Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
Post Reply
Bakytzhan
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:08 am

Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Post by Bakytzhan » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:12 am

I want to describe in a few terms what the Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics is about. Few terms are needed because the whole essence of science is to find a set of statements that can be made a basis (0,1) of any observed phenomena.
Paul Dirac said that the fewer is a number of such statements, the better it is. I decided that two logical states of a basic qubit suffice for this purpose. Otherwise it would be a story about a man who has built a house with one room only because less is impossible.
First problem occurred immediately – nobody knew not only what Psi function is about, but also how to relate those fermions and bosons. Supersymmetry was not an option from the beginning – I wanted something simple, neglecting an advice from a famous scientist that “if your theory is simple it is wrong”.
Mathematics is, invariably, deductive, according to Whitehead. If something is intrinsically deductive, like mathematics, then it can be decomposed into certain constituents like a sunny ray can be decomposed into rainbow. Quantum mechanics says that we have two parties – fermions and bosons, no other voters are allowed. We know how statistically each voter will behave from Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein, but we don’t know how these parties are interrelated with each other, though a hunt after a Snark is under way (LHC etc).
This is a summary of all good unified theories that you can find at Wiki or else. Old idea that our consciousness is what we are observing on a daily basis was so crazy that no scientist has taken me seriously. I am still not able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal like Journal of Consciousness Studies though I defined clearly what this much sought after consciousness is about.
I started to think about Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics perhaps in 2002, when in a journal Buddhism.ru Shamarpa has given a clear definition of what the mind is, and it is one. Yet it is different. At about the same time I authored an article about information-based universe. The conclusion was that we are made of information, and particles are just a jargon of some scientists still capable to amass billons of dollars to dig and drill some expensive land around Geneva.
I thought why computing with their Boolean gates does not serve as a basis of causal calculus that must have been incorporated into our mind as the reason de etre. Then another problem appeared – how would you unite fermions and bosons and Boolean logical gates? Linearly? I remember a shock in voices of quantum scientists. Voices were shocked because it sounded so much schizophrenic, like a time machine. Now I am afraid that LHC will be the most expensive proof of any scientific theory in our history, and that this theory is Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Hidden symmetry.
In theoretical physics what you need is a symmetry, that’s it. Once you got it, all dynamics are appearing automatically, according to Glenn and Bogolubov. What if a symmetry is hidden? Then, you invent a supersymmetry and/or get lost in string jungles. Thousands of the best minds around the world regularly gather in Switzerland to continue the hunting for a Snark. Other well-paid scientists would say, understandably, that nothing should be published about Vancouver interpretation. For example because it defines what the consciousness is both philosophically and mathematically. The whole journal, like
Journal of Consciousness Studies, would suddenly discover the subject matter of its (journal’s) existence. Some theorists would claim that Vancouver interpretation is not original, or that it is not proven yet. It is true that Buddha has given a very precise description of the universe and that this description is a basis of Vancouver interpretation. Moreover, Albert Einstein has defined all ingredients the one needs to prepare
a four-dimensional universe that we are talking about as of our consciousness. In addition, quantum-computing concepts (Feynman, Deutsch) have led others (Penrose, Hameroff, Hagan) to think that our brain is a quantum computer. However there was still a row, a good one, in terms of how to merge internal and external. Nobody really knew how to cross this Rubicon. Hidden symmetry is something that our scientists, except surely for Einstein, were not ready to face. Moreover, not only hidden it is, but also absolutely improbable to a common sense. Simply, hidden symmetry is such as to exclude any relation to a common sense, because common sense is based on classical logic that does not permit a quantum superposition. As Lama Ole Nydahl would say – Yes or No is classical, superposition is a Buddhist way to think about things.
Einsteinian hidden variables.
Deductive methods are very powerful not only in mathematics, but also in any other area of human research because mathematics is a language of science, pretty much like English language is a language of all advanced science. However, deductive, and hence causal mode of relations between any type of objects, be them mathematical objects or otherwise, can be encoded into special type of wave function.
Vancouver interpretation is constructed on a premise that our consciousness is a source of four-dimensional world that we call universe. It is this consciousness that finally brings peacefully (compare with LHC or string jungles) General Relativity and quantum mechanics together, as predicted by genius of Einstein. Should you look into journal dedicated to quantum computing or foundations of quantum mechanics, the one might get tired really quickly. All pages in such a magazine would be densely populated with a sign Psi. Mathematicians around the world are pursuing and developing all types of things with this function. Albert Einstein was right in telling that Heisenberg (and Niels Bohr) has planted a huge quantum egg, just like Lego. Lets face it, Einstein was right. There are hidden variables exist, and they play a major role not only in quantum mechanics or general relativity, but also in philosophy and economics. Thousands of years people were eager to know more about Moon, Sun and Space. Billions of dollars were spent to produce no answer to the most important question of a human civilization – who are we and what is around us? What the universe is made of? How far does it last? Who are we? What is our future? No theory was dealing with these questions but Vancouver interpretation does deal with them both mathematically and philosophically. Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on Einstenian variables. Einstenian variables are the ones that allow you to connect fermions and bosons using antisymmetrical and symmetrical (between and within) relations of pairs of quanta. “Charles Wang and Ashtekar” have described them in so much detail that I will skip technicalities here.
