An article by the IKBFU Director of the Institute of Physics, Mathematics and Informational Technology, Artyom Yurov, and the Institute’s Associate Professor, Valerian Yurov was recently published in European Physical Journal. The scientists have released their calculations, according to which the Universe may have quantum properties.
Artyom Yurov explained:
“To begin with, let’s remember what quantum physics is. Perhaps this is the most amazing phenomenon known to people. When scientists started studying atoms for the first time, they noticed that everything works “upside down” in the microcosm. For example, according to quantum theory, an electron may present in several places simultaneously.
Try to imagine your cat simultaneously lying on the sofa and eating from its bowl that is in the other corner of the room. The cat is not either here or there, but in both places simultaneously. But the cat is there only BEFORE you look at it. The moment you start staring at it, it changes its position to EITHER the bowl OR the sofa. You may ask, of course, that if the cat acts so weird only when not observed by us, so how do we know that it actually acts this way? The answer is simple: math! If we are to try and gather statistical information about us looking at the cat (needed to estimate the number of cases when the cat was on the sofa and when — near the bowl), we won’t have any information. This proves to be impossible if we consider the cat being EITHER near the bowl OR on the sofa. Well, it doesn’t work like that with cats, but works fine for electrons.
When we observe this particle, it really appears in one place and we can record that, but when we do not observe it, it must be in several places at once. For example, this is what they mean in chemistry classes when they talk about electron clouds. No wonder poor children never understand this. They just memorize … ”
Yes, the cat is not some electron, but why? Cats consist of elementary particles, like electrons, protons, and neutrons. All the particles act the same when measured on the quantum level. So why a cat can’t be in two places simultaneously?
And the other question is: what is so magical about our ability to “observe”? Because when we don’t “observe,” the object is being “smeared” all over the universe, but the moment we look at it — it is gathered in one place! Well, physicists don’t say “gathered,” they say “wave function collapsed,” but those smart words actually mean “gathered” in one place as a result of observation! How are we able to do that?
“Firstly, the answer to these complex questions appeared at the end of the last century, when such a phenomenon as decoherence was discovered. It turns out that indeed, any object is located in several places at once, in very many places. It seems to be spread throughout the universe. But if the object comes into interaction with the environment, even collides with one atom of a photon, it immediately “collapses.” So there are no mystical abilities to cause quantum collapse by observation — this is due to interaction with the environment, and we are simply part of this environment.
Secondly, there is no absolute collapse as such. The collapse happens in the following way: if before interacting with the environment the object was “smeared” over two places, (we use “two places” to simplify, in reality it might be smeared over hundreds of thousands of places) but in fact, the object presents 99.9999% (and many, many nines after) of the time in one place, and a small remaining part of time in the second. And we observe it as being in one and only place! Everything happens in no time and the bigger an object is, the faster the “collapse.” We cannot realize it or somehow register, as such devices simply do not exist. And they cannot be created.”
According to Artyom Yurov, a long time ago his friend and co-author from Madrid, professor Pedro Gonzalez Diaz (unfortunately, long deceased) has presented an idea of the Universe having quantum properties.
Prof. Yurov said: “Back in the days I was skeptical about the idea. Because it is known that the bigger an object is the faster it collapses. Even a bacteria collapses extremely fast, and here we are talking about the Universe. But here Pedro asked me: “What the Universe interacts with?” and I answered nothing. There is nothing but the Universe and there is nothing it can interact with. Which, theoretically allows as to think of it as of a quantum object.”
A human being and the facsimiles
However, the impetus for writing a scientific article about the quantum nature of the Universe was not so much the idea of Pedro Gonzalez Diaz as the one that came out in 2007 scientific publication (pdf) by Hall, Deckert, and Wiseman, who described those quantum miracles in the language of classical mechanics, adding some “quantum forces” in it.
That is, each location of the object is described as a separate “world,” but it is believed that these “worlds” act on each other with real “forces.” I must say that the idea of “many worlds” has existed for a long time and belongs to Hugh Everett. The idea of describing quantum effects by introducing additional forces also exists for a long time and belongs to David Bohm, but Hall, Deckert, and Wiseman were able to combine these ideas and build a meaningful mathematical model.
