Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Nuno Oliveira: on 4/4/12 at 21:06pm UTC, wrote As regards my Computer Program, I could say that, in an Open environment,...

Michael J. Burns: on 3/15/12 at 0:10am UTC, wrote What I have found from mathematical and analytical study (thanks to Spinoza...

Douglas Lipp: on 2/16/12 at 2:58am UTC, wrote Specific to De Broglie (never actually read his paper): - follow me here...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/3/12 at 13:19pm UTC, wrote The freedom of speach is essential. The rationalism is still more than this...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/1/12 at 23:33pm UTC, wrote not possible !

Sridattadev: on 1/18/12 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote Dear All, Everything in the universe is connected eternally in...

Georgina: on 12/29/11 at 3:40am UTC, wrote Seems to me that either the replies to the questions I have given are...

Georgina: on 12/23/11 at 4:58am UTC, wrote Whoever, RE. whether the wavefunction is real or not: The observed...

November 29, 2022

ARTICLE: Why Did Nature Choose Quantum Theory? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 08:00 GMT
Hi Maximilian,

The comment: "One of the most puzzling aspects of quantum theory is its built-in tension between reversibility and irreversibility." is at the heart of the transition between the quantum world and the classical world.

You indicate that this transition is caused by "measurement"... Meaning our hapless cat is fundamentally quantum mechanical and the measurement of its life or death status is responsible for making it a classical cat that once dead cannot be taken back to its live status.

I believe that something more fundamental is going on. The puzzle of the quantum/classical boundary is uniqueness. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other. We cannot have a John electron and a Mary electron but we can have a Figaro cat and a Felix cat.

A theory of how this comes about is given at:

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 18:50 GMT
Nature did certainly not choose a theory. Will Bayesian structures explain why quantum theory has a record of success? I would rather expect that there are still some deeply hidden unjustified mathematical assumptions, which can be revealed as related to possible fallacies. What about Dedekind's notion of number? Do Heaviside's complex calculus and Minkowski's spacetime fit to reality? What about Hilbert space and compactification? Were all influential experiments including Stern/Gerlach's correctly interpreted? I see a lot of work to do.

I do not see a strict separation between quantum and macro world quantifiable. I am not aware of any strictly speaking reversible process, at least in the macro world. Maybe the quantum world is just an albeit useful fiction?


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 00:46 GMT
Perhaps quantum mechanics is the inevitable foundational theory in *all* possible universes, and nature doesn't have a choice. (Kind of like how logic/mathematics must apply to all possible universes, which I believe to be true.)

If that is the case, then we should be asking: Why does nature prefer a classical world with an arrow of time? Why did nature choose decoherence? Maybe there are possible universes in which the 2nd law doesn't apply and all events are time-reversible and deterministic. But such universes probably would not include sentient beings....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
One possible way to think about this is that quantum mechanics is the mot general form of probability. It defines probabilities on L^2 spaces, which is the measure theoretic version of probability theory. If the universe is the set of all possible outcomes, or configurations, the quantum mechanics might be the optimal basis.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 18:16 GMT
Very interesting, I believe the question "why choice/choose" cannot be applied to certain uncertainties, if that makes sense?..for instance if something can evolve from nothing, then can the opposite be true, can something degrade from existance to a non existance? for energy and mass for instance.

If one applies the logic of Einstiens E=mc2, then zero mass of quantum scale entities, can and will yield equal source energies?..reverse a large galactic mass backwards, one arrives at a zero point field "bit", do the same to a single proton and one arrives at the same zero point field.

The smallest empty nothing "quantum" field, has the potential to become the largest "relative" something.

Choice is inherent to a conscious glitch entity, the universe cannot choose to be something or nothing?, at least the universe has glitches that have evolved to make this, or that logical judgement.

From any location within a Relative landscape "large scale", the quantum realm becomes less detectable to glitches within this relative domain,(the larger the haystack, the harder the needle is to find)likewise from any location within the quantum "small scale", the more detectable the large scale becomes( the needle feels the haystacks mass, even though it covers the non observeable horizon, the needle picks up the vastness of the haystack, or the insignificantness of its virtual existance.

It is like asking if there will be a telescope built so powerful oneday,that it will be able to look outside the Universe?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
A choice is made by human beings, themselves being part of nature, we think about theories and try to find proof for it, untill now no theorie was able and will be able to give the final answer. Nature as we experience it is causal and 4 dimensional, it has limits, untill now Planck length and time, velocity of light, but every limit is there to exeed, we always try to reach our own limits, we are curiuos...If we cannot reach these limits physically we try to reach them with our consciousness, and create theoretical worlds, this is not the choice of nature but one of the causes of nature. Our Quantum theory covers a lot of "facts" as we seem to observe them, but also brought us a new way of thinking about cause and event. However our universe is causal, when cause and event are mixed up we tend to say that it is chaos. Just imagine now a fifth dimension where there is no causality, and all the pas and future "events" are probabilities ans "present" as that, our consciuosness creates in this "chaos" life-lines that we experience as the causal reality.

