Tag Archives: psychic phenomena

CHAPTER 8. EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX

The idealistic interpretation of the collapse of the quantum wave function rests on the nonlocality of consciousness. So we need to ask whether there is any experimental evidence for nonlocality. We’re lucky. In 1982, Alain Aspect and his collaborators at the University of Paris-Sud conducted an experiment that convincingly demonstrated quantum nonlocality.

In the 1930s Einstein helped create the paradox, now commonly known as the EPR paradox, to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and support realism. Given Einstein’s philosophical beliefs, EPR might well stand for “Einstein in Support of Realism.” Ironically, the paradox turned out to be a blow to realism – at least to material realism – and Aspect’s experiment played no small role in this.

Recall Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: at any given time, only one of two complementary variables—position or momentum—can be measured with absolute certainty. This means that we can never predict the trajectory of a quantum object. Together with two of his collaborators, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Einstein came up with a scenario that seemed to contradict this uncertainty.

Imagine that two electrons—let’s call them Joe and Mo—interact with each other for some time and then stop interacting. These electrons are, of course, identical twins, since electrons are indistinguishable. Suppose that when Jo and Mo interact, their distances from some source along a certain axis are equal to x _J and x _M , respectively (Fig. 29). The electrons move and, therefore, have angular momentum (momentum). We can designate these pulses (along the same axis) as p _J and p _M . From quantum mechanics it follows that we cannot simultaneously measure both p _J and x _J , or both p _M and x _M due to the uncertainty principle. However, quantum mechanics allows us to simultaneously measure their distance from each other (X = x _J – x _M ) and their total momentum (P = p _J + p _M )

Img. 29.
Correlation of Joe and Mo in EPR. The distance between them, x _J – x _M , always remains the same, and their total momentum is always equal to p _J + p _m

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argued that when Joe and Mo interact, they become correlated because, even if they later stop interacting, measuring Joe’s position (x _J ) allows us to calculate exactly where Mo is – the x value of _M – (since x _M = x _J – X , where X is the known distance between them). If we measure p _J (Jo’s momentum), we can determine p _M (Mo’s momentum), since p _M = P – p _J , and P is known. Thus, by performing a proper measurement of Joe, we can determine either the position or the momentum of Mo. However, if we take measurements of Joe when Joe and Mo are no longer interacting, then those measurements probably have no effect on Mo. Thus, the position and momentum of Mo must be available simultaneously.

The EPR conclusion stated that a correlated quantum object (Mo) must simultaneously have certain values ​​of both position and momentum. This conclusion supported realism, since we could now, in principle, determine Mo’s trajectory. On the contrary, he seemed to seriously compromise quantum mechanics, since it agrees with the idealism that the trajectory of a quantum object cannot be calculated, since the trajectory does not exist – only possibilities and observable events exist!

Einstein argued that if the trajectory of a correlated quantum object is predictable in principle, but quantum mechanics is unable to predict it, then there is something wrong with quantum mechanics. Einstein’s favorite conclusion from this dilemma was that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. Her description of the states of two correlated electrons is incomplete. Thus, he indirectly supported the idea of ​​​​the existence of hidden variables – unknown parameters that control electrons and determine their trajectories.

Physicist Heinz Pagels described the concept of hidden variables this way: “If we imagine that reality is a deck of cards, then quantum theory can only predict the probability of cards being dealt to different players. If there were hidden variables, it would be like looking at a deck and predicting the individual cards for each player.”

Einstein supported the idea of ​​deterministic hidden variables in order to demystify quantum mechanics. Remember, he was a realist. For Einstein, probabilistic quantum mechanics implied a playing God, and he believed that God does not play dice. He believed it was necessary to replace quantum mechanics with some kind of hidden variable theory in order to restore deterministic order to the world. Unfortunately for Einstein, the difficulty posed to quantum mechanics by EPR analysis could be resolved without resorting to hidden variables, as Bohr was the first to show. Bohr is reported to have told Einstein, “Don’t tell God what to do.”

In order to revive trajectories and therefore material realism, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen started from the doctrine of locality. Recall that locality is the principle that all interactions are mediated by signaling across spacetime. Einstein and his colleagues tacitly assumed that measuring the position (or momentum) of the first electron (which we called Joe) could be done without affecting the second electron (Mo), since the two electrons were separated in space and did not interact through local signals during the measurement. This lack of interaction is what we usually expect for material objects, since the theory of relativity, which limits the speed of propagation of any signals to the speed of light, prohibits instantaneous interaction at a distance, or nonlocality.