“And when Valerian and I saw this work in 2007,” says Artyom Yurov, “it seemed to us that the mathematical formalism used in it allows us to look very differently at what Pedro said at the time. The essence of our work is that we took the equation that cosmologists use to describe the Friedmann-Einstein Universe, added “quantum forces” according to the HDV scheme, and investigated the solutions obtained. We managed to get some amazing results, in particular, it is possible that some puzzles of cosmology can receive unexpected coverage from this side. But the most important thing is that such a model is testable. ”
It is too early to talk about what such a formulation of the question may lead to. The theory must also be confirmed by experiments (i.e., observations). But now it’s obvious that scientists have come close to what can fundamentally change our understanding of the universe.
Reference: “The day the universes interacted: quantum cosmology without a wave function” by A. V. Yurov and V. A. Yurov, 18 September 2019, The European Physical Journal C.
What this article appears to be talking about is OMNIPRESENCE…the idea that the Unbegotten LORD is everywhere and in everything at the same time is as ancient as God Himself is. The Bible speaks of the ABOVE as the habitation of God (as in being “beyond” any created thing in the heavens, on the earth, or anything in the depths under the earth…beyond anything that can be named). Thus, the ABOVE (Ahl in Hebrew) is a a place of infinite unformed energy (whereas our universe is a formed exspanse surrounded by infinity). If the infinite unformed unbegotten LORD can be in everything, and if He is omnipresent…then, it is possible that energy can also be omnipresent. However, to say that my kitchen table is everywhere in the universe at once until I look at it is…well, that’s a bit too much to handle.
Richard appears to have the answer everyone! Its god! Lets pack up and go home. Nothing more to know here. No need for anymore scientific pursuit. Richard your “god of the gaps” reasoning is tiresome now. Trying to slam a square peg(religion) into a round hole(science) will do nothing to further our knowledge as a species.Religion purports to explain everything but in fact explains nothing at all.
Wth richard… I’ma Christian to but it’s people who go arround bringing God into everything that makes us looked bad if they want to here the word they’ll go to church… Personally I don’t like people so I read instead but.. dear Lord man give your opinion on a scientific forum without dropping big G’s name all the time I know I wouldn’t like it if every five second some random person was telling the world about how an untested unproven theory must be caused by me… Any way no offense man but like seriously 2 sentences in and I think I read the word God 4 times…
How can you call yourself a Christian and correct someone for saying Gods name
What if the effects we are seeing are an artifact created by our instruments, and method of viewing. If an object is vibrating in a certain spacial plane, and you observe the object using a camera, or any other equipment, if the sample rate isn’t fast enough, you miss the frequency information, and the object in the sampled frame will appear to do some strange things. If the instruments were to sample the position of a particle very precisely, and extremely rapidly, then the behavior might change, and the true motion revealed. The whole being in many spaces at the same time, might be an artifact of the method of observation.
THE ACT OF OBSERVING CHANGES THE RESULTS.
RESULTS CHANGE THE ACT OF OBSERVATION.
The quantum mystery suggests that reality may be an illusion as our mirror thoughts reflect us to sanity while our intuition says there must be more.
I dont care if no one believes me, but I’ve been waiting for this. For a period of time I had been able to see (in a spiritual sense) rod like webs that connected everything in the air. These fiber like webs attach to our body, and everything else, and move about everywhere together. In it I was able to see that these round molecular like particles that also existed within these fibers and some of them lit up like there was a lightening storm happening.
I know no one has to believe me. But I’ve been searching for years to find out what i had been able to see. I saw them for about 9 months straight and so so so many people asked,” What drugs are you on?”. I dont do drugs. I’m spiritual and have visions. But now I’m convinced that this is what I had been seeing.
Might I add, I also see (at times) where everything is black but in the Universe there are white consistent and uniformed dots (small circles) laid all out. So it’s like you’re seeing all white small dots over a black background. If anyone knows what I am seeing (and believes what I am saying), I’d love to hear it.
