Our intellectual heritage for thousands of years, most strongly developed in the past few hundred Our intellectual heritage for thousands of years, most strongly developed in the past few hundred years of science, has been to see ourselves as separate from the rest of nature, to convince ourselves we see it objectively -- at a distance from ourselves -- and to perceive, or at least model it, as a vast mechanism.
This objective mechanical worldview was founded in ancient Greece when philosophers divided into two schools of thought about the world. One school held that all nature, including humans, was alive and self-creative, ever making order from disorder. The other held that the `real' world could be known only through pure reason, not through direct experience, and was God's geometric creation, permanently mechanical and perfect behind our illusion of its disorder.
This mechanical/religious worldview superseded the older one of living nature to become the foundation of the whole Western worldview up to the present.
Philosophers such as Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato were thus the founding fathers of our mechanical worldview, though Galileo, Descartes, and other men of the Renaissance translated it into the scientific and technological enterprise that has dominated human experience ever since.
What if things had gone the other way? What if Thales, Anaximander, and Heraclitus, the organic philosophers who saw all the cosmos as alive, had won the day back in that ancient Greek debate?
What if Galileo, as he experimented with both telescope and microscope, had used the latter to seek evidence for Anaximander's theory of biological evolution here on Earth, rather than looking to the skies for confirmation of Aristarchus's celestial mechanics? In other words, what if modern science and our view of human society had evolved from organic biology rather than from mechanical physics?
I couldn't say. We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception.
Explain who David Bohm was and his hypothesis that particles ride on pilot waves.
David Bohm (1917–1992) was an American-born theoretical physicist renowned for his contributions to quantum mechanics, plasma physics, and philosophy of science. Born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, he studied under J. Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley, earning his PhD in 1943. 2 Bohm’s early career involved work on plasmas during World War II at the Manhattan Project’s radiation laboratory, but he faced significant personal and professional challenges, including being blacklisted during the McCarthy era for alleged communist sympathies, which led to his arrest in 1950 (though he was later acquitted) and eventual exile to Brazil, Israel, and eventually the UK, where he became a professor at Birkbeck College in London. 1 5 Beyond quantum theory, Bohm explored concepts like the “implicate order” in the universe, dialogue as a form of collective thinking, and collaborations with philosophers like Jiddu Krishnamurti, influencing fields from physics to consciousness studies. 2 He is often described as one of the 20th century’s most influential physicists despite his unconventional ideas facing resistance from mainstream quantum orthodoxy. 2
Bohm’s most famous contribution to quantum mechanics is his revival and development of the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics or the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. 0 Originally proposed by French physicist Louis de Broglie in the 1920s as a way to reconcile wave-particle duality, the idea was largely abandoned until Bohm independently rediscovered and refined it in 1952 while working in Brazil. 6 7 8 In this hypothesis, quantum particles (like electrons) are not probabilistic entities as in the dominant Copenhagen interpretation, where particles exist in superpositions until measured. Instead, particles have definite positions and trajectories at all times, “riding” on a guiding or “pilot” wave described by the wave function (ψ) from Schrödinger’s equation. 0 1
The pilot wave is a real, physical field that permeates space and evolves deterministically, influencing the particle’s motion through a “quantum potential” that encodes information about the entire system. 4 6 This makes the theory nonlocal—changes in one part of the system can instantly affect distant particles via the wave function—explaining phenomena like entanglement without invoking observer-dependent collapse. 1 Bohmian mechanics reproduces all predictions of standard quantum mechanics but offers a more intuitive, deterministic ontology by treating particles as classical-like objects guided by the wave, much like a surfer rides an ocean wave. 0 However, it introduces “hidden variables” (the precise particle positions, unknown to observers), which Bohm argued resolve quantum paradoxes while maintaining realism. 6 Despite initial dismissal for being “too philosophical” or equivalent to other interpretations, it has gained renewed interest in recent decades for its potential in quantum computing, chaos theory, and experiments testing quantum foundations. 1 4
In **Bohmian mechanics** (1952), David Bohm reinterpreted quantum mechanics by treating particles as **real, definite objects** with precise trajectories, guided by a **pilot wave** \(\psi(x,t)\).
To make this guidance physically intuitive, Bohm derived a new term from the wave function: the **quantum potential** \(Q\).
---
### Definition of the Quantum Potential
Starting from the Schrödinger equation for the wave function in polar form:
\[
\psi(x,t) = R(x,t) e^{iS(x,t)/\hbar}
\]
where \(R = |\psi|\) is the amplitude and \(S\) is the phase.
Bohm showed that the **particle velocity** is:
\[
\mathbf{v} = \frac{\nabla S}{m}
\]
And the **guidance equation** leads to a modified Newton’s law:
> **Key Insight**: \(Q\) depends **not** on the intensity of the wave (\(R^2\)), but on its **curvature** — how rapidly the probability density changes in space.
---
### Properties of the Quantum Potential
| Feature | Explanation |
|--------|-------------|
| **Nonlocal** | \(Q\) at one point depends on \(R\) everywhere — even far away. |
| **Context-dependent** | Same particle, different environment → different \(Q\). |
| **Active information** | Bohm called it "information" guiding the particle, not energy in the classical sense. |
| **Independent of wave amplitude** | Even a very weak pilot wave can dramatically alter trajectories. |
> Example: In the double-slit experiment, \(Q\) creates "channels" that funnel particles into interference bands — even if only one particle is present at a time.
---
### How Quantum Potential Explains **Quantum Entanglement**
Consider two entangled particles (e.g., spin-entangled electrons from a singlet state):
where \(\nabla_1\) acts on \(x_1\), \(\nabla_2\) on \(x_2\).
#### Instantaneous Influence via \(Q\)
- When particle 1 is measured at \(x_1\), \(R(x_1, x_2)\) **changes shape instantly** across all \(x_2\).
- This reshapes \(Q(x_1, x_2)\) **everywhere**, instantly altering the **force on particle 2** — no matter the distance.
- Particle 2’s trajectory **immediately adjusts**, producing the correlated outcome.
> **No signaling**: Although influence is instantaneous, it cannot be used to send information faster than light (due to randomness in initial positions).
---
### Visual Analogy: Two Surfers on a Shared Wave
Imagine two surfers on a vast ocean wave:
- The wave is \(\psi(x_1, x_2)\) in configuration space.
- Each surfer (particle) follows local water motion.
- A gust hitting surfer 1 reshapes the **entire wave pattern**.
- Surfer 2, miles away, instantly rides a **new path** — **correlated**, but no message was sent.
> **Entanglement is not mystery — it’s geometry.**
> The quantum potential encodes the **wholeness** of the system, making distant particles move as one — like shadows of a single object seen from two angles.
---
**Quote from Bohm**:
> _"The quantum potential provides a direct linkage between distant events... It suggests a new order in which what happens locally is governed by the whole."_
This holistic, deterministic vision remains one of the most profound alternatives to standard quantum mechanics.
Explain David Bohm’s quantum potential hypothesis and how it explains quantum entanglement.
From: App Grok xAI
David Bohm’s quantum potential hypothesis is a core element of his pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, also known as Bohmian mechanics or the de Broglie-Bohm theory. Developed in the early 1950s, this approach provides a deterministic, realist alternative to the standard Copenhagen interpretation by positing that particles have definite positions and trajectories at all times, guided by a wave function that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. 9 10 Unlike conventional quantum mechanics, which treats particles probabilistically with wave function collapse upon measurement, Bohm’s theory introduces the quantum potential as a nonlocal field derived from the wave function, which influences particle motion without invoking randomness or observer dependence.
The Quantum Potential: Mathematical Formulation and Role
In Bohmian mechanics, the wave function ψ is expressed in polar form as ψ = R exp(iS/ℏ), where R is the amplitude (related to the probability density |ψ|² = R²), S is the phase, and ℏ is the reduced Planck’s constant. 9 10 Substituting this into the Schrödinger equation yields two key equations: a continuity equation ensuring probability conservation and a modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation that includes the classical potential V plus an additional term—the quantum potential Q.
The quantum potential is mathematically defined as: Q = - (ℏ² / 2m) (∇²R / R), where m is the particle’s mass, and ∇² is the Laplacian operator (representing the second spatial derivative). 9 10 This Q acts like a force field, but it’s nonlocal and context-dependent, arising from the curvature of the wave function’s amplitude rather than any local interaction. It modifies the particle’s equation of motion to: m d²r/dt² = -∇(V + Q), where the force from Q guides the particle along deterministic trajectories. 9 The particle’s velocity is given by v = (1/m) ∇S, ensuring it “rides” the pilot wave without the wave function collapsing. 10
This hypothesis resolves quantum weirdness by treating probabilities as epistemic—stemming from our ignorance of precise initial particle positions—rather than ontological. 10 Under the “quantum equilibrium” assumption, where initial positions are distributed according to |ψ|², the theory reproduces all statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics, including interference patterns in double-slit experiments. 9 0 “Schematic diagram illustrating Bohmian mechanics and the quantum potential” “LARGE” 1 “Diagram showing quantum theory as a special case within Bohmian mechanics” “LARGE”
Explaining Quantum Entanglement
Quantum entanglement, where measurements on one particle instantaneously correlate with outcomes on another distant particle (as in the EPR paradox or Bell’s theorem violations), is explained in Bohm’s theory through the inherent nonlocality of the quantum potential. 9 10 For entangled systems, the wave function ψ is defined over the entire configuration space of all particles (e.g., R^{3N} for N particles), making it non-separable—the state cannot be factored into independent single-particle wave functions. 9
The quantum potential Q, derived from this joint wave function, couples the particles’ motions such that the trajectory of one depends on the instantaneous positions of all others, regardless of spatial separation. 10 When a measurement is performed on one particle (e.g., via a Stern-Gerlach apparatus in a spin-entangled pair), it alters the effective conditional wave function for the distant particle, instantly guiding its trajectory via Q without transmitting signals faster than light. 9 This nonlocality is “choreographed” by the pilot wave, ensuring correlations emerge deterministically while preserving no-signaling (relativity compatibility), as actual outcomes require classical communication to compare results. 10
For example, in the EPR-Bohm setup with two spin-1/2 particles in a singlet state, the quantum potential enforces anti-correlations: if one particle’s spin is measured up along an axis, the other’s is instantly guided to down, reproducing Bell inequality violations through hidden variables (particle positions) that are nonlocal but consistent with experiments. 10 This contrasts with local hidden variable theories, which Bell’s theorem rules out, and provides a causal, albeit nonlocal, mechanism for “spooky action at a distance.” 3 “Bohmian trajectories in a double-slit experiment, illustrating nonlocal guidance similar to entanglement effects” “LARGE”
David Bohm (1917–1992) was an American-British theoretical physicist, philosopher, and one of the 20th century's most original thinkers in quantum mechanics. He made significant contributions to plasma physics, quantum theory, and the philosophy of mind. Bohm worked with J. Robert Oppenheimer at Princeton and later collaborated with Albert Einstein, who called him his "intellectual successor." Politically persecuted during the McCarthy era (he was exiled from the U.S. after refusing to testify), Bohm spent much of his career in the UK at Birkbeck College, London.
