This paper follows a novel format of conversation with the scientific version of Copilot Pro on thoughts regarding the philosophical building block of the theory of everything, which is the union of the objective and subjective, i.e. the General Theory of relativity & Entropy and Quantum Mechanics, albeit in layman philosophical thought experiments with an AI assistant as the first step of review. This paper attempts to show that Einstein’s Speed of Light only applies to observable light particles and does not apply to electromagnetic waves, utilizing the human mind as the basis for the latter, and its ability to travel through past, present and future simultaneously like a Qubit.
This paper follows a novel format of conversation with the scientific version of Copilot Pro on thoughts regarding the philosophical building block of the theory of everything, which is the union of the objective and subjective, i.e. the General Theory of relativity & Entropy and Quantum Mechanics, albeit in layman philosophical thought experiments with an AI assistant as the first step of review. This paper attempts to show that Einstein’s Speed of Light only applies to observable light particles and does not apply to electromagnetic waves, utilizing the human mind as the basis for the latter, and its ability to travel through past, present and future simultaneously like a Qubit.
This article takes the form of 3 microarticles. They are 1) Relativity says science overvalues experiments, 2) Time dilation to co-moving and non-comoving observers and 3) EXPLORING VENUS, MARS, ETC BY ENTANGLING THEM WITH EARTH. Each microarticle was originally written to stand alone, but I decided they should be combined into one article. Everybody (even including Nobel-winning physicists) seems to have a preference for experiment instead of theory. This reminds me of a movie I saw about Alexander the Great. Aristotle (played by Christopher Plummer) was teaching the young Alexander and said Greeks use their minds while rely on their senses, and what they can see and hear etc. While science acknowledges the importance of theory and mind, it appears to be following Aristotle's other races when it declares that observation and experiment always have the last word. This is justified by saying the ancient Greeks made mistakes because they didn't always rely enough on mathematics and experiment. However, it's well known that experimenters make mistakes too - from the days of Galileo to the recent experiments with faster-than-light neutrinos, and with the cosmic microwave background. This article hopes to plant a seed that will grow into a science which doesn't automatically assume observation and experiment must always have the last word. The entire universe, along with all of the past and present and future, appears to be becoming unified by our science into one entity/event. Consider the 19th century's union of electricity and magnetism into the one force of electromagnetism (light, and every type of radiation, are forms of this). Consider the unifying attempts of Einstein's Unified Field Theory, as well as the union of space and time into space-time, in the 20th century - and of physics' subatomic String Theory and Theory of Everything in the 21st century. A vital player in this trend is quantum mechanics, with its experimentally verified quantum entanglement that says particles can affect each regardless of distance in space-time. The way things are going, the mathematics used on Earth will end up being revised. After all, it's based on the limited perceptions of our senses and the idea that a virtually unlimited set of separate observations and experiments can be made ie it says 1+1=2. But if absolutely everything is actually a single thing/event, 1+1 will have no choice but to equal 1.
My theme is thought experiment in natural science, and its relation to real experiment. I shall defend the thesis that thought experiments that do not lead to theorizing and to a real experiment are generally of much less value that those that do so. To illustrate this thesis I refer to three examples, from three very different periods, and with three very different kinds of status. The first is the classic thought experiment in which Galileo imagined that he had, by pure thought, demolished Aristoteles' dogma that heavier bodies fall more quickly than light ones. I will show that he was mistaken. The second is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper purporting to show that quantum mechanics must be incomplete in its domain of application. This thought experiment is a very good one, not because its conclusions are correct, but precisely because it was fruitful, leading to theory and, above all, to a real experiment. Finally I discuss the modern string theory of everything, which, while it is regarded as a physical theory by its instigators, shares some properties of the least successful sort of thought experiment.
