Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Chi Ming Hung: on 4/17/17 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Dizhechko Boris, thanks for commenting.

Chi Ming Hung: on 4/17/17 at 21:30pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. Best of luck...

Chi Ming Hung: on 4/12/17 at 20:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, thanks for commenting.

Chi Ming Hung: on 4/12/17 at 20:21pm UTC, wrote Dear S.N.P. Gupta, thanks for reading my essay and for commenting. Best...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 3:45am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

Peter Jackson: on 4/4/17 at 17:47pm UTC, wrote Chi, Great essay, enjoyable to read, interesting, and free of the confused...

Vladimir Tamari: on 3/23/17 at 2:51am UTC, wrote Dear Chi Ming Hung It may surprise you to hear views that probability is...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/21/17 at 8:05am UTC, wrote disciplined does not mean that a person encircles this universal altruism...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Quantum Entanglement and Intentionality by CHI MING HUNG [refresh]

Author Chi Ming Hung wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

Even though Quantum Mechanics is nondeterministic in nature, at first glance it does not seem to leave room for human intentions. It is suggested here that this may not be true when we consider special cases of quantum entanglement.

Author Bio

Chi Ming Hung has a Ph.D. in theoretical nuclear physics and is currently a staff member of the C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stony Brook, NY. He is fond of spherical cows.

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 18:14 GMT
lol interesting jedi of the Sphere,

Let's make a little of humous, did you know that cats and dogs are spherical and that in fact china and usa also shall be spherised like your sciences lol

now Me I fond of the Stony Brook spherical future,

and you ,

I see that Junga and freud are in you.The informations always and still and these parmaters of adaptation dancing aroundf our minds in function of environments.What abolut the universal alrruism compared to this egoist stupidity where the jealouisy and the hate are the sisters of ironies.The psychology and this collective consciousness which shows us the truths.Isn't it ? relative spherisation Jedi of Sphere, relative always and rational and deterministic and irreversible LOL I love this Platform ,not you ?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 18:19 GMT
The chaos and the disorders say to harmony that in fact the pure irreversible entropical Arrow of time is a beautiful road of ,optimisation with or withjouit the approvements of us poor humans in fact.Like If I said that schizos are just illuminated forgetting the essential, the coherence converging towards this universal equilibrium.

The disorders and chaos can be harmonised .....

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 21:25 GMT

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 22:46 GMT
:)you are welcome Jedi of the SPHERE lol

report post as inappropriate

Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 23:14 GMT
Dear Chi Ming Hung

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Héctor, thanks for commenting.

Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 06:45 GMT
Chi Ming Hung

There are many concepts about which have to precisely state in terms of their physicality.

Intention is an agitation of matter due to state of shortage or surplus of something physical.

Goal-directed behaviour is multi-participant phenomenon.

The participants are to be disciplined by relationship of interconnectedness.

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT
Dear Shaikh Raisuddin, thanks for commenting.

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 08:05 GMT
disciplined does not mean that a person encircles this universal altruism like a torch of truth.If all people were like Jesus christ and buddhah of course we d have a better planet.The vanity also must be taken into account.I have discussed with so many people thinking thyat they were universal and humble in front of this infinite entropy but no they are not.The human interactions are complex and the psychology is a big puzzle but we have informations whih are more important than others.Personaly I never crush a bee or an insect.It is a kind of respect of créations.The rest seems vain, .....Universal love, not need of an explaination for a thing so universal and simple....

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Hung, (or Chi?)

As soon as I saw your essay, I marked it on my list as “very interesting – must read and interpret.” Unfortunately, though I’m still very interested after reading it, I’m not very clear as to what you’re saying. It seems that you’re using “intentionality” in the philosophical sense, as when we say consciousness is always “of something.” But the phrase “intended outcome” confused me, since that usually means “what we want to happen.” Since you say “whenever the intention occurs, so does the intended outcome,” perhaps the word “intended” here has the meaning of “perceived”?

