Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

The New York Review of Books [January 19^th2017] has a critical essay by physicist Steven Weinberg, who teaches at the University of Texas, Austin and has won a Nobel Prize in Physics and the National Medal of Science: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics. [Page 51 ff.]

In his essay Dr. (or Professor) Weinberg bemoans the state of quantum mechanics, as it exists among physicists today, many eschewing the probability aspects of quantum mechanics and struggling with quantum entanglement.

For my purposes here, the whole idea that quantum mechanics is under assault by the physics community, is pleasing, insofar as I see quantum mechanics/theory much as Einstein did: “Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing.” [In a 1926 letter to Max Born, cited by Weinberg on page 51.]

However, I like the concept of “quantum entanglement” speculating, as you know, that UFOs, as von Neumann-like AI devices, may be using or has used quantum entanglement to communicate, instantaneously between machines or back to their original intergalactic venue.

Weinberg writes this, however:

“There is another requirement, satisfied in ordinary quantum mechanics, that in entangled states the evolution of probabilities during measurements cannot be used to send instantaneous signal, which would violate the theory of relativity. Special relativity requires that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light.” [Page 53]

I’ve proposed that communication, using quantum entanglement, doesn’t involve “signals.” Particles, seduced by an advanced AI species for communication, would be known by that species to have nothing to do with “signals” or what we see as communication. Quantum entanglement is, as I see it, an inherent, paranormal aspect of quantum particles, not unlike that experienced by twins; that is, nothing is communicated between quantum twins; they are “connected” by something intrinsic to their being, that interacts, immediately, without signaling or communication as we understand it.

Quantum particles have a link that transcends connectivity as we understand connectivity.

(Eric Wargo of thenightshirt.com understands I bet.)

But that’s a side issue here.

Weinberg presents the arguments against quantum predictivity while accepting the fact that quantum experiments can be used effectively with the mechanisms of the theory, but writes that Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation about the unpredictability in a measurement of spin in a quantum state “is now widely felt to be unacceptable.” [Page 52]

Professor Weinberg writes about consciousness and reality in the quantum context, which some of you would do well to read.

But let me be clear, Weinberg states that “the problems of understanding measurement in the present form of quantum mechanics may be a warning that the theory needs modification.” [Page 53]

My point may be that while quantum mechanics is the lingua franca of physics today, it, too, will go (or is going) the way of Newtonian physics, meaning that reality is something more complex and profound than quantum mechanics (and physicists) think.

Thus, we have to concede that ufology, a pseudo-something, has to be discarded by we UFO buffs, as it is iffier than quantum mechanics or anything else in the realms with which we use it.

And we have to make proposals about UFO cases and reports that are newer than new, something that most of my readers, here, and those elsewhere in the UFO universe refuse to do, harking back to old, perfunctory UFO “research” and explanations.

If Quantum Mechanics can be stressed by new-thought, how much more so can UFO commentary and ufology be?

RR