Car accidents

For car insurance companies, the only tool they could use is to collect the statistical data based on the parameters such as areas, ages, genders, professions, time of the day, and time of the year etc. to determine their insurance policies in order to be profitable. They can show charts and graphs of all accidents that have happened in the past and hope that they could use the data to predict the future. If you ask any insurance company when and where a particular accident is before it happens, the question becomes ridiculers since there is no such thing so called accident before it really happens. In other words, an event so called accident can only be recorded (observed) when it occurs.

It sounds to me that the same concept could be applied to the physical world. Questions of the locations or any other properties of an electron before we observe it are nonsense since there is no such thing called electron. An electron along with its properties is really created by us when we observe and without the observation, the concept of an electron could only exist in our mind.

One may argue that we have such profound understandings of the properties or behaviors of electronics so that we could even design electronic devices/products for various purposes. My counter argument is that the insurance companies could also do the same thing to optimize their strategies by using the statistical data collected from the past in order to maximize their profitability. In other words, the strategies developed by the insurance companies could also be considered as products.

Mathematics and modern science

It has been almost another year now since I wrote my last post.

I suddenly start to wonder how our modern science has evolved since Galileo time. Also I am curious if the path we have gone so far is the right or the only path we could take.

First of all, I personally believe that mathematics is the mother of all science and without it, there would be no modern science at all. Most of the scientific theories have been written in one or another form of mathematical expressions. The reason of using mathematical expression to describe a theory is that the theory, once verified, could be used to predict the future accurately. However, faced by quantum theory, the last mathematical tool left for us is the statistical expression that could only describes group behaviours rather than individuals. In other words, we are no longer capable of calculating and predicting individual objects such as electrons or any other particles as the way we used to. So what is going on? Is that the mathematical tools we have developed is not adequate? Or is that the individual reality does not exist at all? If so, then a reality only appear when we observe that in turn the reality is created by our observation. One possibility is that an event so called observation does not have any meaning.

Before I discuss if observation means anything, lets examine what mathematics has done for us. I believe the modern mathematics originated from the study of numbers and geometries. For numbers, it took humans a very long time to have the concept of “1” In fact, number “1” is only a abstract concept that does not have any physical representation, or in other words, the concept of number “1” only exists in human’s mind. One may argue that there could be “1” apple that does not need the existence of human mind. However, if we really have a close look of “1” apple, the concept of apple become fuzzy. The reason is that we have to ask ourselves where the boundary of “1” apple is. At any given moment, the apple is exchanging molecules with surroundings so that “1” apple at a given time has different compound then another time. We could only omit the details and call that apple “1” apple, but without our mind to abstract the concept of “1”, the physical “1” apple does not exist at all.

Same principle can be applied to geometry. A concept of a circle, a triangle or a rectangle is also an abstracted concept reside in human’s mind. For example, a circle is made with a line that all the points on it have equal distance to a single point e.g. the centre of the circle. The line has zero width that cannot exist in the physical world. One may find a physical object that has similar shape as a circle, but the concept of a circle is absolutely an abstract one. In other words, without human brain, a circle does not exist.

By having a concept of a number or geometry, we still don’t have mathematics yet. To do that, we need to define certain rules. In the ancient days, people count the numbers by tying knots or carving sticks. By then, the concept of adding did not yet exist. Someone on someday in the distance past invented a simple mathematical rule called “adding” and found this rule very useful. The “adding” rule says that when one number is added to another, the result of that operation gives a new number that equals to the sum of the two numbers. When I say “useful” I mean that the rule makes the number counting much easier. Subsequently another rule was created called “subtract” Once again, people found the new rule also very helpful. Of course, many rules have been invented afterwards and now we have our modern mathematics. However, the point here I am trying to make is that the rules are invented by humans for the reason of usefulness. Everyone could also invent new rules. For example, I could invent a new rule called “nonsense” When a number is nonsensed, the result would swap the highest digit of the number with the lowest one. e.g. Nonsense(13886) = 63881. If we study this rule very hard, we would find many interesting properties that might lead us to a new territory where no one has explored. On other hand, we may find that this new rule does not give us anything useful. Quickly, we abandon this rule and start to invent new ones. Another good example of inventing new rules is Mr. Stephen Wolfram who wrote a book called "A new kind of science" In the book, instead of using numbers, Mr. Wolfram developed a new tool called automata. With a set of new rules, Mr. Wolfram explored many very interesting properties of automata. He was also trying to use this new mathematical tool to describe our nature even including quantum phenomena. How successful this new method will be? Time will tell us in the future. To me, mathematics is invented by human just like the steam engine invented by Thomas Savery, Thomas Newcomen and James WattWatt. Without human, mathematics does not exist in nature. In other words, mathematics is invented rather discovered.