The mind–matter relationship remained in the domain of philosophers for aeons. However, the inquisitiveness of the scientific minds has always been trying to understand the science behind its various functions. The scientific temper ushered in by the Renaissance about the 15th century saw the scientists exploring this problem from a science point of view. Technological advances during the later part of the 20th century enabled neuroscientists to explore and localise functions of the brain. However, the most difficult has been understanding the origin of a conscious experience scientifically or materialistically. Despite the delineation of many functions of the brain, the origin of conscious experience, the qualia, in the material brain remains elusive, so much so it came to be called the holy grail of neuroscience. Heisenberg wrote: ‘Physics entered the domain of philosophy with the emergence of consciousness in quantum observation, which incidentally opened the door for reconciliation of science and philosophy’,[1] an event which enabled the predictions of Snow of the merging of arts and sciences.[2,3] Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics relating to very small particles – subatomic particles – electrons, photons, and everything in the submolecular realm, being the smallest units in matter. Quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter available at present. Some basic concepts of quantum physics need to be understood. These include “superposition”, where in subatomic particles exist either as waves or particles in a dual nature, never simultaneously. They exist as waves in more than one place at a time and once an observer observes or interferes with (such as measuring) their superposition state collapses to particle state. Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles which are generated, interact with or share special proximity such that they remain connected even when separated by vast distances. Consciousness is a manifestation of quantum process. Q mind or Q consciousness comprises a group of hypotheses proposing that quantum mechanical phenomena such as entanglement and superposition may play an important part in the functions of the brain and could thus explain the origin of consciousness. Several theories of quantum consciousness have been proposed. Wigner proposed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind and proposed that the wave function collapse in the interaction with conscious observation creates consciousness.[4] Vitiello and Freeman[5] proposed quantum field theory (QFT) of brain states. This theory deals with systems and provides formal elements from which a standard description of brain activity can be inferred. According to QFT, particles are only excited states or simply manifestations of a field. Every particle has its own field that covers all of the universe, which means that, according to QFT, all of the electrons of the universe belong to the same field and could be regarded as one. Bohm formulated the QFT as a deeper theory of quantum theory plus relativity.[6] He viewed mind and matter as projections into our explicate order underlying the implicate order. Quantum brain dynamics (QBD) hypothesis explains the function of the brain within the framework of QFT.[7] It is not yet known exactly how quantum superpositions and their collapse result in the genesis of the raw feels of consciousness, the qualia. Feynman stated ‘if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you do not!’[8] Pribram proposed the holonomic brain theory (quantum holography). He invoked quantum mechanics to explain the higher-order processing by the mind. Pribram provided evidence on how much of the processes in the brain take place in a distributed fashion.[9,10] The composite model of Pribram-Bohm of holoflux hypothesis addresses observed phenomenon of non-locality both spacially and temporally. Bose and Einstein, who first predicted Bose Einstein condensate proposed that water at dendritic membrane surfaces might operate by structuring condensation,[11] supporting QBD. Penrose and Hamoreff proposed the orchestrated-objective reduction (ORCH-OR) in 1989 through 2013. According to them, the microtubules in the neurons (neurotubules), the tubulin protein polymer at the site of quantum collapse, leads to conscious experience. The quantum superposed states which develop in the tubulins remain coherent and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold is reached. At this point, self-collapse or objective reduction occurs, which is equated to a discrete conscious event. Cascades of ORCH-OR events give rise to the stream of consciousness.[12,13] Penrose suggested that objective reduction represents neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derives.[14] Quantum vibrations in the microtubules proposed by Bandyopadhyay[15] have been shown to be source of conscious experience by corroborating the Penrose-Hemeroff’s ORCH-OR hypothesis.[13,16] In April 2022, the results of two related experiments at the University of Alberta and Princeton University, announced at The Science of Consciousness conference, provided further evidence to support quantum processes operating within microtubules. However, in another experiment, Gregory D. Scholes and Aarat Kalra of Princeton University used lasers to excite molecules within tubulins, causing a prolonged excitation to diffuse through microtubules further than expected, which did not occur when repeated under anaesthesia.[17,18] Beck and Eccles considered quantum mechanics at the synaptic level. If Orchestrated objective reduction (ORCH-OR) theory is applicable, a similar phenomenon in the microtubules at the presynaptic level, the axon terminal could be invoked for the genesis of consciousness.[19] A recent study by scientists at Trinity College, Dublin, in October 2022,[20] suggests that quantum processes underlie the cognitive and conscious brain functions. The brain–mind operational architectonics is the boundary between and integration point of quantum physics and eastern metaphysics and that it may inspire building a richer and more inclusive paradigm of the brain–mind relation, where quantum physics and eastern metaphysics are inherently intertwined. A body of empirical evidence[21-24] supports these possibilities, strengthening the proposal that the mind–brain relationship may be partially quantum. Quantum information theory clarifies the distinction between the unobservable mind and the observable brain and supports a solid physical foundation for consciousness research. With all these theories trying to explain and understand the theoretical/hypothetical framework for consciousness to explain the subjective experience of consciousness, the experts of this field feel it is still a long way to bridge the gap between current neurobiological and physical–mathematical concepts with their associated quantum–mind theories. Though there is still a long way to go for explaining conscious experience scientifically, when ever this happens, it will become one of the benchmarks in science. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest. Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the preparation of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.