When Wheeler and DeWitt attempted to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics time ended up "dropping out" of their equations describing the universe as a whole.  Page and Wooters adopt this null result by interpreting the universe as a stationary state and thus identify the wavefunction of the universe with an energy eigenfunction.  Our perception of an observable changing in time in Page and Wooters' model is therefore not based on superpositions of energy eigenfunctions as in Feynman and previous QM, but is rather based on our observations of correlation / entanglement between ourselves and other parts of the universe (with one "part" acting as a clock).

Considering that the universe always was and shall always be, its dynamics and evolution is described as wave function. The wave function of the universe is constructed through the single particle wave functions of its constituent particles. This formalism considers the universe as any other system in quantum mechanics and it reproduces many results including a relation connecting time, temperature and the cosmological constant of the universe. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking have attempted to explain this Wave Function of the Universe.

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960

Pl refer following thread for discussion on similar topic:-https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_should_we_interpret_the_wavefunction_of_the_universe

The question puts me in the situation to answer two times yes - where both answers are based on reasons that belong much more to those who reject this theory as to them accepting it.

1. I am much more a convinced fan of the determinist views of physics as of the non-determinist theories. The paradox is that as a determinist I agree more with the existence of a wave function of the universe as with its non-existence. A general coherence, or what remained, matches better with my intuition of strict and many-dimensional chain of causalities.

2. I cannot accept the big-bang  as possible begin of the whole universe. I accept it just as one accepts the hypothesis of a local event that determines all the visible universe and maybe much more, but just a small neighborhood of us relatively to the universe. Seen like this, the big bang is also a theory with local applicability, as all other physical theories before. But exactly because of its locality, I have a reason less to deny the existence of the universal wave function, although the circularity Ψ(U)=Ψ(Ψ,U) would locally persist!

Isn't this a funny situation?

Two remarks. First, the late Professor N.G. van Kampen always ridiculed the idea of a wave function of the universe. Second, I personally believe that for a number of mathematical reasons such object is at best ill-defined.

According to this picture, the wave function of the universe spreads out over all possible universes. The wave function is assumed to be quite large near our own universe, so there is a good chance that our universe is the correct one, as we expect. However, the wave functon spreads out over all other universes, even those that are lifeless and incompatible with the familiar laws of physics. Since the wave function is supposedly vanishingly small for these other universes, we do not expect that our universe will make a quantum leap to them in the near future.

http://deoxy.org/h_kaku2.htm

As Mihai points out, the WFU is likely far more credible in a Big Bang scenario, in the 'steady state' universe picture it's not straightforward how new matter entering the universe could be "pre-correlated" or pre- entangled . In a multi-verse, the separate universes may be loosely correlated (in the case of Roger Penrose's cycles of time, for instance), or not - totally disjointed.

The best argument I find against in a Big Bang universe has to be the self-referential argument, which leads to an unascertainable WFU, but not necessarily to its non-existence. In particular, I find Ray Streater's arguments not very credible....

Dear H Chris Ransford, 

But, perhaps, the full realization of quantum theory happens if we apply quantum mechanics is not a single photon, but to the whole universe. Stephen Hawking even joked that every time he hears about the cat problem, he reaches for his gun. He offered his solution to the problem - the existence of the wave function of the universe. If the whole universe is a part of the wave function, then there is no need for the existence of an observer (who must be outside of the universe).

In quantum theory every particle is connected with the wave. This wave in turn gives information about the probability of finding a particle at any point. However, when the Universe was still very young, she was less than a subatomic particle. Then, maybe the universe itself also has a wave function. Since the electron can exist in many states at the same time and since the universe was less than the size of an electron, it is possible that the universe also existed simultaneously in many states, as described superwave function.

Critics say that as long as the established theory of everything, you can not rely on any calculation relating to a time machine, wormhole portals, the Big Bang and the wave function of the universe.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, refer to the following excellent links for detail....

http://deoxy.org/h_kaku2.htm

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/wave-function-of-the-universe.599232/

A wavefunction of any object makes sense in order to describe quantum transition amplitudes of the object. So, in principle, there's nothing that prohibits from defining such a quantity for any object, the Universe included. However to give content to such a quantity a space of states is required, in the case at hand, the space of states the Universe as a whole can be found in and the class of operators that act on such states. This, of course, assumes a description that's not sensitive to the individual degrees of freedom.  One should distinguish issues of principle-that, here, are  absent-from issues of practice-which, here, are quite severe and make the usefulness of the concept hard to grasp; beyond the domain of early-universe cosmology, of course, which observations have started to probe. 

For deciding whether the Universe can have a wave-function, you have first to decide whether it is a closed system.

In this direction I need to ask how do you define THE Universe? What we can observe from it? May there be parts beyond what our apparatuses can see, beyond the most distant galaxies that we can observe?

If there exist objects beyond what we can "see", what we know about them, which properties they have? Do they interact with the part that we can see?

Is the Universe finite?

Even if it is finite, how to include in the supposed wave-function the vacuum energy which gives birth all the time to virtual particles that pop up from the vacuum and return to it?

One: Universe as we think is universe is and cannot be one. Once we thought an atom was a singular unit ....and it is not, enough proof now. Now we know that any thing can be infinitely fractioned. In the same vein we thought our solar system was the ultimate ...and now we can go beyond galaxies. Similarly, the black holes and big bangs were thought of as singular items and events. At present we know there are many big bangs happening every second of our life, etc. etc.

We can't get stuck to light travels in a straight line but also in a wave form, but also the photon can be sent through two slits and can be seen/deducted to be seen at two places passing through the two slits and be seen on the screen at two places ...unbelievable, being present at two places at one time!!!

Evolution was thought to be 'the' answer once, and then mutation was introduced ...all happening for reasons well known to us for some and not for other phenomenons.

This , now, makes me believe that anything some one says is true, or can become true sometimes later on.

Therefore, the answer to your question is yes, yes and yes, however that is not the only answer.

Regards

quote

The second argument is more compelling, and says that if Ψ exists, then Ψ(U)=Ψ(Ψ,U) in a closed, self-referential loop. Ψ has thereby become an non-observable, unknowable, and as such better relegated to the realm of metaphysics than physic

Is there a Wave Function of the Universe? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_Wave_Function_of_the_Universe2 [accessed Feb 9, 2016].

I would really prefer that there be a full definition of Self Reverential supplied. I have used the term myself in a publication, but I would like to know what YOUR definition is. If you supply it, I can comment upon this idea more fully.

It's not necessary for a system to be either closed or finite for a wavefunction to be defined, that's incorrect. What's necessary is that the space of states be defined and the measure on them-with what weight they contribute to any transition amplitude. If the system isn't closed, that just means it can be in contact with appropriate reservoirs and their properties must be specified, for the calculation to make sense.  In any case, the wavefunction is, always, a means to an end, the computation of transition amplitudes and the corresponding probabilities. 

My answer, i.e. a wavefunction of the Universe should give answers to if or not there is energy conservation in a presumed birth and death cycle of the universe, i.e. cyclical universe and at the minimum should be amendable to explaining the CMBR spectrum. As to what we see when z ~ 1000 or so. 