He is best known for challenging the standard **Copenhagen interpretation** of quantum mechanics (led by Niels Bohr), which treats quantum phenomena as inherently probabilistic and observer-dependent. Bohm instead advocated a **deterministic, nonlocal, holistic** view of the universe, emphasizing hidden variables and underlying order.
In 1952, Bohm published a groundbreaking alternative to standard quantum mechanics, now called **Bohmian mechanics** or the **de Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory** (building on Louis de Broglie's 1927 ideas, which were abandoned after the Copenhagen dominance).
#### Core Idea: Particles Ride on Guiding Waves
- **Particles have definite positions at all times** (unlike the Copenhagen view, where particles exist in superpositions until measured).
- These particles are **guided by a "pilot wave"** — a real, physical wave that evolves according to a modified Schrödinger equation.
- The pilot wave **carries information about the entire system** (nonlocal), determining the particle's trajectory like a surfer riding an ocean wave.
- The apparent randomness in quantum experiments (e.g., double-slit interference) emerges from **our ignorance of initial conditions**, not fundamental probability.
#### Key Equation (Simplified)
The pilot wave \(\psi(x,t)\) obeys the usual Schrödinger equation:
This "guidance equation" makes the particle follow streamlines of the wave.
#### Double-Slit Experiment in Pilot-Wave Terms
- A single electron passes through both slits via the **pilot wave**, which interferes with itself.
- The particle goes through **one slit only** but is **deflected by the wave pattern**, producing interference over many trials.
- This explains wave-particle duality **deterministically** without collapse.
#### Quantum Potential
Bohm introduced a **quantum potential** \(Q = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\nabla^2 |\psi|}{|\psi|}\), which acts like a nonlocal force shaping particle paths — even across vast distances (explaining entanglement).
### Why It Matters (and Why It's Controversial)
- **Advantages**:
- Deterministic and realist (no "measurement problem").
- **Nonlocality** violates Bell's theorem intuitions (though it satisfies the theorem via hidden variables).
- Mathematically equivalent to Copenhagen but philosophically radical.
- Initially dismissed by Bohr and others; only gained traction in the 1980s–90s (e.g., John Bell praised it).
Bohm later extended this into a **holistic worldview** (the "implicate order"), influencing philosophy, consciousness studies, and even quantum computing interpretations.
In short: Bohm proposed that what we call "particles" are real corpuscles perpetually surfing on an invisible, information-rich quantum wave field — a beautiful, deterministic alternative to the probabilistic haze of mainstream quantum theory.
Explain "walking droplet" experiments in fluid dynamics that mimic pilot-wave behavior.
Walking droplet experiments, pioneered by researchers like Yves Couder and John Bush in the 2000s, involve silicone oil droplets placed on a bath of the same fluid that’s vertically vibrated at a frequency just below the threshold for Faraday instability (where the surface would break into standing waves without the droplet). 6 0 The vibration causes the droplet to bounce repeatedly without coalescing into the bath, and each bounce generates a localized surface wave that radiates outward but decays slowly due to the system’s parameters. 7 Over multiple bounces, these waves interfere and form a dynamic wave field around the droplet. The droplet then “walks” horizontally across the surface, propelled by the slight slope of the wave field it creates—essentially surfing on its own waves. 8
This setup creates a classical hydrodynamic system that exhibits behaviors strikingly analogous to quantum phenomena, particularly mimicking the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Louis de Broglie and refined by David Bohm. 3 4 In pilot-wave theory, quantum particles have definite positions and are guided by a nonlocal wave function that determines their trajectories, much like how the droplet (analogous to the particle) is guided by the pilot wave (the surface wave field it generates and interacts with). 5 The wave field carries “memory” of the droplet’s past path due to the slow decay, leading to path-dependent motion that echoes quantum nonlocality and interference without any actual quantum effects. 1 0 “A walking droplet producing waves on a vibrating fluid bath” “LARGE”
These experiments replicate several quantum-like features:
• Single-particle diffraction and interference: When a walking droplet passes through a slit or barrier, it can diffract or interfere with its own wave field, producing trajectories that mimic quantum probability distributions, such as in the double-slit experiment (though not perfectly, as some attempts failed to fully reproduce quantum statistics). 2 3
• Quantized orbits: In a rotating frame or corral, droplets settle into discrete, stable orbital paths, analogous to quantized energy levels in atoms. 4
• Tunneling: Droplets can probabilistically “tunnel” through barriers by riding rare wave fluctuations, similar to quantum tunneling. 1
• Entanglement-like correlations: Pairs of droplets can exhibit correlated motion through shared wave fields, hinting at quantum entanglement analogs. 1 1 “The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets (video thumbnail)” “LARGE”
However, while these analogs are compelling and have renewed interest in pilot-wave theories, they are not exact replicas of quantum mechanics. Limitations include the classical nature of the system (no true superposition or wave function collapse), failure to match some quantum predictions (e.g., precise double-slit interference patterns in certain tests), and the macroscopic scale, which doesn’t violate Bell’s inequalities in a way that rules out local hidden variables as quantum mechanics does. 2 5 7 They serve as a powerful visualization tool for understanding how emergent quantum-like statistics can arise from deterministic classical dynamics. 8
There is one simple way to explain Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Quantum Entanglement, and the Hot Big Bang, and that is to "think outside of the speed of light box."
An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis
What if our Universe exists as a subset of a much larger entity called, "Apeiron," that was hypothesized by the ancient Greek philosopher, Anaximander?
A modern definition of the Apeiron:
The ultimate foundational indivisible, but differentiable, substructure substance of the Cosmos was named by the Greek philosopher Anaximander to be Apeiron.
Our Relativistic Quantum Universe is a subset of the Apeiron that came into existence when there occurred a “deceleration event” that fixed a small quantity of the Apeiron into the Bosons and Fermions where their vibration/oscillation wave frequency speed cannot exceed the speed of light. The “deceleration event” also resulted in our Universe being defined with a spacetime where Bosons and Fermions cannot travel across the Universe at speeds faster than the speed of light. The spacetime and Bosons and Fermions of our Universe are all manifestations and differentiations of the one all-encompassing Apeiron, and not divisible from the Apeiron. The Apeiron is not limited to any wave frequency speed. Entangled particles exist within the Apeiron that encompasses the entire Cosmos, and therefore when one particle is decohered and its quantum numbers are defined, then the other particle’s quantum numbers are also instantly defined.
What if Black Holes are where the wave frequency speed of Visible Matter is accelerated to faster than the speed of light transforming the Visible Matter back into the Apeiron causing the Expansion of the Universe?
An analogy would be the contraction and expansion of water when water freezes and melts.
What if some 13.8 billion years ago, two massive Black Holes from a previous Universe merged causing a "deceleration event" where the wave frequency speed of a small quantity of Apeiron was decelerated down to the speed of light transforming that small quantity of Apeiron into the Bosons and Fermions and spacetime of our current Universe?
What if during the "deceleration event" a greater quantity of Apeiron had its wave frequency speed decelerated down to a speed that was faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter of our Universe?
The Dark Matter and Visible Matter of our Universe are still manifestations of the one indivisible Apeiron, and subsequently the Dark Matter affects the Visible Matter by clumping it into Galaxies and Galaxy Clusters.
What if the "deceleration event" was the Inflation of our Universe?
What if the Bosons and Fermions possess Wave-Particle Duality because they are just differentiated entities of the one all-encompassing indivisible Apeiron that decoheres into particles when observed/measured?
This explanation of the difference between Quantum Entanglement and Human Twins would be good subject matter for a future book.
Me to Grok xAI: It seems to me like Quantum Entanglement is no different than two identical twins being separated before a full nine-month gestation, and then after separation discovering that both twins possess the same physical traits.
Grok xAI Response: Your analogy comparing quantum entanglement to identical twins separated before birth and later found to share the same physical traits is an interesting way to conceptualize the phenomenon, but it captures only part of the story while missing some key distinctions. Let me break it down to clarify where the analogy holds and where it diverges, addressing the essence of quantum entanglement.
Where the Analogy Works
Your analogy nicely highlights the idea of a pre-existing connection. Identical twins share the same DNA from the moment they split from a single fertilized egg, so their physical traits (like eye color or height) are correlated from the start, and discovering those traits later simply reveals what was already determined. Similarly, in quantum entanglement:
• Two particles, like photons or electrons, are created or interact in a way that their quantum states (e.g., spin, polarization) are linked in a single, shared wave function.
• When separated, they retain this correlation, and measuring one particle’s property (e.g., spin up) instantly tells you the other’s (e.g., spin down), much like checking one twin’s eye color predicts the other’s.
• The correlation is “set” at the moment of entanglement, just as twins’ traits are set by their shared DNA.
This makes the analogy a good starting point for understanding that entanglement involves a deep, pre-established relationship between particles, revealed upon measurement.
Where the Analogy Breaks Down
Quantum entanglement, however, has unique features that go beyond classical correlations like those of twins, due to the fundamentally non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. Here are the key differences:
1 Superposition and Indeterminacy:
◦ Unlike twins, whose traits are fixed at conception, entangled particles exist in a superposition of states before measurement. For example, if two electrons are entangled with opposite spins, neither has a definite spin (up or down) until one is measured. The wave function describes all possible outcomes simultaneously, and only upon measurement does one particle “collapse” to a definite state (say, spin up), instantly fixing the other as spin down.
◦ Twins’ traits, like blue eyes, are already determined, even if you don’t observe them yet. Entangled particles have no definite state until measured, which is a hallmark of quantum mechanics.
2 Nonlocality and Instantaneous Correlation:
◦ The twin analogy suggests a classical correlation where traits are preset and simply revealed later. In entanglement, the correlation appears to happen instantaneously, even across vast distances (e.g., kilometers or theoretically light-years), with no time for a signal to travel between particles. Experiments like those by Alain Aspect (1982) and Delft University (2015) show this “spooky action at a distance,” violating Bell’s inequalities, which test whether classical preset correlations (like twins’ DNA) could explain the results.03
◦ This nonlocality doesn’t mean information travels faster than light (as that’s forbidden by relativity), but the correlations defy classical intuition about independent objects.
3 Measurement Dependence:
◦ With twins, traits like eye color exist independently of how or when you observe them. In entanglement, the act of measurement itself defines the state. For instance, if you measure one entangled photon’s polarization along a certain angle, the other photon’s polarization instantly aligns with the measurement choice, even if the angle wasn’t decided until after separation. This context-dependence (called contextuality) has no parallel in the twin analogy, where traits are fixed regardless of how you check them.
4 Quantum Interference and Fragility:
◦ Entangled states are delicate and can be disrupted by interaction with the environment (decoherence), unlike the robust, classical traits of twins. Entanglement also allows for quantum interference effects, where the combined state of the particles exhibits wave-like behavior, as seen in experiments like the double-slit setup with entangled photons.6
◦ Twins don’t exhibit such interference; their traits are static and don’t depend on quantum superpositions.
