In Search of the Third Factor: Reflections on Science, Philosophy, and Purpose

 Returning to Old Notes

Every so often, I dive back into my notes from years gone by. It’s a way to ensure I haven’t strayed too far from the path I once set for myself. Although only a handful of people seem interested in these private reflections, a handful is not the same as no one at all. Occasionally, a message from a curious mind lands in my inbox, reminding me that these thoughts resonate beyond my own head.

Yesterday, I felt compelled to revisit an entry from October 1993. Below are a few snippets from those musings, still as relevant to me now as they were then.

---

October 1993: The World of Information

“The beginning of the world and the Big Bang. Should I believe this? Should you? Where is the flaw in the narrative? What’s missing, misunderstood, or understated?

Here’s my take (borrowing from Popper): beyond the world of matter and the realm of geometry, there exists a world of information. We don’t fully understand this world yet, but we sense it—just the tip of an iceberg. New, bold ideas are needed, new mathematical structures to chart this realm. Today, we are only scratching the surface.

This third world—the world of information—must integrate with the other two. It’s not some distant future; this new paradigm is already here, hanging in the air like a ghost. And this is where I must focus: full steam ahead toward information, toward algorithms, toward the structure tree. This has become the content of my life, my calling.

This has become the content of my life, my calling.

Who knows what I’ll discover along the way? Searching for information, I might stumble upon something even greater. But nothing is more important than this pursuit. Information is life. Information is complexity."

---

On Tactics and Purpose

“But strategy is not enough. Tactics matter, too. I embraced the audacity of youth. Be bold. Be rowdy. Life demands action, constant action. And with that, comes the realization: I must shed responsibilities that don’t serve this purpose. I am a researcher, not a teacher. A scholar, not an administrator. And certainly not a director. My task is not to manage or organize but to build knowledge, to create something unknown that will one day be known. That is my holy calling. So help me, God.”

---

April 1994: The Anthropic Principle and Life’s Questions

A year later, in April 1994, I was grappling with the anthropic principle:

"Does a theory make sense when it leaves such a narrow window for the emergence of life? Can something as organized as life arise from chaos? The anthropic principle provides no real answers. It's no explanation to say that the universe must be the way it is because otherwise, we wouldn’t exist to observe it.

Where did the laws of nature come from? Why these laws and not others? The argument that ‘it couldn't be any other way’ falls flat. What is explanation anyway?

And what is chance?"

---

A Personal Shift: Technology and Self-Reflection

"On a more mundane note, I received a grant. It was just enough to buy a notebook. Will life be easier with a notebook? A little. But is that enough to change everything? Hardly."

---

Navigating Blindness: The Search for Free Will

The challenge looms: how can the blind lead the blind? How do we reach a generator of free will without the freedom to reach it? Mechanically, I can only detect what is mechanical, and even that requires tremendous effort. Yet here I stand, the best possible laboratory at my disposal: myself. I am both the experimenter and the most sensitive instrument.

My goal has become clear. I must produce a device—a mind—that won’t need external forces to guide it. But is that what I want? I want to take stock of everything I know and push further. I want to gather the fragments of my understanding and draw meaningful conclusions.

Years ago, I didn’t know what I was searching for as a physicist. I was drawn to the idea of additional dimensions, but for reasons that remain unclear, I got sidetracked. I lost more than a year in uncertainty until I encountered the works of Sheldrake, Popper, Eccles, and Jeans. Slowly, the fog lifted, and my mission crystallized: to discover a third factor that exists beyond matter and geometry.

This third factor is information—knowledge. My purpose now is to bridge the gap between modern physics and this new reservoir of understanding. The challenge lies in finding a safe path forward, one that doesn’t fall into the murky waters of philosophy. It’s clear to me now that quantum theory is the key.

---

Today: The Premonition Endures

Here I am, years later, still chasing that same premonition I had in the '90s. Consciousness, I believe, cannot change the facts themselves, but it can influence their probabilities. How? That’s where the devil hides—in the details. And that’s what I’m still working on.

That’s where the devil hides—in the details.

The journey continues.

---

This mix of self-reflection, science, and philosophy still defines my work today. The questions I grappled with decades ago remain as crucial and unsolved as ever, but the pursuit is what drives me forward—full steam ahead.

Full steam ahead

P.S. 29-09-24 11:42 This is a partial answer to Igor Bayak asking in his comment what do I mean by "information"? Reading an autobiography of Stefan Osswiecki:

"Stefan Ossowiecki (1877-1944), a businessman by profession, was also a psychic whose clairvoyant abilities made him famous in his native Poland. He became known internationally as a result of numerous successful experiments with Polish, French and British psychical researchers."

Here is an illustration of his psychic abilities taken from the CIA Reading Room document (released in 1977) "Israeli Secret Services":

In his 1944 autobiography "The World of My Soul and Visions of the Future" (written in Polish), Ossowiecki wrote these prophetic words:

"Today's knowledge, based on intellectualism and experimentation, has been profaned as it has become available to both heroes and criminals alike. Not everything should be shared with everyone. Modern man has forgotten the warning of the greatest Sage: “Do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample them underfoot, and then attack you.” Who knows whether this profanation of nature’s mysteries, this brutal intrusion of modern technology into the subtlest vibrations of matter, this apparent triumph of the intellect, will one day mark the beginning of an unprecedented catastrophe in the history of the modern world?