A wavefunction doesn't give answers-it helps compute certain quantities. Apparently words like ``the Universe'' make many people lose sight of what's going on. So take an atom, in an electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field has infinitely many modes, and the atom, interacting with the field isn't a closed system, nevertheless it's a standard exercise to calculate the wavefunction of an atom, in various approximation schemes, when it interacts with the electromagnetic field-and to calculate the ``backreaction'' of the atom on the electromagnetic field configurations and computing their corresponding probability density.  Talking about the wavefunction of the Universe, in principle, once more, is no different. In particular, talking about energy conservation in the context of general coordinate invariance requires appropriate care. 

Stam,

First of all, you cannot change the question. The question IS whether the Universe has a wave-function.

Now, if the Universe is in contact with a reservoir, then the Universe is entangled with the reservoir. Taken alone, the Universe is then in a mixture of states, and has no definite wave-function. In this case, the answer to the question is "no!".

If the Universe is in contact with a reservoir, then in order to get a wave-function, one has to write it for the total system, reservoir + Universe. But, what if the reservoir is in contact with another reservoir? And what if the 2nd reservoir is further in contact with a 3rd one, and so on?

All the caveats aren't relevant, because the issue isn't in choosing whether the Universe has a wavefunction or a density matrix, but whether these concepts are relevant for describing properties of the Universe at all-and the answer is that, in principle, there's no problem-the Universe is an object like any other, so it's possible to imagine transition amplitudes. In practice, of course,  it's another story and one can imagine that the less structure it has the more relevant such a description might be, so it's not surprising that it has been used for discussing issues pertaining to the early Universe, e.g. http://web.science.uu.nl/itf/Teaching/2007/Koksma.pdf

in my view the superposition of wave function ultimately lead to the wave function of universe

If I may - Just a separate observation on an RG issue - the original text of my question has been edited and the meaning garbled - is there an editor at RG who changes the wording of texts without asking or contacting the author first?

The original word 'belie' as in 'objections belie its existence' has been changed to 'believe', thereby destroying the meaning, and 'What say you', a perfectly correct idiomatic phrase, was changed to 'What do you say' (in which case 'think' would be better English.)  (I re-edited and hope it stays that way now.)

Do you have similar experience with the text of contributions being altered? Who can be contacted at RG when the editing degrades the original text?

Let me take this opportunity to also thank all those who answered and answer

BTW by self referential I mean an endless recurrence relationship - bearing in mind of course that an endless recurrence relationship can in principle converge or not converge. It is closed if if converges, for instance in the case when Ψ(U)=Ψ(Ψ,U) = Ψ(Ψ(Ψ,U)) ad infinitum.

Sofia I am not quite sure if I understand your objection anent the reservoir, but there is in principle no issue with a sub system's "sub" wave function - which may remain loosely entangled with a wider system. For instance, in a metaverse system, any single universe may conceivably be remotely entangled with another universe, or not at all.

Chris, although I did not experience that someone changed the text of some of my questions, I find this topic important enough to deserve a separated discussion thread. So maybe you can put this question oficially. "Did someone experienced invisible hands who modify...?"

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Here are two very interesting lectures from Youtube, related to the thread.  Please, watch them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eZMf17wFs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRRnMS1sm6Y

Mihai, I contacted RG help. Let's see what comes out of it. Actually it's not the first time that happened to me - and I happen to be a native speaker of English, which obviously the unwelcome editor of my question was not.Thanks

@Ransford: It is nothing but metaphysics!

Hi, Chris!

My question stems from the fact that we don't know whether the Universe is what we are able to observe, or there is more than that. What we can observe is an expanding Universe, that we explain as having emerged from the Big Bang. But, there may be other Universes, with their own Big Bangs, and at the boundaries between the different Universes there may be gravitational interaction.

In that case, the wave-functions are entangled, and our Universe is not in a pure state, but in a mixture, i.e. doesn't have a well-defined wave-function.

Thus, what I tried to say was that your question is not decidable, because we don't know enough.

Now, let me add one more comment. You see, the Universe is a macroscopic object, not a microscopic one. It makes sense to speak of wave-function when we have to do with microscopic objects. For the purpose of your question, I can define a microscopic object in two way, both correct:

1) as an object whose linear dimensions are much smaller than its wavelength. 2) as an object consisting in so many components that the phases of joint movement of these components are erased, i.e. the density matrix of the object becomes diagonal.

Not only that a galaxy obeys these conditions, but even Schrodinger's cat obeys them, even a piece of chalk obeys them. We can't produce interference with the piece of chalk. Neither multi-particle interference with its molecules, unless we break the chalk into a fixed number of pieces so small as to obey condition 1. But the broken chalk is a different system than the entire chalk, i.e. without the chemical bonds that act between the parts of the entire object.

Nice to have a talk with you, and best regards,

Sofia

When i do computational physics, the very essence of the problem we're trying to solve is to get this one manybody wavefunction, because it is the only true respresentation of the system's state. Therefore, I do not get this question? I mean why would there not be one wavefunction for the multiverse since all the entities are correlated to each other? Or do we contest this proposition already that everything is not correlated to each other and there exist independent entities in the universe which are not influenced by anything, which are in the truest sense of the word  "free particles". Of course what I am proposing is not mathematically sound, but i don't understand the question in the first place.

Abhishek, I agree with you as far as the universe is concerned, I may have to let you on on why I asked in the first place. I once published a monograph which one early peer reviewer put down with the peremptory comment 'there is no such thing as a wave function of the universe!' He was later overriden, but being a tad puzzled I investigated, and have come to believe that he, like Ray Streater et al., just do not have a valid point (although the picture is more differentiated in a non Big Bang scenario or in a metaverse, where the final answer hinges on other dependencies.) Since I am currently writing another book where the WFU makes a central appearance, I needed to test some waters first, as I dread drawing other scathing comments from the llkes of that earlier peer reviewer.

Sofia, you can still write the WF of an entangled ensemble, with extraneous terms - which may be most often neglected, or lumped together in a catchall extra variable. The importance of that catchall variable is moot as long as the correlation is remote and weak, or as long as the extraneous terms are static in comparison with the other terms. Incidentally, it's very easy to produce interference with a piece of chalk: e.g., put it in your car and drive off. Now the chalk's WF has become ever so loosely entangled with the car's WF - which is why their very movements have become 'undissociable' i.e. correlated ......

 Omnipresent and all pervading conscious observer is collapsing the waves for us and that is why the world that is illusion is perceived as real by us.

Consciousness is a prerequisite to a collapsing wave function.

I have recently attended five days workshop on Science and Vedas, where many eminent scholars read their papers about secrets of cosmos and their vedic interpretations.

http://vipinbeharigoyal.blogspot.in/2016/01/secret-of-cosmos-in-vedic-literature.html

Ah, Chris,

you are probably a theoretician! Wave-function of a car?

I invite you to calculate the car's wavelength. And please tell us with which velocity should the car move for having a wavelength some bigger than the linear dimension of the car.

Let me already remind that   v = h / (Mλ),  where v is velocity, h is Planck's constant (2π x 10-34J sec), M is the mass of the car, and λ is the wavelength, which as I said,has to be bigger than the car length if you want to do interference experiments (in particular, entanglement experiments).

Please tell me whether in an entire human life you will see the car moving at least by a cm. After that, please tell me whether in a time interval as big as the age of the Universe, the car would move at least by a cm.

And now, maybe you'd be interested to calculate the wavelength of the movement of a galaxy.

Kind regards!