A Refined Analogy
To make the twin analogy closer to entanglement, imagine a pair of magical twins whose traits aren’t fixed at birth but exist in a strange, undecided state. When you measure one twin’s eye color (say, choosing to check if it’s blue or brown), the other twin’s eye color instantly becomes the opposite, no matter how far apart they are, and the specific trait depends on how you chose to measure it. Moreover, until you measure, neither twin has a definite eye color—they’re in a superposition of all possible colors. This captures the indeterminacy, nonlocality, and measurement-dependence of entanglement.
Experimental Evidence Highlighting the Difference
Real experiments show entanglement’s unique nature:
• In the 2015 Delft experiment, entangled electrons were separated by 1.3 km, and their spins were measured in ways that showed correlations stronger than any classical system (like twins) could produce, violating Bell’s inequalities.4
• The 2019 Glasgow experiment imaged entangled photons, showing that measuring one photon’s path or polarization instantly fixed the other’s, with correlations that couldn’t be explained by pre-set traits.6
• At the LHC, entangled top quarks showed spin correlations that emerged only upon measurement, not because they were fixed beforehand like twins’ traits.1
Why It Feels Like Twins but Isn’t
Your analogy feels intuitive because both cases involve correlation: twins share DNA, entangled particles share a quantum state. But entanglement’s correlations are stronger and weirder than classical ones. The twin analogy implies a deterministic, pre-set relationship, while entanglement involves indeterminate states that resolve only upon measurement, with outcomes that depend on the measurement itself and appear coordinated across distances in ways classical physics can’t explain.
If you’d like, I can explore a specific experiment or aspect of entanglement further, or we could tweak the analogy to better capture the quantum weirdness! What do you think?
Who was the first to say "Shut up and calculate!?” N. David Mermin
According to Wikipedia-"...The instrumentalist view is carried by the famous quote of David Mermin, "Shut up and calculate", often misattributed to Richard Feynman..."
“If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me,” wrote the physicist David Mermin in 1989, “it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’” Mermin followed his summary with a quick rejoinder—“But I won’t shut up.” Yet the phrase “shut up and calculate” took on a life of its own after Mermin set it to paper, and rapidly became the catchphrase of the Copenhagen interpretation among physicists. It was misattributed to Richard Feynman, and eventually even Mermin himself forgot where it came from, only to rediscover, years later, that he was the source of the phrase. “Shut up and calculate!” certainly doesn’t sound appealing if you’re not mathematically inclined. But, even if you’re a physicist, what’s the virtue in shutting up and calculating? Mermin himself provided the answer in his 1989 article. “It is a fact about the quantum theory of paramount importance which ought to be emphasized in every popular and semi-popular exposition, that it permits us to calculate measurable quantities with unprecedented precision.” Quantum physics works. The calculations enabled by the theory are astonishing in their range of applicability and the accuracy of their results. Quantum physics tells us how long it will take to heat up your frying pan to cook your eggs and how large a dying white dwarf star can be without collapsing. It reveals the exact shape of the double helix at the core of life, it tells us the age of the immortal cattle on the rock walls at Lascaux, it speaks of atoms split beneath the stone heart of Africa eons before Oppenheimer and the blinding light of Trinity. It predicts with uncanny accuracy the precise darkness of the blackest night. It shows us the history of the universe in a handful of dust. If shutting up is the price of doing these calculations, then pass the ball gag and break out the graph paper. But why is that the price? Why does Copenhagen require that you shut up in order to calculate? For that matter, how does the Copenhagen interpretation allow you to calculate at all? The measurement problem is so centrally tied to the core of quantum physics that, without some answer to the problem, it’s impossible to use the theory. Some interpretation must guide you in the use of the mathematics—and Copenhagen, as we’ve seen many times over, offers no such solution and is not a true interpretation. So how can shutting up allow you to calculate anything? The form of the Copenhagen interpretation usually found in physics textbooks says (explicitly or otherwise) that measurement is a fundamentally different process from any other found in nature and that “measurement” is defined as “any time a large object encounters a small one.” Large objects are simply assumed to obey classical physics, even as quantum physics is presented to the student as a more fundamental theory underpinning classical physics. In short, the student is implicitly asked to accept as part of the basic structure of quantum physics that there are two worlds, the classical and the quantum, just as Bohr taught. Yet, at the same time, they’re being told that quantum physics is the fundamental theory from which classical physics emerges. So quantum physics students are asked to swallow a contradiction: on the one hand, they’re told that the idea of a classical object is logically prior to the idea of quantum physics, since the idea of a classical object is needed in order to figure out when a measurement has happened; but, on the other hand, they’re told that quantum physics is logically prior to classical physics, the latter emerging out of the former. These ideas can’t both be right. And, in practice, the version of the Copenhagen interpretation most commonly found in textbooks and “in the wild” values the first idea over the second. Some objects are just classical, and it’s interaction with those objects that is defined as measurement for the purposes of quantum physics, “solving” the measurement problem well enough to allow calculations to be performed. Certainly most physicists (including yours truly) also believe that quantum physics underpins classical physics, but when actually performing quantum physics calculations, this fact is conveniently forgotten, and some objects are simply treated as exempt from the Schrödinger equation. Hence the desperate need to shut up while calculating.
The Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis and Quantum Field Theory
A Philosophical Science Fiction Story
This is my version of a Creation story to explain how I imagine that our Universe came into existence, how it exists, and how our Universe will eventually cease to exist.
I call this story, “An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis.”
The ultimate foundational indivisible, but differentiable, substance of the Cosmos was named by the Greek philosopher Anaximander to be Apeiron.
Our Relativistic Quantum Universe is a subset of the Apeiron Cosmos that came into existence when there occurred a “deceleration event” that fixed a small quantity of the Apeiron into the Bosons and Fermions where their vibration/oscillation wave frequency speed cannot exceed the speed of light. The “deceleration event” also resulted in our Universe being defined with a spacetime where Bosons and Fermions cannot travel across the Universe at speeds faster than the speed of light. The spacetime and Bosons and Fermions of our Universe are all manifestations and differentiations of the one all-encompassing Apeiron, and not divisible from the Apeiron. The Apeiron is not limited to any wave frequency speed. Entangled particles exist within the Apeiron that encompasses the entire Cosmos, and therefore when one particle is decohered and its quantum numbers are defined, then the other particle’s quantum numbers are also instantly defined.
[Explain different hypothetical analogies to describe Bosons and Fermions: commingled cloud puffs of swirling and broiling quantum number characteristics, or intertwined strings with each string possessing all of the quantum number characteristics for each particle. The description of the Bosons and Fermions will explain their Wave-Particle Duality.]
The Apeiron is the “Mother of ALL Quantum Fields” that pervades the Cosmos.
Our Universe exists within the larger Cosmos.
Think of Quantum Fields to be like a spherical cloud of crisscrossing grid lines that look like a lattice.
The Hot Big Bang occurred some 13.8 billion years ago when the last two Black Holes from a previous Universe merged. The two Black Holes contained all of the Visible Matter from the previous Universe, but the wave frequency speed of each particle of all of that Visible Matter had been accelerated up to a speed faster than the speed of light, and so all of the Visible Matter of the previous Universe had been transformed into the Dark Matter contained within the last two Black Holes.
A Black Hole is where Visible Matter is transformed into Dark Matter, but the Dark Matter is gravitationally bound inside the Black Hole.
A Black Hole is also where Dark Matter in the Universe is “sucked” into the Black Hole along with the Visible Matter, but the Dark Matter is transformed into Dark Energy, and the Dark Energy can escape the Black Hole back out into the Universe. The escaping Dark Energy from Black Holes is what is causing the Expansion of the Universe.
The transformation of Visible Matter into Dark Matter and Dark Matter into Dark Energy can be thought of as the lattice grid lines of the Quantum Fields being tightened further and further together, and the tightening of lattice grid lines is the accelerating of the wave frequency speed of Matter particles.
When the last two Black Holes of the previous Universe merged together, most of the Dark Matter contained within the two Black Holes was accelerated into Dark Energy, but the merger also resulted in 4.9% of the Dark Matter being decelerated all the way down to the speed of light, and 26.6% of the Dark Matter remaining as Dark Matter, but the merger of the two Black Holes disrupted their gravitational attraction releasing all of the Dark Matter and decelerated Dark Matter back out into the Cosmos.
The transformation of Dark Energy into Dark Matter and Dark Matter into Visible Matter can be thought of as the lattice grid lines of the Quantum Fields being loosened further and further apart, and the loosening of the lattice grid lines is the decelerating of the wave frequency speed of Matter particles.
So, the difference between Dark Energy and Dark Matter and Visible Matter is determined by how tightly together or loosely apart are the grid lines of the lattices of the Quantum Fields.
The gravitational pull of Black Holes is what tightens the grid lines of the lattices of the Quantum Fields resulting in the wave frequency speed of the Visible Matter to be accelerated up to faster than the speed of light into Dark Matter, and the wave frequency speed of Dark Matter is further accelerated up to a speed that transforms the Dark Matter into Dark Energy.
Think of the last two Black Holes as two tightly wound spheres of Quantum Fields, and their merger caused most of the grid lines of the lattices to tighten closer together, but 4.9% of the grid lines of the lattices experienced a type of “bounce back” effect that loosened the grid lines of the lattices, and 26.6% of the grid lines of the lattices to remain unchanged, neither tightened together nor loosened apart.
The deceleration of the 4.9% of Dark Matter down to the speed of the light during the merger of the last two Black Holes of the previous Universe resulted in the quantizing of the Dark Matter into the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons, and that deceleration event was the Inflation of the Universe, and the resulting highly condensed Visible Matter into the form of vibrating and oscillating Fermions and Bosons was the tremendous heat of the Hot Big Bang.
What if Black holes are where the Visible Matter of the Universe are accelerated into Dark Matter, and where the already existing Dark Matter of the Universe are accelerated into Dark Energy?
What if the Dark Matter created inside a Black Hole remains gravitationally bound inside the Black Hole, but the Dark Energy being created inside a Black Hole escapes out into the Universe, and that Dark Energy is what is driving the Expansion of the Universe, just like melting ice drives the expansion of the quantity of liquid water?
What if the last two remaining Black Holes consist solely of Dark Matter, and when the last Black Hole consumes the other Black Hole that process results in most of the Dark Matter contained in both Black Holes being accelerated into Dark Energy, but a portion of the last Black Hole collapsing into decelerated Apeiron that initiates a deceleration chain reaction in the shape of an outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron that dissipates as the wave propagates outbound from the center of the last Black Hole?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron becomes quantized into the Fermions and Bosons of the Standard Model of Particle Physics when the Apeiron’s wave frequency speed decelerates down to the speed of light, and then as the spherical wave continues to propagate outbounds it dissipates such that the Apeiron doesn’t decelerate all the way down to the speed of light, but down to a speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the elusive Dark Matter?
