Date 20 January 2012, kategori Genel Bilimsel, author Güneþ Tan

Physicist Jonh Archibald Wheeler (a man with pronounced antipathy toward psi research) has theorized that, at a microscopic level, quantum effects might tear the fabric of spacetime, producing a structure involving wormholes. He speculated that such wormholes could connect pairs of oppositely charged particles such as electrons and positrons.

Wheeler’s hypothetical structure is sometimes called the “quantum foam.” Such wormholes may exist on a macroscopic scale and, in some cases, rotating black holes may give rise to a “tunnel” or shortcut to another region of spacetime. Physicist Fred Alan Wolf has implicitly suggested (in a cartooned text called Space, Time and Beyond) that such wormholes may provide the connections needed to explain psi phenomena over long distances or temporal intervals.

Wolf, himself, has become one of the most prolific and articulate writers interpreting the complexities of theoretical physics to a general audience — particularly those interested in psi and consciousness. His book, Parallel Universes, is probably the best popular explanation of Everett and Wheeler’s “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Multidimensional Spacetime

Multi-dimensional models of spacetime have been proposed by physicist/psi researchers Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff and Edwin May. They proposed that ordinary four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime may be the “real” part of an eight-dimensional complex spacetime.,

An eight-dimensional models of spacetime to account for psi have also been proposed by physicist Elizabeth Rauscher. She suggests that soliton waves in a complex multidimensional space might serve as possible psi signals, as they would be able to propagate over large “distances” with little attentuation.

She asserts that signals that appear to be superluminal in four-dimensional spacetime may be subluminal in eight-dimensional spacetime.

The EPR Effect and Bell’s Theorem

Recent theoretical developments in quantum theory known as the EPR effect (named Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen’s 1935 paper on the quantum connection between spatially separated systems), now formulated in a theorem by John S. Bell (called Bell’s Theorem), allow for the an instantaneous effect between any two places in the physical universe.,, There is no violation of Einstein’s theory of relativity because the effect does not require the propagation of energetic signals. The confirmation of this principle of nonlocality suggests that psi phenomena, if they exist, need not be in conflict with the established laws of science.

The prejudice of classical causality says that an event can only be influenced by other events that are in its past light cone. Events in the future light cone and outside the light cone in the “absolute elsewhere” are said not to influence the event of interest. Classical causality does work on the statistical level in which we average our observations over sets of events. Almost all of the measurements of atomic physics are adequately described by the statistical limit of the quantum principle.

However, both general relativity and quantum theory in the form of Bell’s theorem show that classical causality is not correct in principle on the level of individual events., Recent experiments by John Clauser at U.C., Berkeley, and Alain Aspect at the University of Paris, show that classical causality is violated for individual atomic events. (Local causes operate within the velocity of light.) These experiments measure the simultaneous arrival of two photons at spatially separated detectors., The two photons originate from the same atom. Bell’s theorem enables one to calculate what the r`0d of simultaneous arrival should be if the statistical predictions of quantum theory are correct. It also enables one to calculate the rate of simultaneous arrival if physical reality is objective and locally causal for the individual photons.

The experiments of Clauser and Aspect contradict the rate of photon coincidences predicted on the basis of an objective and locally causal reality. The measured rate agrees with the prediction of ordinary quantum theory. This means that physical reality either is not subject to the principle of local causation or does not objectively exist independent of the observers who participate in its creation.

Bell’s Theorem and the related experiments may have importance for the understanding of personal human experience. The human brain stores and processes its information at the level of single organic molecules and is a single macroscopic quantum system. Acts of consciousness may be vie ed as incorporating quantum events.

The illusion of the classical scientific paradigm that is shattered by the quantum principle is the assumption that there is an immutable objective reality “out there” that is totally independent of what happens in consciousness “in here.” Quantum theory forces a new kind of logic in science that is still mathematical and disciplined. The Nobel prize physicist Eugene Wigner of Princeton has repeatedly written that consciousness is at the root of the quantum measurement problem.