The main question is one of separability: are correlated quantum objects separable when there is no local interaction between them, as is undoubtedly the case with objects obeying classical physics?

Why is the EPR result considered a paradox? Einstein’s principle of separability forms an integral part of the philosophy of material realism, which Einstein defended until the end of his life. This philosophy considers physical objects to be real and independent of each other and of their measurement or observation (the doctrine of strict objectivity). However, in quantum mechanics it is difficult to support the idea of ​​the reality of physical objects independent of the measurements we make on them. Thus, Einstein was motivated by a desire to discredit quantum mechanics and restore material realism as the basic philosophy of physics. The EPR paradox states that we must choose between locality (or separability) and the completeness of quantum mechanics, which means there is no choice at all, since separability is required.

But is it? The answer is a resounding “no!”, because in fact, the resolution of the EPR paradox lies in the recognition of the complete inseparability of quantum objects. A measurement of one of two correlated objects affects the second. This was essentially Bohr’s answer to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. When one object (Joe) of a correlated pair collapses into the momentum state p _J , the wave function of the other (Mo) also collapses (to the momentum state P – p _J ), and we can say nothing more about Mo’s position. And when Joe collapses as a result of measuring position at x _J , Mo’s wave function also collapses immediately, corresponding to position x _J – X, and we can say nothing more about its momentum. Collapse is non-local, just as correlation is non-local. In EPR, correlated objects have a non-local ontological connection, or inseparability, and have an instantaneous influence on each other, not mediated by signals – no matter how difficult it is to believe from the point of view of material realism. Separability is the result of collapse. Only after the collapse are there independent objects. Thus, the EPR paradox forces us to recognize that quantum reality must be a non-local reality. In other words, quantum objects should be thought of as objects in potency that define a non-local realm of reality that transcends local space-time and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of Einstein’s speed limits.

Although Bohr understood inseparability, he was reluctant to talk about quantum metaphysics. For example, he was not very precise about what he meant by measurement. From a completely idealistic point of view, we say that measurement always means observation by a conscious observer in the presence of awareness. Thus, the lesson of the EPR paradox seems to be that a correlated quantum system has the property of a certain inextricable integrity that includes an observing consciousness. Such a system has an innate integrity that is non-local and transcends space.

Before following this line of thought, we must recognize that from a purely experimental point of view it is difficult to justify the correlation of two electrons in the way required to resolve the EPR paradox. Does Mo’s wave function actually collapse when we observe Joe from a distance when they are not interacting? David Bohm, the initiator of deciphering the message of new physics, was thinking of a very practical way of correlating electrons, one that we can use to experimentally confirm the nonlocality of collapse.

An electron has a property called spin, which can have two discrete values. Think of the back as an arrow on an electron that points down or up. Bohm proposed that, under certain circumstances, we could cause two electrons to collide with each other in such a way that after the collision they would be correlated in the sense that their spin arrows would point in opposite directions. In this case, they say that both electrons are in a “singlet” state, or correlated in their polarization.

Proof of non-locality: Aspect’s experiment

Alain Aspect used the singlet type of correlation between two photons to prove the existence of a non-signal-mediated influence acting between two correlated quantum objects. He confirmed that the measurement of one photon affects another photon, polarization-correlated with it, without any exchange of local signals between them.

Imagine the following experimental setting: an atomic source emits pairs of photons, and two photons of each pair move in opposite directions. Each pair of photons is correlated in polarization—their polarization axes lie on the same line. Thus, if you see one photon through polarizing glasses with a vertical polarization axis (as they are usually worn), then your friend, located at a distance on the other side of the atomic source, will see a second correlated photon only if he also wears polarizing glasses with a vertical polarization axis. vertical axis. If he tilts his head so that the polarization axis of his glasses becomes horizontal, he will not be able to see his photon. If he tilts his head in such a way that it allows him to see his photon, then you will not be able to see the second photon of the correlated pair, since the polarization axis of your glasses does not match the polarization axis of your friend’s glasses.

Of course, the photon beams themselves are not polarized. They do not have a specific polarization unless you observe them with polarizing glasses; all directions of rays have the same probability of occurrence. Each photon is a coherent superposition of polarizations “along” and “across” each direction; it is our observation that collapses a photon with a certain polarization – longitudinal or transverse. In a long series of collapses there will be as many collapses with so-called longitudinal polarization as with transverse polarization.