The ancient Atlanteans unleashed the forces of the elements, and, unable to control them, perished. We today are no different. We are on the brink of collapse, for our civilization has also violently intruded into nature’s secrets without sufficiently cultivating morality in heart and spirit. Today, while flying through the skies and plumbing the ocean’s depths, the people of the 20th century consider themselves victors over nature. But in reality, they are spiritually bankrupt, selfish in their bloody struggle for existence, blinded by their own arrogance, cold and empty-hearted. Their airplanes, submarines, radios, and wireless telegraphs—tools that could be the glory of life if driven by a noble will—may soon become a curse. When hatred and greed unleash yet another war, all of this technology will become instruments of death, not life"

P.S. 01-10-24 11:57 While working on writing a report on a paper on photon's position operator for a physics journal, I decided to check a Referee Report of my own paper on Clifford algebras, that after many changes have been finally happily published.  I would like to quote a particular piece from this last report, as it makes me smile. The Referee writes:

"... As a mathematician, I do not at all agree with the Author's point of view. and I am not at all ready to consider the tensor algebra as "the mother" of the other algebras. But as a reviewer, I observe that the Author supports his thesis with interesting arguments (in other words, it is not just propaganda), and I wish his paper to become a useful contribution to the debate."

Decoding the Spin of Electrons: A Beginner’s Guide to Quantum Mechanics

 What Exactly is Spin?

Let's talk about spin. When we think of an electron, proton, or other elementary particles, we often imagine them somehow “spinning.” But what exactly is spinning, and how it works – we don't know for sure.

In classical physics, spinning objects have something called angular momentum. The faster they spin, the greater the angular momentum. Similarly, the heavier the object, the greater its angular momentum. Electrons and protons have something like "intrinsic angular momentum", which we call "spin". However, the value of this spin isn't just any number – it takes discrete values, multiples of half the Planck constant.

I consider it as quite possible that if we can one day fully understand what spin is, we might unlock the entire mystery of quantum mechanics. 

It is quite possible that if we can one day fully understand what spin is, we might unlock the entire mystery of quantum mechanics. 

For now, though, we have to be content with its mathematical description – which, unfortunately, is not quite the same as understanding the essence of the phenomenon.

Understanding Electron Spin

So, let’s dive into the mathematical description of electron spin, and I’ll try to make it a bit more accessible. An electron's spin is equal to half of a Planck constant. This is why we say the electron has a spin of ½.

In experiments, we can align the electron's spin axis in a specific direction, for example, upwards along the z-axis. This alignment defines the spin state, but it doesn’t fully describe the state vector. In quantum mechanics, we make a distinction between states and state vectors.

• State: What we observe.
• State Vector: Information that includes both what we see and what is invisible, yet still necessary.

A Model for Spin: Visible and Invisible Wheels

Can we visualize this? Maybe. But let’s remember, models can be misleading. What I propose is simply a mental tool – it might help, but it could also lead us astray.

Imagine an electron as a blue cog with a visible mark. The position of this mark in relation to an external coordinate system represents the electron's state – what we can directly control. However, alongside this visible cog, there’s an invisible gray cog, also marked. This cog is hidden from our view but plays a crucial role.

The Internal Phase

To fully describe the state vector of the electron, we not only need to know the position of the visible mark, but also the angle it makes with the mark on the invisible cog. Let’s call this angle the internal phase.

• Knowing the state (the position of the visible mark) is important.
• But we also need to know the internal phase, the relationship between the visible and invisible marks.

Now, let’s make this more interesting.

A 720-Degree Rotation

Imagine the gray, invisible cog is twice the size of the blue, visible one. If you rotate the blue cog 360 degrees, the gray cog only rotates by 180 degrees. To return both cogs to their original alignment, you would need to rotate the blue cog a full 720 degrees.

Think of it like this:

A More Detailed Model

For those of you following closely, I need to add a bit of complexity. My earlier analogy of two cogs is a bit too simple. Ideally, I should color the gray cog (instead of keeping it plain) to emphasize that the internal phase is relative and subjective. One person might define the "zero" phase when the marks align; another might choose red or green as the reference point. The key idea is that it takes a full 720-degree rotation of the visible cog for both to return to their original states.

Exploring Other Models

This model is just one of many. There are also examples in the literature involving cubes tied together with strings, or twisted strips resembling Möbius bands. However, I prefer my cog analogy – it’s simple and relatable. But again, it's a rough analogy. There’s something happening with the topology of space within the electron itself. It’s as if the electron “screws” itself into space when we rotate it.

Think of it like this: part of the electron exists in our space, while another part is in a sort of “anti-space,” where time flows in the opposite direction, some topologically twisted Einstein-Rosen bridge. When you rotate the electron by 360 degrees, part of it moves into anti-space, and vice versa. To return everything to the initial state, you need to rotate it another 360 degrees. It’s fascinating, but we’re far from fully understanding this yet.

The Spin State on a Sphere

Now that we've explored the analogy, let’s focus on the mathematical representation. We can describe the electron (the “visible” part) as a point on a unit radius sphere in three-dimensional space (x, y, z). This point indicates the spin direction. It can be described by using:

• Latitude and longitude, or
• Cartesian coordinates (nx, ny, nz) of a vector n of length 1.

Here’s the basic relationship:

nx²+ny²+nz² = 1

The conversion between spherical and Cartesian coordinates follows these formulas:

• $n\mathrm{x }= \sin (\varphi ) \cos (\theta )$
• $n\mathrm{y }= \sin (\varphi ) \sin (\theta )$
• $n\mathrm{z }= \cos (\varphi )$

In this model, ϕ (latitude) ranges from 0 to Pi, andθ (longitude) ranges from 0 to 2 Pi. At the poles (where phi = 0 or Pi), theta is undefined, but we often just assign it a value of zero for convenience.