(P.S. I am also a theoretician, but I just know that Anton Zeilinger calculated the wavelength of a walking man. He got a wavelength by many, many, orders of magnitude smaller than an Angstrom.)

Sofia, not sure what you are saying here? I don't understand your post at all. A wave function has got absolutely nothing to do at all with a wavelength......

For instance - simplifying - the wave function Ψ  of a free hydrogen atom would be expressed by something like:

 Ψnlm(r,θ,φ)= Cnlm x Flm(θ) ○ Rnl(r) ○ Gm(φ) ,

with F(θ) being a Legendre function, R(r) of course a radial equation, G(φ) of the form exp(imφ), etc., and n, l, and m quantum numbers stemming from the boundary conditions on the functions R(r), F(θ), and G(φ), and Cnlm a constant arising out of normalization.

Wave functions become very quickly fiendishly complicated and incalculable (except in the simplest of cases, such as a free electron or a free hydrogen atom), however we know that wave functions do exist for any objective system of particles (such as a car), whether free (which well-nigh never happens) or further entangled with other systems

Sofia,

What you are speaking about in your last post is the "de Broglie wavelength". In the dawn of QM, de Broglie showed that every object had a wave with given wavelength associated to it. This wavelength becomes indeed extremely small for macrocopic objects like a walking man or a car : as you say "many, many, orders of magnitude smaller than an Angström", impossible to measure with present measurement means (see the link below to a "de Broglie wavelength calculator").

Concerning the question of Chris Ransford, let us just recall that in his "Lectures on Physics" (Book 3), Feynman alluded to the "quantum mechanical law for the dynamics of the world" (end of chapter 8-4 "How states change with time").

http://calistry.org/calculate/deBroglieEquation

“You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.”― Alan W. Watts

Dear Dr. H. Chris Ransford

Thank you for your question. It seems to me that your question is based on assumption that linear quantum mechanics is underlying everything in cosmos. But i do object this assumption, because the Universe is full of nonlinear phenomena, so if there is equation working for this cosmos, it should be a nonlinear dynamics equation, such as nonlinear Riccati equation. See for instance a recent work by Hans Cruz et al. at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02687

Hopefully this response may be found suitable for further investigation. Thanks

Thanks Victor,

Please do rest assured - the QM I'm dealing with is extremely non-linear .....full of backwards and forward loops, multi-tiered backfeeds, multilinear irreducible matrices, multi-D splits, and so on :-)))

@ Sophia

I come back to your last post. I am an engineer, not an expert in theoretical Quantum Mechanics. However, I am very interested in following literature on the physical bases of our world. So questions like “Is there a wave function of the universe ?” are appealing to me.

I have read several books and articles on recent development around what are called the present two basic theories in physics: Quantum Mechanics (including development towards quantum field theories, QED, QCD and the standard model) and General Relativity. I read also general books on the “state of Art” of String theory (from Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Brian Green, Lee Smolin …) and Loop Quantum Gravity (from Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli,…). And also syntheses like Roger Penrose’s “The Road to Reality"(2004).

In all these readings, never had I the feeling that Schrödinger’s equation could not be applied to macroscopic objects.

Only, as I understand it, QM can only be efficiently developed in practice for microscopic objects (photons, electrons, quarks, and further fermions, bosons, pions, …) at present time. This is because the difficulties of modeling and solving equations are quickly becoming gigantic when the atomic number is increased, when going to molecules, macro-molecules (proteins, ..), not to speek of macroscopic objects. Thus limitations due to practical reasons, never theoretical ones related to the basic nature of Schrödinger’s equation.

At the opposite, General Relativity (GR) is efficiently applied to macroscopic objects, even very big objects up to the universe itself. Here, contrary to QM, whose use as I just said, is limited for practical reasons, it is said that GR does fundamentally not apply to very microscopic and very dense objects : this is inherent to the theory and also a reason why big efforts are in course to find a Quantum Gravity theory combining GR with QM.

Now, coming to your post, you write that “… the wavelength … has to be bigger than the car length if you want to do interference experiments (in particular, entanglement experiments)….”

Does it mean that the possibility to do interference experiments (in particular, entanglement experiments), which is indeed illusory for macroscopic objects, is a condition “sine qua non” to fall under Quantum Mechanics theory, thus a theoretical limitation in the theory ?

Does it mean that there are theoretical reasons related to QM to no longer use Schrödinger’s equation as a basis to describe a lot of objects in the world because interference experiments which are possible to do on a class of objects, the very small ones, are impossible to do on them ?

In other words, are there theoretical reasons to exclude objects from QM because they do not follow odd behaviours,  predicted and experimentally proven thanks to our present testing abilities, but specific to a class of objects, the very microscopic ones ? Is a quest to develop prediction and experimental ways to describe macroscopic objects following QM pure theoretical non-sense ?

Actually it rather confirms the emerging picture of the universe we had all along. It's a serendipitous stroke of luck that 2 space & time-distant BHs could be belatedly observed to "hit" each other, an event momentous enough to allow for experimental confirmation...

I have no idea about the probability of a black hole collision in an interval of 100 earth years, but it looks that there are also many black holes:

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q7.html

I even wonder if by the estimation of dark matter the black holes have been considered or not. Are they counted to normal matter or to dark matter? The phrase "most of them are unknown and cannot be localized" is not ecouraging at all.

In the "Sciences" chronicle of my newspaper of yesterday (friday Feb.12) reporting on this first observation of gravitational waves by LIGO (Hanford, USA), they count black holes as normal matter. They get a total of 99 % of Universe's mass for : Black Matter + Black Energy + Black Holes. This would mean about 4-5 % for Black Holes. The scientific reporter undersigning the article is usually exact. But it is a newspaper, not Physical Review Letters : so, "under reserve of cautiousness".

I do not believe that the detection of gravitational waves confirms General relativity.  There is the problem with General relativity of the real existence of a vacuum and the inclusion entailed of a null from which comparison is made in constructions.  I think another interpretation is possible that constructs with form/shape in motion.  My view of gravitation is that it entails repulsion rather than attraction, i.e. self avoidance that is necessary for the conception of a world composed strictly of unique identities. This view does strain the imagination  more and seems less simple and more restricted for explanation, but I think it is the opposite-the mind is more boggled when it cannot visualize to enclose all in an exact box capturing start and finish, beyond which is nothingness. If interested see attached link for "The spaces in the looking glass..." It is necessary in accounting to stipulate and accept that totals are not knowable, before pieces are observed to fit together, always at least one figure  missing from the column.   Measurement would not be able to distinguish my view from Einsteins prediction, but there is recent experimental evidence that the light wave has a shape that determines a velocity that is variable (reference in paper), recent projections (yahoo  news) that though a black hole has no event horizon and would not be observable that it might cast a shadow that is egg shaped.  Experimental confirmation of the current model requires validation of a multi-verse, is logically impossible.   

Marvin,

The current inability to test something (such as the multiverse) is no reason to assume that it can not exist. This can not be a compelling reason for refusal in favor of other options.

Yes, falsifiable theory does not require non-empirical evidence. If it touches any objects that are currently impossible to feel empirically, but it well describes the rest of the phenomena with the possibility of prediction in a certain range, so there is no reason to consider it as non-falsifiable.

If an essential condition for the existence of such theory is the Multiverse and the anthropic principle, it means they do not need to challenge within the theory. The condition for refutation in this case may be a falsification of entire theory in any way.

