Saturday, December 5, 2020

Hard core Einsteinian realism predicts that our lives are illusion

Yes, this title calls for some explanation of what I mean.

This year, I understand better how the key pieces really fit together under Einsteinian realism,

and today I see more clearly what they imply for real life today in a world which does seem to be on the  verge of dissolving away into goo, like waking up from a dream. Some people believe that Trump leaving the White House will be enough to prevent that dissolving away into unreality, but it is not at all so easy.

 

I.               What Einsteinian Realism is and Why I Know About It

 

But first: what do I mean by “hard core Einsteinian realism?” It is a type of hard core belief in objective reality.

I defined Einsteinian realism already in papers published in 2019, linked to at Werbos.com/religions.htm, and earlier.

Here, I define “hard core Einsteinian realism” as the belief that we live in a curved Minkoswki space, the same kind of spacetime continuum which Einstein discussed in his theory of general relativity. EVERYTHING which exists in reality exists in that space. The underlying reality is just the state of “force fields” which vary over space and time in that continuum. What’s more, they are “governed” by hard core partial differential equations, as is discussed in the nook Classical Fields b Mshe Carmeli.

 

How could I imagine that an old man like me sitting in his kitchen in December 2020 could be the first person of earth to really understand the implications of an idea which came from Einstein himself long ago?

 

First, because very few serious physicists who understand this math have really looked into the question.

Most physicists, like Weinberg, who really understand the math gave upon Einsteinian realism long ago, because it does not SEEM to fit a lot of important empirical results in quantum mechanics. At OUR level of life, as revealed in physics experiments, we currently seem to be governed by the equation psi dot = i H psi (sometimes called the “modern Schrodinger equation”), which assumes that we ae living in an infinite dimensional multiverse. Just a year ago (see those papers linked to from  werbos.com/religions.htm), I thought that this was more likely to be due than Einsteinian realism is. When I was younger (from age 15 to 2009), I did believe in Einsteinain realism, but more and more evidence came in proving the existence of “macroscopic Schrodinger cats”. The multiverse theory also fit very naturally with a lot of experiments in hard core quantum optics, which I funded and oversaw from the National Science Foundation.

(See https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.3310.pdf.)

 

Second, because I was the first to derive the full mathematical mapping which tells us how any statistical mixture of possibilities over ordinary spacetime corresponds to a “density matrix” in the multiverse theory.

(See https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.5116.) Because of how important that breakthrough was, I was invited b Marlan Scully

(a world leader in quantum optics) to present this in 2014 and 2015 in his elite workshop on quantum foundations at Princeton – but I disappointed him in 2015 by asking to discuss a different subject, some radical new experiments in quantum optics b Yanhua Shih and Tao Peng, which have yet to be fully published because of important unanswered questions.

 

Even by 1985 or so, very few serious physicists believed that hard core Einsteinian realism had any hope of being true, because of EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE from two generations (now four) of ever more precise experiments called “Bell’s Theorem experiments.” But most people who knew about his evidence learned about it from popularized accounts (which always tend to stretch a few points) or from the semi al book by J.S. Bell, The Speakable and Unspeakable In Quantum Mechanics. Those who actually read the book learned that the theorem being tested was actually the CHSH Theorem, by Clauser, Holt Shimony and Horne; I learned about in in the early 1970s from oc hard Holt himself, a classmate, who gave me a preprint.

 

The popular book by Bell says that these experimental resoluts rule out “local realism.” No, that is not what the theorem said. It ruled out what it called “local, causal hidden variable theories”of physics. It defined the word “causal” in a very special way. Many times I published papers showing that Einsteinian realism can still fit, if we look closer at the way that CHSH DEFINED the word “causal” and find Einsteinian theories which do not fall under that restrictin.

In later years, I published a paper (also posted at arxiv) DEMONSTRATING actual modlesof quantum optics, consistent with Einsteinian realism, which DO give the right predictions for the CHSH experiments. At research hgate, I have gone further, in more examples of this type of model in new types of experiment.

 

II.            And Now: Connecting Underlying Reality to Our Level of Reality

 

Here is a key point. Obviously, since I was the first to build a working, predictive model in that category, I have some idea of how they work. They were not models of the deepest underlying reality, the Lagrange function of the universe.

In a way, they were the kind of approximations used in thermodynamics, DERIVED from underlying principles, but simplified in a way which lets us understand specific experiments and predict them without unnecessary distraction by irrelevant minutiae. They involve a network of POSSIBLE scenarios or time tracks, in which the “imaginary objects” or “emergent patterns” we call “photons” follow MULTIPLE possible paths. These paths are NOT parallel universes.

They are not really things that DID actually happen. They exist only in a mathematical sense as terms in a complete, infinite dimensional expansion of how to solve the underlying, Einsteinian partial differential equations over Minkowski space. They “live: in approximation space”, not the teal space of space and time.