Suppose that at first the polarization axes of both of your glasses are vertical, so that each of you can see one of the correlated photons (Fig. 30); but then you suddenly tilt your head so that the polarization axis of your glasses becomes horizontal instead of vertical. By your action (since you only see a photon if it is horizontally polarized) you have caused the photon you see to become horizontally polarized. However, oddly enough, your friend no longer sees the second photon of the pair unless he simultaneously turns his glasses around, since this correlated photon has also become horizontally polarized as a result of your action. This is a non-local collapse, isn’t it?

Img. 30.
Observations of polarization-correlated photons

If you really believe in material realism, you see something strange in this quantum theoretical construction of events, since what you do to one photon simultaneously affects its distant partner. No matter which direction you turn your polarizing glasses to see a photon, that photon’s correlated partner always takes on the direction of polarization along the same axis, no matter where or how far away from you it is. How does a photon know which way to turn unless it, in some sense, knows it from its partner? How can it recognize instantly, ignoring the speed limit of any signals to the speed of light?

Erwin Schrödinger wrote in 1935: “It is very inconvenient that [quantum] theory should allow the experimenter to introduce or direct a system into one state or another at his whim, despite the fact that he has no access to it.”

Material realists have been concerned for the last fifty years with the implications for their philosophy of such strong correlations between quantum objects. Until recently, they were still able to argue that the influence is mediated by an unknown local signal between photons and that it therefore strictly obeys the principle of realism. However, Alain Aspect and his collaborators, in their revolutionary experiment, proved that influence is transmitted instantly, and without any intermediate local signals.

As an example, suppose you take turns drawing cards from a deck. Your friend, who is sitting with his back to you, tells people what card you are drawing – and he is right every time. This correlation between you might be confusing to viewers at first. However, over time, people would figure out that you were somehow giving your friend a local signal. This is exactly how many so-called magic tricks work. Now suppose that due to circumstances there is simply no time for the exchange of a local signal between you and your friend. However, the magic of correlation continues to work – you draw a card and your friend names it correctly. This is the strange and extremely important result of Alain Aspect’s experiment.

Aspect used polarization-correlated photons emitted in opposite directions by calcium atoms. A detector was installed along the path of each photon beam. The crucial feature of the experiment – which made its conclusion irrefutable – was the use of a switch that changed the polarization setting of one of the detectors every one ten-billionth of a second (this time is shorter than it takes light or other local signal to travel the distance between the two detectors). But even so, changing the polarization setting of the detector with a switch changed the measurement result elsewhere—as it should, according to quantum mechanics.

How did information about changes in detector settings travel from one photon to its correlated partner? Certainly not using local signals. There wasn’t enough time for this.

How can this be explained? Let’s take Pagels’ comparison of reality to a deck of cards. The results of Aspect’s experiment are similar to the cards drawn in New York being identical to the cards drawn in Tokyo. The question remains: is the secret of nonlocality contained in the maps themselves, or is the consciousness of the observer also at play?

Material realists are reluctant to accept that quantum objects have nonlocal correlations and that if the collapse scenario is to be taken seriously, quantum collapse must be nonlocal. However, they refuse to see the significance of this and therefore miss the most important thing in the new physics.

One way to resolve the EPR paradox is to postulate that behind the scene of space-time there is an ether in which the transmission of signals faster than the speed of light is allowed. This solution would also mean a rejection of locality and materialism, and would therefore be unacceptable to most physicists. Additionally, FTL signals would make time travel into the past possible; This prospect worries people, and with good reason.

I prefer the obvious interpretation of Aspect’s experiment. According to the idealist interpretation, in this experiment it is your observation that collapses the wave function of one of the two correlated photons, causing it to assume a specific polarization. The wave function of its correlated partner also immediately collapses. A consciousness capable of instantly collapsing the wave function of a photon at a distance must itself be nonlocal, or transcendental. Thus, rather than regarding nonlocality as a property mediated by superluminal signals, the idealist argues that nonlocality is an integral aspect of the collapse of the wave function of a correlated system and is therefore an attribute of consciousness.

Thus, Einstein’s suspicion of the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, which was the working hypothesis of the EPR paradox, led to astonishing results. The intuition of a genius often turns out to be fruitful in unexpected ways, unrelated to the details of his theory.