All classical measurements, including classical measurements of quantum processes of the type considered by Heisenberg in his “microscope” that leads to the uncertainty principle, involve the actual flow of energy and momentum in order to convey information. For example, Heisenberg reasons that the position of an electron must be measured by means of a second particle, e.g. a photon, that must collide with the electron in order to get the information on the electron’s position. The fact that action is quantized in units of Planck’s constant, h 10-27 erg-sec., implies uncontrollable minimal energy and momentum transfers between photon and electron in the collision. The result of Heisenberg’s thought experiment is that it is impossible to predict the simultaneous values of both the position and the momentum of the electron with complete certainty. The only way to gain knowledge of the uncertainties is to repeat the experiment many times under “identically prepared” conditions. These kinds of classical measurements of quantum processes are fundamentally statistical.

Josephson proposes that there may be another level of measurement that transcends the limitations of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. He says that this limitation is perhaps only a “reflection of the kinds of observation we can make,” and that “the physical description of the world would change radically if we could observe more things.” Einstein was also firmly convinced that there was another way to knowledge, but his refusal to accept the “telepathic” implications that he saw so clearly in his EPR effect prevented him, like Moses, from seeing the promised land. Thus, Einstein’s Autobiographical Notes contain this remark about the EPR effect:

There is to be a system which at the time t of our observation consists of two partial systems S1, and S2, which at this time are spatially separated….If I make a complete measurement of S1, I get from the results…an entirely definite Y-function Y2 of the system S2. The character of Y2 then depends upon what kind of measurement I undertake on S1….One can escape from this conclusion only by either assuming that the measurement of S1 (telepathically) changes the real situation of S2 or by denying independent real situations as such to things which are spatially separated from eath other. Both alternatives appear to me entirely unacceptable.

It is very interesting to note here that the Y function referred to by Einstein is the standard quantum probability function, referring to the mathematical probabilities which underly the subatomic interactions of the physical world (i.e., Schrodinger’s Wave Function). At least one physicist has commented on the possible synchronicity that this physical term may be very relevant in the psi effect of consciousness researchers.

Physicists have actually developed a number of possible conceptual strategies for integrating the EPR effect and Bell’s Theorem. Physicist Nick Herbert, in his book Quantum Reality, describes eight possible interpretations: there is no underlying reality; reality is created by observation; reality is an undivided wholeness; there are actually many-worlds; the world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning; the world is made of ordinary objects; consciousness creates reality; unmeasured quantum reality exists only in potential. Each of these interpretations poses its own paradoxes. Given Bell’s Theorem and the EPR effect, all of them must allow for non-local (or superluminal) interactions.

The Implicate Order

The nonlocal nature of the state vector collapse, as described above, suggests that particles of matter are not accurately describable as separate, localized entities. Rather seemingly isolated or separate particles may be intimately connected with one another and must be seen as parts of a higher unity.

Physicist David Bohm has referred to the universe as a “holomovement,” invoking an analogy to a hologram (a three-dimensional photograph in which the entire picture is contained in each part). Bohm has termed the world of manifest appearances the “explicate order” and the hidden (nonlocal) reality underlying it the “implicate order.” He also proposes a new mode of speaking, which he calls the rheomode, in which “thing” experessions would be replaced by “event” expressions.

Observational Theories

Physicist Evan Harris Walker has put forth an observational theory that equates the conscious mind with the “hidden variables” of quantum theory.

Walker notes that, due to the necessarily nonlocal nature of such hidden variables, quantum state collapse by the observer should be independent of space and time; hence, psi phenomena such as telepathy should be independent of space-time separation.