If our Universe will cease to exist when the last two Black Holes merge, then is it possible that our Universe came into existence when the last two Black Holes of a previous Universe merged some 13.8 billion years ago?
What if Black Holes are where the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons of the Standard Model of Particle Physics is accelerated to have a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light?
What if the merger of the last two Black Holes of a Universe is the impetus that initiates a wave frequency speed deceleration event to occur at an instant of the Apeiron that pervades the Cosmos, and when that instant decelerates down to the speed of light is when that instant of Apeiron becomes quantized, and that deceleration event also initiates a chain reaction of adjoining Apeiron to decelerate down to the speed of light creating an outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron that dissipates the further the wave travels away from the initial instant of deceleration?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave at first decelerated just 4.9% of the Apeiron down to the speed of light, and that 4.9% of the Apeiron is the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons that make up the Standard Model of Particle Physics, but then the propagating wave diminished in intensity and the next 26.6% of the Apeiron decelerated down to a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that 26.6% of the Apeiron is the elusive Dark Matter? Likewise, the next 68.5% of the Apeiron’s wave frequency speed didn’t decelerate down at all, and that portion of the Apeiron is the elusive Dark Energy?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron was the Inflation of our Universe, and the initial 4.9% of Apeiron whose wave frequency speed decelerated down to the speed of light becoming quantized into vibrating and oscillating particles was the source of the tremendous heat that made the Big Bang hot?
What if the Black Holes in our Universe is where the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons that make up the Standard Model of Particle Physics has its wave frequency speed accelerated to a speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that reformulated Apeiron is causing the Expansion of our Universe just like when ice is reformulated back into liquid causing the expansion of the quantity of water?
The discussion clarifies that in quantum physics, waves and fields are distinct concepts, not interchangeable terms. Waves are phenomena described by differential equations, while fields represent values at every point in space and time, such as temperature or wind. Quantum Field Theory posits that the universe's fundamental components are fields, which can ripple and generate particles, contrasting with the earlier notion of waves as physical entities. The analogy of ocean waves versus the ocean itself illustrates that while they may share a 'substance,' they are fundamentally different. Ultimately, understanding the difference between waves and fields is crucial for grasping the principles of quantum mechanics.
The equation, E=hf, is referred to as the Planck relation or the Planck-Einstein relation. The letter h is named after Planck, as Planck’s constant. Energy (E) is related to this constant h, and to the frequency (f) of the electromagnetic wave.
Electromagnetic Wave Frequency = Speed of Light \ Wavelength
In energy wave theory, Planck’s relation describes the energy of a transverse wave, emitted or absorbed as an electron transitions energy levels in an atom. When an electron is contained within an atom, destructive wave interference between protons in the nucleus and the electron causes destructive waves, resulting in binding energy. This binding energy becomes the energy of a photon that is released when an electron is captured or moves states in an atom. The electron’s vibration causes a transverse wave and the photon’s energy is based on the frequency of this vibration.
The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 1 billion kilometres per hour; 700 million miles per hour). It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter their relative velocity. It is the upper limit for the speed at which information, matter, or energy can travel through space.
Has anyone ever considered that since our Universe is defined by and constrained by the speed of light that maybe Inflation and the Hot Big Bang were the result of a deceleration of some cosmic field or substance (I call it Apeiron) that has a wave frequency speed that is faster, perhaps many times faster, than the speed of light? And what if Black Holes are the acceleration of matter’s quantum wave state back into Apeiron that has a wave frequency speed faster than the speed of light? And what if that “new” Apeiron filling-up the Universe is what is causing the Expansion of our Universe. And what if Dark Matter is Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light?
Our Universe exists in a sea of Apeiron (see Anaximander) just like fish exist in a sea of water, and just like water transforms into a solid when its temperature is lowered, likewise the Apeiron becomes quantized and transforms into the Standard Model of Particle Physics when its wave frequency speed is decelerated down to the speed of light.
When the temperature of water decreases, the water transforms into a solid called ice, and that decreases the quantity of liquid water.
When the temperature increases the solid called ice is transformed back into water increasing the quantity of water.
When the Apeiron decelerates down to the speed of light the Apeiron becomes quantized and transforms into solids called “The Standard Model of Particle Physics,” and that decreases the quantity of Apeiron.
When “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” are accelerated and condensed in a Black Hole back into Apeiron, the quantity of Apeiron is increased.
The increase in Apeiron being created in Black Holes is the “substance” that is causing the expansion of the Universe, just like raisin bread dough in an oven expands causing the raisins to spread further apart.
Note: “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” refers to Apeiron whose wave frequency speed has been decelerated down to the speed of light. Black Holes accelerate “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” back into Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light.
Since the Cosmology community seems to be stuck trying to define Dark Matter and why our Universe is composed of ≈5% Fermions & Bosons (Normal Matter) and ≈26.8% Dark Matter and ≈68.2% Dark Energy, here's a little "thinking outside of the box" that provides an unexplored new framework that might possibly provide an explanation. I hope you will take a few minutes to give this hypothesis a little consideration.
Before Inflation and the Hot Big Bang there were no photons, there was no light, and there was no "speed of light" limit or constraints.
What if the Cosmos is composed of a "something" that has a wave frequency speed many times faster than the speed of light? Let that "something" be called Apeiron.
What if ≈13.8 billion years ago there occurred a "quantum fluctuation" in the Apeiron field causing an instant of Apeiron to decelerate all the way down to the speed of light resulting in the Apeiron field to be quantized into Fermions and Bosons?
What if that instant of deceleration also initiated a chain reaction of adjoining Apeiron to decelerate down to the speed of light causing an outbound propagating spherical wave leaving behind in its wake a sea of Fermions and Bosons?
What if that outbound propagating spherical wave was the Inflation of our Universe and the resultant sea of vibrating/oscillating Fermions created the heat that made the Big Bang Hot?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave dissipated in its intensity as it propagated outbound such that the initial deceleration of the Apeiron field was intense enough to decelerate the Apeiron field all the way down to the speed of light, but then the wave intensity dissipated such that further out Apeiron wasn't decelerated all the way down to the speed of light resulting in Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter of our Universe?
What if the Black Holes at the center of Spiral Galaxies is the accelerating and condensing of Normal Matter back into Apeiron with a wave frequency speed faster than the speed of light and that "new" Apeiron is the substance that is causing the Expansion of our Universe and spreading of the Galaxies further apart from one another?
What if the Apeiron is what makes possible quantum entanglement across cosmological distances at speeds faster than the speed of light?
A New Hypothetical Framework for the Origin and Evolution of our Universe
“The (electric field) force will fall off (dissipate) as an inverse-square law, just as in Newtonian gravity.”
“What if the outbound propagating spherical wave dissipated in its intensity as it propagated outbound such that the initial deceleration of the Apeiron field was intense enough to decelerate the Apeiron field down to the speed of light, but then the wave intensity dissipated such that further out Apeiron wasn't decelerated down to the speed of light resulting in Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter?“
A One-Page Summary That Encompasses The Origin and Evolution of Our Universe.
An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis where the Universe exists within a sea of Apeiron just like fish exist in a sea of water, and just like water transforms into a solid when its temperature is lowered, likewise, the Apeiron becomes quantized and transforms into particles when its wave frequency speed is decelerated down to the speed of light.
Why is our Universe is composed of ≈4.9% Normal Matter and ≈26.8% Dark Matter and ≈68.3% Dark Energy.
Before Inflation and the Hot Big Bang there were no photons, there was no light, and there was no "speed of light" limit.
What if the Cosmos is composed of a "something" that has a wave frequency speed faster than the speed of light? Let that "something" be called Apeiron. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron)
What if ≈13.8 billion years ago there occurred a "quantum fluctuation" in the Apeiron field causing an instant of Apeiron to decelerate down to the speed of light resulting in the Apeiron field to be quantized into particles?
What if that instant of deceleration also initiated a chain reaction of adjoining Apeiron to also decelerate down to the speed of light causing an outbound propagating spherical wave leaving behind in its wake a hot sea of vibrating particles (Inflation)?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave dissipated in its intensity as it propagated outbound such that the initial deceleration of the Apeiron field was intense enough to decelerate the Apeiron field down to the speed of light, but then the wave intensity dissipated such that further out Apeiron wasn't decelerated down to the speed of light resulting in Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter?
What if the Black Holes at the center of Galaxies is the acceleration of Normal Matter back into Apeiron, which is causing the Expansion of the Universe?
Elisabet Sahtouris wrote:
Our intellectual heritage for thousands of years, most strongly developed in the past few hundred Our intellectual heritage for thousands of years, most strongly developed in the past few hundred years of science, has been to see ourselves as separate from the rest of nature, to convince ourselves we see it objectively -- at a distance from ourselves -- and to perceive, or at least model it, as a vast mechanism.
This objective mechanical worldview was founded in ancient Greece when philosophers divided into two schools of thought about the world. One school held that all nature, including humans, was alive and self-creative, ever making order from disorder. The other held that the `real' world could be known only through pure reason, not through direct experience, and was God's geometric creation, permanently mechanical and perfect behind our illusion of its disorder.
This mechanical/religious worldview superseded the older one of living nature to become the foundation of the whole Western worldview up to the present.
Philosophers such as Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato were thus the founding fathers of our mechanical worldview, though Galileo, Descartes, and other men of the Renaissance translated it into the scientific and technological enterprise that has dominated human experience ever since.
What if things had gone the other way? What if Thales, Anaximander, and Heraclitus, the organic philosophers who saw all the cosmos as alive, had won the day back in that ancient Greek debate?
What if Galileo, as he experimented with both telescope and microscope, had used the latter to seek evidence for Anaximander's theory of biological evolution here on Earth, rather than looking to the skies for confirmation of Aristarchus's celestial mechanics? In other words, what if modern science and our view of human society had evolved from organic biology rather than from mechanical physics?
Organic biology evolved from chemistry and chemistry evolved from physics.
I believe that all life that has ever existed evolved from one single event.
I couldn't say. We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception.
Explain who David Bohm was and his hypothesis that particles ride on pilot waves.
