and the Mysterious
Enhanced Quantum Physics (EEQT)
to my other online papers dealing with hyperdimensional physics
are the main problems in QF?
are the main theses of the Quantum Future Project?
new in QF WWW pages?
are the main problems that QF aims to solve?
Solve the Quantum Measurement Problem (~partly done)
Derive quantum mechanical postulates from the dynamics (~partly done)
Extend Quantum Theory so as to describe individual systems (~partly
See how far "Quantum Theory Without Observers" can advance (~partly
Reconcile Quantum Theory with Relativity (~work in progress)
Understand the true source of randomness in Quantum Theory (~to be
Understand the relation between "potentialities" (probability amplitudes)
and "actualities" (events) in Quantum Theory (~first steps made)
See if the Many Worlds Interpretation makes sense (~first steps made)
Unify Matter, Geometry and Information (~to be done)
Understand what must be added to QT so as to embrace certain phenomena
of consciousness and life (~to be done)
Understand the relation between "subjective" and "objective" (~to
Understand time and time travel (~to be done)
Understand Free Will. Construct Free Will Detector-Enhancer. (~ to
Part of the above
program has been already realized and is described in my Publications.
Some still looks like science fiction. Or like a dream.
are the main theses of the Quantum Future Project?
Well, they change
with time. Nothing is rigid here. This project is living. But some shapes
have hardened. This page lists the central theses.
- Quantum Theory is the most advanced and succesful theory today.
- But it is a Ptolemeian system.
It must be replaced by a realistic theory.
- The Physical World is open.
Otherwise it would be dead.
And it is not.
- It is open toward Knowledge.
Knowledge is as real as Matter.
We need its theory.
- We need to understand how the Laws of Nature came into being.
And why there are any.
- We need to understand it via Mathematics.
Not only via Philosophy.
- We should understand what is Time.
Why it flows.
And again via Mathematics.
- Man can be more Free than he is now.
Provided he understands how to be free.
- We must understand how to measure the actual degree of our
- We must know how to enhance it.
When such an enhancement is welcomed.
- This should also be understood via Mathematics.
Not only through some esoteric techniques.
Now I will explain
better what I mean by these theses. Only the first two will be dealt with
on this page. The rest will be discussed on other pages (or at a later
That Quantum Theory
is successful - I need not explain. That it is Ptolemeian - I need to
explain. Because most physicists will disagree. (~You have been warned.
What do I mean by this adjective? I want to invite you to a long quotation
from Arthur Koestler's `The Sleepwalkers'
Why should we allow artists, conquerors, and statesmen to be guided
by irrational motives, but not the heroes of science? The post-Aristotelian
astronomers denied the rule of the sun over the planets and affirmed
it at the same time; while conscious reasoning rejects such a paradox,
it is in the nature of the uncoscious that it may simultaneously
affirm and deny, say yes and no to the same question; to know and
to un-know, as it were. Greek science in the age of decline was
faced with an insoluble conflict, which resulted in a split of mind;
and this `controlled schizophrenia' continued throughout the Dark
and Middle Ages, until it came to be almost taken for granted as
the normal condition of man. It was maintained, not by threats from
outside, but by a kind of censor planted inside the mind, who kept
it separated into strictly non-communicating compartments.
Their main concern was `to save appearences.' The original meaning
of this ominous phrase was that a theory must do justice to the
observed phenomena of `appearences'; in plain words, that it must
agree with the facts. But gradually, the phrase came to mean something
different. The astronomer `saved' the phenomena if he succeeded
in inventing a hypothesis which resolved the irregular motion
of the planets along irregularly shaped orbits into regular motions
along circular orbits - regardless whether the hypothesis was
true or not. Astronomy, after Aristotle, becomes an abstract
sky-geometry, divorced from physical reality. Its principal task
is to explain away the scandal of non-circular motions in the
sky. It serves a practical purpose as a method of computing tables
of motions of the sun, moon, and planets; but as to the real nature
of the universe, it has nothing to say.
Ptolemy himself is quite explicit about this: `We believe that
the object which the astronomer must strive to achieve is this:
to demonstrate that all the phenomena in the sky are produced
by uniform and circular motion,...' And elsewhere: ` Having set
ourselves the task to prove that the apparent irregularities of
the five planets, the sun and moon can all be represented by means
of uniform circular motions, because only such motions are appropriate
to their divine nature ... We are entitled to regard the accomplishment
of this task as the ultimate aim of mathematical science based
on philosophy.' Ptolemy also makes it clear why astronomy must
renounce all attempts to explain the physical reality behind
it: because the heavenly bodies, being of a divine nature, obey
laws different from those to be found on earth.
Enough? Now, please,
substitute in this quotation `pure quantum physicists` for `astronomers.`
They would deny `scadalous' irregularities in the Schroedinger equation
- namely they would deny events. They would try by all means to
compute everything using their `sky geometry,' in our case it is the one-Hilbert-space
geometry - because it is so `uniformly circular' and so `divine.' It is
so pure! So, events must be denied, and reality must be denied too. If
it exists - it exists only `as an approximation.' It exists only in some
`decoherence limit.' Why? Because `all must be circular', all must
be quantum. How else? Could divine be partly quantum and partly classical?
Oh, no. Certainly no. So, `Events' are degraded to a status of an `illusion'
and an approximation. And `Reality' too. Reality is an illusion. It is
an approximate concept. Or perhaps it is only a creation of Mind. And
why? Because all must be circular. How else.
You would say, dear
Reader, it is much easier to criticise than to propose something constructive
as a way out! Right! I would never dare go public with such a criticism
as above, if I could not offer something from myself. Something that can
be exposed to the criticism of others. This something is the Quantum Future
Project. It started as a dream, then this dream was converted into mathematical
equations, which were converted into numbers. These numbers can be crunched
by computers to simulate pointer readings of measuring devices. In this
respect the theory works. But does it free us from the Ptolemeian thinking?
I believe not. Not yet. It is the first step - to stop denying that things
"happen." But how many other steps must be made until Copernicus and then
Kepler, and then Newton will put an end to the `quantum controlled schizophrenia?'
Now I invite you to my Quantum Future pages that deal with different aspects
of the Project. These are:
History and CreditsExtracts
from QF publicationsExtracts
from Bielefelder UniversitätszeitungMax
from Max Born SymposiumPhysics
new in QF WWW pages?