Noting that the conventional view in physics is to deny that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics have implications beyond the mathematical formalisms, Walker defines his theory:

The measurement problem in Quantum Mechanics has existed virtually from the inception of quantum theory. It has engendered a thousand scientific papers in fruitless efforts to resolve the problem. One of the central features of the controversy has been the argument that characteristics of QM imply that an observer’s thoughts can affect an objective apparatus directly, which in turn implies the reality not only of consciousness but of psi phenomena. I have written several papers saying that such a feature of QM is not a fault, but rather represents a solution to problems that go beyond the usual perview of physics. Thus, I have developed a theory of consciousness and psi phenomena that arises directly from these bizarre findings in QM, findings now supported by specific tests of the principles of objective reality and/or Einstein locality.

Walkerspecifies channel capacities for various “regions” of mental activity. He calculates the rate for “dataprocessing of the brain as a whole at a subconscious level” (S) to be euqal to 2.4 x 1012 bits/sec. The data rate for conscious activity (C) is equal to 7.5 x 108 bits/sec, and the channel capacity of the “will” (W) is equal to 6 x 104 bits/sec.

Walker’s derivation of the above rates is based on the assumption that electron tunneling across synapses is the basis for the transmission of impulses across synapses and that the large-scale integration of brain activity is also mediated by electron tunneling.

Copenhagen physicist Richard Mattuck has proposed an observational theory which builds on the work of both Helmut Schmidt and Evan Harris Walker. He asserts that PK results from the restructuring of thermal noise through the action of mind, involving a decrease in entropy. His hypothesis is “not of the ‘Maxwell demon’ type” as “it does nK� operate by selection of states of individual molecules, but rather by the selection of macroscopic pure states.” Using the example of a moving ball, Mattuck notes that, as its velocity is distributed about its current mean due to thermal noise, an observer can select increasingly higher velocity states. This selection may be made in steps, resulting in possible incremental increase in velocity by the ball.

SOURCES

Physicist Evan Harris Walker (“Review of Mind At Large,” Journal of Parapsychology, 45, 1981, 184-191) has observed, however, that if we retain the inverse-square law for gravity, the effect of four extra dimensions on planetary trajectories should have been observed.

. John S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,” Physics, 1(3), 1964, 195-200.

. Nick Herbert, “Crytographic approach to hidden variables,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 43, No. 4, April 1975, pp. 315-316. This paper presents a proof of Bell’s theorem by considering error rates in binary message sequences. It also speculates about the possibility of faster-than-light signaling.

. Nick Herbert, Faster Than Light. New York: New American Library, 1988.

. J. S. Bell, Nature, 248, March 22, 1974, 297.

. Fred Alan Wolf, “The Quantum Physics of Consciousness: Towards a New Psychology,” Integrative Psychiatry, 3(4), December 1985, 236.

. Fred Alan Wolf, Parallel Universes. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988.

. Russell Targ, Harold E. Puthoff & Edwin C. May, “Direct Perception of Remote Geographical Locations,” in C. T. Tart, H. E. Puthoff, & R. Targ (eds.), Mind At Large. New York: Praeger, 1979, pp. 78-106. The authors state this work was in conjunction with physicist Gerald Feinberg — who is well-known for his postulation of the existence of tachyons, particles that travel faster than light.

Elizabeth A. Rauscher, “Some Physical Models Potentially Applicable to Remote Perception,” in A. Puharich (ed.), The Iceland Papers. Amherst, WI: Essentia: 1979. pp. 50-93.

. Elizabeth A. Rauscher, “The Physics of Psi Phenomena in Space and Time. Part I. Major Principles of Physics, Psychic Phenomena, and Some Physical Models,” Psi Research, 2(2), 1983, 64-88.

. Elizabeth A. Rauscher, “The Physics of Psi Phenomena in Space and Time. Part II. Multidimensional Geographic Models,” Psi Research, 2(3), 1983, 93-120.

. C. Ramon & Elizabeth A. Rauscher, “Superluminal Transformations in Complex Minkowski Spaces,” Foundations of Physics, 10, 1980, 661-669.