Every hypothesis requires a theory which sends it into falsifiable category. It will be created for Multiverse, anthropic principle and something more simultaneously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

@Vasiiy i do not really like the use of "big print" to catagorize  things, e.g. is Einsteins theory of relativity correct? Researchers, as Einstein toss up ideas to share with others, and not in the sense that the Theory of Relativity is a unique identity that should be treated either it walks on its' own as a person with an identity does, or falls. 

I  basically think our believed and experimentally supported ontologies are very creatively arrived and basically sound, but ordered incorrectly into no sense cosmologies. Does "multi" mean multi-world or multi-universe. I define universe accordingly....a radio transmitter and receiver constitute a "universe" that is displaced via its' age from the one experienced at the first perspective of human observation, but all measureable structure has to be conceived to occupy the same world as the human self.  On another plane the however observable universe and  world can be argued to possess the same chirality or direction of turning of elements with respect to the progression of the whole, but two chiralities are theoretically possible but only one is relevant.It is not only hard to abstract the simultaneous existence of both but unnecessary.  Einstein himself was not satisfied with interpretation and also experienced life "on the public chopping block" of ideas named for absolute accounting as right or wrong. amidst Einsteins expressed doubt whether the world was divideable according to clock and measuring rod, perhaps time is not abstr?actly  mathematizable for  inclusion in broadest view, though for experimental purposes discrepancies are in the non feasible  for detection digit range. 

Marvin,

Perhaps the definition of the universe is one of the most commonly overridden in the history of mankind. And it is quite natural. Compare your observable universe and observable universe of Ptolemy. Apply "multi" prefix to the universe of Ptolemy and Copernicus, and you'll get all the later versions of our universe. Apply prefix multi to model of the Big Bang and you get a scale-invariant (multi)universe, the theory of relativity in which organically fit. This will lead to the next renormalization of infinity, that for mathematics with concept of the continuum is the usual everyday business faced by each.

I agree with you that detecting of the signal by LIGO is not a proof of general relativity (or something other). It only gives the another harmonization with the model of the GR. It may be consistent with other theories (as well as Newton's model is agreed with the model of SRT and physical observations at certain speeds). It is also natural. Physics deals with falsifiable theories and not provable theorems. Neither one theory is not absolute.

The laws that govern the formal systems (such as mathematics) and the existing models provoke certain consequences and conclusions. Physicists is not in vain pay much attention to Gödel's theorems. In this sense, for me (with the current set of observable physical phenomena) multiverse is an objective necessity for building a harmonious picture of the world.

Thanks to Godel's theorem not only Einstein, no one will never be satisfied with any existing theory.

PS: There is a misconception (once again it recently I saw in the article on theguardian.com/science), that Einstein brought his theory in mind absolutely from nothing.

@Vasiliy: If we are going to try to capture the world mathematically, and we are, in addition to or as corollary, (I think itis distinct from) there are no possible totals to be had for the column of totals in  the accounting leger, there is always at least one figure missing that ensues from an overlap of unknown value of (two original?) spaces as volumes intercourse with one another, and procedes the same from it.Every last possible rigorous treatment possesses an accounting redundancy, for time and space. It is not impossible to insert missing figures as extrapolations into the column "multiverse" with added supposition that all universes can be established abstractly based on observation taken in the present one(that i believe is ill defined). We are fitting figures together with a hammer and nails approach, the   high energy bombar dment of matter.   My opinion is if beginning assumptions involve redundancy, depletion will be the result. Then again wave functions can be constructed from the simple circle to be open and resilient, accomodating different settings differently while inherently expressing its awareness of the unknowable total.  In an earlier post in this thread it was humorously asked "what is the wavelength of a car?".  If all was exactly accountable it would be possible to derive a figure for the distance of, for example, the table lamp in the room where I write from myself.  In reality though, the range of possibly arbitrated figures is not within the range of possible whole value displacements, definition is incoherent. Existing within nature is a latitude of value for arbitration that applies not only to humans but to all the intervening spaces between objects, some objects capable for study and measurement cannot be designated to have natural histories though emerged with time. It depends on the arbitrator, whose or  what hand turns the crankshaft. In the natural biological  orientation, humans apply impulse to crankout eggs,animals, plants for food, space for humans is an artifact of his own hand, reflexively seen that wayThinking has progressed so far along  that same track that some physicists confuse artifact of their produce with the whole, claining the universe is a computer simulation.able to predict facets of focus but not for instance the distance of a desklamp from the chair hhe writes at or  himself and his own behavior...thee real aarbitrator never knws in advance. Maybe the shadow knows, but not of itself. there is but shadow though. 

Ancient wisdom of Vedas declare that universe has a wave function expressed as 'sound-like' wave A.......U.....M...... Now that LIGO has found that gravity is also expressed in 'sound-like' wave. Also, space behaves like a rubber sheet, making planets go in circles. Matter too consists of particles going in circles or spinning around their axis. Waves consist of innumerable circles in an expanding universe. Then, we cannot deny that universe may have a composite wave function.

I totally agree with your comment on the cat Christian, it seems that it's an arrant case of cognitive bias that Schrödinger's cat has never been seen as a potential observer itself.

It may go deeper than that - as per Free Will theorem, if free will exists then the whole universe is "alive", down to elementary particles, and alive/not alive becomes then a gradual, quantized phenomenon, as opposed to a binary one (at a macroscopic level, this seems to be reflected in the odd behaviour of slime mold, which can 'emerge' into animal life under certain circumstances.) Maybe we need to revisit our definition of what constitutes 'life'. Should the free will theorem not hold, then we are automatons, which in itself also redefines life.

(The issue with the self-referentiality of a universal wave function was mentioned in the question.)

To Christian,

That is why quantum mechanics in its pure form is not correct to apply to the universe. She could not describe the universe which obeys deterministic laws. But the statistics will need on the level of the multiverse.

Quantum mechanics (based on its historical genesis) is a phenomenological approach to describe a narrow slice of global processes. She does not understand the physics of the process. And even if in this way to construct a function for the entire ensemble of the system, will be a problem with the boundary conditions. Without this it is impossible to describe the processes generated due to system integrity. Observer, for example.

The approach of quantum mechanics is studying holistic object smashed into pieces. However, any other section of our system of knowledge has to do with the same. This is the banal final secret of the problem, or rather the secret of the Open (Infinite) Holistic System.

Vasily, I'm not sure if the universe "obeys deterministic laws". Radioactivity, for instance, does not, which is why a single radioactive event decay cannot in principle be pinpointed in advance of its happening. The tunnel effect does not either, etc. etc. - all of which are phenomena that take place routinely within the universe.

Am not sure either if QM 'does not understand the physics of the process' - many reputable physicists - Penrose, Tegmark, et al. - would very much disagree here. Boundary conditions are not an issue per se - they can be addressed in both closed and open systems, the real issue being that of convergence or otherwise. A system may of course be both open and convergent (asymptotic systems), and if a system is proven to be both open and divergent, then this is very instructive in itself on both the very essence of the system and its environment.

@ Christian: In my classes of ``classical'' quantum mechanics, I was always told that a photomultiplier was a measuring device, and that whatever peculiarities, if any, connected to any kind of collapse, occur way before the Professor arrives to collect the data.