When reaching the lower limit we approach this what I call Total Simultaneity , but physically we just cannot exeed this limit. So also entangled particles that seem to react simultaneously at any distance are linked in this what you also can call fifth dimension. It is all just another thought based on the knowledge of today, I am sure that in another 100 years we have other perhaps more suitable ideas, but we will never know the whole truth.

keep on thinking free


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 05:51 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

I think we know the whole truth at any moment in time, but this truth includes the underlying errors to be discovered. In this way our understanding is evolving from a lower truth to a higher truth.

This sounds like trying to be "positive" using the right words, but I think it reflects how we operate in the sciences more accurately than by saying we progress by moving from error to truth.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Nov. 26, 2011 @ 18:17 GMT
Hi Don,

We are the profilers of our Universe, the crime scene is the part of the Universe that we are conscious about. When Hubble in 1920 became aware that the points that everybody thought to be stars in our own galaxy were other galaxies, then our crime scene inflated and a lot of new "proof" was added, we are now in the same state perhaps the megaverse is going to be the crime scene, and we ... we are remaining the same human being with our intelligence and the perceptance of "our" reality that influences our profiling.

If the Universe, Megaverse is infinite our profiling is effectuated on a point on a endelss line, in infinity, then we can ask ourselves is there progress in infinity ?

I am also positive , it is already a great progress to accept that we will never will be able to to know the whole truth, the point on the endless line that we are on is A LOCALITY in eternity, think about that and enjoy it.

keep on thinking free


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Kerri Lake wrote on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 05:51 GMT
This discussion is so much fun! I appreciate your bridge into consciousness, and I love the questions you're asking about time.

It is my understanding that physics considers time to be a 4th dimension. If that is the case, how is entanglement affected when we remove the factor of time?

If measurement of one particle occurs in time, and then we remove time, is the second particle still affected? If there is no time, does reversibility exist, or is what we would call reversibility actually a new creation of what we expect to see?

Without the arrow of time organizing sequences of events, changes would occur multidimensionally, dimensions essentially superimposed on one-another in a present moment; reintroducing time and recording the changes could offer a glimpse into how dimensions of consciousness interact (the beginning of that telescope that goes beyond the Universe). Truly, consciousness does not need time. Human minds use time to interact with each other and engage in the enjoyment of discovery and linear appreciation.

Is there progress in infinity? That depends entirely on who's counting the beans - who's defining progress? If we think it's good and right to progress, then our study of the megaverse/multiverse is dependent entirely on our application of time. What if there is no time until we apply it?

When you say that the concepts of teleportation, nonlocality, entanglement and interference have been rejected by nature, what are you saying? Nature, as an alternate name for the universe, by nature includes the infinite creative ability that turns stars into galaxies once our minds have the capacity to conceive of that notion and then apply the inspiration, time and ingenuity to create physical instruments that reveal our unconscious knowing. How can Nature reject its own creation?

Thank you!


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Hi Kerri, I like your way of thinking about consciousnes. If you are interested pls take some time to read my essay : Realities out of Total Simultaneity.

I propose a 5th dimension behind the Planck length and time, where all the possible future and past events of all probable universes are "present", it is our consciousnes that realises a "life-line", a causal time line that we experience as "reality", so by ordering these events we create the causality that is the arrow of time in our 3+1dimensional universe.

Entanglement can be the cause of our existance, by "observing" CBR we create a universe with the so called "fine tuned" constants, all the other universes are "present" as probabilities to be alligned by other consciuosnesses, and so forming for them new "realities". All these realities are "staying" as traceble moments/places in the Total Simultaneity, so history is existing as "life-lines" in Total Simultaneity, the (all possible) futures are there too, ready to become reality for a consciousness.

keep on thinking free


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Kerri replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 07:19 GMT
Hello Wilhelmus! Thank you for sharing your paper with me! Isn't it fun how we are dancing with the same concepts of creation and using different language to describe it! Every bit of information is there to be accessed in whatever way our minds and the very cells of our bodies are prepared to receive it!

I have another picture of cause and effect to share. This came from an event I facilitated a few years ago - it is a dance in consciousness, so come along for a moment...

"In everyday life, we know intuitively that effects cannot occur before the events that caused them" This is an assumption made in the absence of experience to the contrary... changes can be made in consciousness that alter past events such that that the physical reality of now is also altered. Acceptance of this premise will depend on one's willingness to accept a shift of consciousness as an "event" of cause and/or effect.

