Quantum Physics and the Dream Metaphor

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Quantum Physics and the Dream Metaphor"

Anissa McBride
5 years ago
Views:

1 241 Perspectives Quantum Physics and the Dream Metaphor Thomas G. Schumann 1 Abstract To investigate the nature of reality it is necessary to use any clues that one can. Quantum physics and the fact of conscious experience are among those clues. We present a model of reality which uses the metaphors of a dream to describe our experience and to make some of the strange aspects of quantum physics seem more intuitive. Key Words: quantum consciousness, meta-brain, dream NeuroQuantology 2007; 2: According to quantum theory the state of a system can be described as a superposition of possible values for a characteristic, such as energy or position. When the system is observed, one of the values is observed and becomes real with a probability that depends on the original state before the observation. The system did not have a value for the characteristic, even an unknown value, before the observation. In the quantum theory we may consider the outcome of the observation to be determined by hidden variables but contradictions occur if the variables are all local. Non-local variables must be included. We use the metaphor of a dream (Schumann, 2000) to describe this situation; the brain determining the dream produces the non-local hidden variables that determine which value of a characteristic is 1 Corresponding author: Thomas G. Schumann Telephone: (805) Address: 630 Perkins Lane, Apt. 3 San Luis Obispo, California, USA. tschuman@calpoly.edu or tschuman315@yahoo.com

2 242 actually observed. The variables of the brain are hidden because during the dream the brain which produces the dream is not observed by the dreamer. The variables may be non-local because, though in an ordinary dream the dreamer s brain is confined to his skull, he may dream of correlated events in distant galaxies, planets, etc. (as in entangled quantum states). In a dream that which is not observed does not exist. If you dream of a mountain and ask what is behind the mountain, perhaps a desert or a jungle, there is no meaningful answer until you dream of the other side of the mountain and then you may observe a jungle and then and only then does the jungle exist. The object and the experience of perceiving the object are the same. Thus the dream metaphor, in this aspect, mirrors a fundamental principle of quantum theory. To further argue this equivalence of mental experience with what we traditionally call physical reality we will discuss the mutual causation or correlations between the mental and the physical worlds. Consider electromagnetism. A changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field. A changing magnetic field produces a changing electric field. We consider them two sides of a single coin, the electromagnetic field. If in one frame of reference there is only an electric field, in another reference frame, moving relative to the first, there is also a magnetic field as well as an electric field. If in one frame there is only a magnetic field, in another frame, moving relative to the first, there is also an electric field as well as a magnetic field. The two fields are inseparable. Similarly if the physical world produces conscious, mental experience and the mental world produces physical effects this may suggest that the two are in some sense equivalent or part of one entity as occurs in a dream. If I drop a stone on my foot I will experience pain. Clearly the physical world produces conscious experience. I will argue that the mental world also affects the physical. The two primary arguments I will discuss come first from the double slit experiment frequently discussed in quantum physics and second from the evolution of emotions. (One could perhaps also make additional arguments from biofeedback, from the placebo effect or

3 243 from a heart pounding nightmare. However screen. The observer does not know I believe these last three are less persuasive than the first two.) Consider first the double slit experiment. If individual particles pass through the double slit and then onto a distant screen they form a characteristic double slit interference pattern on the through which screen the particle has passed and in some sense, according to the quantum theory, it passes through both slits; there is a superposition of the two possibilities. We label each slit: slit A and slit B. Next we put a small particle detector behind slit A (Figure 1). Figure 1. If only particles not interacting with detector are selected, there will be a single slit diffraction pattern forming on the screen. We adjust the electronics so that only the particles which do not register on the particle detector are measured on the distant screen. No physical interaction has occurred with these particles. Yet now they form a single slit interference pattern on the screen. We know that they have passed through slit B and that knowledge without any physical interaction has affected the particles so that they form a different pattern. This is not simply a subtraction of data points. There are positions on the screen for which no particles can land when the particle detector is absent and on which particles do land with the particle detector present. Our mere knowledge of the passage through slit B has affected the behavior of the particles. We next consider the evolution of emotions; we will discuss fear and love. Why did the emotion of fear evolve? Why did not most people evolve so that they