That is why, in this respect, I think Mott's contribution was important: he studied the behaviour of an alpha particle emitted isotropically from a nucleus and propagating through a gas through which ionisation tracks could be generated. He then considers the whole system (alpha particle + gas) as a quantum system, and shows that rectilinear tracks are indeed generated by the isotropic alpha particle wave function.

To my mind, that is where collapse takes place, not when some ``conscious being'' (whatever that may mean) comes and looks. Under such circumstances, a wave function of the universe has no obvious contradictions that I can see.

On the other hand, I see the purpose of physics more in predicting what happens under  given circumstances, than to determine the nature of abstract unobservable entities. So, as long as the wave function of the Universe is not useful---but Stam has shown us that it can be---I would prefer to disregard it.

@H.Chris Rumford    "I'm not sure if the universe obeys deterministic laws."Radioactivity does not.......the tunnel effect does not either...."

with regards to my comment  in my post "the range of possibly arbitrated figures does not fall  within the range of whole value displacements"

   Is not stated correctly.  Clearer interpretation sees nature to possess a range that confines  arbitration possibility to a range possessing upto so  many significant figures, is wobbly, wishwashy as emergence leads from the past involving enormously large values that are not pictorially visualizable by the mind. In my example of the table lamp and writing desk and myself, a position for the table lamp somewhere between myself and the moon, for example, does not contradict theory, possibly very far out it does.  Life, inatimate matter, if there is eternally a figure missing from the column so that totals are unknowable all is non-deterministic, free willis the case.  Remember, an electron or atom is abstraction, always part of something else with borders or skin that contains it as a distinct unique identity bearing entity rather than uniformed soldier.  

@H.Chris Rumford    "I'm not sure if the universe obeys deterministic laws."Radioactivity does not.......the tunnel effect does not either...."

with regards to my comment  in my post "the range of possibly arbitrated figures does not fall  within the range of whole value displacements"

   Is not stated correctly.  Clearer interpretation sees nature to possess a range that confines  arbitration possibility to a range possessing upto so  many significant figures, is wobbly, wishwashy as emergence leads from the past involving enormously large values that are not pictorially visualizable by the mind. In my example of the table lamp and writing desk and myself, a position for the table lamp somewhere between myself and the moon, for example, does not contradict theory, possibly very far out it does.  Life, inatimate matter, if there is eternally a figure missing from the column so that totals are unknowable all is non-deterministic, free willis the case.  Remember, an electron or atom is abstraction, always part of something else with borders or skin that contains it as a distinct unique identity bearing entity rather than uniformed soldier.  

@ Chris Ransford,

About your concern of 9 days ago (« Just a separate observation on an RG issue - the original text of my question has been edited and the meaning garbled - is there an editor at RG who changes the wording of texts without asking or contacting the author first? »).

There is an « Editing and deleting policy » in RG’s link « Learn More » when you want to add a new question. Here is what is written there :

« Editing and deleting policy

To keep Q&A relevant, we may edit your question or answer for language and other inconsistencies. For minor edits, such as typos and grammar changes, you’ll be notified on-site. For larger edits, you’ll receive an email. Job or conference advertisements, publication requests, and requests for help with dissertation titles, as well as posts in a language other than English, will be deleted. »

So, the author is not contacted first but is notified or receives an e-mail for the changes made by RG staff.

This is the answer to your concern : probably you already received this answer from RG staff as a reaction to your inquiry to them !

Yes, Guibert, thank you. I received a reply and an apology for the wrong instance of editing, and the issue is closed.

Dear Christian and community,

As rightly noted here, RG prefers English. Please forgive for my terrible english. The reason is that in my native language theory must be an elegant lady.

Chris,

Many people are looking for answers to fundamental questions by cosmology or by quantum mechanics. They direct main efforts on the search for ways to combine the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics within theories. Therefore observer falls out of field of their vision, it is obvious.

If you look closely at all processes in the observable Universe, you will find that all objects are subject of evolution. Problem of self-organization and (in general) evolution of systems falls out together with observer. This means that the fundamental question of understanding of the nature of time also falls out. The concept of an observer (consciousness) are closely related to the issues of spontaneity and free will.

In order to get a complete picture you need to combine together at least three theories: the theory of relativity, the theory of self-organized criticality and quantum mechanics. Then you can get a superposition.

On the one hand the system can be described by a wave function, which is discussed. On the other hand, the system must be described as a part of infinite or finite (first more likely) attractor. Both can not be written in final form for an open system.

We are part of an evolving dynamic system. The concept of freedom and the concept of free will are illusion. Any individual as the system is part of a larger system (the society, the human civilisation, Life on Earth, the Universe...).

The concept of freedom is closely linked with the concept of freedom in the mechanics. We are dependent on the society of their own kind. The freedom of each of us in system of their own kind is limited by the freedom of others within their environment limits. A qualitative change in individual freedom of one possible with a similar change in the freedom of each. If your freedom will destroy the system that supports you (society, etc.), it eventually will limit your freedom. So the structure of the whole system settle the balance.

Free will is associated with decision-making. Every decision which you make is actually due to the existing conditions (circumstances) and an element of spontaneity (also circumstance). The correct solution in circumstances depends on conditions and does not depend on you (like any true solution of mathematical task), there is no any freedom of choice. Your incorrect spontaneous decision will be settled by outer system later with elimination of differences that caused by deviation of your state from the optimal state for a system that includes you. It works at the level of physics like natural selection. You are an unwitting part of this process. You never can say for sure that you affect circumstances, just as they affect you. This uncertainty is fundamental.

If the open System (Universe) has a determinism, and we are its Subsystem, we can not fully see determinism of System. It is only available at the (Multiverse) level at which the System itself is a Subsystem. At the Subsystem level external influences will be perceived as a spontaneous inner process.

By studying various phenomena on different scales we're dealing with subsystems. They may be quite different and does not have full analogies between as long as we do not see the Integrity of the System (Universe). Full analogies can be traced only at levels at which self-similarity appears (Multiverse). Determinism of infinite open system is paradoxical. It is impossible to know it absolutely.

This is a mechanistic view from the position of non-linear dynamic systems. Observed spontaneity is only illusion because we do not take into account the whole holistic system in all cases. Mechanics implies mutual bidirectional communication elements and the whole system. Quantum Mechanics takes a small group of elements of the system or even considering one element. Thus, it loses half of the observation of the phenomenon. Because of this there are strange phenomena like quantum entanglement etc., which do not fit into the QM framework.

The illusion of spontaneity can be demonstrated visually. If you consider a one-dimensional object as a point on the plane located along the normal and passing through one of its ends, any impact of the object located outside the plane be seen at this point as a spontaneous (internal) process for in-plane observer.

As I mentioned in other topic earlier, the observer has problem with thought experiments. We often argue using abstract concepts which slightly distort perception of reality. Problem of abstract observer lies in the fact that it sees all through the "eyes" of the experimenter (which performs a hypothetical experiment) with some core beliefs (a set of mathematical axioms or theories and models).

As far as I can judge from the available experimental observations in various branches of science and currently existing popular cosmological models, scale-invariant multiverse is the most preferred concept, which has a chance to cover all phenomena and resolve paradoxes.

Hi Chris,

The assumption that: "in the Big Bang picture, all particles (and hence downstream objects) were correlated at the inception of the Universe", sounds very strange to me. It is based on the validity of QM at this very first beginning. But we certainly know that QM is not valid there.

