There is much more to reality in Nature than just the mathematical formulation. For example, human Will is a kind of force which is not recognized by scientific community as a force. What kind of mathematics can you use to describe this force?

Quantum theory "as it’s currently formulated" doesn't predict "the outcome of experiments" per se. The relationship between the mathematical structure that is QM has numerous interpretations, but more importantly requires these. That is, whether an experiment's outcome is one out of infinitely many "real" outcomes that are realized in some universe or whether QM is irreducibly statistical. Even the decoherence program is understood differently by different theorists/physicists. In fact, so much is the mathematics of QM meaningless without an interpretation of quantum physics that there exist multiple researchers whose work concerns the use of quantum mechanical mathematics applied to "quantum-like" systems (see esp. Andrei Khrennikov's research).

Andrew~

"Quantum theory 'as it’s currently formulated' doesn't predict 'the outcome of experiments' per se. The relationship between the mathematical structure that is QM has numerous interpretations..."

That's the problem: the interpretations are "numerous". There is no concensus about what it all means. And those numerous interpretations pose apparently paradoxical epistemological questions.

Vikram ~

Some concept that is needed to understand what an “observation” is, and how it is related to what is sometimes called “the collapse of the wavefunction”, is missing from the quantum-mechanical picture. Wigner proposed that the missing ingredient is "consciousness". In everyday speech, we say we have “observed” something when we become consciously aware of it. Of course, this does little to resolve the conceptual difficulties, since there is no agreement about what consciousness is, nor how it is related to the physical world. Could it be that consciousness is a particular manifestation of something fundamental, with causal properties, that physical theory has left out of the picture?

Eric Lord:

Consider an observer watching a man approaching a cross road running east to west. For the observer the probability of the man going east or west is 50-50. But the man has made up his mind to go west. So the moment the man turns west the wave function of the observer's theory collapses. Here we can see that the probabilistic interpretation of the phenomenon by the observer arise due to his lack of knowledge of the working of the mind and consciousness of the man under observation. Same is the case with the particle motion in quantum mechanics. Someone may ask whether particles have anything to do with consciousness? A unique aspect of consciousness is that one can be sure about one's own consciousness but about others he/she can only make a guess. Because I have a consciousness therefore other people behaving like me must also have consciousness. Similarly we can make a general guess that particles of physics do not have consciousness but we can never be 100% sure about our guess.

You are right in saying that consciousness is a particular manifestation of something fundamental, with causal properties. Brain is a container for mind. Mind is made up of subtle particles unknow to physics. Mind is energy. It is the mind that becomes conscious or unconscious due to its connection or disconnection with the all pervasive unified field of consciousness (ufc) which is commonly known as the Spirit. As the one sun illumines the whole world, even so does this ufc illumine all bodies, sentient and insentient. This ufc is the The Great Cause and the fundamental substance of the univrse and itself is not caused by anything else. This ufc is not energy because it is perfectly motionless and doesnot interact with anything that is motion. UFC has another property which is called the WILL which is of the nature of a force. This property is also observed in the living beings on a much smaller scale. It is this force of WILL that is the cause of the motion in the motionless ufc which the physicists call vacuum fluctuation. At Planck energy level these vacuum fluctuations generate very cold particle pairs called Savitons each particle having energy of the order 10^19 GeV. There are 10^62 saviton pairs generated simultaneously with in a very small sphere of size 10^(-14) meter and travelling at velocity of light. Each Saviton is like Grandfather photon which is massless kinetic energy. Each Saviton is of size 10^(-35) meter which is like a cold particle of consciousness. These particles make up such a powerful (cold) Laser that our world has not seen anything like this. This is like fuel in cold storage. Immediately after creation, these 10^(62) cold particles collide with each other and create an inferno which is the Big Bang followed by inflation.

Vikram ~

Your example of observation of a runner approaching a crossroad is a classical application of probability theory. The act of observation has no influence on the runner. The role of probabiliies in QM is different.

