Quantum Strangeness


Experts in Quantum Mechanics have no credible conceptual model to account for the myriad of strange phenomena associated with the quantum world. For example, how is it possible for a quantum particle to be in two or more places at once? One thought experiment involves replacing the two slits in the famous two-slit experiment of quantum mechanics with infinitely many slits of zero width i.e. no slits at all. A quantum particle would then simultaneously take all possible paths from its initial to its final position. A classical particle would take only a single path.


The following online article (http://srikant.org/core/node12.html) says:

"The fundamental paradox of quantum mechanics is the following: how can a particle be point-like when it is observed, and be wave-like when it is not observed? According to Heisenberg, when a quantum particle is not observed it exists as an ensemble of 'possibilities' (in physics called a virtual state) in which it has a likelihood of existing simultaneously at all points of space; however, when an observation is performed the quantum particle makes a discontinuous jump (called a quantum transition) to a state with some definite position and is said to be in a condition of 'actuality' (in physics called a physical state). The transition from the possible to the actual takes place the moment the quantum particle comes into contact with a measuring device."


The largest atoms are those of Caesium (Cs) and they have a radius of about 0.00000025 mm. In other words, atomic and subatomic particles are so extraordinarily small that it is exceptionally difficult to distinguish them from dimensionless points with zero radius (r = 0). It is because quantum particles are so close to being r = 0 dimensionless particles that quantum weirdness happens. Every quantum particle is continually flickering in and out of dimensionless existence.


Quantum weirdness involving particles that seem to be in multiple places at once only exists on the quantum scale. As more and more particles come together in the r > 0 universe, they increasingly bind each other in place until we reach the familiar "classical" world of solid objects that we see all around us. To put it another way, as particles come together to form new, larger objects, the "radius" of those objects gets increasingly far from r = 0. The more that the radius of an object exceeds 0, the less that object will behave like a dimensionless r = 0 point.


But it cannot be emphasized enough that although large objects have progressively less in common with dimensionless points, they are always linked to the r = 0 aspect of the universe because, being outside of space and time, the r = 0 domain is everywhere and nowhere eternally. As Kant rightly said, we are configured for thinking in terms of time and space (r > 0). He thought this meant that the r > 0 aspect of the universe was a mind-created reality that did not exist independently of mind. The opposite is true. It is precisely because the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe exists independently and is based on space and time that our brains and minds have evolved to allow us to comprehend physical space and time. It is physical, dimensional reality that has imposed space and time on our r = 0 minds, not the other way around.


We, as human beings, can never fully understand a spaceless, timeless, dimensionless existence because we are so embedded in the physical world. Nevertheless, our minds are fundamentally r = 0 entities and are always tuned into the r = 0 aspect of the universe, albeit while having to understand the r > 0 aspect of the universe since that is the aspect we physically inhabit.


In the r >= 0 framework, a physical particle is ultimately derived from one or more monads which exist dimensionlessly i.e. outside of space and time. A monad can continually emit and then reabsorb a variable number of quanta of dimensional energy. So, a physical particle can be flickering in and out of dimensionless space, and this will be truer the closer the particle resembles a dimensionless point. The key point is that each "flicker" is highly unlikely to bring the physical particle back to where it was before i.e. if a physical particle disappears into the r = 0 domain - outside space and time - it can re-emerge anywhere in physical space, and no time has elapsed (because dimensional time does not exist in the r = 0 domain). In other words, by having access to a portal outside of space and time, a quantum particle can intrinsically be in many places at once; in fact in all places in principle (in agreement with Heisenberg). It's an inbuilt feature of the r >= 0 universe. 


The famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that is at the core of Quantum Mechanics is in fact an inevitable consequence of r >= 0 since it is always impossible to exactly specify both the position and momentum of any quantum particle because it will always display a range of both properties due to flickering in and out of r = 0 with a variable amount of energy and variable positional probabilities.