The "big bang" picture is always misleading as it results from a thought linear regression in time of the universe. Why should things remain linear down to the final collapse of the universe? The "big bang" is only a way to picture our ignorance of what is the universe when closing the Planck's limits. Why should a wave function of the universe be meaningful then?

Interesting answer as ever Charles .... the Big Bang is only of course one way a universe can be born (or rather several ways, since totally different causes can give rise to the end phenomenon of an apparent BB), and there is no reason why any lone universe would have chosen this particular mode of birth - which in itself, under the Copernicus principle, seems to militate in favor of a multiverse, in which all possible birth mechanisms realize themselves somewhere & somewhen.

Under some specific BB scenarios though, we are certain that quantum laws are operational at the inception of the universe, because under such scenarios a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the universe in the first place. So you are right that the question could be well-nigh equivalently reworded into 'What gave rise to our particular universe?'....

Copernican principle contrary implies that all the universes must originate in a similar manner.

Sorry Vasiliy it does not. It only says that there is nothing special about our universe, period, and therefore that if there is one way, of less than 100% odds, that our universe was born, then other universes may also be born, overall reflecting the respective statistical odds of all particular genesis modes.

The Copernicus principle makes no forecast whatsoever as to the outcome of a statistical event. Your argument above could then be used to say that a coin toss outcome must always follow the first coin toss's result..... The principle only says that all tosses are equivalently unbiased and that none is more special than another one. Therefore, statistically, over a large enough number of tosses, the spread of probabilities must become apparent in the distribution of outcome results. 

Since there are other ways that a universe can be born than via a specific BB scenario, then the Copernicus Principle strongly hints that other universes are born that way, otherwise the particular scenario that gave rise to a lone universe would be, well, special.

Chris,

I let beg to differ with your interpretation of this principle.

Copernican principle is also called the principle of mediocrity. Precisely because of this we can judge the distant objects by near objects from the time and outlook range of Copernicus.

Well, then we fully agree to disagree , and I don't think there are different "interpretations" of the principle. Please apply your interpretation to a coin toss.

I know it's also called the principle of mediocrity, thank you.

So maybe the problem in quantum mechanics? I can see it now, as well as the binary oppositions on all scales of invariant processes in system, not only at the level of the Schrödinger equation or coin.

Both in that and in another case, the unpredictability of the result is a consequence of ignorance of the boundary conditions and the failure to take into account such amount of data.

Even for coin the variety of choice is reduced only to two outcomes. Only one degree of freedom with two states.

 Consider the theory of evolution with respect to evolutionary drift.  For example a male and female insect of a species jump on a leaf in the wind and land together on a distant isolated island. From that time the genes they possess, a subset of the total within the colony existing  at the place from which they departed on  the leaf, are from which all further selection and diversity is derived. However, theoretically in abstraction, combining the new colony with the original results in only all the original genes and no new species, results in null were it not for the separation of old and new. In one perspective a theorist/researcher might claim,  "ah ha" each of the colonies, new and old, demark separate universe; depends where you stand; but I think the real description involves one "universe" entailing very little or nothing if added linearly for  a total,  but distinct and evolving distinctness, ad-infinitum, separated each from the other by distance.  The desciption given is at the level of living matter, but is universal; i.e. both the physical or inert and living,  intersecting and interacting at nodes, share familarity for interaction along a path of re-encountered likenesses, mutually descend on a common parent element, together, physical plus inert equals world.  A suitable candidate for a common parent is the "no event horizon" black hole.  I think what we see in space we identify as black holes are birthed relatives of the containing invisible one in some sort of special circumstance or process occuring.

Of course we're dealing with the statistical outcomes of sets of individual (usually skewed) stochastic processes, which over a number of events yield up recognizable statistics. The degrees of freedom associated with balanced-coin toss statistics grow with each toss event, e.g. (HTTHHHTHTHTTHTTT .... ) from which a recognizable statistical outcome arises, with the average peaking at the half/half metric in the balanced-coin coin toss picture ( a plot would show a very narrow bell curve of outcome statistics vs number of tosses.)

For radioactivity, for instance, the picture would be different - the energy to be borrowed  from the quantum vacuum for an individual atom to decay varies greatly depending on atomic weight, and over a large number of atoms a definite half-life pattern emerges..

Back to the question. Is there a Wave Function of the Universe (WFU) ?

 Let me answer by another question : why not ? After all, we decide on the tools to make research. The researchers decide if considering a single wave function for the whole universe will help discovering something new in the ocean of the unknown. If it is proven that this brings us to nothing (just proof it !) one can still use it as a philosophical way to integrate all the known in a concept triggering new thinking. Just replace the « world » of the ancients by the WFU.

I agree that « WFU is likely far more credible in a Big Bang scenario » and that « The best argument …. against in a Big Bang universe has to be the self-referential argument, which leads to an unascertainable WFU, but not necessarily to its non-existence » (Chris Ransford). But the self-referential argument is more a philosophical issue. If working with a WFU gives interesting results which push knowledge forward, let the philosophical objection wait aside !  

As recalled in the answers above :

« In any case, the wavefunction is, always, a means to an end (not more), the computation of transition amplitudes and the corresponding probabilities. » (bold added by me) and « A wavefunction doesn't give answers - it helps compute certain quantities » and also « the issue isn't in choosing whether the Universe has a wavefunction or a density matrix, but whether these concepts are relevant for describing properties of the Universe at all - and the answer is that, in principle, there's no problem - the Universe is an object like any other. » (Stam Nicolis)

Also « wave functions can be constructed from the simple circle to be open and resilient, accomodating different settings differently while inherently expressing its awareness of the unknowable total. » and « Life, inanimate matter, if there is eternally a figure missing from the column so that totals are unknowable all is non-deterministic, free will is the case.  Remember, an electron or atom is abstraction, always part of something else with borders or skin that contains it as a distinct unique identity bearing entity rather than uniformed soldier. » (Marvin Kirsh) 

Or « we know that wave functions do exist for any objective system of particles (such as a car), whether free .... or further entangled with other systems » (Chris Ransford).

One can fully understand that everyday experimenters and thinkers in the field of QM react saying that « the Universe is a macroscopic object, not a microscopic one. It makes sense to speak of wave-function when we have to do with microscopic objects » (Sofia Wechsler) in view of the huge difficulties already encountered designing and processing good experiments on a few microscopic entities.

However, there also there is astounding progress : "macroscopic" objects begin to be tested using the laws of QM. For instance as I didn’t see any mention of it in the answers, I’d just quote the experiments of Serge Haroche and co-workers on « macroscopic » « Schrödinger’s cats » (1 meter high objects in QM superposition during 0,1 ms - see enclosed links).

So, sooner or later, discoveries will probably be done by using QM on macroscopic objects (including the universe) or by changing / adapting QM to allow such discoveries.

I agree with Christian Baumgarten : "why should a cat not be an observer ?" Can we even dare to say :  why should an electron not be an « observer » of a photon swooping down upon him ? Why should a researcher not be an observer of the universe he has all the time under the eye because he is part of it ? QM is not fixed : it is up to researchers to decide what it will become in the future.

After all, isn’t free will probably the most obvious result of QM ?  QM tells us that there are superpositions of states and entanglements of objects all the time and everywhere in that incredible universe we live in. ...... And (I add) where all are probably observers from electron to man and woman, and where wave functions collapse unceasingly (every picosecond or less ?) giving rise to time, to the visible universe and to free will.     