A quantum-mechanical system can exist as a superposition of states, or as a wave-function carrying a range of probabilities (it comes to the same thing, I think, according to whether one opts for the Heisenberg of the Schödinger formulation). When an "observation" or a "measurement" is made, the superposition of states changes to a state that is meaningful to us, or equivalently, the "wave function collapses" (one of many possible outcomes randomly selects itself and becomes the actuality). How can that happen if "the system" extends over a large region? (This puzzling question is particularly evident in the EPR "paradox" - verified experimentally in spite of its paradoxical nature!). And what exactly are "observations" and "measurements" in this context anyway? The physical world is getting on with its interactions far away from laboratories containing experimenters taking measurements. What exactly, in Nature at large, is this "collapse of the wavefunction" and what causes it? If we dispense with it we are left with the absurd "many worlds hypothesis".

Charles ~

You criticise Feynman for what he said, and suggest that Dirac, von Neumann, Heisenberg, Schrödinger etc understood QM. I agree that they thoroughly understood the mathematics of QM. So did Feynman. (Even I understand it a little). If people exist who thoroughly grasp, in a logical and rational self-consistent way, what the mathematics and the experiments actually imply about the nature of "reality", I'd like to know who they are.

Charles ~

"...many of the most intelligent thinkers of the time thought of quantum mechanics as describing our knowledge of reality, rather than reality itself."

Yes, I know. I accept that you find that adequate. I don't. Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing. Physical theory continues to evolve. Quantum theory is a stage in that evolution, very likely not the final stage.

Eric Lord:

"When an "observation" or a "measurement" is made, the superposition of states changes to a state that is meaningful to us..."

I do not hold this view. The act of measurement does not decide the outcome. It is the local hidden variables that decide the outcome as explained in the "runner approaching the crossroad" example. EPR paradox and quantum entanglement has another explanation. We need not invoke local hidden variables here. EPR paradox implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, i.e., faster than speed of light. This is a case of instantaneous action at a distance. In my article "Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology" I have replaced the fundamental building block of the universe by the fundamental substance which is indivisible and appears to have divided apparently. In this theory the electron positron pairs used in quantum entaglement arise from this indivisible fundamnetal substance of the universe. So eventhough the pair appear to our senses as two independent particles, they are not so in reality. They are connected with each other. Such is the case with everything else in the universe regardless of distance. This is the basis for instantaneous action at a distance. Same theory can explain the instantaneous action of gravity at a distance. It does not require graviton travelling at a speed of light.

Charles ~

That last paragraph leaves me very curious to see what you are working on, which promises to be of great interest and significance. I'm eager to have a look at it (when it's ready for that...)

Charles, local hidden variables were ruled out in the context of quantum entanglement and in the absence of my theory of indivisible whole. More specifically in the experiment involving direction of spin of electron positron pair separated by distance. In this experiment these two particles are assumed to have independent existence which is not the case according to my theory. In case of a indivisible whole, there is no need for particles to communicate at speeds faster than light. If we consider ocean as a whole, if a sunami wave is generated in the middle of the ocean, waters on the shore, hundreds of kilometers away recede instantaneously.

Some physicists like Gerard 't Hooft have not given up on local hidden variables. He has argued that the superdeterminism loophole cannot be dismissed.

arXiv:0908.3408 [quant-ph].

arXiv:quant-ph/0701097 [quant-ph].

Godel's incompleteness theorems rules out the possibility of finding a theory of everything in physics. But it is possible to find a theory of everything if Physics and philosophy come together. Both physical and philosophical theories are verifiable. Physical theory can be verified with experiments which can be repeated by anyone. Philosophical theory can be verified with experience of a personal nature which can be repeated by anyone.

Charles. Do you think, physics alone can deliver a theory of everything?

Charles. Many people see light even with both their eyes closed and when they are in a dark room in the middle of the night. This kind of experience is possible for any person who follow certain disciplined way of life. Would you consider this to be a physical observation? If yes, how can you relate it to a mathematical quantity? And how can you do any kind of measurement on this? If you think it is not a physical quantity then what is the nature of this light? If it is not physical light then it cannot be photon. Most intriguing of all, there is an act of observation involved, without the use of two physical eyes! Would this mean there is an additional organ like eye which is not physical?