David Bohm (1917–1992) was an American-born theoretical physicist renowned for his contributions to quantum mechanics, plasma physics, and philosophy of science. Born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, he studied under J. Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley, earning his PhD in 1943. 2 Bohm’s early career involved work on plasmas during World War II at the Manhattan Project’s radiation laboratory, but he faced significant personal and professional challenges, including being blacklisted during the McCarthy era for alleged communist sympathies, which led to his arrest in 1950 (though he was later acquitted) and eventual exile to Brazil, Israel, and eventually the UK, where he became a professor at Birkbeck College in London. 1 5 Beyond quantum theory, Bohm explored concepts like the “implicate order” in the universe, dialogue as a form of collective thinking, and collaborations with philosophers like Jiddu Krishnamurti, influencing fields from physics to consciousness studies. 2 He is often described as one of the 20th century’s most influential physicists despite his unconventional ideas facing resistance from mainstream quantum orthodoxy. 2
Bohm’s most famous contribution to quantum mechanics is his revival and development of the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics or the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. 0 Originally proposed by French physicist Louis de Broglie in the 1920s as a way to reconcile wave-particle duality, the idea was largely abandoned until Bohm independently rediscovered and refined it in 1952 while working in Brazil. 6 7 8 In this hypothesis, quantum particles (like electrons) are not probabilistic entities as in the dominant Copenhagen interpretation, where particles exist in superpositions until measured. Instead, particles have definite positions and trajectories at all times, “riding” on a guiding or “pilot” wave described by the wave function (ψ) from Schrödinger’s equation. 0 1
The pilot wave is a real, physical field that permeates space and evolves deterministically, influencing the particle’s motion through a “quantum potential” that encodes information about the entire system. 4 6 This makes the theory nonlocal—changes in one part of the system can instantly affect distant particles via the wave function—explaining phenomena like entanglement without invoking observer-dependent collapse. 1 Bohmian mechanics reproduces all predictions of standard quantum mechanics but offers a more intuitive, deterministic ontology by treating particles as classical-like objects guided by the wave, much like a surfer rides an ocean wave. 0 However, it introduces “hidden variables” (the precise particle positions, unknown to observers), which Bohm argued resolve quantum paradoxes while maintaining realism. 6 Despite initial dismissal for being “too philosophical” or equivalent to other interpretations, it has gained renewed interest in recent decades for its potential in quantum computing, chaos theory, and experiments testing quantum foundations. 1 4
Explain David Bohm’s quantum potential hypothesis and how it explains quantum entanglement.
From: https://grok.com/c
### David Bohm’s **Quantum Potential** Hypothesis
In **Bohmian mechanics** (1952), David Bohm reinterpreted quantum mechanics by treating particles as **real, definite objects** with precise trajectories, guided by a **pilot wave** \(\psi(x,t)\).
To make this guidance physically intuitive, Bohm derived a new term from the wave function: the **quantum potential** \(Q\).
---
### Definition of the Quantum Potential
Starting from the Schrödinger equation for the wave function in polar form:
\[
\psi(x,t) = R(x,t) e^{iS(x,t)/\hbar}
\]
where \(R = |\psi|\) is the amplitude and \(S\) is the phase.
Bohm showed that the **particle velocity** is:
\[
\mathbf{v} = \frac{\nabla S}{m}
\]
And the **guidance equation** leads to a modified Newton’s law:
\[
m \frac{d^2 \mathbf{x}}{dt^2} = -\nabla (V + Q)
\]
where:
- \(V\) = classical potential (e.g., electric, gravitational)
- \(Q\) = **quantum potential**:
\[
\boxed{Q = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\nabla^2 R}{R}}
\]
> **Key Insight**: \(Q\) depends **not** on the intensity of the wave (\(R^2\)), but on its **curvature** — how rapidly the probability density changes in space.
---
### Properties of the Quantum Potential
| Feature | Explanation |
|--------|-------------|
| **Nonlocal** | \(Q\) at one point depends on \(R\) everywhere — even far away. |
| **Context-dependent** | Same particle, different environment → different \(Q\). |
| **Active information** | Bohm called it "information" guiding the particle, not energy in the classical sense. |
| **Independent of wave amplitude** | Even a very weak pilot wave can dramatically alter trajectories. |
> Example: In the double-slit experiment, \(Q\) creates "channels" that funnel particles into interference bands — even if only one particle is present at a time.
---
### How Quantum Potential Explains **Quantum Entanglement**
Consider two entangled particles (e.g., spin-entangled electrons from a singlet state):
\[
\psi(x_1, x_2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ \phi_A(x_1)\phi_B(x_2) - \phi_B(x_1)\phi_A(x_2) \right]
\]
The **total wave function** lives in **configuration space** (6D for two particles), **not** 3D physical space.
#### In Bohmian mechanics:
- Particle 1 has position \(x_1(t)\), particle 2 has \(x_2(t)\)
- Both are guided by the **same shared pilot wave** \(\psi(x_1, x_2, t)\)
- The **quantum potential** is:
\[
Q(x_1, x_2) = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \left( \frac{\nabla_1^2 R}{R} + \frac{\nabla_2^2 R}{R} \right)
\]
where \(\nabla_1\) acts on \(x_1\), \(\nabla_2\) on \(x_2\).
#### Instantaneous Influence via \(Q\)
- When particle 1 is measured at \(x_1\), \(R(x_1, x_2)\) **changes shape instantly** across all \(x_2\).
- This reshapes \(Q(x_1, x_2)\) **everywhere**, instantly altering the **force on particle 2** — no matter the distance.
- Particle 2’s trajectory **immediately adjusts**, producing the correlated outcome.
> **No signaling**: Although influence is instantaneous, it cannot be used to send information faster than light (due to randomness in initial positions).
---
### Visual Analogy: Two Surfers on a Shared Wave
Imagine two surfers on a vast ocean wave:
- The wave is \(\psi(x_1, x_2)\) in configuration space.
- Each surfer (particle) follows local water motion.
- A gust hitting surfer 1 reshapes the **entire wave pattern**.
- Surfer 2, miles away, instantly rides a **new path** — **correlated**, but no message was sent.
---
### Why This Resolves the EPR Paradox
Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (1935) argued entanglement implies:
- Either **incompleteness** (hidden variables needed), or
- **Spooky action at a distance**
Bohm’s answer:
- **Hidden variables exist**: the actual particle positions \(x_1(t), x_2(t)\)
- **Nonlocality is real**: via the quantum potential \(Q\)
- **No collapse**: the wave evolves unitarily forever
- **Deterministic outcomes**: given initial positions
> Bell’s theorem (1964) later showed **all** hidden variable theories must be nonlocal — **Bohmian mechanics embraces this**.
---
### Summary: Quantum Potential & Entanglement
| Concept | Role in Entanglement |
|--------|------------------------|
| **Quantum Potential \(Q\)** | Acts as a nonlocal "force field" in configuration space |
| **Guidance** | Particle 2's motion depends on particle 1's position via shared \(Q\) |
| **No Collapse** | Wave function always guides both particles |
| **Correlations** | Emerge from initial conditions + nonlocal \(Q\) |
> **Bohm’s revolutionary idea**:
> **Entanglement is not mystery — it’s geometry.**
> The quantum potential encodes the **wholeness** of the system, making distant particles move as one — like shadows of a single object seen from two angles.
---
**Quote from Bohm**:
> _"The quantum potential provides a direct linkage between distant events... It suggests a new order in which what happens locally is governed by the whole."_
This holistic, deterministic vision remains one of the most profound alternatives to standard quantum mechanics.
Explain David Bohm’s quantum potential hypothesis and how it explains quantum entanglement.
From: App Grok xAI
David Bohm’s quantum potential hypothesis is a core element of his pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, also known as Bohmian mechanics or the de Broglie-Bohm theory. Developed in the early 1950s, this approach provides a deterministic, realist alternative to the standard Copenhagen interpretation by positing that particles have definite positions and trajectories at all times, guided by a wave function that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. 9 10 Unlike conventional quantum mechanics, which treats particles probabilistically with wave function collapse upon measurement, Bohm’s theory introduces the quantum potential as a nonlocal field derived from the wave function, which influences particle motion without invoking randomness or observer dependence.
The Quantum Potential: Mathematical Formulation and Role
In Bohmian mechanics, the wave function ψ is expressed in polar form as ψ = R exp(iS/ℏ), where R is the amplitude (related to the probability density |ψ|² = R²), S is the phase, and ℏ is the reduced Planck’s constant. 9 10 Substituting this into the Schrödinger equation yields two key equations: a continuity equation ensuring probability conservation and a modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation that includes the classical potential V plus an additional term—the quantum potential Q.
The quantum potential is mathematically defined as: Q = - (ℏ² / 2m) (∇²R / R), where m is the particle’s mass, and ∇² is the Laplacian operator (representing the second spatial derivative). 9 10 This Q acts like a force field, but it’s nonlocal and context-dependent, arising from the curvature of the wave function’s amplitude rather than any local interaction. It modifies the particle’s equation of motion to: m d²r/dt² = -∇(V + Q), where the force from Q guides the particle along deterministic trajectories. 9 The particle’s velocity is given by v = (1/m) ∇S, ensuring it “rides” the pilot wave without the wave function collapsing. 10
This hypothesis resolves quantum weirdness by treating probabilities as epistemic—stemming from our ignorance of precise initial particle positions—rather than ontological. 10 Under the “quantum equilibrium” assumption, where initial positions are distributed according to |ψ|², the theory reproduces all statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics, including interference patterns in double-slit experiments. 9 0 “Schematic diagram illustrating Bohmian mechanics and the quantum potential” “LARGE” 1 “Diagram showing quantum theory as a special case within Bohmian mechanics” “LARGE”
Explaining Quantum Entanglement
Quantum entanglement, where measurements on one particle instantaneously correlate with outcomes on another distant particle (as in the EPR paradox or Bell’s theorem violations), is explained in Bohm’s theory through the inherent nonlocality of the quantum potential. 9 10 For entangled systems, the wave function ψ is defined over the entire configuration space of all particles (e.g., R^{3N} for N particles), making it non-separable—the state cannot be factored into independent single-particle wave functions. 9
The quantum potential Q, derived from this joint wave function, couples the particles’ motions such that the trajectory of one depends on the instantaneous positions of all others, regardless of spatial separation. 10 When a measurement is performed on one particle (e.g., via a Stern-Gerlach apparatus in a spin-entangled pair), it alters the effective conditional wave function for the distant particle, instantly guiding its trajectory via Q without transmitting signals faster than light. 9 This nonlocality is “choreographed” by the pilot wave, ensuring correlations emerge deterministically while preserving no-signaling (relativity compatibility), as actual outcomes require classical communication to compare results. 10
For example, in the EPR-Bohm setup with two spin-1/2 particles in a singlet state, the quantum potential enforces anti-correlations: if one particle’s spin is measured up along an axis, the other’s is instantly guided to down, reproducing Bell inequality violations through hidden variables (particle positions) that are nonlocal but consistent with experiments. 10 This contrasts with local hidden variable theories, which Bell’s theorem rules out, and provides a causal, albeit nonlocal, mechanism for “spooky action at a distance.” 3 “Bohmian trajectories in a double-slit experiment, illustrating nonlocal guidance similar to entanglement effects” “LARGE”
Explain who David Bohm was and his hypothesis that particles ride on pilot waves.
From: https://grok.com/c
Who Was David Bohm?