Wrapping It Up

To summarize: the spin state (the visible part) is a point on the sphere that indicates the direction of the electron’s spin axis. Think of this spin axis as an arrow rather than a simple straight line.

In future posts, we’ll dive deeper into the concept of the state vector, its mathematical representation, and its relationship to the spin state. We’ll also explore how to project from four-dimensional space to three-dimensional space, allowing us to visualize the invisible internal phase, which, while not directly observable, plays a vital role in understanding the electron’s behavior.

What's Next?

In the upcoming posts, expect more formulas and visual aids as we continue unraveling the mysteries of quantum mechanics. 

Will we discover new insights? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure – the journey is just beginning.

"The Tunnel of Theoretical Physics: Are We Heading for Disaster?"

 The Crisis in Theoretical Physics: Are We Stuck in a Tunnel?

Theoretical physics has hit a deadlock. For the past fifty years, there’s been a troubling lack of progress in the field. We feel it, deeply. But how did we get here? More importantly, what can be done?

Eric Weinstein, a mathematical physicist, sheds some light on this dire situation through his thought-provoking podcasts. According to him, there are two primary culprits that have steered the train of progress off its tracks—String Theory and Quantum Gravity. These two paths, led by invisible forces, have taken theoretical physics on a journey to nowhere.

Two Dead Ends: String Theory and Quantum Gravity

In one of Weinstein’s shorter podcasts, titled “I am TERRIFIED of this Man!” (an intriguing watch at just eight minutes), he addresses these failed approaches head-on. He points out that Quantum Gravity, though championed by the most "respectable" figures in the field, simply doesn’t work.

He states in the video (00:05:04):

“This is called quantum gravity, and all the most respectable people are in it, and it doesn't work. And you can't say, 'Why are we doing this if it doesn't work?'”

The video cuts deep. There’s something unsettling about continuing down a path everyone knows is broken, but no one dares to question it.

In a second, more extensive podcast, "Are We On The Brink Of A Revolution?" (which runs over three hours), the most significant part for us is in the last twenty minutes of the first hour. 

Here, Weinstein makes an alarming claim (00:48:59):

“We used String Theory to block actual progress in theoretical physics and derailed an entire field.”

Weinstein’s words are chilling: we are witnessing the collapse of an entire branch of science. People are running for the exits, but the train has been accelerating towards an abyss for years.

A Chilling Parallel: Dürrenmatt’s “The Tunnel”

Weinstein’s depiction of this scientific collapse is hauntingly similar to Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s short story “The Tunnel.” Dürrenmatt, known for his works of surrealism, paints a terrifying picture of a train headed into an endless tunnel—a metaphor for the unstoppable momentum of a system bound for disaster.

In the story, a 24-year-old student boards a train as usual. But when the train enters a tunnel, something isn’t right. The tunnel doesn’t end. Darkness stretches on for an unnerving amount of time. The student’s unease grows, yet the other passengers remain calm, oblivious to the danger.

Seeking answers, the student approaches the conductor, who eventually reveals a horrifying truth: the train’s engineer had already jumped off. No one is steering. The train is accelerating towards an abyss, and the student can do nothing but watch as the locomotive hurtles into the void.

At one point, the conductor asks what they should do. The student answers:

"Nothing (...) God let us fall. And now we’ll come upon him.”

The train continues to plummet into the abyss. The story ends with a terrifying silence—“Nothing.”

Is There Hope for Theoretical Physics?

Weinstein’s narrative, paired with Dürrenmatt’s eerie story, creates a chilling analogy for the state of theoretical physics today. The field has been speeding into darkness for decades, with many passengers oblivious to the danger and others too frightened to pull the emergency brake.

But is there hope?

Dürrenmatt's student was on a train without a driver, destined for disaster. Yet, we still have the opportunity to change course. Weinstein’s work, along with those brave enough to question the status quo, may offer the wisdom needed to steer us back on track.

In an unstable, nonlinear world, where even the smallest action can ripple into far-reaching consequences, we cannot afford to sit idly by. The butterfly effect teaches us that what we do—or neglect to do—matters. Now is the time to break free from the tunnel. We must resist the pull of dead-end theories and open our minds to new possibilities.

A Glimmer of Hope: Emerging from the Tunnel

Interestingly, there’s a short film inspired by another "tunnel" experience that offers a sliver of hope. It suggests that those of us already deep in the tunnel may soon run out of gas—perhaps before we plunge into the abyss. 

This short movie inspired by another tunnel experience gives us the hope that those already in the tunnel may soon be running out of gas.

So, what can we do? The student in Dürrenmatt’s story had no choice but to fall. But we do. We can question. We can demand progress. And maybe, just maybe, we can stop the train before it’s too late.

P.S. 26-09-24 11:55 Strings require practice rather than a theory:

P.S. 26-09-24 13:36 Igor Bayak wrote that all will be ok physics. I am not that sure.

Alternatives that may lead something really useful are being suppressed using total control over the communication channels.  Good old physics may be allowed to exist on the periphery, where no one is paying attention, and whatever is good or useful will be ridiculed.

Electrons, protons, neurons

 Quantum Mechanics and Indoctrination

Quantum mechanics, as we know it from books, is a form of indoctrination for our minds. It’s fascinating how easily we are indoctrinated. We even derive pleasure from it—a kind of intellectual masochism. A psychologist or sociologist could likely base an entire PhD on this phenomenon. By allowing ourselves to be bombarded with slogans and rituals, we feel as though we are being inducted into the mysterious world of a Secret Society of Quantum Mechanics Adepts. And who among us doesn’t want to be a part of such an organization? One that possesses secrets unknown to those outside the circle? However, like in many secret societies, as we climb higher on the ladder of initiation, we eventually discover that everything is based on the belief in the existence of secrets, rather than in actually knowing them.