I quote below one such record of experience from the book "Sri Ramakrishna The Great Master" (p.850). Narendra, disciple of Sri Ramakrishna is narrating his experience.

Narendra: I used to see all my life a wonderful point of light between my eyebrows, as soon as I shut my eyes in order to go to sleep, and I used to observe attentively its various changes... The extraordinary point kept changing its colours and increasing in size, became gradually converted into the form of a ball, and bursting at last, covered my body from head to foot with white liquid light. As soon as that happened, I lost consciousness and fell asleep.

Narendra believed that all people went to sleep that way. He was long under that impression. When he grew up, he came to know from his friends that they never had the vision of such a light and none of them went to sleep that way.

Gödel's work did not in anyway whatsoever show that 'the possibility of finding a theory of everything in physics" is impossible. In fact, despite his own groundbreaking formulation of the proof of the impossibility of Hilbert's dream, Gödel actually believed that "God" had (or was able to use) a formal language which Gödel's incompleteness proof explicitly denied could exist.

Dear Eric,

The formalism of QM if interpreted properly by taking into account subject-object interaction (measurement = objective interaction of system and apparata + subjective Observation of the interaction results leading to rise of knowledge), then QM does provide  the most beautiful insight into how nature works.Please see my psychophysical interpretation available on my RG page.

Of course, you have not defined Nature in your question. My definition is Nature is the sum total of all objects, events and processes that we observe. "No phenomenon becomes a phenomenon unless and until it becomes an observed phenomenon"--- Wheeler.

Best Regards,

Rajat.

Godel's God was a personal God and Einstein's (Spinoza's) God was impersonal God, but Ramakrishna saw God in both his apects. He used to say, to those who believe in personal God, God appears to them in whatever form they like to see Him in. To those who believe in impersonal God, He appears to them as formless.

But these closed eyed observers seems to be observing in totally different space (chit-akash) with a different organ of sight (divya chaksu) with a different light (divya jyoti). There are many such observers in the west as well. Swedenborg, St. Teresa of Avila, Annie Besant. These class of observers don't seem to fit well with the definition of observer in general relativity. So then how can we have a theory of everything in physics?

Rajat ~

yes, QM is unique in the history of science, in that “the observer” cannot be left out of the description of “Nature”. But I can’t help feeling philosophical discomfort when I imagine all the happenings in Nature that are not observed - am I supposed to deny their reality?

(My laptop’s been in for repair, so I saw your post only today…)

Dear Eric,

This question has often been put to silence those few from the minority community who argue for a role of the conscious observer in Scientific description of phenomena. 

The aspects or phenomena that are not observed have a quantum mechanical reality in terms of probabilities. This is what quantum mechanics tells us. We do not deny their reality. We grant them a probabilistic reality. Please see my paper "Are quantum states subjective?" on my RG page for a very cogent discussion of the issues involved.

@ Dear Charles,

You ahve made a great point indeed by bringing in the Feynman diagrams in to the discussion. Could you please elaborate upon how they give us  a deeper appreciation of the underlying structure?

Regards,

Rajat

Rajat ~

Though I’m no expert in quantum theory, I believe the following is an essentially correct picture of physical reality that that the theory implies.

Any physical system whatsoever consists of a variety of quantum fields interacting with each other. As long as the system is not ‘observed’ the field configuration that constitutes it evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation. The fields, though behaving deterministically, are not themselves ‘observables’ – they are carriers of the probabilities for the outcome of any observation that might be made. An actual observation narrows the range of possibilities for some aspects of the system. That is what an ‘observation’ or a ‘measurement’ is - something that reduces the vagueness of quantifiable knowledge about an ‘observable’. At the same time, the complementary aspects inevitably become vaguer. Thus an act of observation adjusts the various probabilities carried by the fields; it changes the field configuration in a non-deterministic way. This process is called, in the jargon of quantum physics, the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’ or the ‘reduction of the state vector’. The system then continues to evolve deterministically until another ‘observation’ is made.