Background.
If mathematically the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics (Vancouver interpretation) was made lets say before 1946, even then nobody perhaps apart from Alan Turing, and of course Einstein, could figure out the physical meaning of it. It took Dirac, Feynman, Wheeler, Penrose and Deutsch before we could finally realize how and most importantly where to look for Einstenian variables. We all know that Einstein him self has spent decades of his life looking for these variables because he knew that Einstein causality cannot be violated. Einstein would not trust to fanfares of successes in quantum mechanics until the one completes its description, and makes quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity. This subject became a Holy Grail of all science, and now it is achieved. The meeting point of quantum mechanics and general relativity is our consciousness, the place where anything comes from. The idea that our mind and external reality are one is not new. From Chitta-mattra (Mind-only) in Tibet, China to Bishop Berkeley in England this astonishing concept has found its loyal followers, though superposition is very difficult to understand indeed. Isaac Newton had simply replaced superposition by God, hence it was now not his domain and responsibility to explain an order described by differential calculus, invented by Leibniz and Newton. This picture was good but rather incomplete for it allowed the presence of God as a justification of a purely scientific phenomenon, such as gravity and electromagnetism. I remember how prof. Manin said me on the phone – study what you like but leave gravity in peace, because the best of the best are busy with gravity and nothing came out of it so far. Urgen Tulku said that even if thousands of scientists would surround you and would question your concept – don’t worry about it as long as it is based on Shuniata teachings. Interestingly, I came to the idea of unification not from pure mathematics. In my view the one cannot simply conceive such symmetry because it is not evident. Rather, I came from a philosophical standpoint of view, trying to bring together the concepts of the mind and of the universe. I thought how is mind and universe are one when we cannot define what the mind is and what the universe is separately. Scott Hagan asked me to define the consciousness first and then to proceed to arguments. I have defined what a consciousness is in about two weeks, and this definition became a first postulate of Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics. No journal has published it so far, so here it is:
Based on the assumption that the human neurological basis acts as an information processing system, consciousness is defined as the modus operandi of an information processing system sufficiently sophisticated that it is capable and set to distinguish its self from the surrounding environment.
My reasoning was based on a simple proposition that everything – numbers, geometry, consciousness and quantum mechanics have one root in common and that Einstein was right. There must have been some hidden variables that would bring together all science while restoring Einstein causality. The search was not easy but luckily was restricted to fermions and bosons. Anything else was either less or more, like monads, tertraktis or strings. Once, I had to go into Four Seasons Hotel in Vancouver and to spend a night in it. I thought about fermions and bosons, how to put them linearly together so they can fit into Boolean gates. Prof. Manin advised me to forget about such a strategy and to begin with description of Niels Bohr’s model of hydrogen. Now I am glad that I decided to think big and leave the atom in peace. So in a hotel I spent a night searching for any type of relations between fermions and bosons until I found prof. Fowler’s work describing probability distributions of a pair of fermions and bosons. I printed it out and I knew at that time that the job is done, because I understood that geometrical interpretation is correct and I can link gravity to orthogonal vectors in spite of anything. Not everyone agreed with me later, however. One bright scientist enquired – how you can see something in this work, which is probably some 60 years old? Then I realized that mathematicians don’t really know what they are doing. Moreover, when I tried to pursue this same scientist into expressing metric tensor g using probability distributions of electrons, I did not find any support either. Luckily, Sir Eddington has written about this idea some 50 years ago, but I had to come to it myself. From a mere fact that electrons and fundamental tensor are related the one cannot produce anything meaningful unless you know why this fact is important to you. If you look at probability distributions of fermions and bosons and you are not specifically looking for a connection between them, you will probably see nothing.
Briefly speaking my route to Vancouver interpretation was as follows:
1) 2) 3)
Mind is one, but it is different. Form is emptiness, emptiness is a form. 0 and 1, fermions and bosons, relativity and quantum mechanics. Define consciousness, define its function, you are done.
It is a good time to say what Vancouver interpretation is about. It is about our consciousness. Our consciousness is a diamond that projects anything we can ever experience. Nothing is foreign to you. Whatever you can think about anything – it is your consciousness. It will think. It will make things look real, but they are not. Hence we are free. Let your ego resign.
Bakytzhan Oralbekov, Vancouver, June 27, 2010.

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Post by chriwi » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:33 am

I mooved this to controversial topics, because this is a totally new interpretation, evenso its found at some places in the internet it seems to be introduced always only by the same person and is hardly commented by others.
That doesnt mean that it has to be generally wrong, it seems to controversial to leave it in "general physics".
bye

chriwi

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Post by tswsl1989 » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:52 am

Agreed

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Post by CharmQuark » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:33 pm

Fair enough :thumbup:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
mrgumby
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Post by mrgumby » Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:24 am

yup

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics

Post by chriwi » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:27 am

Thanks all :)

but now we shuold give it a try:

besides that the text and formulation doesnt apear very professional, is there any aproach how to proof or disproof such an interpretation?

I could just add another in my eyes unproofable model: my conciousness is the only thing what really exists all other people and all space and time are only simulation or pahntasy of my spirit.
bye

chriwi

Post Reply