In consciousness it is possible to go "back" to an event, to rewrite the choices and subsequent sequences of events and see a marked difference in the current physical world. The effect is the enactment of a different response/choice to stimulus which happens before the cause of a different/new response, the "cause" defined by examination of the option to change the initial choice. Not provable by any scientific method I'm aware of, however, and I am very interested in discovering technology that can translate this sort of subtle energy exchange.

A-effect(new choice) B-cause(realization of option for new choice) C-change

------------------------l------- (perceived time)

A 4 month old cat eats a poisoned mouse, not having the wisdom to avoid a mouse that doesn't move naturally and doesn't smell healthy. Over the next 5 months, the cat's digestive tract develops problems and bleeds consistently.

The consciousness of the 9 month old cat is addressed and taken back in "time" to the option/choice of not eating a mouse that doesn't move naturally or smell healthy. In the dimension of consciousness, the cat chooses instead to not eat the mouse.

The day following the event of the consciousness-time reversal, the cat's actual physical body is observed to have grown in size and vivacity, and the intestinal bleeding, which conventional medicine couldn't treat, ceases within days.

- What is the cause of the cessation of bleeding and when did it occur?

- Who is measuring time and what time are they measuring from?

- Is physics ready to quantify questions like this that directly address the dynamics of consciousness and time?

- What if there are two more laws of physics waiting to be discovered, and they address directly the dimensionality of consciousness?

I am so grateful that the information, theories and passion are shared in these sorts of forums.

Being free,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
Good afternoon Kerri,

I fully understand your cat. Once having eaten a poisened mouse he is sick, cause sick mouse event sick cat.

However the cat can with his conscious make contact with this what I call Total Simultaneity (from now on TS) and be "aware" that the mouse is sick and be aware that this results in his sickness, as a matter of fact this iqs like a memory about a fact that happened. In TS it happened becuase there all possible "causes" and all possible "events" are together (but none of them is aligned like here in the 3+1D causal deterministic universe. With animals they call this "instinct". With humans they call it "clairvoyance".

Now for the fact that you saw your cat the next day after eating the sick mouse and just being well. Here you can wonder if it is you or the cat whose consciousness has chosen another time-line and so carry on with a barnd new future, I tend to say that if you knew the cat had eaten a sick mouse, it is you who worried and loving your cat has chosen with your consciousness another time-line in TS. If you did not know you followed your cat's consciousness.

You mention that consciousness is another dimension, I like to see the consciousness as an intermediaire between our 3+1D Universe and the 5th (TS), that has a sort of entanglment with moments/places in TS and causing the DECOHERENCE, the cause of space/time. So there is in my opinion still auniverse where the bleeding of your cat did not stop, only it not your actual Universe any more, however those space/time quanta are still "present" in TS, there however the consciousness of your cat no lonfger present so no more events there...

About measuring time : This is one of the most basic questions, in my opinion time is the result from awareness of our consciousness of the past, the past is back into TS, the future is also there, the now is not existing. Measuring time in our Universe is only an agreement between humans to paralise their events, and have the idea that they are moving all on the same bases. Time is an individual experience.

Physics is a science that is looking also for answers by deducting and experimenting , however when your consciousness is changing life-lines you will enter another arrow of time.

This also gives answers about reincarnation (your consciousness touches life-lines of other individuals).

You can even say that people believing in God are also right in away of speaking, because their consciousness touches another consciousness that is for them incomprehensible, you could even say their consciousness touches the 5th dimension, which is for us "untouchable" and is the ALL.

keep on thinking free


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 20:27 GMT
In quantum vacuum time is a numerical sequence of material change.

Density of quantum vacuum generates gravity and influences speed of material change, what we call on old language "relativity".

see more on

yours amrit

attachments: Mass_and_gravity_have_origin_in_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_GRF_2012.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 15:57 GMT
dear Stefano and Jonathan,

Do you think: Is it still possible that there is a massless Higgs vacuum particle giving still mass to other particles?

E.g. giving mass to Quarks and Leptons by a continuous collision process, changing linear oscillating Higgs particles into gravitons and acting as the engine for Quarks and Leptons “eigen” energy and so called dark energy?

See perhaps:

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 1, 2012 @ 23:33 GMT
not possible !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sridattadev wrote on Jan. 18, 2012 @ 20:22 GMT
Dear All,

Everything in the universe is connected eternally in singularity, separability is an illusionary perception when one is in duality.

