Perspective & the Lawelessness of the Quantum Realm

Consider the following news article...

Back From the Future

by Zeeya Merali; photography by Adam Magyar

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C

From the April 2010 issue 
Discovery Magazine; published online August 26, 2010

A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

That belief crumbled when experiments began to reveal the indeterministic effects of quantum mechanics—for instance, in the radioactive decay of atoms. The problem goes like this, Tollaksen says: Take two radioactive atoms, so identical that “even God couldn't see the difference between them.” Then wait. The first atom might decay a minute later, but the second might go another hour before decaying. This is not just a thought experiment; it can really be seen in the laboratory. There is nothing to explain the different behaviors of the two atoms, no way to predict when they will decay by looking at their history, and—seemingly—no definitive cause that produces these effects. This indeterminism, along with the ambiguity inherent in the uncertainty principle, famously rankled Einstein, who fumed that God doesn't play dice with the universe. 

It bothered Aharonov as well. “I asked, what does God gain by playing dice?” he says. Aharonov accepted that a particle’s past does not contain enough information to fully predict its fate, but he wondered, if the information is not in its past, where could it be? After all, something must regulate the particle’s behavior. His answer—which seems inspired and insane in equal measure—was that we cannot perceive the information that controls the particle’s present behavior because it does not yet exist.

“Nature is trying to tell us that there is a difference between two seemingly identical particles with different fates, but that difference can only be found in the future,” he says. If we're willing to unshackle our minds from our preconceived view that time moves in only one direction, he argues, then it is entirely possible to set up a deterministic theory of quantum mechanics.

In 1964 Aharonov and his colleagues Peter Bergmann and Joel Lebowitz, all then at Yeshiva University in New York, proposed a new framework called time-symmetric quantum mechanics. It could produce all the same treats as the standard form of quantum mechanics that everyone knew and loved, with the added benefit of explaining how information from the future could fill in the indeterministic gaps in the present. But while many of Aharonov’s colleagues conceded that the idea was built on elegant mathematics, its philosophical implications were hard to swallow. “Each time I came up with a new idea about time, people thought that something must be wrong,” he says.

      Obviously something mysterious has occurred here. In fact, something is clearly wrong with how we view reality if indications such as these could occur within a laboratory setting. But what could be the truth here? Let's step back and take a look.

       What's wrong - in my view - is the assumption that was made that the two "seemingly identical particles" were indeed identical to a degree that the difference between them (seeing as they are two unique holons in their own sense of logical identity) would prohibit their decay from being affected. Why these three researchers would feel free to invent a time-centric causal factor that involves the future reaching back and affecting the past, is where I find myself focusing, when presented with this notion of "time-symmetric quantum mechanics".

      That these scientists would "go there" instead of accepting the indication of a clear difference between what were obviously two unique radioactive atoms (that difference strongly suggested by the measured difference in rate of decay displayed by each) as being sufficiently obvious enough to be noted as a full factor within the examination being conducted, is one of only two real questions to be addressed. The other question is why these idiots were allowed to present these absurd determinations as responsible science, let alone inspire anyone else to follow up on them as a serious examination decades later.