 Herunder the links to :

• Haroche's 2012 Nobel lecture (...RevModPhys.85.1083)
• Article in Scientific American (...bringing schrodingers quantum cat to life)
• Youtube video of a lecture of Haroche  

http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1083

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bringing-schrodingers-quantum-cat-to-life/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7YpQRMMsuM

Are the argument you mention really contradicting? I am not an expert, but it seems to me that the first one is an argument about the existence of the wave function, while the contradicting arguments only speak to its observability, I don´t see how they are mutually exclusive. Of course it won´t be testable or even imaginable, but to an outside observer it would be observable.

But that is exactly the issue, Christoph: there would be no such thing as an 'outside observer' ...... and everything then becomes metaphysics

Same for the interaction / entanglement with the observer ? What is it precisely (meta-)physically ?

Clearly, if we at all wish to consider the wave function of the Universe, we must discard the possibility that it should be observed. But QM tells us a good deal about what wave functions do when they are not observed. Namely they follow, essentially, the Schroedinger equation. In fact, what we know about unobserved wave functions is more precise than what we believe we might know about the srtange process called measurement. So I see no objection to using the wave function of the Universe as a tool, particularly if at the end of the day  one obtains results.

We may be reminded of the fact that a cubic, having only real zeroes, requires computation with complex numbers to derive the values of these real zeroes: we sometimes need to use unfamiliar concepts to obtain important real results.

I am not qualified to say whether this applies to the wave function of the Universe, but precisely for this reason I would rather err on the side of thinking it possible, rather than the reverse.

I think it’s not possible to explain any ability of “movement” of particle or field without the existence of wave function behind the universe. Existence of the wave function of the universe is not optional but vital. Here another question arise that why nature adopt/select wave function for the purpose?

Thanks for interesting comments Mihai, however,

In your 2) you should probably have replaced the phrase 'whole universe' by 'metaverse'.

In your 1) I think the issue is probably a lot more complex, i.e. you cannot define 'deterministic' without having totally understood the phenomenon of time (because determinism implies a cause & effect scenario which requires some form of sequential time), and the issues with that are many - to begin with, Time, even in our simple (3,1) signature spacetime,  is not wholly sequential (for instance, how exactly would determinism work in a delayed choice experiment in a (3,1) signature ST?) You are right that hidden timelines could force determinism in sideways, but the issue then becomes that time works out very differently at other spacetime signatures, and if you are going to force determinism in that way, calculations show that you are thereby implicitly restricting possible ST signatures , which then in turn kind of restricts your ability to impose determinism! So maybe we don't have the final word on this, and the multiverse is more complex than what we may dream of.

More generally, I think we must be very very wary about being 'convinced' of anything without utterly incontrovertible, final mathematical evidence. Human instincts and/or hunches are conditioned by the needs of our evolutionary survival, and have been proven so many times to be extremely poor judges of actual reality.

Dear H. Chris,

I have been casually reading this thread because I, like all of you I'm sure, am presently very busy.  Nevertheless, I noticed that most of the answers in this thread do not consider the possibility that our reality may be immaterial, in which case the formulation of a universal wavefunction becomes a matter of finding the wave model that best approaches (simulates) Reality.

Reality hints to its oscillatory infrastructure at all the levels we have so far discovered, for the atomic level we have QM (its all about waves and wavefunctions) and at the macro level we have de Broglie waves, which are very closely related to angular momentum and can be easily modeled by means of the Gaussian wavefunction of QM, by just changing its scale constant.

If Reality is immaterial, then:

• Reality's model becomes the subject of Information Theory, Digital Signal Processing, the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling theorem, Discrete-event Systems, Time-series Analysis and the like.
• The Fourier transform becomes the transformation process from the motional (temporal) to the displacement (spatial) domain.
• The Heisenberg uncertainty principal can be easily attributed to a constraint imposed by the Fourier transform itself.
• The QM wavefunction becomes real and its no longer a probability distribution.
• Entanglement becomes an infrareal transaction (non-locality).
• There is no "collapse" of a wavefunction.
• The isotropy of the speed of light can be explained in terms of the sampling interval and Nyquist frequency of Reality.
• The orthogonality of the Lorentz transformation becomes obvious and so does Special Relativity.
• Etc, etc, etc.

From the moment we are born we are immersed into a material sensory dream that we haven't wanted to wake from. Not because we like it or understand it, but because we haven't been aware of its nature.

I firmly believe that removing the material veil will empower us to transcend to a new magic (a new science and technology).

In your own words:

"More generally, I think we must be very very wary about being 'convinced' of anything without utterly incontrovertible, final mathematical evidence. Human instincts and/or hunches are conditioned by the needs of our evolutionary survival, and have been proven so many times to be extremely poor judges of actual reality."

Best Regards,

Bernardo.

Dear H. Chris,

I feel like the fellow who told an inappropriate joke about the bride in a wedding reception. I can hear the crickets.

The following is not directed just to you Chris, it is directed to all of us to ponder upon.

My answer proposes a possibility with a high degree of probability.

We are surrounded already by innumerable immaterial realities (IRs) of our own making. It is a fact that most of us are not aware as to how they are manifested or of their limitations (music, movies, videos, games, etc.), nonetheless we enjoy them without ever questioning if they are "real" or not.

Modeling Reality as an IR makes available all of Information Theory and its tools. Tools that belong to the realm of practicality and reverse engineering, not of pure mathematics, philosophy or theology.

I see men of science struggling to find a single equation (or set of equations) that describes Reality and getting further from it the more they try. Maybe there is no such thing. It took Nature billions of years to develop dusts of consciousness like ours, yet we expect the dust to figure the whole in a swift moment of enlightenment.

I suggest we get off the podium and start doing the grunt-work it may require to understand Reality piece by piece.  When computers were invented, their inventors thought that they would replace scientists and chess players in the near future. Now we know that AI is not a single formula, but a lot of grunt-work. You can ask Google how much work has been required, by them and thousands of engineers before them, in order to perform a simple "intelligent" context search.

By the way, I was one of those engineers before them.

Best Regards.

Bernardo.

Dear Bernardo,

We can not ignore the consideration of reality as a single entity by virtue of the fact that all objects in it exist in interaction. It is obvious that there are laws that support this interaction.

It is embodied in the concept of holistic systems. The definition of the system in general carries the imprint of this concept (the system has properties that are missing in its components).

In this sense the reality as system is a connected object. This quality is mutual for the whole system with entire content (that most notably seen on very complex objects such as biological organisms).

"Immaterial realities" are merely another information layers in the ordering coherent evolving dynamic structure, nothing more. Self-organization is directly related to the entropy. Understanding the holistic entity makes it easy to get rid of the illusion of the ideal world of Plato. More specifically, it allows relatively easy see how the abstract objects exist in our world.

The reason for searching "theory of everything" is not a whim, it is an objective necessity. Now we came to the moment when impossible to investigate the subject only in mode "piece by piece" even in individual branches of science.

Research Hypothesis: Mind Map (version 1)

Dear Vasiliy,

First of all thanks for your comments, even if they were contradicting I still would prefer them to indifference. That way I can test my ideas.