David Bohm (1917–1992) was an American-British theoretical physicist, philosopher, and one of the 20th century's most original thinkers in quantum mechanics. He made significant contributions to plasma physics, quantum theory, and the philosophy of mind. Bohm worked with J. Robert Oppenheimer at Princeton and later collaborated with Albert Einstein, who called him his "intellectual successor." Politically persecuted during the McCarthy era (he was exiled from the U.S. after refusing to testify), Bohm spent much of his career in the UK at Birkbeck College, London.
He is best known for challenging the standard **Copenhagen interpretation** of quantum mechanics (led by Niels Bohr), which treats quantum phenomena as inherently probabilistic and observer-dependent. Bohm instead advocated a **deterministic, nonlocal, holistic** view of the universe, emphasizing hidden variables and underlying order.
### Bohm's Pilot-Wave Hypothesis (Bohmian Mechanics)
In 1952, Bohm published a groundbreaking alternative to standard quantum mechanics, now called **Bohmian mechanics** or the **de Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory** (building on Louis de Broglie's 1927 ideas, which were abandoned after the Copenhagen dominance).
#### Core Idea: Particles Ride on Guiding Waves
- **Particles have definite positions at all times** (unlike the Copenhagen view, where particles exist in superpositions until measured).
- These particles are **guided by a "pilot wave"** — a real, physical wave that evolves according to a modified Schrödinger equation.
- The pilot wave **carries information about the entire system** (nonlocal), determining the particle's trajectory like a surfer riding an ocean wave.
- The apparent randomness in quantum experiments (e.g., double-slit interference) emerges from **our ignorance of initial conditions**, not fundamental probability.
#### Key Equation (Simplified)
The pilot wave \(\psi(x,t)\) obeys the usual Schrödinger equation:
\[
i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \psi + V\psi
\]
But particle velocity is given by:
\[
\mathbf{v} = \frac{\hbar}{m} \operatorname{Im} \left( \frac{\nabla \psi}{\psi} \right)
\]
This "guidance equation" makes the particle follow streamlines of the wave.
#### Double-Slit Experiment in Pilot-Wave Terms
- A single electron passes through both slits via the **pilot wave**, which interferes with itself.
- The particle goes through **one slit only** but is **deflected by the wave pattern**, producing interference over many trials.
- This explains wave-particle duality **deterministically** without collapse.
#### Quantum Potential
Bohm introduced a **quantum potential** \(Q = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\nabla^2 |\psi|}{|\psi|}\), which acts like a nonlocal force shaping particle paths — even across vast distances (explaining entanglement).
### Why It Matters (and Why It's Controversial)
- **Advantages**:
- Deterministic and realist (no "measurement problem").
- Reproduces all standard quantum predictions.
- Offers intuitive visualizations (e.g., recent "walking droplet" experiments in fluid dynamics mimic pilot-wave behavior).
- **Criticisms**:
- **Nonlocality** violates Bell's theorem intuitions (though it satisfies the theorem via hidden variables).
- Mathematically equivalent to Copenhagen but philosophically radical.
- Initially dismissed by Bohr and others; only gained traction in the 1980s–90s (e.g., John Bell praised it).
Bohm later extended this into a **holistic worldview** (the "implicate order"), influencing philosophy, consciousness studies, and even quantum computing interpretations.
In short: Bohm proposed that what we call "particles" are real corpuscles perpetually surfing on an invisible, information-rich quantum wave field — a beautiful, deterministic alternative to the probabilistic haze of mainstream quantum theory.
Explain "walking droplet" experiments in fluid dynamics that mimic pilot-wave behavior.
Walking droplet experiments, pioneered by researchers like Yves Couder and John Bush in the 2000s, involve silicone oil droplets placed on a bath of the same fluid that’s vertically vibrated at a frequency just below the threshold for Faraday instability (where the surface would break into standing waves without the droplet). 6 0 The vibration causes the droplet to bounce repeatedly without coalescing into the bath, and each bounce generates a localized surface wave that radiates outward but decays slowly due to the system’s parameters. 7 Over multiple bounces, these waves interfere and form a dynamic wave field around the droplet. The droplet then “walks” horizontally across the surface, propelled by the slight slope of the wave field it creates—essentially surfing on its own waves. 8
This setup creates a classical hydrodynamic system that exhibits behaviors strikingly analogous to quantum phenomena, particularly mimicking the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Louis de Broglie and refined by David Bohm. 3 4 In pilot-wave theory, quantum particles have definite positions and are guided by a nonlocal wave function that determines their trajectories, much like how the droplet (analogous to the particle) is guided by the pilot wave (the surface wave field it generates and interacts with). 5 The wave field carries “memory” of the droplet’s past path due to the slow decay, leading to path-dependent motion that echoes quantum nonlocality and interference without any actual quantum effects. 1 0 “A walking droplet producing waves on a vibrating fluid bath” “LARGE”
These experiments replicate several quantum-like features:
• Single-particle diffraction and interference: When a walking droplet passes through a slit or barrier, it can diffract or interfere with its own wave field, producing trajectories that mimic quantum probability distributions, such as in the double-slit experiment (though not perfectly, as some attempts failed to fully reproduce quantum statistics). 2 3
• Quantized orbits: In a rotating frame or corral, droplets settle into discrete, stable orbital paths, analogous to quantized energy levels in atoms. 4
• Tunneling: Droplets can probabilistically “tunnel” through barriers by riding rare wave fluctuations, similar to quantum tunneling. 1
• Entanglement-like correlations: Pairs of droplets can exhibit correlated motion through shared wave fields, hinting at quantum entanglement analogs. 1 1 “The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets (video thumbnail)” “LARGE”
However, while these analogs are compelling and have renewed interest in pilot-wave theories, they are not exact replicas of quantum mechanics. Limitations include the classical nature of the system (no true superposition or wave function collapse), failure to match some quantum predictions (e.g., precise double-slit interference patterns in certain tests), and the macroscopic scale, which doesn’t violate Bell’s inequalities in a way that rules out local hidden variables as quantum mechanics does. 2 5 7 They serve as a powerful visualization tool for understanding how emergent quantum-like statistics can arise from deterministic classical dynamics. 8
There is one simple way to explain Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Quantum Entanglement, and the Hot Big Bang, and that is to "think outside of the speed of light box."
An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis
What if our Universe exists as a subset of a much larger entity called, "Apeiron," that was hypothesized by the ancient Greek philosopher, Anaximander?
A modern definition of the Apeiron:
The ultimate foundational indivisible, but differentiable, substructure substance of the Cosmos was named by the Greek philosopher Anaximander to be Apeiron.
Our Relativistic Quantum Universe is a subset of the Apeiron that came into existence when there occurred a “deceleration event” that fixed a small quantity of the Apeiron into the Bosons and Fermions where their vibration/oscillation wave frequency speed cannot exceed the speed of light. The “deceleration event” also resulted in our Universe being defined with a spacetime where Bosons and Fermions cannot travel across the Universe at speeds faster than the speed of light. The spacetime and Bosons and Fermions of our Universe are all manifestations and differentiations of the one all-encompassing Apeiron, and not divisible from the Apeiron. The Apeiron is not limited to any wave frequency speed. Entangled particles exist within the Apeiron that encompasses the entire Cosmos, and therefore when one particle is decohered and its quantum numbers are defined, then the other particle’s quantum numbers are also instantly defined.
What if Black Holes are where the wave frequency speed of Visible Matter is accelerated to faster than the speed of light transforming the Visible Matter back into the Apeiron causing the Expansion of the Universe?
An analogy would be the contraction and expansion of water when water freezes and melts.
What if some 13.8 billion years ago, two massive Black Holes from a previous Universe merged causing a "deceleration event" where the wave frequency speed of a small quantity of Apeiron was decelerated down to the speed of light transforming that small quantity of Apeiron into the Bosons and Fermions and spacetime of our current Universe?
What if during the "deceleration event" a greater quantity of Apeiron had its wave frequency speed decelerated down to a speed that was faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter of our Universe?
The Dark Matter and Visible Matter of our Universe are still manifestations of the one indivisible Apeiron, and subsequently the Dark Matter affects the Visible Matter by clumping it into Galaxies and Galaxy Clusters.
What if the "deceleration event" was the Inflation of our Universe?
What if the Bosons and Fermions possess Wave-Particle Duality because they are just differentiated entities of the one all-encompassing indivisible Apeiron that decoheres into particles when observed/measured?
Physics of the Universe
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/
Famous double-slit experiment holds up when stripped to its quantum essentials
https://physics.mit.edu/news/famous-double-slit-experiment-holds-up-when-stripped-to-its-quantum-essentials/
https://www.space.com/astronomy/einstein-was-wrong-slightly-about-quantum-physics-new-version-of-the-famous-double-slit-experiment-reveals
New dark matter map reveals cosmic mystery
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57244708
Dark energy may come out of the centre of black holes
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/dark-energy-may-come-out-centre-black-holes
This explanation of the difference between Quantum Entanglement and Human Twins would be good subject matter for a future book.
Me to Grok xAI: It seems to me like Quantum Entanglement is no different than two identical twins being separated before a full nine-month gestation, and then after separation discovering that both twins possess the same physical traits.
Grok xAI Response: Your analogy comparing quantum entanglement to identical twins separated before birth and later found to share the same physical traits is an interesting way to conceptualize the phenomenon, but it captures only part of the story while missing some key distinctions. Let me break it down to clarify where the analogy holds and where it diverges, addressing the essence of quantum entanglement.
Where the Analogy Works
Your analogy nicely highlights the idea of a pre-existing connection. Identical twins share the same DNA from the moment they split from a single fertilized egg, so their physical traits (like eye color or height) are correlated from the start, and discovering those traits later simply reveals what was already determined. Similarly, in quantum entanglement:
• Two particles, like photons or electrons, are created or interact in a way that their quantum states (e.g., spin, polarization) are linked in a single, shared wave function.
• When separated, they retain this correlation, and measuring one particle’s property (e.g., spin up) instantly tells you the other’s (e.g., spin down), much like checking one twin’s eye color predicts the other’s.
• The correlation is “set” at the moment of entanglement, just as twins’ traits are set by their shared DNA.
This makes the analogy a good starting point for understanding that entanglement involves a deep, pre-established relationship between particles, revealed upon measurement.
Where the Analogy Breaks Down
Quantum entanglement, however, has unique features that go beyond classical correlations like those of twins, due to the fundamentally non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. Here are the key differences:
1 Superposition and Indeterminacy:
◦ Unlike twins, whose traits are fixed at conception, entangled particles exist in a superposition of states before measurement. For example, if two electrons are entangled with opposite spins, neither has a definite spin (up or down) until one is measured. The wave function describes all possible outcomes simultaneously, and only upon measurement does one particle “collapse” to a definite state (say, spin up), instantly fixing the other as spin down.
◦ Twins’ traits, like blue eyes, are already determined, even if you don’t observe them yet. Entangled particles have no definite state until measured, which is a hallmark of quantum mechanics.