Secret Society of Quantum Mechanics Adepts

From Theoretical to Practical: The Concept of Measurement
Enough theorizing—let’s dive into the evidence. Let’s take the concept of measurement as our example. During a discussion about the ideas of Henry Stapp, a physicist from LBL, Berkeley, California, Laura asked her friends—communicating via Cassiopaea—an intriguing question:

"Is quantum theory, as it stands, about knowledge or about physical units?"
The reply she received was simple:
"It is about measurement."

Yes, I think so too. (After all, those Cassiopaeans might as well have been me.) So, let's examine how measurement is treated in quantum theory today. Referring to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Measurement in Quantum Theory," the discussion begins with Bohr’s Postulate, which is stated as:

(P) If a quantity Q is measured in system S at time t, then Q has a particular value in S at t.

Interesting, isn’t it? But there’s more. The statistical interpretation of Born is added (don’t worry if you don’t fully understand this—it's not crucial). Let me quote a longer passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for context, as it contains some humorous elements:

"... the second stage of the measurement, with its radical, non-linear discontinuities, has been the source of many of the philosophical difficulties that have plagued quantum mechanics, including what von Neumann referred to as its 'peculiar dual nature' (417). Indeed, Schrödinger foreshadowed such difficulties even before the formal development of measurement theory. For example, during a visit to Bohr’s institute in September 1926, he remarked, 'If all this damned quantum jumping [verdamnte Quantenspringerei] were really to stay, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory' (Jammer 1974, 57)."

The Dilemma of Quantum Measurement
Quantum mechanics offers no definitive explanation of the measurement process. Specifically, using quantum mechanics alone, we cannot predict the exact value of Q that will be recorded during measurement. What quantum mechanics does provide, however, is additional information of a statistical nature, through what is known as the Born statistical interpretation:
The probability of qi being registered is |ci|², where ci is the coefficient of fi (the eigenvector of Q corresponding to the value qi) when the initial measured state of S is expressed as a linear superposition of eigenvectors of Q.

In short: quantum mechanics does not predict the measured value, but it does give us the probability distribution of the possible outcomes.

Schrödinger was furious—and rightly so. He just didn’t fully understand why he was right. He wasn’t upset simply because quantum jumps are inherently problematic; they only become problematic when Bohr and his Copenhagen colleagues treat them as events that happen instantly, without any dynamics. Such instantaneous events belong in the realm of miracles and spirits, not in the world that physics deals with.

Bohr's Postulate and the Problem of Time
Here’s the crux of the issue: Bohr’s postulate (P) speaks of "measurement at time t." However, such a thing as an "instantaneous" measurement never actually occurs. Every measurement takes time—some longer, some shorter. We expose photographic film to radiation and wait patiently, sometimes for hours or days, for a proton to leave its mark. We set up our laser, nanoprobe, or magnets over an electron and wait (today, for hours—tomorrow, perhaps, for mere fractions of a second) for our "resonant system to resonate" and give an answer: spin up or spin down.

In classical physics, where particle trajectories are smooth and continuous, the distinction between instantaneous measurement and measurement over time wasn’t necessary. The idealization of instantaneous measurement was harmless and without consequence. But in quantum mechanics, where we have the Planck constant and the uncertainty principle, measuring "at time t" implies infinite uncertainty in the energy transfer, which inevitably leads to contradictions. I believe Erwin Schrödinger might have been more optimistic about quantum mechanics and its jumps—perhaps even excited about them—if he had known what I am about to reveal.

Quantum Jumps and the Nervous System
Let’s take the ancient adage "as above, so below" and apply it to quantum mechanics. Electrons, protons, and such are at the bottom; we, as beings of flesh and blood, are at the top. Neurology teaches us a bit about how the nervous system functions, and measuring the action potential of a neuron provides a prototype for the quantum jump.

The potential rises, rises further, exceeds a certain threshold, and the neuron "fires." Depending on the degree of stimulation and other factors, these firings happen more or less frequently (of course, I’ve simplified the mechanism drastically). Could quantum jumps work in a similar way? Yes, they could—and I’ll demonstrate why. Another question is whether this mechanism truly occurs in quantum mechanics—but that’s a different problem, equally important, but not the focus here.

In this analogy, a detector plays the role of a neuron. It’s stimulated by the "wave function" (also called the "state vector"). When the detector is sufficiently excited, it fires, and the wave function "discharges." The detector then rests for a while, ready for the next firing. There are also single-use detectors, but I won’t delve into them, as they are just a special case of reusable detectors with adjustable efficiency.

More to Come
But I’ll leave the details for the future notes.

Octagonal Complexigram

 Octagonal Complexigram? What kind of animal is that? "Octagonal" means eight-sided. But complexigram? In mathematics, "complex" can refer to something "not simple" or to "complex numbers" with real and imaginary parts. Complex numbers are essential for modern engineering, and without them, we wouldn't have the mesmerizing Julia and Mandelbrot fractals. Complex dynamics? Yes, that makes sense. But why eight?

The Extragalactic Stores offer Octagonal Complexigrams in three versions: Standard, Pro and De Lux. Here is the Pro version:

Octagonal Complexigram Pro

A Cathedral's Inspiration

Here, on our planet, in Strasbourg, stands the Cathedral of Notre Dame—a true masterpiece of Gothic architecture. From 1647 to 1874, it held the title of the tallest building in the world. Today, it ranks sixth among the tallest churches.