If you have something negative to say, then move on please. Everyone has some truth and I’m speaking mine. I’m only wanting to hear from those who wish to explore and understand my visions.
I can give confirmation on the we like structure. I saw saw it in a dark room while experimenting with lasers. oscillating 495–570 nm on a flat surface perpendicular to the beam. I observed the web-rod like structure that appeared to be behind the beams randomized pattern. Almost like you could see beyond the surface
As if quantum isn’t strange enough… There’s always the comments section.
I’m somewhere between amazed, fascinated, and baffled by not just the concepts that are presented around quantum physics, but the minds that are somehow able to wrap their heads around it.
I’m no dip****, but I’m not anywhere even close to far enough up the ladder to understand much more than some basic concepts, and managed to get my head around all of one of them with a decent grasp… The so called “quantum teleportation”… Schrödinger’s cat (which for anyone not in that loop, is *not* what is represented in the article), still completely leaves me standing with nothing, no matter what angle I go at it from. About all I can gather goes back to the basics… The cat is both alive and dead until something “definitive” happens (eg “observation”). Years now I’ve been trying to take it deeper lol
Back to the “teleportation”, which is really a sick representation of what is actually happening. It’s little more than a really peculiar Xerox machine (there, you’ve made me date myself haha). There’s no actual transport of matter, other than the independent and irrelevant forces that drove any distance between them. It’s better described as a clone that mimics the original (and vice versa).
Ok so these two examples given, along with the mentions in the article, lead me to my final point: There’s no real way to describe in “classic” terms how this stuff works without invoking contradictory and counterintuitive thought processes to what those of us with just enough under the hood have to be annoyed that we can’t grasp it deeper.
I got “lucky” in the sense that somehow I understand a bit more about the teleportation bit. The dead/alive or otherwise superposed cats, electrons, universes, or unicorn farts remain out of grasp.
There’s obviously something to it in a useful sense; combined with AI concepts, quantum computers, while still toward the infant side of things, scare the **** out of me… But so far I’ve come to the conclusion that the average-above-average isn’t going to understand how all this works until there’s a better parallel and set of analogies to relate them to something we can “see”.
Strangely enough, working out the teleportation “fraud” was done at a direct level, somehow. I think the others that are given as mind exercises simply fall apart due to the analogies themselves. Irony doesn’t escape me here, either. It’s almost like half the quantum concepts remain elusive as long as they are being considered… Lol
In a nutshell, I get it, and don’t get it, and everything in between, all at the same exact time, until it makes sense; then it doesn’t.
Now for a bit more primitive side:
Religious nut: Sit down, thump on that bible, all you want, just do it somewhere we both can’t and can’t observe it. (See what I did there?) 🙂
Web rod interwoven black and white MIB display individual: Ok, coherency is reasonable, so I’ll take your word for it on “it’s not drugs”… Just tell me how I get there… It sounds like a really wild place. Poking sticks aside, believe you or not, I have no more clue what to tell you about what you describe than I do about cats. Other than you gotta feed them and give them water when they’re dependent on you for care.
Ok so back to the important question of the moment: Can anyone provide a better analogy (or direct explanation that doesn’t require a 4 digit IQ or a degree in black magick to understand) for people like me to learn more about… Cats?
That was some funny right there. High five.
Why are folks so interested in studying the dead. So many are focused on it to the point in which it takes away from their very living. If there is an entity viewing interactions of Homo sapiens from an inertial time then perhaps that is that entire perception of time all at once. Maybe the entity can see aspects of the lifespans of Homo sapiens in the way we watch tv- maybe on Chanel 2 the entity is looking at the end of the cats lifespan and it’s dead. On the other hand perhaps the entity changes the channel using the “remote viewer” and views the cat at age 12 on chanel 3. Perhaps it is simply a hypothetical method for an omnipresent entity to parse time without experiencing it all at once. BUT WAIT- the entity loses it’s radio tv signal and notices frozen waves on the television screen. The image on screen becomes pixelated. Suddenly the image returns and the entity notices that not only does it have channel 3, but it also has channel 3a, 3b, and 3c. The entity uses the “remote” to change the channel back to page two. What does the entity observe- the cat viewing the entity from behind the screen. The cat has essentially broken the forth wall.