4 244 do not experience fear but instead are programmed to run or hide from the saber toothed tiger without feeling the emotion? It would appear that having the conscious emotion of fear has an additional survival advantage; but if it has an additional survival advantage it must have an effect on the physical world. Similarly why did not most people evolve so they do not experience love but instead are programmed to protect their young and protect the mate who helps to protect their young? Love of one s children and one s mate must have an additional survival Therefore we postulate a meta-brain which carries the non-local hidden variables which determine the results of measurement or observations as in quantum physics. An ordinary dream is determined by the real brain of the sleeper. It is hidden as in the dream the sleeper cannot observe his own brain. It is non-local in the sense that although it is confined to the sleeper s skull, the sleeper can dream of distant stars, planets and galaxies without restrictions of local causality. We postulate a similar relationship for the meta-brain and our ordinary stream of consciousness. advantage and hence an effect on the physical world. Lust, hunger and thirst are other conscious experiences with clear survival value. Survival value of a conscious emotion implies an effect on the physical world. Because the physical influences the mental and the mental effects the physical we find it plausible to take them to be essentially equivalent; hence the dream metaphor. We carry the metaphor further. As stated previously, quantum physics is not consistent with local hidden variables but it is consistent with non-local hidden variables. The Wave Function is Mental and Physical One can show that a quantum theoretical wave function describing a system in a particular region of space-time can, at least in some circumstances, be different for one observer than for another, thus suggesting that it has a subjective quality. Consider the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (Einstein, 1935; Schumann, 1991) situation where particle X decays into particle Y and particle Z (Figure 2). A component of spin of particle Y is measured at space-time point R. We are interested in the wave function describing particle Z at space-time point P which is

5 245 separated from R by a space-like interval. If the spin component of particle Y is up the corresponding spin component of particle Z is down and vice-versa. Figure 2. B and A are both simultaneous with P in their corresponding frames as they have different velocities. Thus they have different descriptions of the system in space-time region P. Observer B is located in a space-time region near the world-line of the point P. She says that particle Z is described by a definite spin component. The particle Y prior to the measurement of its wave function at P has collapsed for A but spin component. B is moving with a velocity such that the time he measures is simultaneous with the point P. He says that particle Z is described by a superposition of spin components. Observer A is also located in a space-time region near the world-line of particle Y but after the measurement of its spin component. A is moving with such a velocity (different from B s velocity) that the time she measures is also simultaneous with not for B. The wave function has a subjective aspect to it. Of course we could have seen this also from the Schrödinger (1935) cat paradox. The scientist outside the cat s room (cell) describes the cat as being in a superposition of alive and dead. But from the cat s perspective, he is definitely either alive or dead. There is no true paradox. For the outside scientist, the cat is not part of his dream and in a sense does not exist

6 246 for the scientist until it is observed, at which time it becomes a part of the scientist s dream and has a definite state observed by the scientist. The cat has a different dream or stream of consciousness. The EPR situation can be related to the Schrödinger cat situation. Let particle Z pass through an inhomogeneous magnetic field in region P. Then if the spin component is up it will be deflected one way and if the spin component is down it will be deflected another. If spin is up it passes through a particle detector which triggers a switch which opens a bottle of poison gas which kills the cat. If the spin is down it does not The Brain or Meta-Brain Behind the Dream We have postulated a non-observable brain behind the dream or stream of consciousness. We call it the meta-brain as it does not exist in our streams of consciousness. It contains the non-local hidden variables which determine the outcome of our experiments or observations; it determines whether, in our previous discussion, the cat, according to observer A, is alive or dead. (Eventually, as time passes, B will agree with A.) According to quantum theory, under ordinary circumstances if you observe a harm the cat. For observer B the cat is in a system, you must change it. We assume superposition of alive and dead. For observer A the cat is either definitely alive or definitely dead. We have suggested that the wave function is observer dependent and describes a mental state. But many scientists would argue that it describes a physical system; a different system is described by a different wave function. I argue that both statements are correct because the physical state is equivalent to the mental. the system is not already in an eigenstate of the observable by which you measure or observe the system. If an electron has spin definitely in the up z direction and you measure the spin component in the y direction, the electron spin will be changed. It will no longer be definitely in the up z direction. The nerve impulses (just a metaphor) of the meta-brain are related to the content of the dream. Suppose we have a device which measures the pattern of nerve impulses on your optic nerve. The