The Wild Wild West of Quantum Mechanics

       There is a point where organization appears to break down. Quantum theorists believe that relative size is the factor that frees the sub-atomic particle from the confines of predictable behavior, but there may be a much more intellectually responsible reason for the appearance of random mechanics.
      If one allows for the possibility that particle matter is the result of layers of organized (matrixed) units of change itself (raw activity gathered in service of the raw Survival imperative we call Identity, with proxy survival the only hope for such units, regardless of how futile) then suddenly the collapse of recognizable structure when one digs down to the sub-atomic, particle level becomes a lot less mysterious. After all, each organized event trajectory faces an inevitable end. Nothing based solely on the identified causal collective lasts forever. At the quantum level, these collectives are strikingly brief, and it stands to reason that while we may be witness to what seems like random mechanics, what they may be is extremely primitive event trajectories that are constantly replaced by the resulting launches of completely different isolated event trajectories once  they've completed their run. Like a cue ball's trajectory ceasing as it initiates a new trajectory with the 8 ball to end the game.
      Let me see if I can apply another, more complete, analogy.
      If we watch a racquet ball match, the flight of the ball itself seems unpredictable - and at certain levels of perspective, it is. However, when each specific open-air flight segment is taken as one identified linear event trajectory, we immediately recognize the consistency displayed within that segment. Of course, as soon as the ball's organized trajectory is affected by the floor, or wall, or a player's racquet, that trajectory is ended and replaced by a new trajectory that was imposed by the combination of momentum, angle, force behind the impacting agent, and a myriad of other contributing factors. This isn't mysterious, but only because we see it occur all the time. In fact, our daily lives are flush with instances of altered trajectories that manifest in thousands of unique ways. The only difference between what we experience and what scientists examine at the quantum level, is the familiarity we have with what's occurring.
      The identified trajectory of any unit collective lasts only as long as it lasts. That can involve a very long collection of event units, or it can be extremely short. As an extremely sophisticated matrix collective, (featuring both linear and redundant event trajectories in concurrent and consecutive association with one another as a unified linear event whole) the corporeal brain has a difficult time perceiving itself as akin to the rolling of a ball across the floor, but in fact, it is very much like the rolling of a ball across the floor - a multi-level, matrixed event collective, with many tiers of organized activity in symbiotic congress, with the focus being the survival of each causal unit through identity representation of the event whole as an identified holon with a definable window of physical existence that all those contributing units share via logical proxy. That the corporeal brain has trouble perceiving the similarity has no impact on the similarity itself, and this is where the nature of the human mind becomes a factor in the examination of quantum mechanics. Not as a causal factor in the mechanics under examinatiuon, but as a significant factor in the accurate translation of what is revealed by that examination.

Perspective Is What It Is

      Examination is a two step process that involves (1) observation and (2) perception. From there it progresses to translation of what's been gleaned as a result of that examination, but even before that, the data can easily be affected by one or the other, or, as is often the case, a shifting blend of both. The observation of what seems like a violation of laws of physics, may be the observation of a causal trajectory that is so primitive and so finite as to have no impact on the physical structure that ultimately rises from its theater of expression. This indication may not reveal a violation at all, but may reveal the nature of the structural imperative that is pervasive - yet hidden within the sheer complexity of physical structure - as the complexity increases.
      The laws of physics rule the behavior of elemental and molecular structure, and while these tenets have been the bedrock of our understanding of what exists as real and replicable, what is ultimately true is that these are tenets that we created for ourselves, and through a process that had always been limited by our own capacity to observe and perceive by way of our technological sophistication. It has finally occurred that the success of our technologies have presented us with the very first indications concerning the true limitations of our own capacity for accurate translation of what constitutes physical reality. You see, the issue is simple - we, as corporeal human beings, also exist as physical in nature, and at a very specific level, any ability to objectively observe physical reality will be affected by the very nature of how we viscerally perceive our own selves as physical manifestations. Until we can become freed of these traditional visceral notions concerning ourselves, we won't be free to accurately determine the truth about what it is that has gathered to allow each one of us our own physical identity as auto-animate wholes within the larger whole of reality itself.
     There is not and has never been an objective authority that has instructed humanity concerning the truth of physical reality. What the human race has embraced as objective reality has never been more than the subjective observations and translations of the most authoritative human beings within a given society. When viewed through this lens it becomes pretty clear that the reality foundations provided by both science and religion are just as arbitrary as each claims to be true about the other. Religion defends an emotionally arrived upon preconceived assertion, while science grabs its determination concerning a tiny slice taken out of the whole of reality and attempts to define that reality whole as an accurately scaled rendition of that tiny slice. Both have their own unique way of building assertion, but neither is more than the failure of the human mind to allow itself the admission of ignorance concerning all that it can't possibly know or have ever accurately perceived.

      Maybe what's needed is a little humility here. At least before we go and reconstruct the space-time continuum to allow for anyone's belligerent insistence to define a confounding reality for the rest of us.