The crucial question here is What exactly is an ‘observation’?. According to the above scenario, it is something that interferes with the evolution that the system would have followed, had it remained ‘unobserved’. I find something appealing in the idea that ‘observation’ is essentially an act of consciousness. But this only adds to the mystery, since we really have no idea what ‘consciousness’ actually is. Moreover, the emergence of conscious living beings in the physical universe is relatively recent and restricted to minute regions. Are we to suppose that, in all the vast regions of space and time where consciousness is/was absent, the blind universe carries all possibilities, as in the ‘many worlds’ hypothesis? Or could it be that the ‘reduction of the state vector’ is induced by some mechanism that is missing from the theory as presently formulated, and that observation and meaurement by conscious observers is only a particular aspect of that missing ‘something’?

Charles ~

I agree that there is an incompatibility between QM (a theory concerning available knowledge about the world, through observation and measurement) and QFT (which applies the probabilistic aspects of QM to ‘fields’ that are in principle unobservable entities). My remarks arise from the view that ‘fields’ are primary, and that QM is an epiphenomenon. I now see that you take the opposite view. Maybe you are right. Both views are subjective. We seem to be in agreement that there is a problem.

I already posted these comments on another thread. They seem more appropriate here so I’m copying and pasting:

Before a measurement is made, all we know are the probabilities of various outcomes. The actual outcome is in principle unpredictable. Let us imagine that, beyond our reality is a meta-reality wherein some kind of random number generator selects the result whenever a measurement is made. A fanciful scenario, but not in conflict with QM as we know it. But now suppose that the random number generator is actually a pseudo-random number generator. That wouldn’t make any noticeable difference, would it? But a pseudo-random number generator is based on an algorithm – there is in this case an unobservable deterministic process going on behind the scenes. This line of thinking suggests that QM as we know it could conceivably arise from a deterministic process. It looks suspiciously like a “hidden variables” scenario. Can anyone tell me what, if anything, is wrong with it?

I’m convinced that something is missing from QM. As formulated it looks like a "theory of knowledge" rather than a theory providing insight into the nature of physical reality itself. It "gives the right answers" anyway, even though we don't know what the missing ingredient is. That's the puzzle.

Maybe there are "things we aren't meant to know" (-;

To know manythings is ignorance. But to know the one behind the many is knowledge. You can add large number of zeros after one (1) and have a large number. But if you remove the one (1) from the front, you have nothing. This is non-duality.

Dear Eric and Francis,

I came across this thread only four days ago. Let me to add some thoughts.

“The preoccupation in Quantum Theory with “measurements” and “observations” suggests that there is something very seriously wrong with present-day formulation of physical theory.”

I think the problem is not the formulation of QM but rather the mystification of the role of “measurement” and “observation” by “philosophical interpretations” of QM. Think of a spinor. Its (internal) degrees of freedom form a discrete spectrum, ‘up’ and ‘down’, which denotes the orientation of the spinor relative to a given coordinate system. Use a ‘preparator’ to prepare a spinor with orientation ‘up’. Immediately after preparation, measure the orientation of the spinor: the result will be still ‘up’. This result is perfectly deterministic. Also, if you rotate the ‘analyzer’ by a multiple of 180 degrees, you will obtain a deterministic result. Now rotate the analyzer by an arbitrary angle. The result will be ‘up’ or ‘down’ with a statistical distribution that is correlated with the angle of rotation. A ‘language of knowledge’ must be able to describe this ‘experimental setup’. Hence, first of all it must describe not only the initial orientation of the spinor but also the rotation of the analyzer. This requirement applies to classical mechanics (CM) and to QM as well.