 

I came to understand the link between what a photon experiences in such an experiment and what we experience in our lives in 2014, when I compared what a photon experiences in a new, precise model of how polarizers work (CMRFp,

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1309/1309.6168.pdf ), versus what I was experiencing at NSF when a certain group (called “the gestapo” by several of my colleagues) created a new polarizing environment. See https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Links-Between-Consciousness-and-the-Physics-of-Time-Werbos/ce9d366d584ce130b549f276d8b1135d331f8547?p2df for a stable web-based copy of the paper I wrote on that connection.

 

When a “photon” is “moving forward” along such a path, going through a standard type of polatrizer (like your sunglasses!!), it seems to have three choices at any moment in time. It can give up its own, “personal” polarization which it experiences at that time, either by (1) jumping suddenly to the polarization of its environment, then ebing absorbed and disappearing form view; or (2) jumping to a defiant polarization 90 degrees out, which will let it continue hat way until it escapes from the polarizer altogether. But it can also “screw up its face,” like the lead actor in an old British Comedya about the Seven Deadly Sins, and cause a “remake” which removes that entire time track from existence, INCLUDING that ‘self” which makes that decision.

 

In 2014, when the new “gestapo” was forcing that kind of choice, I wondered: “AM I less powerful than a little photon? Do **I** have a third choice?”

 

Bit by bit, I came to believe that I do. Just as that photon is nothing but a possible pattern of fields LIKE electric and magnetic fields, my mundane consciousness is just a possible pattern of the atoms and fields which make up my brain.

It is just an emergent pattern, one of many, in the same kind of mathematical space which this photon lives in.

 

If we ALSO have some kind of “soul” (see Werbos.com/religions.htm), which I do not expect all of you to believe quite yet, that soul would be made of a broader suite of underlying force fields, with a brain more like a quantum computer than a classical computer.

 

III.          Bottom Line: Who You Are

 

That aspect of “you” which lives in your brain is just a possibility, a possibility which might indeed “dissolve into goo” as your present time track interacts with other possibilities, as SOMEONE in your illusory world decides to screw up his face like that photon or comedian I just mentioned.

 

THIS IS THE HARDEST CORE REALISTIC THEORY OF WHO YOU ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE NOW KNOW FROM ENDLESS EXPETIMENTS IN HARD CORE PHYSICS. Those experiments, and the new ones of macroscopic Schrodinger cats, DO allow for the mathematical possibility that a different theory might be rue, BUT ALL THEORIES WHICH FIT ARE EVEN WEIRDER THAN THIS.

 

We ARE what Penrose once called “shadows of the mind,” the shadows of Plato’s cave. Not really real.

We are what Deepak Chopra has called “fictional characters”.

 

At www.werbos.com/NATO_terrorism.pdf, I posted my chapter in a NATO book from a workshop where I was asked: what do the new results actually imply for our level of life? That chapter BEGAN my exploration of that very real, very practical issue. No matter what happens after the recent US election, we know hat a lot of peoplewill be screwing up their faces as hard as they can for awhile, and what would happen in they also possess souls, in varying degrees?

 

If we do… and if hard core Einsteinian realism is true… the entire time track we live on now on earth may indeed “dissolve into goo.” It may prove to be what some folks call “maya” or “delusion.” Not only our future but our present and our past will go away; they will not be part of the ACTUAL final state of the 4D space-time continuum.

 

Will they leave ANY trace at all of having existed?

 

Yes, if there are souls. The memory of our lives would echo, and “live on”, only as it influences the memory and state of our noosphere, which COMBINES tracks in much the way that a quantum computer can ( but it would be more powerful than the limited concepts of quantum computing in use today in the US).

 

And so, if you rise up in the morning from a spiritual kind of state like cosmic consciousness, and enter the solid realities of mundane life, and seek to have a real impact…

 

What is real? The impact on the imaginary world of your mundane experience, a time track likely to dissolve

In time, maybe sooner than expected (if you all keep screwing up your faces so much)? Or the impact you can have when connected to the noosphere, leaving at least SOME trace in a place which is more real and more permanent than this one?

 

In truth, I believe that traces or memories of OTHER dissolved existences have had an impact even on ours, even in the mundane world, as traces of those other memories touch the communities of the arts, where we in our souls can even remember some of that more directly. And in our own connections to the noosphere, where it is especially important to be careful about screwing up our faces.

 

IV.          Footnote – alternatives

 

In another post, I mentioned some “PARWIN” (People are Real, World Is Not” theories as alternatives to Einsteinian realism. When Deepak once proposed some very nonmainstream theories, Hal Cox once observed: “That theory might be totally wrong as physics, but still describe our lives in an important way.” His post follows that spirit, but reality might be even weirder than this. Maybe. But perhaps this viewpoint already contains all the weirdness we really need,

at our level of existence. We already have enough to adapt to and connect to. At least, we humans do, even if body and soul are both included. Like humble villagers in prehistpric China, we also know and accept the fact that there is something ELSE over the horizon, but we have “dharma and karma” enough in our own little village solar system right now.

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment