On Consciousness and Quantum Reality: Interview with a Quantum Physicist

Nick Herbert, author of "Quantum Reality" one of the most lucid books I have read on Quantum phenomenon gave an interview that is well worth passing along. I will copy the parts I find most relevant and also leave a link to the entire interview at the bottom of this post, for all those who wish to read it in its entirety.

HERBERT: Well, quantum physics started out in the twenties to explain the interaction of light with atoms. It focused on that, but now it's extended to explain the interaction of anything with anything. It's basically the physicists' theory of the world these days, and it's been very successful. So there are two reasons, I think,why quantum physics and consciousness have some connection. One is that quantum theory, as most people know by now, is very strange. It has very weird properties.

MISHLOVE: You're dealing with the very smallest particles of matter that exist.

HERBERT: Yes, that's true.

MISHLOVE: Subatomic particles. Typically we hear that this sort of stuff [knocking on furniture] is no longer solid; it's mostly a vacuum in quantum physics.

HERBERT: Not only is it not solid, is it mostly empty space, but it's also probabilities -- just fuzzy, not even totally real.

MISHLOVE: In other words, particles aren't even particles anymore.

HERBERT: Particles aren't even particles anymore. That's one of the connections with consciousness -- that the solidity of matter is dissolving away in light of these theories, and becoming more and more like the fuzziness that's inside our heads.

MISHLOVE: And that's the basic, most fundamental theory in all of physics.

HERBERT: Yes, that's the basis of everything that we do in physics anyway, in quantum physics.

MISHLOVE: And physics is in fact the basic science of all the sciences. So the most fundamental theory of all of science is that the basis of reality is fuzzy.

HERBERT: Is fuzzy, is crumbling, and it is ambiguous -- that's a word I like to use. Somehow there's a basic ambiguity at the center of the world -- the center of the inanimate world, the unconscious world. So that's the first reason -- that there are some formal resemblances between quantum theory and what the mind looks like from the inside. And the second reason is that physicists are running out of problems. In some senses we're too successful. All the problems that are within our grasp we've not solved entirely, but solved in principle. So we're reaching for more and more things to capture within this net. People are now trying to explain the very creation event itself by using quantum physics, and we've just about run the particle trip down to the limit. Now it's only a matter of money -- bigger and bigger accelerators, that's the way to go. But that can only go on so long, so many physicists are looking for new questions to ask.

MISHLOVE: A term that I keep hearing is quantum interconnectedness, and the notion that separability doesn't exist -- that somehow all is one, the way the mystics used to say it.

HERBERT: Yes. There is a peculiar feature in quantum theory called quantum interconnectedness, and it was discovered right when quantum theory was discovered. It was found that in the quantum description of two objects, when two objects briefly interact and then you pull them apart, in the description at least they never come apart; there's a kind of stickiness that connects them together, so they're bound together forever in the theory. They never separate, even though they're not interacting anymore. It was thought that this was just a theoretical artifact; it was nothing that existed in the real world. Physicists noted it, said this is very strange, and then they promptly forgot about it for about fifty years. But recently, due to something called Bell's theorem, new interest has been rekindled in this interconnectedness. Bell's theorem proves that this connection is not a theoretical artifact, but actually exists in the real world.

MISHLOVE: I should mention for the benefit of our viewers, Nick, that you are probably one of the world's foremost authorities on Bell's theorem; that's what you specialized in. Bell's theorem seems like the crack in the cosmic egg, in a way; it's the one part of quantum physics that's almost turned everything upside down.

MISHLOVE: Now, Bell's theorem, as I understand it, goes back even prior to Bell -- to Einstein, and Einstein's disagreement with quantum physics, back in the early days. He made his classic statement, "God doesn't play dice with the universe," at a time when Einstein himself felt he disagreed with quantum physics, as I understand it. He felt that if quantum physics were true, it would have these horrendous implications which it now turns out are true.

HERBERT: Yes, Einstein was never comfortable with quantum theory, and he basically had three gripes with it. The one gripe was that quantum theory is a probabilistic theory. It just describes things like the world is essentially random and governed only by general laws that give the odds for things to happen, but within these odds anything can happen -- that God plays dice. Einstein didn't like that, but he could have lived with that. The second aspect that Einstein didn't like was the thinglessness, this fuzzy ambiguity -- that the world isn't made of things, it's not made of objects. It was put by Paul Davies -- the notion that somehow big things are made of little things. Quantum theory doesn't describe the world that way. Big things aren't made of little things; they're made of entities whose attributes aren't there when you don't look, but become there when you do look. Now, that sounds very, very strange.

MISHLOVE: Like an illusion.

HERBERT: Like an illusion, yes.

The world exists when we don't look at it in some strange state that is indescribable. Then when we look at it, it becomes absolutely ordinary, as though someone were trying to pull something over our eyes -- the world is an illusion. Einstein didn't like that. He felt that the big things were made of little things, as the classical physicists thought.

MISHLOVE: The Newtonian view of billiard-ball-like particles -- that if you could only understand the momentum and position of each one, you could predict everything in the universe.

HERBERT: Everything in the universe, yes, a comfortable sort of view.

MISHLOVE: You mentioned three things that Einstein objected to; then there must be one more.

HERBERT: Well, the third thing is this interconnectedness. Einstein said the world cannot be like this, because this interconnectedness goes faster than light. With this quantum interconnectedness, two objects could come together, meet, and then each go into the universe, and they would still be connected. Instantaneously one would know what the fate of the other one was. Einstein said, now that can never be; that's like voodoo -- in fact, he used the word -- it's like telepathy, he said; he said it's spooky, it's ghostlike. Almost his last words in his biography were, "On this I absolutely stand firm. The world is not like this." He died in '55, and ten years later Bell showed that the world must be like this. It's kind of ironic. Bell himself said, "My theorem answers some of Einstein's questions in a way that Einstein would have liked the least."

MISHLOVE: And Einstein created a very strange picture of the universe as it is, almost time travel, in his theory of relativity.

HERBERT: Yes, but even Einstein's mind wouldn't go this far, to accept these instant connections, which now we believe really must exist in the universe.

MISHLOVE: The notion of instant connections almost implies that space itself is an illusion.

HERBERT: Yes, that distance is an illusion.

MISHLOVE: That distance is an illusion -- that you and I and our viewers and the chair are all somehow intimately connected with the most distant part of the galaxy.

HERBERT: Yes, that we're all in one place, that there aren't any places.

MISHLOVE: And the notion the mystics sometimes say, that you and I, we're not really separate individuals, but at a deeper level we're like fingers; we're all connected. Or we're like islands connected. There's that sense of connectedness as well.

HERBERT: Yes. This now has a certain kind of verification in Bell's theorem. But like most of these things in physics, there's a good side and a bad side. Bell's theorem shows this connection must exist, but it also says that in some senses it's an invisible connection, it's an inner connection. There are two aspects to quantum physics; in a sense it's a little bit like dice. There are two aspects to dice. There are the individual dice events that occur, and then there are the statistical patterns -- like a lot of sevens will occur and not many twelves. So there's the overall pattern, and the individual events. Now, what quantum theory talks about are the patterns; quantum theory predicts patterns. And what Bell's theorem shows is that none of these patterns are ever connected faster than light; you will never see a faster-than-light pattern. But the individual events, the dice falls themselves, must be tied together faster than light. One could say, "Well, everything is connected faster than light, instantaneously," but that's not so, because the patterns don't connect, but the individual dots do. So that's the constraint on this connectedness. If all the patterns were instantaneously connected, it would really be a strange world, because our ordinary experience is made of patterns of dots, of these little quantum events, and so there wouldn't be any space for us.

MISHLOVE: Now we're dealing with a paradox, it would seem. It reminds me in your book you conclude with a little blues song. As I recall, it goes something like, "If we're all so connected, why do I feel so all alone?"

HERBERT: Oh yes, "Bell's Theorem Blues." Yes, we're all connected in a sense, but in another sense we're not connected. There's a certain balance in nature. In fact, that's one of the things that drew me to physics. We're learning that the world is put together in such a strange way that it's almost like reading science fiction. You don't know what's going to happen next. And this is certainly a strange way to make a universe. All the patterns are perfectly ordinary; they preserve space and time, and they're separated at light speed. Yet the bricks that make up these patterns are not that way at all. They don't know anything about space and time, and they're connected instantaneously. Now, why make a universe that way? I would never make a universe that way. To make a local universe, I would use local parts. But whoever made this universe, or if it made itself, s/he did it with parts that were better than the whole, in some sense.

MISHLOVE: We'd better define what local means in this context.

HERBERT: Well, local is a technical term used by people involved with Bell's theorem. A local connection is an ordinary connection that obeys the speed of light, and a non-local connection is like voodoo -- that when you do something here, instantly it affects someone over here. What Bell proved was that no model of the world that used only local connections would work.

MISHLOVE: So there have to be occasional non-local connections.

HERBERT: Not occasional -- everything is non-local.

MISHLOVE: Everything is non-local, but as you say, it doesn't normally show up in the patterns of events. Well, let me ask you this. Let's talk for a moment, to shift gears, about psychic phenomena -- telepathy, voodoo, or psychokinesis. Quantum physicists are very interested in this. How do the predictions of quantum physics relate to this aspect of mental functioning -- information transfer at a distance?

HERBERT: Well, since information is a pattern, Bell's theorem would say, well, no patterns are transferred faster than light, so you won't see any telepathy on that level. So at a first cut, Bell's theorem would say no telepathy. But then there are these individual events that are churning along. Now, one of my speculations is that there are two kinds of knowledge that people have about themselves. One is the kind of computer-like knowledge where you have facts, and the other is this very experience ourselves, that we have right now. It isn't computer-like, it isn't facts. (Link to the entire interview:

http://twm.co.nz/herbert.htm

Enjoy! Lynne McTaggarts one minute shift...

All is One (cont...)

If we encourage the physicists and mathematicians to stop 'normalizing' their equations (which simply means that they factor out or take away the idea of infinity by using other equations called constants like Planks constant), we have to accept the idea of infinity. When we allow truth to take precedence over what man can believe, then we come back to only truth, we live in an infinite universe, made of waves which infinitely move and ossilate to form what we know as matter and ultimately reality.

So, now there are an emerging number of scientists who are convinced that we have finally worked out that physical reality consists of 'the wave structure of matter' and this information can provide us with a source code from which we can deduce the truth as a foundation for acting wisely.

Humanity has always faced many problems because of the many conflicting beliefs, prejudices and practices that have resulted in a great deal of conflict and harm, to each other and to our precious planet. It is only by understanding our reality and our universe that we will become aware of the harm we do to ourselves by these prejudices and practices, we need to understand that what we do to another we have done to ourselves and science can help us understand that where blind faith has failed us.

When we understand that we are not separate at all, that we are all a just a discrete moment in one infinite wave, we get a little closer to the truth. Imagine you are a drop of water in a vast ocean, if you polluted that water or hurt another of the drops, you would in effect be hurting yourself. Now imagine the universe itself and everything in it is that ocean, and you are that drop within it.

Don't you feel differently about who you are and about your neighbors? In that vast ocean you are no more important than any other and you cannot separate yourself from any other drop, infinitely connected. All is one.

Checkout these people and these sites for more information:

Look up - John Haegelin, Nassim Haeramin, Shauberger, Bohm, Howard Bloom

and these websites -
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4907540922643918266
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/home.htm

Enjoy! and I hope this gives you food for thought, these top scientists are using their knowledge to change the world for the better, to help provide mankind with morality and ethics that blind faith could not, once confronted with the truth mankind must understand the concept that you cannot hate or damage any part of our universe without hurting or damaging yourself. It is my hope that this knowledge will eventually lead to global and universal peace and compassion for all.

may your days be filled with magic and miracles (it's all science anyway), Annie

Infinitely Connected - All is One

It astounds me at times, the lengths that humankind will go to, to prove their individuality and individual rights, when all the time in every minute, All is One. There is no me without you, there is no universe without me, so why would I hurt you, when all I am in fact doing is hurting me? And why would I beat myself up, as humans often do (in their mind) when in fact I am then by inference thinking the same things about you?

I know this is very philosophical, however it needs to be said as a prelude to what I am about to add to this article. The science of the universe proves these statements, we live in an ocean of particles with every particle touching every other particle, you and I, are concepts borne of perception, as two tiny whirlpools in the ocean would see themselves as separate. We who stand above, looking on from on high would know that those two tiny whirlpools were in fact just spots of turbulence in that great sea. Spots of turbulence that will eventually recede and disappear into the great ocean from which they sprang.

Because of this I do not understand war, hatred, violence or disunity of any kind, how can you be different from me when we are made from the same stuff that makes up the rest of the universe. All is One; and here is the science to prove it.

David Bohm, one of my all time hero's, an amazingly coherent physicist, provides a clear account of how this incorrect 'particle' conception of matter not only causes harm to the Sciences, but also to the way we think and live, and thus to our very society and its future evolution.

"The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it."
(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

Planck, Bohr and Einstien came to the conclusion in the early 1900's that the particle nature of the universe is an illusion, these discoveries formed the basis for many future experiments and hypothesis. They discovered that the universe had no actual space in it, in the way that most of us think of space, space as a hole does not exists, every part of our universe is filled with something - called energy, in some form.

"Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion." (Albert Einstein)

"I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning." (Albert Einstein)

Next came de Broglie, Compton and Shroedinger who all gradually increased the research into the wave properties of electrons. In one momentous experiment, which has been repeated many times over the years, called the Double Slit experiment the wave nature of particles was given precedence, which lead to one of the most important discoveries in quantum science, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (for more information please Google 'Double slit experiment' and 'Wave structure of matter.'

Werner Heisenberg developed the uncertainty principle which tells us that we (the observer) can never exactly know both the position and momentum of a particle. As every observation requires an energy exchange (photon) to create the observed 'data', some energy (wave) state of the observed object has to be altered. Thus the observation has a discrete effect on what we measure. i.e. We change the experiment by observing it! (A large part of their problem though was to continue to assume the existence of discrete particles and thus to try to exactly locate both their position and motion, which is impossible as there is no discrete particle!)
Further, because both the observed position and momentum of the particle can never be exactly known, theorists were left trying to determine the probability of where, for example, the 'particle' would be observed.

One of the things that has stumbled many quantum scientists, even to this day has been the practice of "normalization", whereby the mathematics of infinities (which come up in almost every equation concerned with the structure of our universe) is 'normalized to assume a finite world. Now why would you do that? Yes, I understand dealing with infinities is not easy for the human mind, and when dealing with infinities we cannot create, nice enclosed 'constants' and get our name on a universal constant. But this would seem to me to be seriously flawed mathematics, from people who love order (most mathematicians love order), to seriously undermine truth, just to create a false sense of order is incomprehensible to me.

If the universe is telling you that there are infinities, then in the interests of truth and order, you must include these truths in order to call it quality science!
In 1937 Paul Dirac wrote;

"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" (Dirac, 1937)

and Einstein wrote:

"The inadequacy of this point of view manifested itself in the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the particles in order to prevent the electromagnetic field existing at their surfaces from becoming infinitely large." (Albert Einstein, 1936)

To Be Continued....