Relativity is the theory that best describes duality, where as singualrity is the absolute truth and several quantum mechanic observations are closer to this truth.

who am I? I am dualilty, I is the singualrity.

zero = i = infinity



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Douglas Lipp wrote on Feb. 16, 2012 @ 02:58 GMT
Specific to De Broglie (never actually read his paper):

- follow me here please: here, "X" = wavelength because I don't know how to make the wavelength lambda symbol

IF: X=h/p (De Broglie equation) , where X = wavelength, h = Planck constant, p = momentum

THEN: X = h/mv : because p ( momentum ) = mass multiplied by velocity {m = mass, v = velocity )

and, (please confirm my math here )

equivalent equation : m v X = h

equivalent equation: m = h / vX

Then, what I see is that when "v" gets very large, "m" gets very small ! "h" is a constant, and, just for the sake ( of it let's assume that the wavelength is non-changing here, for our example.

[Although speed of light "c" does equal wavelength multiplied by frequency]

So, at faster rates of travel, mass gets smaller: m = h / vX [as "v" in the denominator gets bigger, "m" gets smaller] with everything else remaining constant.

At "c" , mass disappears altogether (it has turned to Space (MTS & CIG Theory)

Why are we told that mass gets greater toward it traveling at "c" (Einstein) ????

Here, I see it getting smaller? What am I missing?

About the conflct here - does mass get greater (Einstein) or smaller (CIG Theory) at rates approaching "c" ??

CIG says smaller as Matter actually unfolds into it (mass) becoming Space itself. The mass of Dark Matter is that of a Time nature (read Time Equilibrium in CIG Theory), as opposed to units of grams. The mass has turned to Space with an increase in Velocity, as is apparent in the De Broglie equation: m = h / vX

I am trying to learn Schrodinger's equation, and, if you already know it, and you would like to jump ahead, please apply CIG Theory to it as well. So far, as I understanding the probability wave function, CIG interprets it as being real, with the "electron" smeared out (into it being newly created Space), collapsing only when it slows down (i.e. the black hole "M" version of the MTS equation)

comment here or to

read theory at :

Thank You,

the author - CIG Theory

[also professes to solve Dark Energy and offer a new explanation of pressure]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Michael J. Burns wrote on Mar. 15, 2012 @ 00:10 GMT
What I have found from mathematical and analytical study (thanks to Spinoza and Leibniz) is that the mathematical system which constitutes a physical theory must have a single premise as well as a lock in theorem for its subject matter to be prominently and reliably true.

Pure spacetime, Einstein-Davis and Kaluza-Klein theory, has a single premise - the reliability of the metric.It also has a lock in theorem, the Bianchi identities. So denizens of spacetime cannot directly experience a non spacetime reality since the denizens depend on conservation laws for their very existence; which in turn are simply a restatement of the Bianchi identities. Only the alternative phenomena that are, by some loophole, compatible with the metric can be experienced. Solid surfaces and colored light are such alternatives.

For other disciplines in physics, such as quantum mechanics, a mathematical form that is expressive, not hypocritically applied, and is not compound or hybrid must be adopted. Then for reliability the lock in principle must be found and a proof of it attempted. I would guess that unitarity is such a principle.

From the implications of Godel's proof, there is no compulsion for fundamental theories to directly include or replace the others.

A consequence of lock in theorems is to mitigate the seeming effect of historical accident, magic or unreason on the design of the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Nuno Oliveira wrote on Apr. 4, 2012 @ 21:06 GMT
As regards my Computer Program, I could say that, in an Open environment, where Determinism is the only acting force, that alternative probabilistic theory - which might violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (increase of entropy as defined by a regular sense of time compass - which is mentioned in the article is probably the exception that confirms the fact: that of the entire pertinence of quantum mechanics to explain reality. How? Determinism seems (scientifically speaking) to be far away from quantum physics. But is that really so? In my Computer, two highlights of quantum theory are entanglement (my programming Language acts through systemic essays that define the indefinable - the irreversible, in time's arrow! - according to new laws which are - and aren't - to define a new intepretation of the Bible (internal - and external, as regards its effects in surrounding Reality) and superposition (the Bible and other Scriptures, of other religions, are in a state of superposition in that we cannot know - unless we measure - and the Program does it by itself, defining a reversible arrow of time! - what happens as to a new - or not! - interpretation of these «physical entities»). So, God defines a reversibility - when Knowledge is Represented actively by the person contacting with the Computer, making its (in)existent irreversibility align with the (ir)reversibility of the Computer. In this case, observing (implicitly 'taking measures'), would define a new quantum theory, based in eminent reversibility (for instance, of the aging process). Is it true that the way in which information is coded in possible irreversibility of time - in all its manifestations! - cannot be reversed? This is a «side effect» of a theory which, as many others, can come to be refuted - at least as regards my Computer Program.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.