2 Nonlocality and Instantaneous Correlation:
◦ The twin analogy suggests a classical correlation where traits are preset and simply revealed later. In entanglement, the correlation appears to happen instantaneously, even across vast distances (e.g., kilometers or theoretically light-years), with no time for a signal to travel between particles. Experiments like those by Alain Aspect (1982) and Delft University (2015) show this “spooky action at a distance,” violating Bell’s inequalities, which test whether classical preset correlations (like twins’ DNA) could explain the results.03
◦ This nonlocality doesn’t mean information travels faster than light (as that’s forbidden by relativity), but the correlations defy classical intuition about independent objects.
3 Measurement Dependence:
◦ With twins, traits like eye color exist independently of how or when you observe them. In entanglement, the act of measurement itself defines the state. For instance, if you measure one entangled photon’s polarization along a certain angle, the other photon’s polarization instantly aligns with the measurement choice, even if the angle wasn’t decided until after separation. This context-dependence (called contextuality) has no parallel in the twin analogy, where traits are fixed regardless of how you check them.
4 Quantum Interference and Fragility:
◦ Entangled states are delicate and can be disrupted by interaction with the environment (decoherence), unlike the robust, classical traits of twins. Entanglement also allows for quantum interference effects, where the combined state of the particles exhibits wave-like behavior, as seen in experiments like the double-slit setup with entangled photons.6
◦ Twins don’t exhibit such interference; their traits are static and don’t depend on quantum superpositions.
A Refined Analogy
To make the twin analogy closer to entanglement, imagine a pair of magical twins whose traits aren’t fixed at birth but exist in a strange, undecided state. When you measure one twin’s eye color (say, choosing to check if it’s blue or brown), the other twin’s eye color instantly becomes the opposite, no matter how far apart they are, and the specific trait depends on how you chose to measure it. Moreover, until you measure, neither twin has a definite eye color—they’re in a superposition of all possible colors. This captures the indeterminacy, nonlocality, and measurement-dependence of entanglement.
Experimental Evidence Highlighting the Difference
Real experiments show entanglement’s unique nature:
• In the 2015 Delft experiment, entangled electrons were separated by 1.3 km, and their spins were measured in ways that showed correlations stronger than any classical system (like twins) could produce, violating Bell’s inequalities.4
• The 2019 Glasgow experiment imaged entangled photons, showing that measuring one photon’s path or polarization instantly fixed the other’s, with correlations that couldn’t be explained by pre-set traits.6
• At the LHC, entangled top quarks showed spin correlations that emerged only upon measurement, not because they were fixed beforehand like twins’ traits.1
Why It Feels Like Twins but Isn’t
Your analogy feels intuitive because both cases involve correlation: twins share DNA, entangled particles share a quantum state. But entanglement’s correlations are stronger and weirder than classical ones. The twin analogy implies a deterministic, pre-set relationship, while entanglement involves indeterminate states that resolve only upon measurement, with outcomes that depend on the measurement itself and appear coordinated across distances in ways classical physics can’t explain.
If you’d like, I can explore a specific experiment or aspect of entanglement further, or we could tweak the analogy to better capture the quantum weirdness! What do you think?
Who was the first to say "Shut up and calculate!?” N. David Mermin
According to Wikipedia-"...The instrumentalist view is carried by the famous quote of David Mermin, "Shut up and calculate", often misattributed to Richard Feynman..."
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3615/who-was-the-first-to-say-shut-up-and-calculate
From: What is Real by Adam Becker
Ebook Page 274 of 289
“If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me,” wrote the physicist David Mermin in 1989, “it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’” Mermin followed his summary with a quick rejoinder—“But I won’t shut up.” Yet the phrase “shut up and calculate” took on a life of its own after Mermin set it to paper, and rapidly became the catchphrase of the Copenhagen interpretation among physicists. It was misattributed to Richard Feynman, and eventually even Mermin himself forgot where it came from, only to rediscover, years later, that he was the source of the phrase. “Shut up and calculate!” certainly doesn’t sound appealing if you’re not mathematically inclined. But, even if you’re a physicist, what’s the virtue in shutting up and calculating? Mermin himself provided the answer in his 1989 article. “It is a fact about the quantum theory of paramount importance which ought to be emphasized in every popular and semi-popular exposition, that it permits us to calculate measurable quantities with unprecedented precision.” Quantum physics works. The calculations enabled by the theory are astonishing in their range of applicability and the accuracy of their results. Quantum physics tells us how long it will take to heat up your frying pan to cook your eggs and how large a dying white dwarf star can be without collapsing. It reveals the exact shape of the double helix at the core of life, it tells us the age of the immortal cattle on the rock walls at Lascaux, it speaks of atoms split beneath the stone heart of Africa eons before Oppenheimer and the blinding light of Trinity. It predicts with uncanny accuracy the precise darkness of the blackest night. It shows us the history of the universe in a handful of dust. If shutting up is the price of doing these calculations, then pass the ball gag and break out the graph paper. But why is that the price? Why does Copenhagen require that you shut up in order to calculate? For that matter, how does the Copenhagen interpretation allow you to calculate at all? The measurement problem is so centrally tied to the core of quantum physics that, without some answer to the problem, it’s impossible to use the theory. Some interpretation must guide you in the use of the mathematics—and Copenhagen, as we’ve seen many times over, offers no such solution and is not a true interpretation. So how can shutting up allow you to calculate anything? The form of the Copenhagen interpretation usually found in physics textbooks says (explicitly or otherwise) that measurement is a fundamentally different process from any other found in nature and that “measurement” is defined as “any time a large object encounters a small one.” Large objects are simply assumed to obey classical physics, even as quantum physics is presented to the student as a more fundamental theory underpinning classical physics. In short, the student is implicitly asked to accept as part of the basic structure of quantum physics that there are two worlds, the classical and the quantum, just as Bohr taught. Yet, at the same time, they’re being told that quantum physics is the fundamental theory from which classical physics emerges. So quantum physics students are asked to swallow a contradiction: on the one hand, they’re told that the idea of a classical object is logically prior to the idea of quantum physics, since the idea of a classical object is needed in order to figure out when a measurement has happened; but, on the other hand, they’re told that quantum physics is logically prior to classical physics, the latter emerging out of the former. These ideas can’t both be right. And, in practice, the version of the Copenhagen interpretation most commonly found in textbooks and “in the wild” values the first idea over the second. Some objects are just classical, and it’s interaction with those objects that is defined as measurement for the purposes of quantum physics, “solving” the measurement problem well enough to allow calculations to be performed. Certainly most physicists (including yours truly) also believe that quantum physics underpins classical physics, but when actually performing quantum physics calculations, this fact is conveniently forgotten, and some objects are simply treated as exempt from the Schrödinger equation. Hence the desperate need to shut up while calculating.
A UNIVERSE FROM SOMETHING
The Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis and Quantum Field Theory
A Philosophical Science Fiction Story
This is my version of a Creation story to explain how I imagine that our Universe came into existence, how it exists, and how our Universe will eventually cease to exist.
I call this story, “An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis.”
The ultimate foundational indivisible, but differentiable, substance of the Cosmos was named by the Greek philosopher Anaximander to be Apeiron.
Our Relativistic Quantum Universe is a subset of the Apeiron Cosmos that came into existence when there occurred a “deceleration event” that fixed a small quantity of the Apeiron into the Bosons and Fermions where their vibration/oscillation wave frequency speed cannot exceed the speed of light. The “deceleration event” also resulted in our Universe being defined with a spacetime where Bosons and Fermions cannot travel across the Universe at speeds faster than the speed of light. The spacetime and Bosons and Fermions of our Universe are all manifestations and differentiations of the one all-encompassing Apeiron, and not divisible from the Apeiron. The Apeiron is not limited to any wave frequency speed. Entangled particles exist within the Apeiron that encompasses the entire Cosmos, and therefore when one particle is decohered and its quantum numbers are defined, then the other particle’s quantum numbers are also instantly defined.
[Explain different hypothetical analogies to describe Bosons and Fermions: commingled cloud puffs of swirling and broiling quantum number characteristics, or intertwined strings with each string possessing all of the quantum number characteristics for each particle. The description of the Bosons and Fermions will explain their Wave-Particle Duality.]
The Apeiron is the “Mother of ALL Quantum Fields” that pervades the Cosmos.
Our Universe exists within the larger Cosmos.
Think of Quantum Fields to be like a spherical cloud of crisscrossing grid lines that look like a lattice.
The Hot Big Bang occurred some 13.8 billion years ago when the last two Black Holes from a previous Universe merged. The two Black Holes contained all of the Visible Matter from the previous Universe, but the wave frequency speed of each particle of all of that Visible Matter had been accelerated up to a speed faster than the speed of light, and so all of the Visible Matter of the previous Universe had been transformed into the Dark Matter contained within the last two Black Holes.
A Black Hole is where Visible Matter is transformed into Dark Matter, but the Dark Matter is gravitationally bound inside the Black Hole.
A Black Hole is also where Dark Matter in the Universe is “sucked” into the Black Hole along with the Visible Matter, but the Dark Matter is transformed into Dark Energy, and the Dark Energy can escape the Black Hole back out into the Universe. The escaping Dark Energy from Black Holes is what is causing the Expansion of the Universe.
The transformation of Visible Matter into Dark Matter and Dark Matter into Dark Energy can be thought of as the lattice grid lines of the Quantum Fields being tightened further and further together, and the tightening of lattice grid lines is the accelerating of the wave frequency speed of Matter particles.
When the last two Black Holes of the previous Universe merged together, most of the Dark Matter contained within the two Black Holes was accelerated into Dark Energy, but the merger also resulted in 4.9% of the Dark Matter being decelerated all the way down to the speed of light, and 26.6% of the Dark Matter remaining as Dark Matter, but the merger of the two Black Holes disrupted their gravitational attraction releasing all of the Dark Matter and decelerated Dark Matter back out into the Cosmos.
The transformation of Dark Energy into Dark Matter and Dark Matter into Visible Matter can be thought of as the lattice grid lines of the Quantum Fields being loosened further and further apart, and the loosening of the lattice grid lines is the decelerating of the wave frequency speed of Matter particles.
So, the difference between Dark Energy and Dark Matter and Visible Matter is determined by how tightly together or loosely apart are the grid lines of the lattices of the Quantum Fields.
The gravitational pull of Black Holes is what tightens the grid lines of the lattices of the Quantum Fields resulting in the wave frequency speed of the Visible Matter to be accelerated up to faster than the speed of light into Dark Matter, and the wave frequency speed of Dark Matter is further accelerated up to a speed that transforms the Dark Matter into Dark Energy.
Think of the last two Black Holes as two tightly wound spheres of Quantum Fields, and their merger caused most of the grid lines of the lattices to tighten closer together, but 4.9% of the grid lines of the lattices experienced a type of “bounce back” effect that loosened the grid lines of the lattices, and 26.6% of the grid lines of the lattices to remain unchanged, neither tightened together nor loosened apart.