In CM, the rotation of the analyzer relative to the preparator can uniquely be described by the degrees of freedom of the (classical) body under test. In contrast, a spinor has only two discrete degrees of freedom, which cannot be used directly for describing a continuous range of angles. The language of QM therefore provides a tool: a Hilbert space, spanned by two basic vectors u and d, which is used to encode the angle of rotation. There is nothing mysterious about such a tool: it is a rational means for describing knowledge about objects with a reduced number of degrees of freedom. (There are additional requirements concerning unitarity of transformations and self-adjointness of operators. These are needed to make the language consistent. They are required by logic, not by any strange property of Nature.) To avoid confusion we have to keep in mind that QM uses a Hilbert space to describe two things: the spinor and its orientation relative to a given classical coordinate system.

I agree that the standard formulation of QM does not “explain” the mechanism of the measuring process; it merely describes the result of a measurement. It is debatable whether it is the task of QM to provide construction plans for measurement equipment. As far as I know, Einstein never published blueprints of clocks. Nevertheless, this ‘perceived’ gap opens the door for interpretations and speculation, but let me try to consider the situation rationally. Since a spinor has only two degrees of freedom, it seems reasonable without knowing details of the measurement equipment that any attempt to measure the orientation in a direction other than ‘up’ or ‘down’ will lead to a non-deterministic result. Presuming that the experimental setup does not distort the statistical distribution of ‘up’ and ‘down’, there will be a unique correlation between the angle of rotation and the form of the distribution. QM allows calculating the probability distribution from the angle encoded in Hilbert space. This requires neither a special “quantum reality” nor “quantum logic” nor “consciousness” nor “many worlds”; it only requires our acceptance that there are objects in Nature, embedded in configuration space (or momentum space), that have less degrees of freedom than a classical body.

The rotation group connects the ‘pure’ states u and d by a continuous reversible transformation. This is an elegant criterium for finding out whether we are dealing with quantum mechanical probabilities or just classical probabilities. Cf. Hardy’s Axioms in the very readable paper [arXiv:quant-ph/0101012v4].

“There is a vast universe throughout most of which there is nobody “measuring” or “observing” anything.”

There is no need to make “measurements” or “observations” to keep Nature going. Nature is governed by conservation laws. Conservation laws are an essential part of CM and of QM as well. A quantity that is constant remains constant, whether we measure it or not.

“Physics was at one time an investigation of the “real world” in an attempt to understand how it works.”

If we accept that objects with a reduced number of degrees of freedom belong to the “real world”, then we can say for sure that QM is describing the real world.

“Quantum theory as it’s currently formulated predicts the outcome of experiments but doesn’t provide real understanding of what is going on.”

In this respect, the formulation of QM is not so much different from SR. QM, as well as SR, does not provide constructive details of measurement equipment. Instead: In SR, ‘time’ is ‘what clocks measure’, in QM, ‘measurement’ means evaluating a wave function according to the rules of quantum mechanics. In my view, this does not mean that QM “doesn’t provide real understanding of what is going on.”

Charles, I understand what you mean. Like you I am quite sure that in some future we will be able to understand what is "behind" the relationships between measurement results. I only have some problems with the meaning of the term "reality". I am more and more inclined to believe that what is "behind" the relationships will be a set of very elementary rules of logic, whereas "reality" may turn out to be no more than an umbrella term for the totality of actual data gathered from measurements of all kinds. 

Charles, of course you are in very good company, when you are looking for "the reality underneath". Einstein put it: "Reality is the real business of physics." But as I said before, I have problems in finding a reliable definition for the term 'reality'. Therefore, I am trying to find out, what 'reality' could possibly mean. If that is positivism, then it is at least a very optimistic positivism.   

"I think we can already understand Feynman diagrams as showing the underlying structure of reality."

I think Feynman diagrams show the underlying mathematical structure of an iterative perturbation algorithm, rather than a physical structure. 

"... but the physical structure is not itself a structure of language and should have its own rules, separate from logic."

My guess is that the 'physical structure' may have its roots in logical rules. Then the language that describes this structure should implement the same logical rules. 