Strasbourg - Notre Dame Cathedral

This is what the cathedral looks like from a bird's-eye view.

Notre Dame Cathedral bird's-eye view

A Unique Structure

Here’s the plan of the cathedral:

Strasbourg Notre Dame plan

The cathedral’s tower, reaching 142 meters into the sky, is octagonal. But where are the complex numbers in all of this? Inside the cathedral, its intricate ornaments may hold the answer.

Villarceau Circles - Strasbourg Notre Dame

Spinors and Complex Numbers

Now, let’s compare this with an image from the second volume of Penrose and Rindler’s book Spinors and Space-Time:

Penrose & Rindler - Clifford Parallelism

Do you see the analogy? We meet spinors! And spinors are deeply connected to complex numbers and four-dimensional spaces.

In 2007, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for spintronics! From Wikipedia:

"Albert Fert (French: [albɛʁ fɛʁ]; born 7 March 1938) is a French physicist and one of the discoverers of giant magnetoresistance, which revolutionized gigabyte hard drives."

In 2007, Fert and Peter Grünberg received the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery, which contributed to the miniaturization of hard drives.

Toshiba Storage Division

A Journey into Spintronics

From the Internet, we also learn some personal details about Professor Albert Fert. Born in 1938 in Carcassonne, he was surprised by the award, despite knowing he was on the shortlist. Modestly, he acknowledged the many outstanding scientists worldwide. When asked about his interests, Fert mentioned playing rugby for 20 years, windsurfing, enjoying films, photography, and listening to jazz.

So, I invite you on a journey into the fascinating world of spin. In future notes, we’ll dive deeper into the details—where the devil hides. But for today, here’s a historical tidbit.

Spin and History

In 1924, Wolfgang Pauli introduced spin, a new degree of freedom to explain the behavior of spectral lines of atoms in a magnetic field. He believed this new freedom had no classical equivalent—it was purely a mathematical concept.

Yet, in 1926, L.H. Thomas (of Thomas precession fame) wrote in a letter to Samuel Goudsmit:

“I think you and Uhlenbeck were very lucky to get your spinning electron published and talked about before Pauli heard of it. It appears that more than a year ago, Kronig believed in the spinning electron and worked out something; the first person he showed it to was Pauli. Pauli ridiculed the whole idea so much that the first person became the last, and no one else heard anything of it. Which all goes to show that the infallibility of the Deity does not extend to his self-styled vicar on earth.”

Why Quantum Mechanics Feels Like a Cosmic Prank (But Also, Maybe Not?)

 This post explores the second "sin" of quantum mechanics—the apparent non-causal nature of the universe at a microscopic level. Understanding this oddball feature can change how we see everything from science to philosophy, and even life itself. Plus, it's always fun to ponder if we're all just cosmic dice throws, right?

God playing dice?

A Recap: Quantum Mechanics and its "Sins"

In my earlier post, Quantum Sins: Why I'm Not Sold on the Uncertainty of It All, I dug into one of quantum mechanics' gravest offenses—its inherently probabilistic nature. According to the book The Emerging Quantum: The Physics Behind Quantum Mechanics by Luis de la Peña, Ana María Cetto, and Andrea Valdés Hernández, this world, full of chaotic energy fields and quantum fuzziness, is driven by probabilities. You just have to accept that and move on (shut up and calculate, they say).

But there’s more to the story. In their view, these quantum oddities might stem from fluctuations in the "aether"—or as they cautiously term it, the "zero-point energy field." Yes, that mysterious "beast" that no one quite understands. While it doesn't answer all our burning questions, it gives us something more to work with, even though with this alternative view the world appears to be even more complex than we would wish.

Zero-point energy field

Note: By the way: you can find a nice and informative literary/journalistic exposition of the zero-point energy field concept  in the book "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart.

A really pleasant read, with a window into the paranormal world, and with lot of references.

---

Enter the Second Sin: Non-Causality

And now, dear reader, brace yourself for Quantum Sin #2—non-causality as the authors of "The Emerging Quantum" term it. Yep, quantum mechanics is a rebel without a cause. One shining example of this noncausality is the famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you've ever wanted to pin down the trajectory of an electron, forget about it. Heisenberg's inequalities imply that there are inevitable quantum fluctuations (whatever it means)", trajectories simply do not exist (and it is not made clear what it is that "exist", beyond the "math" and the mysterious "observer", who is not even a part of the theory),  and to make things weirder, the theory itself provides no reason why they happen.

Heisenberg Uncertainty

It's as if quantum mechanics decided, "Let’s just say things happen randomly. No need to explain further." Naturally, this has led to fierce debates among physicists—some argue it's just ignorance on our part, while others think it's the universe keeping its secrets well-hidden, like a magician refusing to reveal how the rabbit got into the hat.

---

The Story of Heisenberg's Fluctuations (Minus the Observers)

Now, if you’ve heard the textbook explanation for the Uncertainty Principle, it probably involved an electron being disturbed by an observer. You know, the whole "Schrödinger’s cat is dead AND alive" until-someone-looks situation. But the real kicker is that Heisenberg’s inequalities follow mathematically from quantum theory, no observers necessary! "Observers" undefined within the formalism. It's like a party that happens whether or not anyone shows up.

The uncertainties (or “indeterminacies” if we’re feeling fancy) are woven into the fabric of reality. And here's the fun part—try explaining that one at a cocktail party.

---

Energy-Time Inequality: A Special Kind of Weird

If you thought the regular Uncertainty Principle was trippy, wait till you get to the energy-time inequality. This one's even more out there because it doesn’t fit nicely into the usual quantum mechanics toolkit. It is there, and it is not! Over the years, various theorists have tried to patch this up with new proposals, and some (including the author of this post) have even played with the idea of introducing a "time operator" (cue dramatic music).