If there are entities viewing interactions of Homo sapiens from an inertial time frame (singularity) outside of our own then perhaps that is the entities method of distancing itself from experiencing time all at once. Perhaps the hypothetical entity sees aspects of Homo sapiens lifespans similarly to the way we watch tv- maybe on Chanel 2 the entity sees the end of the cat’s lifespan and is dead so far as the entity can see. Perhaps the hypothetical entity is board with channel 2 and changes the station and decides to remote view the cat on chanel 3 at age 12. Again, perhaps it’s just simply a method for a hypothetical omnipresent entity to parse time without experiencing it all at once. BUT WAIT- the entity loses it’s TV signal and notices frozen waves on the television screen. The image on screen becomes pixelated. Suddenly the image returns and the hypothetical entity notices that it now has extra channels. Not only does the hypothetical entity have channel 3, it now also has channel 3a, 3b, and 3c. The entity then uses the remote viewer (TV) to change the channel back to channel 2. What does the hypothetical entity observe via the Ingo Swann type remote viewer (TV) ? Rather tha observing a dead cat, the cat is looking at the hypothetical entity from behind the screen. The cat has essentially broken the forth wall and has turned the table. Perhaps the hypothetical entity is both alive and dead. It has been observed the wave function has collapsed. We have a fallen angel. -Signed, Cat 🤣🤣🤣
I should write a science fiction novella. The idea these folks come up with especially the “experts”. I’m more inclined to give serious thought and consideration to the guy seeing the glow in the dark dots with all due respect.
Let me be the first to call out that AI bot in the comment section. Nice try but you fail the Turing test this time. The algorithm is improving though…
It is really hard to understand the concept of the object collapse is wave function when we observ it. But is it possible that electrons by which the object is made of are smeared all over the universe and it collapse it’s wave function if someone other, than the current observer observed the same electron in some other place, can that person is able to see the cat at his place too?
At which point do you dismiss the “God of the gaps” Argument only to realize that it’s a plausible theory. If God does exist, would a scientist be able to prove his existence? If so, how? If you are able to prove his existence, would he still be considered to be God? Where did the origins of life begin? Where did the information come from in the sequencing of DNA? Statistics only proves that it is highly unlikely that it was a random occurrence. Arguing that we don’t have these answers now but will in the future based on scientific discovery is synonymous with the “science of the gaps” argument. All that to say, let’s not dismiss the possibility that an intelligence is behind the creation; its a perfectly rational theory which does not have to quench scientific pursuit.
Spirituality means when we turn inwards towards ourselves, the subject. While objectifying and trying to understand things with our instrument, the mind, which is itself limited and without even paying attention to its ( the mind’s) functioning it is not possible to arrive at the whole truth, which we are continuously seeking. While objectifying, we can understand there seems to be a unity underlying what we observe, and that it doesn’t seem possible to understand everything as it doesn’t appeal to our common sense, which is based on experience which itself is extremely limited due to the limitations of our senses. So we need to first understand the process of experience, the way we experience, I.e. how the mind functions and gives us information or deluded us too. Without that it I’d not possible. So one needs to turn one’s attention inwards, which is the intelligent thing to do. This is what Vedanta (Indian Vedantic philosophy) explains in great detail. The only thing that can be said us that Quantum Mechanics does not contradict Vedanta, on the contrary reaffirms what the seers of yore discovered by simply looking inwards
So A. V. Yurov, you must be right because V. A. Yurov says your wrong.
Crap study no collapse takes place improve more
It sounds like SCHRÖDINGER CAT EXPERIMENT
It occurs to me that we as human beings have always tried to make sense of what we don’t see. We tell stories and create mental and physical tools (like mathematics, telescopes, and bibles) to assist us in this endeavor. There is probably survival value in this behavior. I personally am willing to tolerate, God or Science, in the gaps, in the interest of telling a satisfying story. What would “real” knowledge or understanding look like? It’s probably hiding in the gaps…of our knowledge. We will chip away, using our tools, e.g.science AND faith, probably forever. (If we last that long.)