I think that the "reality" of Physics has to be physical. If we think about a new definition of Physics, the physical "reality" may appear:

A natural science that involves the study of motion of space-time-energy-force to explain and predict the motion, interaction and configuration of matter.

Space-time (in Relativity) are part of physical "reality". Energy has to be included to make it complete. As purpose of physics is about motion and interaction, we can add force optionally. Let us think about the above definition and find out how space-time-energy-force are related. Based on the above definition, I came up with a new theory. There are many wrong theories these days. Lets have some good theories that can make useful predictions and provide answers to our questions.

Attached are two papers, one is a basic theory, the second paper is a prediction based on the first theory. I have many papers and they are pretty complex.

Before criticizing my theories, please try to understand them and see if you have a better alternative theory with more precise explanations and predictions.

Article Unified Field Theory

Article Unified field theory and topology of atom

Charles, there seems to be some misunderstanding: when I refer to 'logical rules' I do not mean the 'grammar' of a language. I am rather talking about the 'consistent rules' intrinsic to a physical structure. My claim is that these rules are not arbitrary but follow certain logical rules themselves.

Take as an example Noether's Theorem: "Any continuous symmetry leads to a conservation law." This theorem has been proven theoretically by pure mathematical logic. Therefore, the empirical fact that under certain conditions momentum is conserved is not an arbitrary rule, but a logical consequence of a symmetry. In referring to such logical connections I use the phrase 'logical rule'.

To generalize this example: Given a physical structure, then all properties of this structure should be deducible from a mathematical description (model) of this structure by logical (mathematical) means. The problem with the Standard Model seems to be that it implements many of (in principle) deducible properties directly into the model, instead of deriving them from more basic (and simpler) structures. Its present approach is likely to hide many of those 'logical rules'.

Charles, I fully agree.

How indeterminist is Nature? Suppose we have a two-neutron universe. The two neutrons collide with some initial conditions (speed vectors and angle). In my opinion this experiment will have the same result every time when it is repeated, if the initial condition is really the same. However, a half of physicists understand the quantic non-determinism in a way making them to say that any time when we repeat the experiment with the two neutrons we will get an other outcome. What do you think? (in my opinion, in this case even Wilson chamber experiments will make no sense anymore...)

 Mihai,

On the microscopic level, Nature shows a non-deterministic behavior. This is an experimental fact, not a question of opinion. 

Example: prepare an electron with its spin in "up" direction. Then measure its direction by a device that is rotated relative to the direction of the preparing device by e.g. 90 degrees. Repeated measurements will give non-deterministic results of either one or the other direction of the spin. 

In a two-neutron universe the initial two-neutron state will be unknown, because there is no device for preparing the state, neither a device for analyzing the final state. So this gedanken experiment is meaningless.

@Eric Lord `` Quantum theory as it’s currently formulated predicts

the outcome of experiments but doesn’t provide real understanding

of what is going on.''

I agree with the first part of this statement, but not completely

with the second part, in which ``real understanding'' is not

well-defined. It should be well-known by now that quantum mechanics

is not the `theory of everything', and that for ``real

understanding'' we will would need ``better'' theories than quantum

mechanics, in particular theories which yield more detailed

descriptions of the preparation and measuring processes involved in

measurements at the microscopic and sub-microscopic levels of

reality. At this moment quantum mechanics is the best theory we

have for the description of results of measurements at these

levels. `Understanding' can be improved by taking into account the

interaction between the microscopic object and the measuring

instrument.

But ``real understanding'' will probably never be achieved because

we simply will always remain unable to obtain experimental

knowledge about the microscopic world without interacting with it.

Theories yielding ``real'' understanding cannot be experimentally

verified. This is all well-known from the discussions within the

philosophy of science with respect to the `theory-dependence of

observation statements' entailing the fundamental circularity which

has caused an overthrow of logical positivist/empiricist

predominance.

See also my contribution ``On the crucial role of measurement in

the interpretation of quantum mechanics'' to my Researchgate page.

Willem Marinus de Muynck