7 247 wires from this device lead to a video screen. You look at the video screen and thereby look at something representing the nerve impulses on your own optic nerve. The light from the video screen enters your eyes, impinges on your retina, changes the nerve impulses on your optic nerve and thus changes the pattern on the video screen. By observing the video screen you change it (Figure 3). Figure 3. By observing the system which measures the impulses on your optic nerve you change it. Below the wavy line is the meta-brain ; above it is our observable world. Below the wavy line is the unobservable meta-brain; above it is our observed stream of consciousness or dream world. We note the correspondence with quantum theory. The video screen might correspond to measurement of the position of a particle or its momentum or some other correspondence between the nerve impulses of the optic nerve (really a nerve of the meta-brain) and the observed world. The influence goes both ways. The signal goes from your eye and brain to the nerve of the meta-brain and then back to your observable dream or stream of consciousness. observable. There is a similar

8 248 Now suppose that there are two devices that can connect to a particular nerve of a brain, measuring the impulses. One device converts the impulses to an audio system which produces soothing music, but different soothing music for different impulse patterns. The other device converts the impulses to frightening video images, but different frightening images for different impulse patterns (Figure 4). quantum theory where measurements also may not commute. Imagine, next, a nerve in the meta-brain. An audio pathway connects to a loudspeaker in the dream world. Similarly a video pathway connects from the same nerve to a video screen in the dream world. The meta-brain is below the wavy line in Figure 4. As in the previous paragraph the action of the audio measurement does not commute with the action of the video measurement. The order in which they act is important. We might suppose that listening to the loudspeaker represents observation of the momentum of a particle in the dream world and observation of the video screen corresponds to observing its location. Then Figure 4. The order of the observations is important. Hearing before Seeing gives a different result from Seeing before Hearing. If you first listen to the soothing music and then watch the video you will end up frightened. If you first watch the frightening video and then listen to the soothing music you will end up relaxed. The measurements of the system (the nerve impulses) do not commute. The order is important. We are going to connect with it would be apparent that the observation or measurement of the momentum would not commute with the measurement of the location of the particle, as accords with quantum theory. No Solipsism: the multi-meta-brain In spite of this talk of dreams, I do not argue in favor of a solipsistic point of view. Each observer has his dream. These dreams must be correlated. Under ordinary

9 249 circumstances if I dream that you are in the same room with me, you must also dream that you are in the same room with me (assuming you are awake in the conventional sense). If you dream that you step on my foot, I must experience pain. We must discuss how this fits in with the meta-brain. In our own observable world experiments have been done (Sperry,1983) with patients who, to a substantial degree, have had the two hemispheres of their brain disconnected by the cutting of the corpus callosum. It appears that two individual conscious beings are thus formed. The stream of consciousness has split into two creeks of consciousness. One hemisphere may know some fact that the other hemisphere does not. One can imagine a brain consisting, in part, of many sub-brains connected by relatively few nerves. We have a similar picture for our meta-brain. Each sub-brain represents an individual consciousness. The connections between them guarantee that their experiences are related just as your experiences, though different, are related to my experiences, especially if we are in the same room (Figure 5). Figure 5. Many sub-brains in the meta-brain are connected to guarantee that the streams of consciousness ( dreams ) produced by the sub-brains are correlated. In our observable world within the traditional paradigm our brains are connected though not by nerves. Nerve impulses in your brain guide your speech, producing sound waves which impinge on my ears which produce nerve impulses in my brain. Our brains are thus connected. We could imagine brains connected by nerves, where nerve impulses from one brain travel directly to the other brain. Imagine Siamese twins joined at the brain. They might share pain, emotions or even thoughts if the connections are sufficient. If the connections are numerous enough they might become one consciousness; two streams of consciousness becoming one river of consciousness or at least indistinguishable from one river.