This reminds me of a Sufi story. Mulla Nasrudin once encountered a gang of swindlers who wanted to take possession of his shoes. Trying to deceive the mullah, one of the scammers said, pointing to the tree: “Mullah, it’s impossible to climb this tree.”

“Of course available. “I’ll show you,” said the mullah, succumbing to the provocation. At first he was going to leave his shoes on the ground while he climbed the tree, but then he changed his mind, tied them and attached them to his belt. Then he began to rise.

The guys were discouraged. “Why are you taking your shoes with you?” – one of them exclaimed.

“Oh, I don’t know, maybe there’s a road up there and I might need them!” – responded the mullah.

The mullah’s intuition told him that scammers might try to steal his shoes. Einstein’s intuition told him that quantum theory must be incomplete because it could not explain correlated electrons. After all, what if the mullah discovered that there was a road at the top of the tree! Essentially, this is what Aspect’s experimental study of the EPR paradox showed.

Bell’s Theorem: The Death Knell for Material Realism

The paradox of the Aspect experiment is non-local collapse. Is it possible to avoid nonlocal collapse by assuming that pairs of photons in the experiment are emitted with a certain direction of their polarization axes? This is impossible in probabilistic quantum mechanics, but is it possible to correct the situation using hidden variables? If this eliminates nonlocality, then can invoking hidden variables save material realism? No, he can not. The proof of this is provided by Bell’s theorem (named after the physicist John Bell who discovered it), which shows that even hidden variables cannot save material realism.

Of course, the hidden variables that Einstein hoped would explain the EPR paradox and restore material realism were intended to be consistent with locality. They had to act on quantum objects in a local manner, as causal agents whose influence spreads through space-time with a finite speed and in a finite time. The locality of hidden variables is consistent with both the theory of relativity and the deterministic belief in local cause and effect, but is inconsistent with experimental evidence.

John Bell was the first to propose a set of mathematical relationships to test the locality of hidden variables; although these were not equations, they were no less rigorous. They described a type of relationship called inequalities. Aspect’s experiment, which proved that the connection between correlated photons is not mediated by any local signals, also showed that the inequalities formulated by Bell do not hold for real physical systems. Thus, Aspect’s experiment disproved the locality of hidden variables. It is no coincidence that quantum mechanics also predicts that Bell’s inequalities do not hold for quantum systems. Bell’s theorem states that in order to be compatible with quantum mechanics (and, as it turns out, with experimental data), hidden variables must be nonlocal.

The far-reaching consequences of the work of EPR and Bell are noteworthy. First, the study of the paradox pointed out by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen revealed the nonlocality of quantum correlations and quantum collapse. Bell then showed that we cannot avoid nonlocality by invoking hidden variables, since they too exhibit nonlocality; therefore they cannot save material realism.

Consider physicist Nick Herbert’s simple, concise, and elegant treatment of Bell’s inequality.

Two beams of polarization-correlated photons move from the source in opposite directions. Let’s call the photons of the correlated pair Jo and Mo (J and M). Two experimenters observe the J-group and M-group photons using detectors made from calcite crystals, which serve as polarizing glasses. Let’s call these calcite crystals J-detector and M-detector (Fig. 31, a). As in the similar experiment shown in Figure 30, when the J-detector and M-detector are installed in parallel (that is, with parallel polarization axes) at any angle to the vertical, each observer sees one of the correlated photons. When the detectors are set at 90 degrees to each other, if one observer sees the photon, the other does not see its correlated partner. By definition, if an observer sees a photon, then the photon is polarized along the polarization axis of the calcite crystal of his detector (this polarization is indicated by the letter A), but if the observer does not see the photon, then the photon is considered to be polarized perpendicular to the polarization axis of his calcite crystal (this polarization is indicated by the letter R). Notice that now, thanks to hidden variables, we allow photons to have specific (correlated) polarization axes independent of our observations. This is the most important point – thanks to hidden variables, photons have predefined attributes.

So, a typical synchronized sequence of photon detection by two remote observers with parallel detector installations will show a picture of complete correspondence, for example:
Joe: APAAPPAPAPAAAPRRRR
Mo: ARAARRARARAAAARRRRR
And with perpendicular detector installations we will see a complete mismatch, for example:
Joe: RARAARARRAAAARRRRA
Mo: ARARRARAARRRRAAAAAR

None of these results are surprising anymore. Since the polarizations of the photons are predetermined, no collapse occurs (Note that the individual beams are not polarized, since in a long sequence each observer sees a mixture of 50-50 polarizations A and P).