It's difficult to disagree with you, given that the subject is very slippery, to say the least. Yes, Reality is a single entity, but not necessarily a single homogeneously structured system. When I said piece by piece, I meant function by function and yes it needs to be connected. We must also learn how it is connected.

Perhaps because I am more of a systems engineer than a physicist or mathematician and because as I stated before, Reality exhibits the behavior of a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) system, I am more inclined to model it that way, mostly as a Hierarchical Discrete-event Transactional System, with photons as the transactional currency and motion and displacement as its only two domains, without any material (permanent) substance. I have written a few monographs to that effect, but that is just my way of analyzing the problem.

Obviously, no matter what method we use, we are all looking in essence for a theory of everything. What I object to, is looking for a set of equations or mathematical theory that somehow manages to describe everything (a single mathematical design). That particular approach does not seem to me the right one, given my reasons and prejudices.

I am not trying to convince (maybe influence a bit) anyone to adopt my methods and I would not dare to suggest that anyone else's is the wrong approach. My only purpose is to test my ideas by presenting them to others capable of analyzing them, so that I may modify them accordingly and perhaps also contribute to somebody else's methods. That, I believe, is the most valuable asset of RG.

In regards to the question at hand (H Chris's), a universal wavefunction can very easily (and fittingly, as I have shown in some of my monographs) be a constituent of a DSP system.

Thanks,

Bernardo.

Christian, the best answer is probably Stephen Battersby's at http://bit.ly/1F7rtYd , but see also Max Tegmark, Shin Tung Yau, et al.

When you strip away what you call 'realness', what is left is pure mathematics

Dear Bernardo et al,

I also spent some time working as an engineer. I well understand what you mean. However, it should be noted that within "handling signals" your "DSP" device will always remain on the sidelines like a black box with phenomenological approach to description. It is very convenient for engineering calculations, but only partly helps to advance the theoretical understanding of the object. Like all the tools of statistical physics.

I interpret most of the references to the "immaterial" things (not reality) as the information. However, information is only the order of alternation of other (material) objects. Due to the invariance of carrier (media) it is perceived as something "immaterial" - abstract objects are difference between other (including material) objects. It directly relates to entropy.

Mathematics endowed with divine properties by the man, which now worship it instead of to understand the nature of it. As H. Chris rightly reminded "When you strip away what you call 'realness', what is left is pure mathematics".

The mathematics is the final subject of study in physics.

Of course, this is my opinion, which seems to me obvious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvIOzVJMCM

Christian B.,

Unfortunately, Reality is one of a group of concepts, like time, motion and consciousness, that we can discuss without any problem while understanding each other perfectly, but when we try to analyze them, somehow they blur together in some synergistic fashion that makes them undefinable, except in terms of each other. Consequently, the question of what is real or not, also becomes part of that blur.

Obviously, anything that we can observe, is real. Ooops!... observe? Maybe I can't define what observing is, but I think we all know what it is.  Know?  is?  we? think?

What I'm trying to say is that if we start a nit-picking contest, we will usurp H Chris's thread ad infinitum, getting nowhere, which I believe is not what he wants.

Having said that, let me try to explain by example, what I mean by an immaterial reality (IR):

• A recorded sound clip. It exists on a recording medium, it is manifested, played back, reconstructed, expressed by some process so that we can observe, perceived, sense it.
• A video clip. The IR exists (is recorded) on a DVD it is expressed by a DVD player (process) and it is observed (enjoyed) by us.
• An IR exists somewhere, is expressed by a process and finally it is observed.
• An IR involves three stages, memory, transformation and observation.

So far I have described IRs without feedback. An IR with a feedback loop is exemplified perfectly by computer games. This type of IR exists, is processed by a game engine, is observed by the player, then the player modifies the IR's existence by a feedback loop and the whole process repeats.

I think it is obvious to all of us that the violins, the characters and their environment in all three examples are not material but once we observe them they definitely become (are expressed as) real. That is what I mean by what is immaterial , what is real. and what is an immaterial reality.

It is therefore possible that our reality is an interactive (with feedback) IR as follows:

• It exists somewhere unobservable (I call it Infrareality),
• It is processed by some infrareal process and then,
• It is manifested by us.
• Nothing material is involved until an observer observes it, which could be Schroedinger's cat, by the way.

I have applied these concepts to some degree of success using a wavefunction that is similar, if not the same, to the Gaussian wavefunction of QM and using the Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform (IDFT) as the transformation process.

Best Regards,

Bernardo.

I think that the Universe cannot be described in terms of quantum mechanics of particles. We can receive the full picture only in the frame of system of equations of quantum field theory. In fact this system is nonlinear, that is pure state of the universe will dacay in a short time.

 My paper on nonlinearity of quantum mechanics and solution of the problem of wave function collapse ca be found also here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280062863_Nonlinearity_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Solution_of_the_Problem_of_Wave_Function_Collapse

Article Nonlinearity of Quantum Mechanics and Solution of the Proble...

Christian,

My apologies for not commenting on your answer before.

"thank you for the explanation. It helped. Though - to store a video clip, some real material form is required. Isn't it?

Information does not require a specific storage, but some."

I don't believe the concept of an immaterial Reality answers the question of a preceding process, it actually requires one.

From my point of view of a systems engineer, I see the concept of an immaterial Reality as a personal choice of origin and design for the reverse engineering of physical laws in terms of information theory. You can call this method, as I call it, Infophysics or less generally as Digital Physics.

what would actually happen if there was a wavefunction of the universe and it would be measured? Would all the uncertainty in our universe vanish? Or would the universe collapse?

 Christoph, by definition you could not measure it - because you would be a part of it, and by measuring it you would send the measurement into an endlessly ever-shifting, self-generating, divergent loop.

I think the old phrasing of 'collapse' has been properly changed into coherence / decoherence, which then becomes self-explanatory here: there would be - by definition - nowhere for the wave function to decohere towards (or in technical terms, there would not exist anywhere any further variables to be absorbed by the WF, and on the other hand the shedding of any variables would immediately kill the status of being the WF of the Universe), and hence it could not ever decohere.

Mind you, there is a certain (cf. Joseph Lykken) scenario where that could kind of happen, but to cut a long story short, it would be a case of decoherence towards another universe, and the WF of the metaverse would actually still abide.

The observer (in the classical sense of quantum mechanics) is an integral part of the object, which is the unit universe. His existence is directly related to the existence of own universe (such observer itself exists within a single "period" of the object). For such a classical observer does not make sense to talk about the state of the object, he knows it for sure, anyway uses other methods of measurement/cognition.

To operate the probability distribution of something a statistic is needed. For universes it can only make sense when considering the Multiverse. This is a different order of objects and different level of observer position, which is detached from the studied single object. Definitely, such a statistic will be subject to other laws than are known in quantum mechanics.

The uncertainty principle, nature of which is related to the limit sampling in information theory, on such macroscopic level will not express themselves. Such a statistics will have more in common with statistics of the classical kinetic theory. Potentially limited (or potentially infinite, if you like) eternal existance will play a principal value of the contribution to the uncertainty of a single universe.

Jeanan Shafiq gave a graph of the universe wave function in the chain of conversation above. (Just search for her name on this page and you will see.) Can someone tell me where to find such a graph, i.e., in books or journals? And where did she get the interpretation of the graph, which she put below the graph? Or where can we get a similar interpretation? I will be grateful to anyone 's help.