The reason I spend a long paragraph to state if the mathematics is invented or discovered is that the modern science development is based on a tool, a language i.e. mathematics created by human. The language helps us to comprehend our perceptions. Just like any other language including linguistic ones, mathematics could only describe the reality to a certain degree while the true reality is far beyond.

One of the interesting phenomena in quantum mechanics is that an object could appear at two different locations at same time. This is only a mathematical illusion and has nothing to do with the reality. In my opinion, the problem is mainly from the concept of location. The properties such as location and time are only ideas that are comprehensible by our brains. In reality they do not exist at all.

More writings are coming.

Observation Again

Observation becomes the vital aspect of quantum theory since according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, reality (certain aspect of) is realized only when an observation occurs. In other words, without observation, reality does not exist at all - the key point leads to the idealism believes.

However, I am really having a hard time to comprehend the concept of observation by now.
·What does observation really mean?
·What kind activities are qualified as observation?
·Why do we humans have such ability?
·Does any other life form have the ability to observe?
·When one observes (reality is realized for that person), is the reality realized to all others?
·Humans are also made with common matters, so why is one part of universe capable of observing another part.
·If the statement that reality is realized only when an observation occurs is true, then can I say that an observation occurs only when reality is realized? Both observer and observed are made with common matter.
·What is the outcome of an observation, reality or knowledge of reality?
·If two parties observe each other, does it mean the word observation is meaningless since the concepts of observer and observed are no longer separable.

Furthermore, when we say the reality does not exist at all, does it mean:

·Reality actually does exist, but we cannot gain any knowledge of it – i.e. the reality is behind a curtain, therefore, it is equivalent to non-existence.
·Or, reality in terms of attributes is no longer valid - i.e. the classical definitions of attributes are created by man and therefore, they could only be used for measurement (observation). Any men made parameters are subject to idealism since without men, those attributes would not exist.

Why is the reality behind a curtain? Is it because that we as the observer, are part of the system, or is it because the attributes we use to define the reality are not adequate.

We know when we observe, which is the only way we know to gain knowledge, we rely on instrument. So that in the way, any observable attributes such as speed, position, energy etc. are partial projections of the whole reality and only valid for measurement. Human could only comprehend those man-defined parameters.

In fact, an observation to me is the observed interact with observation apparatus. The effect of the interaction is magnified and perceived by an observer. Keep in mind that all three parties (observed, observer and observation apparatus) are in the same universe. No one is above or separated from others.

Life, Reincarnation and God

The following paragraphs do not make any sense even to myself, but the thoughts about it have been coming back to my mind so frequent that I have to write it done to get raid of them from my bothered brain.

What is life and why is it so special? To me, as mentioned in earlier postings, any life form on earth is nothing but a bunch of molecules and elements commonly available on our mother earth been arranged in very special ways. The arrangements are so special and complex that some of the life entities starting to have illusions of thoughts, emotions, free will, intelligences, mind, soul, spiritualities and so on. The illusion tends to be very real at least to me since I am experiencing it even at this very moment of writing the article. However, to me at least, the terms such as thoughts, emotions, mind, or spirit represent nothing but complexity of the molecule arrangement.

To comprehend what life really is, I would rather use the following analogy that the life on earth is like the waves in a pond. Each waveform represents an individual life on earth. By saying so, we could find similarities between the waves and life:

·The material that made up the waves is the same i.e. water while all life forms are made of DNAs which only have four different chemical compounds (A, C, G, T)
·Waves have different shapes, which could represent different life form or species
·Waves are created and destroyed all the time which represents the birth and death
·Each individual wave is the result of all prior waves i.e. every wave is the reincarnation of all prior waves
·Every wave will have impact on all waves in the future i.e. every wave would reincarnate to all waves in the future
·The tendency of waves moving up or down gives the wave a sense (an illusion) of consciousness
·The behaviors of all waves follow the laws of physics – all the illusions are the same and predetermined.
·Each individual consciousness is part of bigger consciousness (the consciousness of the pond)
·The wave peaks (above the static line) represents life in this world (Yang)
·The wave valleys (below the static line) represent the life in the opposite world (Yin)

So where are the waves come from? They are created by God

It's written down and I am liberated.

Reality and knowledge of reality

Schrodinger developed a thought experiment commonly called Schrodinger's Cat to amplify the quantum concept from microscopic level to a macroscopic level. Schrodinger's intention of developing such a model is to counter Bohr's believe that it is impossible to invent a new language to describe the "quantum reality" However, Bohr argued back that the theory is about our state of knowledge of the cat, not about the cat. If Bohr is right, then it implies that all theories human beings have developed could only be used to gain the knowledge of certain aspect of the reality.