We can quantify the polarization correlation, PC, which depends on the angle between the detectors. Obviously, if the detectors are located at exactly the same angle (PC = 1), we have complete correlation, and if they are perpendicular to each other (PC = 0), we have complete anti-correlation.

Here Bell asked – what is the value of PC for the intermediate angle? Obviously, it must be between zero and one. Suppose that for angle A the value of PC is 3/4. This means that with such installation of detectors (Fig. 31, b) for every four pairs of photons the number of matches (on average) is 3, and the number of mismatches is 1, as in the following sequence:
Joe: APRRRRARRRAAAAAA
Mo: APARRAARARPAPAPA

If we think of polarizations as messages in binary code, then the messages are no longer the same for both observers: Moe’s message (compared to Joe’s message) has one error for every four observations.

The case of the inequality relation described by Bell now becomes clear. Let’s start with a parallel arrangement of detectors; the observed sequences are now identical. Let us change the installation of the Mo detector to angle A (Fig. 31, b), and the sequences are no longer identical; they now contain errors—an average of one error for every four observations. In a similar way, let’s return to the parallel installation of detectors, and this time we will change the installation of Joe’s detector to the same angle A (Fig. 31, c); again there will be an average of one error for every four observations. This result does not depend on how far apart the detectors and their observers are. One could be in New York, another in Los Angeles, and the source of the photons is somewhere in between.

Img. 31.
How Bell’s inequality arises. If the latent variables were local, then the error rate (deviation from perfect correlation) in the experimental setting (d) would be equal, at most, to the sum of the error rates in the two settings (b) and (c).

If locality is true, if the postulated hidden variables that cause photons to take the particular directions of polarization required by the situation are local, then we can say with complete confidence: whatever you do with Joe’s detector, it cannot change Mo’s message – at least not not instantly. And vice versa. Thus, if, starting with parallel installations, observer Joe rotates the Joe detector by an angle A and if observer Mo simultaneously rotates the Mo detector by the same angle in the opposite direction (so that the detectors are now located at an angle of 2A to each other, Fig. 32, d), what should be the error rate? If the assumption of locality of hidden variables is true, then the action of each observer leads, on average, to one error per four observations, so that the total error rate will be 2 per four observations. However, it may happen that Joe’s mistake cancels out Mo’s mistake from time to time. Thus, the error rate will be less than or equal to 2/4 – this is Bell’s inequality. However, quantum mechanics predicts an error rate of 3/4. (Proving this is beyond the scope of this book.) So Bell’s theorem states that the theory of local hidden variables is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Bell’s inequalities have been experimentally studied. In 1972, Berkeley physicists John Clauser and Stuart Friedman showed that Bell’s inequalities were indeed violated, and quantum mechanics was rehabilitated. Aspect then proved with his experiment that there can be no local signals at all between the two detectors.

Note that Bell’s work (and also Bohm’s work, since it led to the idea of ​​measuring polarization correlation) set the stage for Aspect’s experiment, which established nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Now you can appreciate why, at a physics conference in 1985, a group of physicists sang the following words to the tune of “Jingle Bells”:
Singlet Bohm, singlet Bell
Singlet all the way.
Oh, what fun it is to count
Correlations every day.
(Singlet Bom, singlet Bell, singlet all the way.
Oh, what fun it is to count correlations every day.)

According to Bell’s theorem and the Aspect experiment, if hidden variables exist, they should be able to instantly affect correlated quantum objects, even if they are located on different ends of the galaxy. In an Aspect experiment, when one experimenter changes the setting of his detector, hidden variables control not only the photon reaching that detector, but also its distant partner. Hidden variables can act non-locally. Bell’s theorem destroys the dogma of local cause and effect accepted in classical physics. Even if you introduce hidden variables to find a causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, as David Bohm does, these hidden variables must be nonlocal.

David Bohm compares Aspect’s experiment to seeing a fish on two different screens on two televisions. Whatever one fish does, the other does too. If we consider the images of a fish to be the primary reality, this seems strange, but from the point of view of a “real” fish, everything is very simple.