Still, most physicists wave their hands and say, "Eh, it's spontaneous!" It's like they’ve decided that quantum fluctuations are the universe's equivalent of spontaneous combustion—no cause needed, just sit back and enjoy the chaos. Or, perhaps, it is just God playing invisible dice?

---

A Different Take: My Event Enhanced Quantum Theory (EEQT)

Now, if you’re tired of all this quantum uncertainty and complementarity, let me offer you a little ray of hope. In Event Enhanced Quantum Theory (EEQT), the child of Ph. Blanchard and myself, things are a bit more grounded (but still pretty wild). The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle holds true, but we add a twist. EEQT allows for the simultaneous (and even continuous)  measurement of variables that are usually incompatible—things like position and momentum or different spin components. Moreover, EEQT has the concept of "measurement" included in its extended math formalism!

Of course, chaos reigns in this world too, but it’s a chaos you can simulate on a regular old classical computer. And sometimes, amidst the madness, patterns emerge—beautiful, sometimes terrifying, quantum fractals. In fact, I wrote a whole book about these fractals, aptly titled Quantum Fractals. It's full of eye candy and scientific intrigue. Think of it as a fusion of quantum mechanics and abstract art—minus the pretentious gallery openings.

---

Merging Worlds: EEQT Meets the Zero-Point Field?

Here’s where things get even more interesting (or insane, depending on your perspective). I’ve got this wild idea to merge EEQT with the zero-point energy field theory promoted by de la Peña and friends. It’s pure speculation at this point, but something deep inside tells me this could work. Maybe it’s a whisper from a benevolent angel, or perhaps it’s the trickster devil egging me on. Who knows? Either way, I won't know until I try.

So, that’s one of the many projects on my drawing board—a quantum adventure waiting to unfold.

---

The Final Thought: The Dance of Quantum Chaos

In the end, quantum mechanics may feel like the ultimate cosmic prank, where things just "happen" without rhyme or reason. Yet, there’s something undeniably beautiful about it too. We may not understand the cause behind the quantum curtain, but we can still marvel at the dance it creates. And who knows? Maybe that very uncertainty is what makes life—and the universe—so full of wonder.

Quantum Musketeers: The Quest for Cognitive Physics

 The following story drifts somewhere between sarcasm and curiosity, touching on the idea that our minds might be governed by quantum laws. Yes, those quantum laws. You know, the ones with Schrödinger's cat, uncertainty, and all that jazz. But as much as I want to laugh it off, part of me hesitates. Could there be truth in these bold claims? Is it possible that 50 years from now, we'll be awarding Nobel Prizes for discoveries that our brains are quantum computers, firing love and hate through Schrödinger's equation?

I might be skeptical, but let's dive into this paradoxical rabbit hole of thought with our valiant quantum musketeers.

---

Meet the Musketeers

Almost everyone has heard of the classic musketeers from Dumas' world, but have you heard of their quantum counterparts? Enter the Quantum Musketeers, a group of researchers who dared to ask: "What if mental phenomena are quantum-like?" Six fearless scientists initially embarked on this mind-bending journey, soon to be joined by a mysterious seventh.

But before we dive into the science, let’s recall the type of trivialities that triggered swordfights for our classical musketeers:

"Why are you fighting?"
"Faith! I don't very well know."
"I’m fighting because… well, I’m fighting!"

At least Dumas' musketeers had a reason (albeit vague) for crossing swords. Our quantum musketeers? They're fighting the unseen, the intangible. Forget waving swords—these warriors are dealing with halos of uncertainty, fluctuating in and out of existence. 

Their minds are neither particles nor waves but something in between. Quantum superpositions, perhaps?

And now, the modern heroes:

1. Elio Conte
2. Antonio Federici
3. Francesco Vitiello
4. Orlando Todarello
5. Michele Lopane
6. Andrei Khrennikov
   And the wildcard:
7. Joseph P. Zbilut

Together, they’ve crafted papers with titles like "Preliminar Evidence of Quantum-Like Behavior in Measurements of Mental States" and "Remarks on Quantum Behavior of Cognitive Entities." Clearly, they’re not messing around.

---

Quantum Leaps of the Mind

What, you ask, have our brave musketeers accomplished? According to their Introduction, mental states don't fit neatly into our traditional physical reality. They argue that we need extra dimensions—mental coordinates, if you will—to capture the complexity of consciousness. Sounds pretty groundbreaking, right? Well, as they put it:

"Mental phenomena cannot be completely embedded into physical space."

Wait… extra dimensions? I can barely manage three, and now you’re telling me there are more? In fact, B. Hiley (a sidekick of David Bohm, quantum legend) theorizes that consciousness might exist in something called PRESPACE. Oh sure, PRESPACE. It's right next to that place where I left my car keys and my sense of direction.

---

Schrödinger’s Brain?

The six musketeers go on to suggest that thinking itself might resemble quantum mechanics. They propose that when we make decisions, our minds behave like quantum particles, collapsing from one potential state to another. In short, every decision you make is a quantum leap in your head. Just imagine: You’re deciding between pizza and salad, and somewhere in PRESPACE, a wave function collapses.

"The act of conscious thinking is itself the same as the collapse resolving out potential alternatives."

A tantalizing thought, isn’t it? Maybe that time I accidentally bought a pineapple pizza instead of pepperoni was the fault of quantum interference.

---

Quantum Spin or Spin Doctoring?

