The following is undisputed: 1. The conceptual relation between QM, describing microscopic physics, and macroscopic irreversible physics, is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. 2. When propagating chaotic equations, arbitrarily small scales gradually become significant at arbitrarily large scales. It follows that, the long-time behavior of chaotic systems is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. Previous work by the author sheds new light on the quantum-classical riddle, suggesting that quantum weirdness is a signature of a non mechanistic ontology, viz., one not describable by some generalized state-vector plus evolution rule thereof. It is argued that neither an empirical nor a theoretical case exists against such non mechanistic ontology manifesting in certain macroscopic chaotic systems. Bell's inequality violation by separated but previously coupled such systems is one example. More radically, it is hypothesized that certain systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that, a future perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>0.5. Experiments utilizing machine learning are proposed for testing such hypotheses.
The following is undisputed: 1. The conceptual relation between QM, describing microscopic physics, and macroscopic irreversible physics, is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. 2. When propagating chaotic equations, arbitrarily small scales gradually become significant at arbitrarily large scales. It follows that, the long-time behavior of chaotic systems is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. Previous work by the author sheds new light on the quantum-classical riddle, suggesting that quantum weirdness is a signature of a non mechanistic ontology, viz., one not describable by some generalized state-vector plus evolution rule thereof. It is argued that neither an empirical nor a theoretical case exists against such non mechanistic ontology manifesting in certain macroscopic chaotic systems. Bell's inequality violation by separated but previously coupled such systems is one example. More radically, it is hypothesized that certain systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that, a future perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>0.5. Experiments utilizing machine learning are proposed for testing such hypotheses.
The following is undisputed: 1. The conceptual relation between QM, describing microscopic physics, and macroscopic irreversible physics, is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. 2. When propagating chaotic equations, arbitrarily small scales gradually become significant at arbitrarily large scales. It follows that, the long-time behavior of chaotic systems is as mysterious today as eighty years ago. Previous work by the author sheds new light on the quantum-classical riddle, suggesting that quantum weirdness is a signature of a non mechanistic ontology, viz., one not describable by some generalized state-vector plus evolution rule thereof. It is argued that neither an empirical nor a theoretical case exists against such non mechanistic ontology manifesting in certain macroscopic chaotic systems. Bell's inequality violation by separated but previously coupled such systems is one example. More radically, it is hypothesized that certain systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that, a future perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>0.5. Experiments utilizing machine learning are proposed for testing such hypotheses.
We humans are natural-born engineers. As such, we model after machines not only isolated, naturally occurring systems, but also the basic laws of physics, sharing with machines a local-evolution-of-state `grammar'. However, previous work by the author casts doubt upon this mechanistic paradigm, suggesting that it is to blame for the stubbornness of many open problems in physics. Simple experiments are therefore proposed to identify `non-machines'. In one experiment, `non mechanistic correlations' in the spirit of Bell are sought in a pair of separated but previously coupled (macroscopic) chaotic systems. In another it is tested whether chaotic systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that a future binary perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>1/2. Chaotic systems are chosen as candidates because the long-time application of their (deterministic) mechanistic description is conceptually groundless: All scales are significant and mutually coupled in that regime, down to scales governed by QM, yet the quantum-classical transition remains inexplicable---if only due to the measurement problem. Similarly for so-called non-deterministic chaotic systems, modeled as such purely for defying a short-time deterministic mechanistic description. Should a non mechanistic signature be found in such simple systems, the implications for science as a whole and life sciences in particular cannot be overstated.