Bohm’s analogy is reminiscent of Plato’s allegory of shadows in a cave, but there is one difference. In Bohm’s theory, the light that the image of a real fish projects is not the light of creative consciousness, but the light of cold, causal hidden variables. According to Bohm, everything that happens in spacetime is determined by what happens in the nonlocal reality outside spacetime. If this were true, then our free will and creativity would ultimately be illusions, and human drama would have no meaning. The idealistic interpretation promises just the opposite: life is filled with meaning.

It’s a bit like the difference between film and stage improv. In film, action and dialogue are defined and fixed, but in live improvisation, variations are possible.

According to the idealistic interpretation, violation of the inequalities described by Bell means non-local correlation between photons. No hidden variables are needed for explanation. Of course, to collapse the wave function of nonlocally correlated photons, consciousness must act nonlocally.

If we return to Bohm’s analogy with the fish and its images on two televisions, then the idealist interpretation agrees with Bohm that the fish exists in a different order of reality; however, this order is the transcendental order in consciousness. The “real” fish is a form of possibility already present in consciousness. In the act of observation, the images of the fish simultaneously appear in the world of manifestation as the subjective experience of observation.

Let’s take another facet of Aspect’s experiment. This experiment and the concept of quantum nonlocality have led some people to hope that it is somehow related to a violation of causality—the idea that cause always precedes effect. Not necessary. Since each observer in the Aspect experiment always sees a disordered mixture of 50-50 polarizations A and P, it is impossible to send a message with their help. The correlation we see between both observers comes after we compare the two data sets. Only then does its meaning arise in our minds. Therefore, Bell’s theorem and Aspect’s experiment do not imply a violation of causality, but that simultaneously occurring events in our space-time can be meaningfully attributed to a common cause located in a non-local sphere outside of space and time. This common cause is the act of non-local collapse of the wave function by consciousness. (The fact that meaning is discovered after the fact is extremely important and will come up again in this book.)

The Aspect experiment shows not the transmission of a message, but communication in consciousness, a community inspired by a common cause. Psychologist Carl Jung coined the term synchronicity to describe meaningful coincidences that people sometimes experience—coincidences that happen without cause, except perhaps for a common cause in the transcendental realm. The nonlocality of Aspect’s experiment exactly corresponds to Jung’s description of synchronicity: “Synchronic phenomena prove the simultaneous occurrence of significant equivalences in heterogeneous, causally unrelated processes; in other words, they prove that the content perceived by the observer can at the same time be represented by an external event, without any causal connection between them. It follows from this that either the psyche cannot be localized in time, or that space is secondary in relation to the psyche.” Further, Jung expresses, in our opinion, a striking conjecture: “Since psyche and matter are contained in the same world and, moreover, are constantly in contact with each other, and are ultimately based on inconceivable transcendental factors, it is not only possible but it is even quite probable that mind and matter are two different aspects of the same thing.” This characterization will be useful in our consideration of the brain-mind problem.

If synchronicity still seems like a confusing concept to you, perhaps the following story will help. The rabbi was walking through the city square when a man suddenly fell on him from a balcony. Since the man’s fall was broken by the rabbi, nothing happened to him, but the poor rabbi’s neck was broken. Since the Rabbi was a respected wise man who always learned himself and taught others through his own life experiences, his followers asked, “Rabbi, what is the lesson in having your neck broken?” The Rabbi replied: “Well, they usually say, what goes around comes around. Look what happened to me. A man falls from a balcony and I break my neck. Some sow and some reap.” This is synchronicity.

The same is the case with two correlated photons or electrons, or with any other quantum system. You observe one of them and it instantly affects the other as non-local consciousness synchronously collapses their wave functions.

Jung had a term for the transcendental realm of consciousness, where the common cause of synchronous events is located – the collective unconscious. It is called “unconscious” because we are normally not aware of the non-local nature of these events. Jung empirically discovered that, in addition to Freud’s discovery of the personal unconscious, there is a transpersonal collective aspect of our unconscious that must operate outside of space-time, that is, be non-local, since it appears to be independent of geographical origin, culture or time.

The nonlocal correlations of Bell’s theorem and the Aspect experiment are acausal coincidences, and their meaning – as in the case of synchronous events – always arises after the fact when observers compare their data. If these correlations are examples of the synchronicity described by Jung, then the associated aspect of nonlocal consciousness must be akin to Jung’s collective unconscious. When we observe a quantum object, our nonlocal consciousness collapses its wave function and chooses the outcome of the collapse, but we are usually not aware of the nonlocality of the collapse and choice. We will discuss this issue further in Chapter 14.