Our fearless heroes even dared to experiment. They devised tests to examine how people perceive shapes, borrowing ideas from Gestalt psychology. We all know this joke:

Imagine staring at two images: one group sees picture A, the other sees picture B, and depending on which background you focus on, your mind flips back and forth. What does this have to do with quantum physics? They claim that our minds exhibit “quantum interference” in how we perceive and interpret information.

At this point, the authors were this close to preparing a Schrödinger-like equation for cognitive states. And yet, a small caveat emerged: quantum micro-descriptions might not scale perfectly to the human brain. The differences in temperature, time, and scale are just too vast. But fear not! They propose that mental states still behave in a context-dependent, quantum-like manner.

In summary, they claimed:

"Mental states behave in a context-dependent, quantum-like manner, indicating that mental phenomena cannot be completely encompassed within the framework of traditional physical space."

---

Quantum Philosophy: The Final Thought

So, there you have it: mental phenomena, Schrödinger-style. Whether our brave musketeers are on the verge of unlocking the mysteries of the mind or simply wielding the sword of over-enthusiastic theory, only time will tell. Could they be heralds of a new era of cognitive science, one where quantum equations describe love, war, and pizza choices? Perhaps.

Or maybe, just maybe, this quantum interpretation of thought is as elusive as PRESPACE itself. For now, I'm left with one lingering question: If consciousness exists in extra dimensions, does that mean my existential crises are bigger than I thought?

Conclusion:

Quantumly speaking...

In the end, it’s a balancing act—somewhere between skepticism and curiosity, quantum fuzziness and clarity. Our Quantum Musketeers have taken up arms in a battle where the enemy is not only invisible but exists in multiple states simultaneously. Whether they’re on the path to a Nobel Prize or just tilting at windmills, they’ve certainly given us something to ponder. Or at least, to laugh about—quantumly speaking.

The Eternal Tug-of-War: Self-Discipline vs. Creativity

 Every morning, I wake up with the best of intentions. I have a neat little timetable, written the night before, staring back at me. It's a masterpiece of organization, if I may say so myself. The first hour? I’m a productivity machine! But then… the crash.

Disaster strikes, usually in the form of an email or an innocent search. One link leads to another, and before I know it, I'm waist-deep in a rabbit hole, surrounded by articles, videos, and the occasional cat meme. My day’s plan? It’s not just off-track—it’s in the trash.

Tomorrow will be better, right? That's what I tell myself.

---

Ah, The Glory Days...

Once upon a time, I was a disciplined machine, especially during my last year as a physics student. The photo of my journal from that time would make even the most hardcore planners weep with joy. 

My life had structure, precision, and—dare I say—perfection.

But then came a revelation, one that turned my orderly world upside down: creativity doesn’t always follow a plan. As I entered the world of science, I realized that the magic of new discoveries often comes when you veer off the path. Suddenly, “following the clues” meant abandoning the plan and embracing the chaos.

---

Living in the Tension

Since then, my life has been a never-ending tension between these two forces: the need for self-discipline and the irresistible pull of spontaneous creativity.

It’s a battle. One day, the disciplined side wins; the next, the creative chaos takes over. And it seems like lately, chaos has been putting up quite the fight. To make sense of it all, I decided to seek advice from someone who understands this inner conflict. Enter: The War of Art by Steven Pressfield.

---

Enter the Resistance

Pressfield's book is a game-changer. Right from the start, he explains that the moment you embark on any ambitious journey—be it writing, creating, starting a business, or just trying to stick to a diet—you will meet a formidable enemy: Resistance.

Here is Pressfield's list of activities that attract immediately the Resistance:

• 1)  The  pursuit  of  any  calling  in  writing,  painting,  music, film,  dance,  or  any  creative  art,  however  marginal  or unconventional.
• 2)  The  launching  of  any  entrepreneurial  venture  or enterprise,  for  profit  or  otherwise.
• 3)  Any  diet  or  health  regimen.
• 4)  Any  program  of  spiritual  advancement.
• 5)  Any activity whose  aim is  tighter abdominals.
• 6)  Any  course  or  program  designed  to  overcome  an unwholesome  habit  or  addiction.
• 7)  Education  of  every  kind.
• 8)  Any act of political,  moral, or ethical courage,  including the  decision  to  change  for  the  better  some  unworthy pattern  of  thought  or  conduct  in  ourselves.
• 9)  The  undertaking  of  any  enterprise  or  endeavor  whose aim is to  help others.
• 10)  Any  act  that  entails  commitment  of  the  heart.  The decision  to  get  married,  to  have  a  child,  to  weather  a rocky patch  in  a  relationship.
• 11) The taking of any principled stand in the face of adversity.

Resistance is sneaky. It’s that invisible force that distracts you, convinces you to procrastinate, and makes the couch look way more appealing than your to-do list. You can’t see it or touch it, but you can feel it—oh boy, can you feel it.

We often think the distractions are external—email notifications, social media, that random video about baby sloths. But Pressfield is clear: Resistance comes from within. It’s the internal saboteur, the enemy lurking in the shadows, waiting to throw you off course.

---

The Many Faces of Resistance

Resistance is crafty. It’ll take on any form necessary to stop you. Maybe it pretends to be a lawyer, convincing you with logical arguments about why now isn’t the right time to start that project. Or perhaps it shows up as a stick-up man, holding a metaphorical gun to your head and demanding that you Twitter-binge instead of write that chapter.

And the worst part? Resistance lies. It’ll say anything to keep you from doing the work.