If a tree Falls in the woods and nobody’s there to witness it , does it make a sound
Hello, I had the same experience for about the same time duration. Would you like to compare notes? I don’t think most would appreciate dilution of thread further? Email me at giordanobruno.heretic at Gmail etc etc. Will be checking back for a reply!! Thanks, also you are not crazy and not having a disorder as most would claim
Max Planck (lived from 1858 – to October 1947) the originator of modern quantum theories and one of the most important German physicists ever. During 19th and early 20th centuries, won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter,
I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . .We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
What kind of phenomena cause “mind” to exist?
I’m a Christian, and although I am not typically opposed to mystical concepts, I am somewhat careful about introducing them into discourse about subjects within the domain of (theoretical) physics. Why, for example, couldn’t I (pretending to be a mystic) presume that none of my apparent sense perceptions are providing accurate information about “the real world”, or that perhaps I’m having a very long (lucid) dream about everything that I previously thought was “real”? How then could I proceed rationally, from that point, in any further scientific inquiry?
From your article: “What the Universe interacts with?” and I answered nothing. There is nothing but the Universe and there is nothing it can interact with. Which, theoretically allows as to think of it as of a quantum object.”
Looks like someone has read their Spinoza <3
I’m always fascinated by comments left after articles like this one. Sadly we tend to take a side to some extent. If we are understanding the article we should understand that all of these articles prove the author’s point. Observation from different vantage points, where is the truth? I would appear that it lies with the observer, but we as humans are looking for something more definite, we want one truth not many, each of us is searching, what if science, religion, and spirituality are all correct, to some extent. Perhaps the issue is not who’s right, rather it is who has good information in each category and how can we tie them together for better understanding. For too long each area has isolated itself from the others and left gaping holes in our understanding.Something to think about.
I’m still struggling to understand integral views of quantum physics. I find Ken Wilber’s views, for example, especially difficult to grasp! But I’m aware that he has some critics.
Whoever wrote this drivel isn’t even fluent in English, let alone quantum mechanics.
Everything is energy.. dark energy or white energy what ever .. origin not known ! Ever in the observed universe is progression from that energy consolidating into quantum particles to elements to molecules to matter to objects that are observed today including humans..
energy is present in all matter whatever form .. scientis may measure this energy at some point at which time ever will become energy .
I know exactly the webbing you are talking about. And you are right . Their are some people that have to go through years of schooling to understand something that you’ve discovered naturally on your own. It’s tough being a smart person without knowing your a smart person. I lack in vocabulary and science terms but I’m sure these guys will see the light sometime soon. It just travels through the path of least resistance.
Richard. Why are you here in place of reading the Bible? Looking for affirmation? Please, no circular arguments here, invoking Thesism Who created God?
As a technical person, but a non-physicist, I realize that my naive questions are likely to be stupid, but I’ll ask anyway. (Because it’s fun.)
I acknowledge that an electron’s position is indeterminate, a probability distribution, until observed. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this may apply to the tiny constituents of macro objects. The example in the article is a cat. Is the cat not an observer of it’s own position? Even if not, you can apply the reasoning to me. Even if my position is a probability distribution, am I not an observer who fixes my own position by my observation of myself?
I think the article is saying that, to quote “if the object comes into interaction with the environment”, the indeterminacy immediately “collapses”.
One last stupid question. We have quanta for many properties, possibly even for distance and time (Planck distances and time). Does it make sense to talk about quanta of probability? But that I mean that a probability distribution for a particle’s position may not be continuous… that below some number it cannot be a fraction of that number, but must be 0. There could be a mathematical formulation for that idea. (But maybe facts rule it out.)
I apologize in advance for what must be incredibly naive questions. Probably, as someone once said “so far off the mark that they don’t even rise to the level of being wrong”.
If polarity were subtracted from the double slit experiment, what would the outcome look like in this universe?
Universal Access to Technology
SSIT Technical Committee on Universal Access to Technology (UAT)
Koia Protein Drink Chocolate Banana 12 Oz
If the electron is bisecting the space its potential occupies, where is the integument?
THE UN AND PREVENTION IN THE ERA OF AI