I do have some idea of what your equations mean, but it would help if you explained a bit further “how entanglement can be built up from simpler entanglements.” Especially since you call it “rather miraculous,” I’d like to understand just what’s special about “the right kind of quantum entanglement” represented in Eq. 1.

Likewise in section 4.1, because I’m fuzzy about the meaning of “intentionality” here in the first place, I don’t know what to think about it at a “rudimentary level” where the word “has already lost a lot of its original meaning.”

One of the topics of my essay is the role of measurement in QM, so I’m particularly interested in the ways systems can be correlated prior to measurement, i.e. entangled. But if “intended” means something like “perceived”, it would seem to be a measurement that breaks the entanglement… hence my confusion here. I hope you can help me clear it up.

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 17:56 GMT

Thanks for taking the time to read my essay and for your thoughtful questions.

Since I'm not a philosopher, what I meant by "intentionality" is the first definition you'll find in a dictionary, namely "the fact of being deliberate or purposive", and likewise "intended" and "intended outcomes" etc. have their usual meaning.

I guess Eq.1 in my...

view entire post

Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 13:15 GMT
Ming -- thanks very much for the helpful explanation. As a philosopher maybe it should have been clear to me that your "miraculous" entanglement was overcoming the Cartesian dualism of mind and body, which makes perfect sense in the context of this contest. But in fact, I needed the apple.

So I was right that this is very interesting. Even if we don't yet have an explanation of the kind of entanglement that constitutes "intending", it's surely intriguing that we can chase it "all the way down." Your comment about evolution makes sense, and I hope you'll find in my essay a suggestion about the kind of explanation that might work here.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Dr. CHI MING HUNG,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Joe, thanks for commenting.

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Chi Ming Hung,

Nice essay about intentions and neurons and decoherences of wavefunction and Spherical_Cows!

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg… “In section 3.1 we see how complex entanglements can be built up from simpler ones, but so does intentionality, since we've identi_ed intentionality with the entanglement between the mind and environmental states. This...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear S.N.P. Gupta, thanks for reading my essay and for commenting. Best wishes to your essay and model!

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Chi Ming Hung

It may surprise you to hear views that probability is not fundamental in QM but emerges from some wrong premises about duality. Gerard 't Hooft in his new book proposes that QM emerges from Cellular Automata which by definition are not probabilistic. These matters are explored in my fqxi essay where I suggest that - ironically - the whole probabilistic nonsense originated from Einstein's false description of the photon as a point in space.

In my rudimentary ToE Beautiful Universe Model there is no probability, and entanglement is enacted through a causal, linear universal lattice of node-to-node interactions.

I value your feedback and wish you all the best you all the best,

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 20:23 GMT

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:47 GMT
Chi,

Great essay, enjoyable to read, interesting, and free of the confused mumbo jumbo often surrounding QM. I like and agree your thesis; "complex entanglements can be built up from simpler ones". You did rather duck the key questions, but I think that was very wise. .. for a specific reason;

In my essay I identify a completely classical (if not entirely deterministic) mechanism reproducing the full predictions of QM. The words you're looking for are; 'unlikely' 'impossible' or 'ridiculous'. It's none of those, and full falsifiable. Most have run away from doing so with hands over their ears screaming, but I think your understanding of the original assumptions of Bohr etc will allow you to address this Classic QM scientifically. First we find 2 orthogonal momenta (yes, simply on a spinning sphere!), then produce the complementary inverse cosine distributions, then square those values. No maths is required (at first - as Wheeler suggests!) only dynamic geometry. Intentionality and more besides then emerges.

I greatly look forward to your comments or questions. There's also a video, showing what 'superposition', 'collapse' and 'entanglement' really are in the model and how non integer spins etc. emerge geometrically. A really fast 100sec 'glimpse' from the full video is here; Classic QM snippet video.

A top score is coming for yours. I hope you get to mine in time to score that!

very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Apr. 17, 2017 @ 21:30 GMT

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 03:45 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Chi Ming Hung replied on Apr. 17, 2017 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Dizhechko Boris, thanks for commenting.