The deceleration of the 4.9% of Dark Matter down to the speed of the light during the merger of the last two Black Holes of the previous Universe resulted in the quantizing of the Dark Matter into the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons, and that deceleration event was the Inflation of the Universe, and the resulting highly condensed Visible Matter into the form of vibrating and oscillating Fermions and Bosons was the tremendous heat of the Hot Big Bang.
What if Black holes are where the Visible Matter of the Universe are accelerated into Dark Matter, and where the already existing Dark Matter of the Universe are accelerated into Dark Energy?
What if the Dark Matter created inside a Black Hole remains gravitationally bound inside the Black Hole, but the Dark Energy being created inside a Black Hole escapes out into the Universe, and that Dark Energy is what is driving the Expansion of the Universe, just like melting ice drives the expansion of the quantity of liquid water?
What if the last two remaining Black Holes consist solely of Dark Matter, and when the last Black Hole consumes the other Black Hole that process results in most of the Dark Matter contained in both Black Holes being accelerated into Dark Energy, but a portion of the last Black Hole collapsing into decelerated Apeiron that initiates a deceleration chain reaction in the shape of an outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron that dissipates as the wave propagates outbound from the center of the last Black Hole?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron becomes quantized into the Fermions and Bosons of the Standard Model of Particle Physics when the Apeiron’s wave frequency speed decelerates down to the speed of light, and then as the spherical wave continues to propagate outbounds it dissipates such that the Apeiron doesn’t decelerate all the way down to the speed of light, but down to a speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the elusive Dark Matter?
If our Universe will cease to exist when the last two Black Holes merge, then is it possible that our Universe came into existence when the last two Black Holes of a previous Universe merged some 13.8 billion years ago?
What if Black Holes are where the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons of the Standard Model of Particle Physics is accelerated to have a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light?
What if the merger of the last two Black Holes of a Universe is the impetus that initiates a wave frequency speed deceleration event to occur at an instant of the Apeiron that pervades the Cosmos, and when that instant decelerates down to the speed of light is when that instant of Apeiron becomes quantized, and that deceleration event also initiates a chain reaction of adjoining Apeiron to decelerate down to the speed of light creating an outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron that dissipates the further the wave travels away from the initial instant of deceleration?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave at first decelerated just 4.9% of the Apeiron down to the speed of light, and that 4.9% of the Apeiron is the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons that make up the Standard Model of Particle Physics, but then the propagating wave diminished in intensity and the next 26.6% of the Apeiron decelerated down to a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that 26.6% of the Apeiron is the elusive Dark Matter? Likewise, the next 68.5% of the Apeiron’s wave frequency speed didn’t decelerate down at all, and that portion of the Apeiron is the elusive Dark Energy?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave of decelerating Apeiron was the Inflation of our Universe, and the initial 4.9% of Apeiron whose wave frequency speed decelerated down to the speed of light becoming quantized into vibrating and oscillating particles was the source of the tremendous heat that made the Big Bang hot?
What if the Black Holes in our Universe is where the Visible Matter of Fermions and Bosons that make up the Standard Model of Particle Physics has its wave frequency speed accelerated to a speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that reformulated Apeiron is causing the Expansion of our Universe just like when ice is reformulated back into liquid causing the expansion of the quantity of water?
What is the difference between a wave and a field?
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-a-wave-and-a-field.950778/
The discussion clarifies that in quantum physics, waves and fields are distinct concepts, not interchangeable terms. Waves are phenomena described by differential equations, while fields represent values at every point in space and time, such as temperature or wind. Quantum Field Theory posits that the universe's fundamental components are fields, which can ripple and generate particles, contrasting with the earlier notion of waves as physical entities. The analogy of ocean waves versus the ocean itself illustrates that while they may share a 'substance,' they are fundamentally different. Ultimately, understanding the difference between waves and fields is crucial for grasping the principles of quantum mechanics.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-a-wave-and-a-field.950778/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-a-wave-and-a-field.950778/
Planck Constant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
- - - - - - - - - -
The equation, E=hf, is referred to as the Planck relation or the Planck-Einstein relation. The letter h is named after Planck, as Planck’s constant. Energy (E) is related to this constant h, and to the frequency (f) of the electromagnetic wave.
Electromagnetic Wave Frequency = Speed of Light \ Wavelength
In energy wave theory, Planck’s relation describes the energy of a transverse wave, emitted or absorbed as an electron transitions energy levels in an atom. When an electron is contained within an atom, destructive wave interference between protons in the nucleus and the electron causes destructive waves, resulting in binding energy. This binding energy becomes the energy of a photon that is released when an electron is captured or moves states in an atom. The electron’s vibration causes a transverse wave and the photon’s energy is based on the frequency of this vibration.
https://energywavetheory.com/equations/ehf/
Planck Constant: Solving for the classical constants in Eq. 1.3.11 for Planck constant yields the accurate numerical value and units.
https://energywavetheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Planck-solved.png
Planck Constants:
https://energywavetheory.com/equations/classical-constants/
The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 1 billion kilometres per hour; 700 million miles per hour). It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter their relative velocity. It is the upper limit for the speed at which information, matter, or energy can travel through space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Sent to Adam Becker contact:
https://freelanceastrophysicist.com/
Has anyone ever considered that since our Universe is defined by and constrained by the speed of light that maybe Inflation and the Hot Big Bang were the result of a deceleration of some cosmic field or substance (I call it Apeiron) that has a wave frequency speed that is faster, perhaps many times faster, than the speed of light? And what if Black Holes are the acceleration of matter’s quantum wave state back into Apeiron that has a wave frequency speed faster than the speed of light? And what if that “new” Apeiron filling-up the Universe is what is causing the Expansion of our Universe. And what if Dark Matter is Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light?
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/a-new-hypothetical-framework-for?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
What if….
Our Universe exists in a sea of Apeiron (see Anaximander) just like fish exist in a sea of water, and just like water transforms into a solid when its temperature is lowered, likewise the Apeiron becomes quantized and transforms into the Standard Model of Particle Physics when its wave frequency speed is decelerated down to the speed of light.
When the temperature of water decreases, the water transforms into a solid called ice, and that decreases the quantity of liquid water.
When the temperature increases the solid called ice is transformed back into water increasing the quantity of water.
When the Apeiron decelerates down to the speed of light the Apeiron becomes quantized and transforms into solids called “The Standard Model of Particle Physics,” and that decreases the quantity of Apeiron.
When “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” are accelerated and condensed in a Black Hole back into Apeiron, the quantity of Apeiron is increased.
The increase in Apeiron being created in Black Holes is the “substance” that is causing the expansion of the Universe, just like raisin bread dough in an oven expands causing the raisins to spread further apart.
Note: “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” refers to Apeiron whose wave frequency speed has been decelerated down to the speed of light. Black Holes accelerate “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” back into Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron
Since the Cosmology community seems to be stuck trying to define Dark Matter and why our Universe is composed of ≈5% Fermions & Bosons (Normal Matter) and ≈26.8% Dark Matter and ≈68.2% Dark Energy, here's a little "thinking outside of the box" that provides an unexplored new framework that might possibly provide an explanation. I hope you will take a few minutes to give this hypothesis a little consideration.
Before Inflation and the Hot Big Bang there were no photons, there was no light, and there was no "speed of light" limit or constraints.
What if the Cosmos is composed of a "something" that has a wave frequency speed many times faster than the speed of light? Let that "something" be called Apeiron.
What if ≈13.8 billion years ago there occurred a "quantum fluctuation" in the Apeiron field causing an instant of Apeiron to decelerate all the way down to the speed of light resulting in the Apeiron field to be quantized into Fermions and Bosons?
What if that instant of deceleration also initiated a chain reaction of adjoining Apeiron to decelerate down to the speed of light causing an outbound propagating spherical wave leaving behind in its wake a sea of Fermions and Bosons?
What if that outbound propagating spherical wave was the Inflation of our Universe and the resultant sea of vibrating/oscillating Fermions created the heat that made the Big Bang Hot?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave dissipated in its intensity as it propagated outbound such that the initial deceleration of the Apeiron field was intense enough to decelerate the Apeiron field all the way down to the speed of light, but then the wave intensity dissipated such that further out Apeiron wasn't decelerated all the way down to the speed of light resulting in Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter of our Universe?
What if the Black Holes at the center of Spiral Galaxies is the accelerating and condensing of Normal Matter back into Apeiron with a wave frequency speed faster than the speed of light and that "new" Apeiron is the substance that is causing the Expansion of our Universe and spreading of the Galaxies further apart from one another?
What if the Apeiron is what makes possible quantum entanglement across cosmological distances at speeds faster than the speed of light?
A New Hypothetical Framework for the Origin and Evolution of our Universe
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/a-new-hypothetical-framework-for?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
How The Universe Might Have Come Into Existence
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/how-the-universe-might-have-come?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/apeiron-cycle-hypothesis-rev-1?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
From: Quanta and Fields by Sean Carroll
Location 167 of 744 (Kindle ebook)
“The (electric field) force will fall off (dissipate) as an inverse-square law, just as in Newtonian gravity.”
“What if the outbound propagating spherical wave dissipated in its intensity as it propagated outbound such that the initial deceleration of the Apeiron field was intense enough to decelerate the Apeiron field down to the speed of light, but then the wave intensity dissipated such that further out Apeiron wasn't decelerated down to the speed of light resulting in Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter?“
Submitted to Brian Greene at Columbia University.
https://www.briangreene.org/contact/
A One-Page Summary That Encompasses The Origin and Evolution of Our Universe.
An Apeiron Cycle Hypothesis where the Universe exists within a sea of Apeiron just like fish exist in a sea of water, and just like water transforms into a solid when its temperature is lowered, likewise, the Apeiron becomes quantized and transforms into particles when its wave frequency speed is decelerated down to the speed of light.
Why is our Universe is composed of ≈4.9% Normal Matter and ≈26.8% Dark Matter and ≈68.3% Dark Energy.
Before Inflation and the Hot Big Bang there were no photons, there was no light, and there was no "speed of light" limit.
What if the Cosmos is composed of a "something" that has a wave frequency speed faster than the speed of light? Let that "something" be called Apeiron. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron)
What if ≈13.8 billion years ago there occurred a "quantum fluctuation" in the Apeiron field causing an instant of Apeiron to decelerate down to the speed of light resulting in the Apeiron field to be quantized into particles?
What if that instant of deceleration also initiated a chain reaction of adjoining Apeiron to also decelerate down to the speed of light causing an outbound propagating spherical wave leaving behind in its wake a hot sea of vibrating particles (Inflation)?
What if the outbound propagating spherical wave dissipated in its intensity as it propagated outbound such that the initial deceleration of the Apeiron field was intense enough to decelerate the Apeiron field down to the speed of light, but then the wave intensity dissipated such that further out Apeiron wasn't decelerated down to the speed of light resulting in Apeiron with a wave frequency speed that is faster than the speed of light, and that Apeiron is the Dark Matter?
What if the Black Holes at the center of Galaxies is the acceleration of Normal Matter back into Apeiron, which is causing the Expansion of the Universe?