pondicherry interpretation of QM

[watcher]

greetings,

I stumbled upon a new and different way of interpreting Quantum Mechanics.
It's called the pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics.

for a brief overview, please go to this link...
thisquantumworld.com/wordpress/2006/10/10/the-pondicherry-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/

i find it interesting and i'll appreciate any comments

thanks

.

[koantum]

Alternatively, just search Wikipedia for the Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics. For the longer story, go to This Quantum World.

[watcher]

hi koantum,

your theory is very fascinating.

can you help me imagine this process of self relation that is responsible for the creation of myrad of forms.

is there a point of reference where we can pinpoint the transition of this nondual essence into dual forms (i.e. with measurable properties)


thanks so much


watcher

[koantum]

Originally Posted by watcher

can you help me imagine this process of self relation that is responsible for the creation of myrad of forms... is there a point of reference where we can pinpoint the transition of this nondual essence into dual forms (i.e. with measurable properties)

That's a tall order. Suppose (just suppose) that the world is a manifestation of an Ineffable Infinite Reality. You certainly cannot imagine it. Nor can you imagine the process by which this manifests (creates, realizes) the world. Our difficulties in visualizing the quantum world may have their origin in the fact that there is no such thing as a quantum world: there is the manifested world, and then there are particles, nuclei, atoms and such, which instead of being part of the manifested world are instrumental in its manifestation — in the transition from that Infinite Reality to this actual world. This may also justify Bohr's insistence that the description of the quantum domain requires classical concepts. We cannot describe the process of manifestation except in terms of the finished product — the manifested world.

Perhaps a close look at this paper will help (especially concerning your second question).

[watcher]

Originally Posted by koantum

Our difficulties in visualizing the quantum world may have their origin in the fact that there is no such thing as a quantum world:

are you saying that the wavelike behavior of the particle is not a "real state"? at least perhaps as real as the particle state itself?

if the flipping coin in the air is neither head or tail, and only becomes definitive a head or a tail when it lands, does it mean that the flipping coin is not such a thing? (which i meant to mean that does not exist.)

it is my understanding that either the sea of wave of energy and its conjunction (the measurable particles} exist simultaneously or that the wave and the particle switch on/off states alternately in one tremendous refresh rate.

so why is it again that we ought to think that there is an unknown stuff that neither a particle nor a wave but manifests as such?


thanks

[koantum]

Originally Posted by watcher

are you saying that the wavelike behavior of the particle is not a "real state"? at least perhaps as real as the particle state itself?

No quantum state is real. Quantum states are mathematical tools for calculating the probabilities of measurement outcomes. There is no particle state except in the sense that the general quantum-mechanical probability algorithm (a vector in a Hilbert space) associated with, say, an electron can be expanded using a basis of "particle states," which are algorithms assigning probability 1 to finding the electron at a given location (if the appropriate measurement is made), as well as using a basis of "wave states," which are algorithms assigning probability 1 to finding the electron in possession of a given momentum (if the appropriate measurement is made).

it is my understanding that either the sea of wave of energy and its conjunction (the measurable particles} exist simultaneously..

Perhaps as possibilities. But in what sense does a possibility exist? Saying that something is possible is saying that something can exist or be the case. In quantum mechanics it means that there is a probability of obtaining a given outcome if the appropriate measurement is made.

so why is it again that we ought to think that there is an unknown stuff that neither a particle nor a wave but manifests as such?

Particles are our interpretation of correlations between detector clicks. The correlation laws involve complex functions, which have phases, hence the quantum formalism bears a certain similarity with the mathematics of classical waves. That unknown stuff does not manifest itself either as a particle or a wave. What we call particles or waves are instrumental in its manifestation, the result of which is the macroworld (the so-called classical domain). HTH