Physics becomes a link with psychology

My interpretation of quantum mechanics opens the way for the application of physics to psychology. However, further discussion of this interpretation may be useful, as understanding emerges in the heat of debate.

If we are not aware of the actions of nonlocal consciousness, then isn’t nonlocal consciousness another unnecessary assumption, like the assumption of hidden variables? While it is certainly possible to think of nonlocal consciousness as analogous to hidden variables, one might just as well assume that the idealist interpretation offers a new way of understanding hidden variables. Nonlocal consciousness does not constitute causal parameters, as Bohm imagined them, but acts through us; or, more correctly, it is us – only in a thinly disguised form (and, as mystics of all times testify, man is able to penetrate this disguise to a greater or lesser extent). Moreover, non-local consciousness does not operate with causal continuity, but with creative discreteness – from moment to moment, from event to event, as when the quantum wave function of the mind-brain collapses. Discreteness, a quantum leap, is an integral part of creativity; it is precisely the abrupt exit from the system that consciousness needs in order to see itself, as in self-reference.

At one time, probabilistic quantum mechanics encouraged philosophers to take a fresh look at the problem of free will. However, if you still believe in materialism, probability provides only a pale semblance of free will. When you are at a T-intersection, where should you go? Are your free choices determined by quantum mechanical probabilities or are they the result of some classical determinism operating in your mind? The difference is not that important. There are other situations where true freedom of choice comes into play.

Let’s take creative work. In creativity, we constantly make leaps that take us out of the context of our past experiences. In these cases, we must use the freedom to be open to new contexts.

Or take a case where you have to make a moral decision. Religious creeds may suggest that moral values ​​must be dictated by an authoritative source, but a closer look at the process by which human beings make moral decisions reveals that a truly moral decision based on faith and values ​​requires real freedom of choice—the freedom to change the context of a situation.

As an example, consider the struggle for independence from so-called benevolent imperial rule. Ordinary violent uprisings quickly become unethical – don’t they? Yet Gandhi succeeded in overthrowing the rule of the British Empire because he was able to change the context of India’s struggle for independence, time after time using his only weapon: creative choice. His methods were non-violent protest against the imperialists and non-cooperation with the government – these methods were effective and, at the same time, ethical.

Most importantly, let us take the perception of meaning, which is a common feature of many interesting phenomena in the subjective sphere. There is a book on the table in front of you. The person takes it and makes a meaningless sound, purposefully drawing your attention to it. Suddenly you understand the meaning of his behavior. He pronounces the word “book” in his language. How did the meaning of his action emerge in your mind? This is due to non-locality – a jump from your local space-time system.

The surprising nature of this communication may not be obvious to you because it is so familiar. However, imagine that you are young Helen Keller, deaf-blind from birth. When Annie Sullivan alternately dipped Helen’s hand into the water and wrote the word “water” with her finger on her palm, she was using the same communication context as in the example above with the word “book.” Helen must have thought her teacher was crazy until the meaning of Annie’s actions dawned on her—until she made the leap from her existing context to a new context.

“The more the universe seems intelligible, the more it seems devoid of meaning,” writes Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg at the conclusion of his popular book on cosmology. We agree with this. Concepts such as non-local and unifying consciousness and the idea of ​​non-local collapse make the universe less understandable to the materialist scientist. These concepts also make the universe much more meaningful to everyone else.

Farsighting as a nonlocal quantum effect

According to the idealistic interpretation, the observation of quantum nonlocal correlations is also an obvious manifestation of the nonlocality of consciousness. Can we therefore find confirmation of quantum nonlocality in subjective experience? Does such evidence exist? Yes. Such evidence is controversial, but interesting.

Imagine that an image of a statue that you have never seen appears before your mind’s eye, so clearly that you can draw it. Next, imagine that your friend is actually looking at the statue at the very moment when its image appears in your head. This would be telepathy, or far-sighting, and could well be an example of communication through non-local consciousness.

A skeptical scientist might suspect that you already know what your friend will be looking at. So suppose two researchers, using a computer, designed an experiment so that neither you nor your friend (or, for that matter, the researchers themselves) knew in advance which object would be viewed, but only the time at which telepathic transmission occurs.