Imagine that you are sitting reading this article when you suddenly disappear into dimensionless space. You reappear several meters away but no time has elapsed (because time doesn't apply to the r = 0 domain). It's as if you have instantaneously teleported, but, because no time has passed, you still appear to be in your starting position as well as your new position. You are seemingly in two places at once. But the first you is now a "ghost", so to speak, a "virtual" you, an after-image that's about to vanish because it's no longer a real entity. This process doesn't actually happen on a human scale, of course, but it does on the scale of particles that are all-but indistinguishable from dimensionless points.


The conventional Quantum Mechanics interpretation talks about quantum particles being in "virtual" states from which one such state suddenly gets physically selected by the process of measurement/observation. In the r >= 0 framework, a particle is at all times in a real, definite state, although it is accompanied by a myriad of "ghosts" that are in the process of vanishing. Quantum "strangeness" comes not from a quantum superposition of virtual states but from the fact that a particle can disappear from dimensional existence into dimensionless existence and then reappear in a different location with a different amount of energy without any time having elapsed.


The central quantum enigma is wave-particle duality: how can quantum particles travel as waves but arrive as particles? How can the act of observing the wave make it collapse into a particle? The r >= 0 framework responds by saying that particles are always particles: it is their interaction with the spaceless and timeless domain of r = 0 that creates the appearance of wave behavior. This appearance is caused by the fact that a particle can seem to be in many places at once provided that it is constantly entering and exiting from the r = 0 dimensionless domain.


How does the r >= 0 model account for the famous paradox of Schrödinger's Cat whereby a cat can be in a superposition of virtual states corresponding to being both dead and alive at the same time until an observation of some kind resolves the issue?


Returning to the earlier analogy about a human undergoing constant teleporting, his "consciousness" would only ever be in one place at a time, but his ghostly selves would still linger for an instant in prior locations. It is not a question of Schrödinger's cat being alive and dead simultaneously. Rather, the cat can only ever be dead or alive, but its "ghosts" could be in the opposite state. Imagine that you teleported into a gas chamber. You would die, but the virtual versions of you - the simulacra of you - that hadn't teleported into the chamber would still have the semblance of you as a living person. So, in truth, you are dead, but your ghostly simulacra might give the impression that you are still alive, but these are virtual states in the process of disappearing. The standard discussion of the Schrödinger's Cat paradox misses the point. There is only ever one true, definite, real, physical state. The so-called superposition of states relates to the "ghosts" rather than the real entity.


"The electron seems to spring into existence as a real object only when we observe it!" - Physicist Heinz Pagels. This is the infamous "measurement/ observation" problem that has perplexed so many physicists. But, contrary to quantum mechanical orthodoxy, one of a number of "virtual" states of a quantum particle isn't mysteriously selected to become real (the so-called "collapse of the wavefunction"). Rather, a measurement simply selects whatever real state the particle is in as it emerges from the r = 0 domain at the instant the measurement occurs, and the virtual states instantly dissolve.


Quantum tunneling is the phenomenon whereby quantum particles can appear in seemingly impossible places. If we place a particle in a locked box, there is a finite chance that we will discover it outside the box, as if it has tunneled right through the wall, without actually having any tunneling equipment. How is this possible in terms of r >= 0? It is because a tiny dimensional particle can shrink to become a dimensionless point outside space and time and then reappear in a completely new location (e.g. outside the walls of the box rather than inside). It is as if all quantum particles can step into a dimensionless portal and then step out again in a new location that could be anywhere in the entire universe. They will probably emerge somewhere near their original location (and that is particularly true the larger a particle is i.e. the less it resembles an r = 0 point), but there is always a chance they could emerge in a radically different location.


Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics…Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."


Physicist Fred Hoyle said in relation to the quantum conundrum that interactions can seem to involve the whole of the universe rather than just the immediate area of the interaction, "Success may come one day, however, but only from a nonlocal form of physics, the kind of physics that is not at all popular right now."


Non-locality is not just possible with the r >= 0 universe; it is inbuilt. In fact it is the entire basis of the r = 0 aspect of existence. In the r >= 0 universe, "local" interactions in the r > 0 dimensional aspect of the universe, involving space and time, exist in tandem with non-local interactions that take place in the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of the universe, outwith space and time. What solution could be simpler: dimensional and dimensionless aspects of reality co-existing, allowing local and non-local phenomena. 


The famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox which amounts to an assertion that two correlated particles that are infinitely far apart can nevertheless instantaneously communicate to each other what state they are in, is utterly impossible within any current framework of orthodox physics since it would seem to involve faster-than-light signaling between the particles. It presents no challenge at all in the r >= 0 model of the universe: the instantaneous correlation takes place via the r = 0 channel which exists outside of space and time and hence is not subject to any spatial and temporal restrictions. Everything happens instantaneously in r = 0, as if the speed of light were infinite in this domain.


So, the r >= 0 framework provides a full and elegant solution to all the major puzzles of Quantum Mechanics: the twin-slit experiment, Schrödinger's Cat, the EPR paradox, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, quantum entanglement, non-locality and superposition. It also makes sense of black hole singularities, of the Big Bang Genesis Singularity, of dimensional existence appearing out of seemingly nothing ("nothing" is actually r = 0 dimensionless existence.)


In other words, the r >= 0 model explains the whole universe, from the smallest aspects to the largest, in a comprehensive, comprehensible way that accounts for all the gaping holes in the conventional scientific conceptual models. Science has reached a brick wall caused by its obsession with materialism. It can only take the next step forward by adding r = 0 to r > 0 and embracing the truth of r >= 0. And, once it has done so, it will find itself confronting ancient philosophical, religious, mystical and esoteric truths that it has long dismissed as nonsense and fantasy.


Stephen Hawking says that it is meaningless to talk of a time 'before the Big Bang.' If the Big Bang were to be defined as the r > 0 dimensional domain suddenly emerging from the r = 0 dimensionless domain that exists outside of space and time then he is exactly right. After all, the whole point of the r = 0 domain is that dimensional concepts do not apply.


"There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics only concerns what we can say about nature."


--Neils Bohr


The "M-theory" of superstrings asserts that we really inhabit an eleven-dimensional domain (ten of space and one of time), with seven of the spatial dimensions apparently being "curled up" so small that we can't perceive them.


The r >= 0 framework does not add any such weird dimensions. There are three spatial and one time dimension in the r > 0 domain, and the r = 0 domain is dimensionless. What could be more straightforward?


So, M-theory or r >= 0: which do you find more plausible?


Science has hit a dead-end. It can go no further within the prevailing paradigm. It will keep inventing more dimensions, more worlds, more exotic particles, more abstract mathematics, in an attempt to salvage the unsalvageable. And all because it refuses to contemplate dimensionless existence, even though the most basic mathematical entity - a simple point - is dimensionless.


Richard Feynman's "sum-over-histories" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics says that a particle moving from A to B simultaneously explores all possible paths between the two points, however improbable the route. When all of the different possible paths are added together, they almost completely cancel each other out. What remains is the supposed physical path taken by the particle.


This approach is not all that conceptually different from what the r >= 0 framework proposes, and could possibly be shown to be functionally identical.


We offer a straightforward challenge to all scientists. Can you shoot down r >= 0? Does it not provide a better explanation of reality than anything science has hitherto produced? Does it not address all of the fundamental conceptual difficulties of cutting-edge science? Does it not offer a true Grand Unified Theory of everything, including philosophy and religion?


We have spent a lot of time showing that r >= 0 is completely consistent with Quantum Mechanics because it is vital to present a religious and philosophical framework that is fully compatible with advanced science.





* * * * *



Someone asked us where the concept of r = 0 came from since, obviously, it must have preceded modern black hole theory and quantum theory. The answer is simple. It is two and a half thousand years old and it came from Pythagoras, the first Grand Master of the Illuminati. It is taken from his secret writings concerning the Monad, which is depicted below. You are looking at one of the simplest, most ancient, most powerful, most profound symbols of all time. To this day, it is the symbol the Illuminati use to refer to the r >= 0 universe. It is the essence of existence. You might even call it the image of God.