Then the question becomes if the knowledge of reality and the reality itself are the same. In my opinion, they are different. In case of Plato's Cave, the slaves could gain some knowledge such as shape, size etc. by studying the shadows of the studied objects, but that knowledge represents only certain properties the reality, but not the reality itself.

To avoid the concept of slave, I would rather develop another analogy that a curtain (the measuring apparatus) separates all observers and all realities even though we are all free men (are we really? I wondered). This curtain is imposed by God for whatever the reasons. The reality could only project certain aspects of itself onto the curtain that allows the observers to observe. As mentioned earlier, observers could obtain certain knowledge of the reality by studying the projection (the shadow), but would never be able to reach the reality itself. Certain properties of the reality could not be projected onto the curtain at same time for the same reasons as the example of a cube mentioned in earlier post (Duality and Uncertainty Principles, July 15, 2004).

For now, I call it Shen’ Curtain (what a joke).

The problem of this model is that it assumes the reality does exist even though the reality is beyond our reach while quantum theory says that there is no deeper reality (no reality behind the curtain). More thinking is needed.

I and Observation

I know, at least I think I know, that I did not exist before I was born.

I know, at least I think I know, that I will not exist after I die

I know, at least I think I know, that the matter made up me exiested before I was born

I know, at least I think I know, that the matter made up me will continues to exist after I die

I know, at least I think I know, that I am a part of the world within a certain time period

I know, at least I think I know, that the world contains me within a certain time period

I know, at least I think I know, that I am capable of observing the world

I know, at least I think I know, that I am capable of observing myself

I know, at least I think I know, that, when I observe, the world is disturbed

I know, at least I think I know, that, when I observe, I am disturbed

An observation is the world disturbing itself!!! How is this possible

Questioning Bell's Theorem

Imagine that you blindly place a pair of shoes into two boxes with one shoe in each. Once it is done, you send one box to John; and another to Bell without knowing which is send to whom. John and Bell live in different cities with some hundreds of miles apart. Before any of the boxes is opened, no one, including you, knows who got which shoe (either left or right). Being a pair, the shoes are called entangled in terms of quantum theory. Entanglement means that the object on either side contains some or complete information of another. Revealing one's reality would reveal another. Since there is no way to tell which shoe is in either box without opening them, both shoes, in this case, are in a dual states i.e. either shoe is both right and left. The above analogy is similar to Schrodinger's cat.

When either John or Bell opens one of the boxes, the reality is revealed and the outcome of the first opened box would instaniously affect the outcome of the second one with no time interval i.e. the impact is faster than the speed of light. This is what Bell's theorem is trying to imply.

However, this instantaneous interaction between the two boxes has no physical meaning. There is no information or matter been transferred faster than speed of light. It only states that the realities on both sides are unveiled simultaneously when one side makes an observation as long as the both sides are entangled together.

In case of electron spin experiment, used to prove Bell's theorem, the situation is a bit more complicated than the popularized story above. My concern is that the time difference between the two observations. if one side of observation occurs earlier than another, we still have to say that the realities on both sides are unveiled at same time even if the observation on the second side has not happened. At mean time, when the first observation occurs, the entanglement between the two sides is destroyed. Therefore, it is extremely important to observe both sides at exact same time. Otherwise, any arguments concerning the entanglement is not valid. Once the entanglement is destroyed, the status of the second particle is once again uncertain. For this reason, I am questioning if any Bell's theorem related experiment has put this fact into consideration. It is worthwhile to arrange an experiment with different distances on two sides.

Assuming that the time difference between the first and the second observations is noticeable (not zero). Once the first observation occur, as mentioned earlier, the entanglement is no longer exist. Therefore, the outcome of second observation should be same as any other non-entangled tests, I.e. 50% wrong. If the result still agree with what Bell's theorem predicted, then we have to agree that once reality is unveiled, the status of that reality would be kept the same until it is altered. However, this would against the current QM principles. If, on other hand, the outcome does not agree with Bell's prediction, then what are the allowed time intervals between the two observations that all current experiment has been using?

<>
Another thing worthwhile to try is to introduce the time factor into Bell's inequality.

Consciousness

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bertrand d'Espagnat's conclusion resonates with the Buddhist realization that ultimately, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form; form is not other than emptiness and emptiness is not other than form" (Heart Sutra).

That is not to say form does not exist, but rather that all forms (and sensory perceptions, mental processes, practices and consciousness) are generated from one inherent, singular and undivided reality - emptiness - by the existence of consciousness. Consciousness is the mode of the universe as we experience it. Consciousness unfolds the multiple forms of the universe in a similar way that a laser unfolds the spatial information embedded in every part of a hologram.