---

But Wait, There’s More…

Pressfield’s ideas about Resistance reminded me of another thinker—Boris Mouravieff. In his work Gnosis, Mouravieff (of Gurdjieff circle) takes it a step further, suggesting, between the lines, that these forces of Resistance might not just be psychological—they could be hyperdimensional. Yep, you heard that right. According to him, there might be an “Intelligence” whose job is to keep us from growing, both psychologically and spiritually.

Both Good and Evil may well reside in higher dimensions. I’m not sure if that makes me feel better or worse, but it’s an intriguing thought. With the help of hyperdimensional forces we can develop higher centers and use obstacles to learn and to grow.

---

Embracing the War

Regardless of whether Resistance is a personal psychological battle or part of a larger cosmic game, Pressfield’s advice resonates deeply with me. As I continue to navigate the tension between too much order and too much chaos, The War of Art offers a kind of road map for this internal battleground.

And perhaps, tomorrow, I’ll win the day a little more. Or maybe not. But hey, the war continues—and that’s what makes life interesting, right?

---

Final Thoughts: If you, like me, are grappling with that constant tension between self-discipline and creativity, I recommend giving The War of Art a read. 

Who knows? It might just help you declare victory over Resistance… or at least win a few battles along the way.

Standing on Giants... But Be Careful of Heights

 About a month ago, I wrote about the importance of “standing on the shoulders of giants,” in my note "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Unsung Path to Innovation". My advice then was simple: when embarking on a new project or tackling a complex problem, follow the wisdom of Newton—find your giants, climb on their shoulders, and use the elevated view to dream bigger and contribute to humanity’s understanding.

Well, life has a funny way of teaching lessons, and after a recent event, my enthusiasm for climbing those metaphorical shoulders has waned. Sometimes, when you climb too high, you risk falling flat on your backside—painfully.

A Roller Coaster of Peer Review

As a member of several publishing boards, part of my job is determining whether a submitted paper deserves to grace the pages of an academic journal. Recently, I had to evaluate a paper on foundations of quantum mechanics, which, as you might imagine, had stirred up quite the debate among its reviewers. Two gave it positive, albeit superficial, reviews, while one reviewer passionately tore it apart, backed by meticulous analysis.

Now, quantum mechanics is close to my heart, so I dove in headfirst. The paper referenced Freeman Dyson, particularly his work “Why is Maxwell’s Theory So Hard to Understand?”. Dyson, as many in the field will know, is no lightweight. The man’s a legend—he’s responsible for everything from Dyson spheres to eternal intelligence. If there’s a Mount Olympus for physicists, Dyson is sitting comfortably at the top.

But then things started to get interesting...

Enter Dyson's World of Confusion

As I waded through Dyson's work on Maxwell’s electrodynamic theory, I couldn’t help but admire his writing. He starts strong, with captivating lines like:

"The importance of Maxwell's work was not obvious to his contemporaries... For more than twenty years, his theory of electromagnetism was largely ignored. Physicists found it hard to understand because the equations were complicated. Mathematicians found it hard to understand because Maxwell used physical language to explain it.”

I was nodding along enthusiastically. Yes, yes! Physics and math not always seeing eye-to-eye—makes perfect sense.

Then, Dyson drops this gem about modesty (or the lack thereof):

"Modesty is not always a virtue. Maxwell’s modesty set back the progress of physics by twenty years. Mendel’s modesty set back biology by fifty years. If people make great discoveries, they should not be too modest to blow their own trumpets."

Ah! A philosophical nugget! And there I was, suddenly hit with an uncomfortable realization. I’d been too modest with my own work—my EEQT theory. Out of some misplaced humility, I even skipped presenting my own research at an international conference I helped organize. What was I thinking? As Dyson says, modesty sometimes just gets in the way of progress!

Physics or Philosophical Puzzle?

But just as I was patting myself on the back for learning this life lesson, Dyson took a turn into some rather strange territory.

"The conventional unit of electric field strength is the square root of a joule per cubic meter... a square root of a joule is not a unit of anything tangible... The unit of electric field strength is a mathematical abstraction.(...) It means that an electric field-strength is an abstract quantity, incommensurable with any quantities that we can measure directly.”

Wait, what?

At this point, my brain started doing somersaults. Dyson wasn’t talking about some esoteric theory or the philosophical implications of physics—he was talking about electric field strength. This is something you can measure, right? I mean, you can feel a magnetic field pulling a compass needle, and the Lorentz force acts on charges in an electric field. These aren’t just abstract notions.

I was genuinely torn. Am I in the wrong universe? Has the physics I know and love been lying to me all these years? Maybe I should go back to elementary school physics or, as Dyson would suggest, just trust the giant and move on without asking too many questions. Perhaps, dear reader, you can help me untangle this mess?

The Verdict: A Paper with No Punch

Now, back to that quantum mechanics paper with the mixed reviews. After slogging through the Dyson-inspired bits, I realized the author had presented an entertaining read but brought nothing new to the table. It was like watching a well-acted movie with a plot you’ve seen a thousand times—pleasant, but no surprises.

Even though the author represented the Boeing Corporation (a bit of a giant themselves), I had to do the unthinkable. I recommended rejection. Sometimes, saying “no” is a duty, even when you’d rather say “yes.”

Lessons from the Fall

So, what have I learned from this strange journey through Dyson, modesty, and physics?

1. Climbing on giants' shoulders is risky—you might see further, but the fall can be harder. Proceed with caution.
2. Modesty isn’t always a virtue. Sometimes, it holds you back more than it helps.
3. Not all giants are infallible. Even the best minds can baffle you, leaving you questioning your very existence—or at least your understanding of electric fields.

And with that, I’ll step off these lofty shoulders, bruised but wiser, ready to approach my next project with both caution and confidence.