical boards

P.S.4. 02-06-23 19:10 It’s the movie they really don’t want you to see: #WhatIsAWoman?

P.S.5. 03-06-23 8:38 Yesterday a Reader wrote to me asking for a help with one of the ``inventions'' of a Polish mystic-mathematician Hoene-Wronski. I knew the name, but nothing more. So I checked the internet resources. Wikipedia tells us, in particular, that:

In science, Hoene-Wroński set himself an extraordinary task: the complete reform of philosophy as well as that of mathematics, astronomy and technology. He elaborated not only a system of philosophy, but also applications to politics, history, economics, law, psychology, music and pedagogy. It was his aspiration to reform human knowledge in an "absolute, that is, ultimate" manner.

In 1803, Wroński joined the Marseille Observatory, and began developing an enormously complex theory of the structure and origin of the universe. During this period, he took up a correspondence with nearly all of the major scientists and mathematicians of his day, and was well respected at the observatory. In 1803 Wroński "experienced a mystical illumination, which he regarded as the discovery of the Absolute."^[3]

Well, I have had my own illumination in Marseille as well. And similarly to Wronski i saw that at the foundations of the universe is an `open loop process', a `multi-threaded algorithm', not an "equation". EEQT was one of the off-springs of this illumination.

Additionally I was writing in my journal after the illumination the following

So work, work, work. Work gives results. Sooner or later. Work gives satisfaction. It gives happiness. I think, for example, of those moments when I did something. When I have accomplished something. Then it is good, then there is happiness. On the other hand, I think about the remark of M. Blau that I am somehow unhappy, dissatisfied. Why? Because I don't produce anything, I don't create anything. So every thing made gives happiness. And happiness is probably the sum of things produced. Almost certainly. Happiness comes from giving.  From giving the best of yourself. Birds probably know this - they sing. Flowers know - they smell and give colors. The sun knows - it gives light. And I should know and remember it myself. To give others the best. And one more thing: that flowers do not look if someone smells. Flowers do not look if someone is present, if someone is watching. Whether someone is around. Flowers only look at whether they smell good. They give. And it's accumulating somewhere. They give to the Creator. And it is somewhere. It's not going to die. It is already there. Irreversibly. Some part of non-being is transformed into being? Are we sure it is so? But shouldn't one make an effort to make one's work available to others? Yes and no. The fact is that sharing no longer adds to the sum of happiness. Which sum depends solely on the number of things completed and released. So creation is important. Hence the happiness of young Werther's creative anguish.

Of course, today we are taught that birds sing and flowers smell for mundane reasons - ``the goal of attracting attention.'' Simple evolution," they say. One can look at it that way too, but one loses infinitely more with such a limited understanding of reality.

Two weeks later, now in Florence, still influenced by the ``illumination" I was writing this:

Here we return to the domain. Inside, nothing can be created. All creation takes place on the boundary. It is the boundary that is most interesting. It is through the boundary that opening takes place, it is on the boundary that causality takes place, it is on the shore that time flows. There is no time in the middle. The middle is Euclidean, in the middle nothing does age, but also nothing is born.

P.S.6. Perhaps I should not worry so much about non-orientability. Here is an interesting paper:

Nontrivial topological states on a Möbius band, and here is the video of making the double cover of the Mobius band

The double cover is orientable. And there is a general theorem stating  that every unorientable manifold has a double cover that is orientable. So the double cover is the answer! I knew it!!! More here: Understanding the orientable double cover.