10 250 In the multi-meta-brain we do not consider such close connections. The dynamic sub-brains, coming into existence and going out of existence as life begins and ends, are connected to each other sufficiently so that their experiences are related, but not identical. The dream worlds of the meta-brain already real observer who makes an earlier superposition real.) However in the present model there is no such problem. A single meta-brain has a history; it slowly develops sub-brains which then develop related streams of consciousness. The last step is the primary mystery. There are no virtual states. must obey the natural laws we observe, including quantum physics, which is the primary reason for postulating the meta-brain and its dreams in the first place. This means that the dreams must also obey observations of psycho-physics. If, in the dream, a person s brain is injured, there are consequences for the experiences and behavior of the person possessing that brain. Information travels both ways, from Comparison with the Many Worlds Model In the Many Worlds Model it is not clear whether a flea, a mouse or a human causes the universe to split whenever it makes an observation. Perhaps it only takes a bacterium. In the meta-brain model there are no splittings of the universe. Only streams of consciousness come into and go out of existence. dream to meta-brain and from meta-brain to dream. Probability and Amplitude According to quantum theory the probability Cosmology before and after Consciousness According to traditional interpretation, the universe has many virtual possible histories until a flea, a mouse or a human (it is very vague) somehow observe it and make it real. How a non-existent virtual being can make an observation is not explained. (In Wheeler s delayed choice experiment it is an for which of many possible outcomes of a measurement actually is observed is expressed as the product of an amplitude and its complex conjugate. This is not explained but taken as an hypothesis in the standard theory. I cannot derive it in the meta-brain model either, but I can wave my hands a little.

11 251 According to standard theory a displacement is described by an exponential with imaginary exponent. Thus a displacement of amount x along the x-axis is exp(ipx) where p is the x-component of momentum. Thus for displacement along the positive x direction it is exp(ip lxl ) and for displacement along the negative x direction it is exp(-ip lxl). Thus reversing direction introduces the complex conjugate. We generalize this to displacement from observable dream to non-observable meta-brain and the reverse direction. Thus in his dream or stream of consciousness the observer notes how the state is produced. This information is transmitted in the form of an amplitude to the meta-brain which reflects it back in the form of the complex conjugate of the amplitude, the product of the forward amplitude and return complex conjugate giving the probability for a particular outcome, that outcome being determined by the meta-brain but not predictable by the stream of consciousness as the meta-brain itself is not observable. Conclusion The meta-brain is not observable by the conscious observer. The observer only observes the dream produced by the meta-brain. There may be many possible states of the meta-brain which correspond to a single dream at one moment. Suppose the scientist-observer observes an isolated physical state within the dream and wishes to measure its energy. There are many possible results depending on the state of the meta-brain. From previous experience and study of the rules and constraints satisfied by his dream world the scientist can predict the probabilities for various outcomes of this observation because he knows something about the meta-brain (he knows something about the dreams it has produced). But he doesn t observe the meta-brain directly so he can not predict with certainty the outcome of his experiment as it depends on aspects of the meta-brain that are not observable. The variables are truly hidden. Previously we had argued that the physical world influenced the mental world of experience and the mental world influenced the physical world and hence they might in some sense be equivalent and

12 252 united in the concept of the dream world. Now we argue that the meta-brain affects the dream world and the dream world influences the meta-brain. However, the meta-brain is not observable and thus does not become united with the dream world. That is essential. Assuming we take this model seriously, the nature of the meta-brain is unknown. There is no reason for it to be describable in terms of the variables with which we are familiar and surely not necessarily as an object in a space with same the number of dimensions with which we are familiar. Note also, if the world satisfied the laws of classical physics instead of quantum physics, the meta-brain would just be the physical universe with stars, planets and brains. It would then, contrary to fact, be observable by the streams of consciousness. Granted this model appears weird, but our world is very strange, especially the quantum physics, and we need a strange model to match it. References Schumann T. Quantum Theory and Mental Phenomena Physics Essays 2000;13(4):568. Einstein A, Podolsky B and Rosen N. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description Of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys Rev 1935;47:777. Schumann T. Realism and Mentalism with Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. Physics Essays 1991;4(2):244. Schrödinger E. Naturwissenschaften. The Present Situation In Quantum Mechanics 23, 807, 844 (1935). An English translation is available in J.A. Wheeler and W.Y. Zurek, Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton University Press, NJ. 1983) p. 152 Sperry R. Science and Moral Priority (Columbia University Press, New York, 1983) p. 37

Bell s Theorem. Ben Dribus. June 8, Louisiana State University

Bell s Theorem. Ben Dribus. June 8, Louisiana State University Bell s Theorem Ben Dribus Louisiana State University June 8, 2012 Introduction. Quantum Theory makes predictions that challenge intuitive notions of physical reality. Einstein and others were sufficiently