We humans are natural-born engineers. As such, we model after machines not only isolated, naturally occurring systems, but also the basic laws of physics, sharing with machines a local-evolution-of-state `grammar'. However, previous work by the author casts doubt upon this mechanistic paradigm, suggesting that it is to blame for the stubbornness of many open problems in physics. Simple experiments are therefore proposed to identify `non-machines'. In one experiment, `non mechanistic correlations' in the spirit of Bell are sought in a pair of separated but previously coupled (macroscopic) chaotic systems. In another it is tested whether chaotic systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that a future binary perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>1/2. Chaotic systems are chosen as candidates because the long-time application of their (deterministic) mechanistic description is conceptually groundless: All scales are significant and mutually coupled in that regime, down to scales governed by QM, yet the quantum-classical transition remains inexplicable---if only due to the measurement problem. Similarly for non-deterministic chaotic systems, modeled as such purely for defying a short-time deterministic mechanistic description. Should a non mechanistic signature be found in such simple systems, the implications for science as a whole and life sciences in particular cannot be overstated.
We humans are natural-born engineers. As such, we model after machines not only isolated, naturally occurring systems, but also the basic laws of physics, sharing with machines a local-evolution-of-state `grammar'. However, previous work by the author casts doubt upon this mechanistic paradigm, suggesting that it is to blame for the stubbornness of many open problems in physics. Simple experiments are therefore proposed to identify `non-machines'. In one experiment, `non mechanistic correlations' in the spirit of Bell are sought in a pair of separated but previously coupled (macroscopic) chaotic systems. In another it is tested whether chaotic systems could fuzzily `remember their future' in the sense that a future binary perturbation applied to them could be inferred from their present behavior with probability>1/2. Chaotic systems are chosen as candidates because the long-time application of their (deterministic) mechanistic description is conceptually groundless: All scales are significant and mutually coupled in that regime, down to scales governed by QM, yet the quantum-classical transition remains inexplicable---if only due to the measurement problem. Similarly for non-deterministic chaotic systems, modeled as such purely for defying a short-time deterministic mechanistic description. Should a non mechanistic signature be found in such simple systems, the implications for science as a whole and life sciences in particular cannot be overstated.
Quantum mechanics marks a radical departure from the classical understanding of Nature, fostering an inherent randomness which forbids a deterministic description; yet the most fundamental departure arises from something different. As shown by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2], quantum mechanics portrays a picture of the world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum mechanics predicts phenomena which cannot be explained by any theory with objective realism, although our everyday experience supports the hypothesis that macroscopic objects, despite being made of quantum particles, exist independently of the act of observation; in this paper we identify this behavior as classical. Here we show that this seemingly obvious classical behavior of the macroscopic world cannot be experimentally tested and belongs to the realm of ontology similar to the dispute on the interpretations of quantum mechanics [3,4]. For small systems such as a single photon [5] or a pair [6], it has been experimentally proven that a classical description cannot be sustained. Recently, there have also been experiments that claim to have demonstrated quantum behavior of relatively large objects such as interference of fullerenes [7], the violation of Leggett-Garg inequality in Josephson junction [8], and interference between two condensed clouds of atoms [9], which suggest that there is no limit to the size of the system on which the quantum-versus-classical question can be tested. These behaviors, however, are not sufficient to refute classical description in the sense of objective reality. Our findings show that once we reach the regime where an Avogadro number of particles is present, the quantum-versus-classical question cannot be answered experimentally.
A well-known mystery in quantum mechanics is wave–particle duality: Is an electron a point mass or a physical wave? What is the physical meaning of its wave function? About a hundred years ago, there was a famous debate between Bohr and Einstein on this topic. Their question is still open today. This paper reviews a new theoretical framework to address this problem. Here, it is hypothesized that both photons and electrons are quantized excitation waves of the vacuum, the physical properties of which can be modeled based on the Maxwell theory. Using the method of Helmholtz decomposition, one can show that the wave function of the particle is associated with an electric vector potential called “ Z”, which plays the role of basic field for the excitation wave. Using this framework, the quantum wave equations can be derived based on a quantization of the Maxwell theory. This work suggests that, the quantum wave function truly represents a physical wave; the wave packet looks like a “particle” only in the macroscopic view. Because the vacuum excitation obeys the principle of all-or-none, the probability of detecting this “particle” is related to the wave function as suggested in the Copenhagen interpretation.