A skeptic might still argue that the drawing is open to different interpretations. Can you objectively decide whether your drawing actually matches what your friend saw? So researchers use impartial judges—or, even better, a computer—to compare dozens of your drawings with dozens of places your friend sees. Would you hope that a skeptical scientist would change his mind about telepathy?

Such experiments were carried out in many different laboratories, and positive results were obtained with subjects both with and without psychic abilities. The correlations still persisted. Then why is telepathy still not recognized as a scientifically proven discovery? One reason, from a scientific perspective, is that extrasensory perception (ESP) data are not strictly reproducible—they are only statistically reproducible. In this regard, it is believed that if ESP were possible, we could somehow convey meaningful messages through it, which would create chaos in the orderly world of causality. However, the most important reason for skepticism about ESP may be that it does not seem to be related to any local signals perceived by our senses, and is therefore prohibited by material realism.

We can try to explain far-sighted data as experiences of non-local correlation that arise in our experience because our mind is of a quantum nature. (Suspend your disbelief for a moment if necessary.) From the perspective of quantum nonlocality, as demonstrated by Aspect’s experiment, the ESP problem appears to be one of choice. Only two correlated telepaths, like the two photons in the Aspect experiment, non-locally share information. In that experiment, that the photons are correlated is indicated by the choice of experimental setting, the source of the photons, and the meaning assigned to the data. Likewise, the correlation of psychics in a far-sighting experiment must be related to the preparation of the experiment, the setting, and the meaning assigned to the data.

Both the uncausality and significance in visioning (and perhaps ESP in general) argue strongly for understanding these phenomena as synchronicity events caused by nonlocal quantum collapse. Recall that the reason nonlocal quantum collapse does not contradict the principle of causality is that it does not allow message passing.

It could be the same with far-sightedness. Perhaps non-local communication between psychics is not associated with the transfer of useful information. The correlation between the distant vision of one psychic and the drawing of another psychic correlated with it is statistical in nature, and the significance of the communication becomes apparent only after comparing the drawing with the location in question. Similarly, in Aspect’s experiment, the significance of communication between correlated photons becomes apparent only after comparing two sets of distant observations.

A recent experiment by Mexican neuroscientist Jacobo Greenberg-Silberbaum and colleagues directly supports the idea of ​​nonlocality in the human mind-brain—the experiment is the brain equivalent of Aspect’s experiment with photons. Two subjects were asked to communicate for thirty or forty minutes until they began to feel “direct communication.” They then entered individual Faraday cages (boxes made of metal mesh that block all electromagnetic signals). Now, one subject, unbeknownst to his partner, was presented with a flashing light signal that caused an “evoked potential” (an electrophysiological response to a sensory stimulus, recorded using an EEG) to appear in his brain. But, surprisingly, while the experimental partners maintained their “direct communication,” the second subject’s brain also exhibited electrophysiological activity, called “carryover potential,” very similar in shape and strength to the evoked potential in the first subject’s stimulated brain. (In contrast, control subjects had no transfer potential.) A simple explanation for these results is quantum nonlocality: by virtue of their quantum nature, the two mind-brains act as a nonlocally correlated system in which the correlation is established and maintained through nonlocal consciousness .

It is important to note that none of the subjects in the experiment had any conscious experience of the transference potential. Thus, there was no transfer of information at the subjective level, and the principle of causality was not violated in any way. The nonlocal collapse and subsequent similarity of evoked and transfer potentials should be considered a synchronicity event; the significance of the correlation becomes clear only after comparing the potentials. This is similar to the situation in the Aspect experiment.

Can we also find evidence of nonlocality in time? Is there any truth to the so-called cases of foresight that sometimes become known to the public? For example, they claim that someone foresaw the assassination of Robert Kennedy. An experiment with foresight is difficult to plan in advance. So I don’t see much point in arguing about whether a certain psychic actually had genuine precognition or not. However, there is a clever analysis of Schrödinger’s cat paradox, which, at least from a naive point of view, entails the idea of ​​non-locality in time. According to what we said earlier about the necessity of consciousness for the collapse of the living/dead cat dichotomy, until we observe the cat, it is in an indeterminate intermediate state. Suppose we sprinkle soot on the floor around the cage and arrange for an automatic device to open the box after an hour. Suppose we come back another hour later and find that the cat is alive. Question: Will cat tracks be visible on the soot? If so, how did the cat leave these marks? After all, an hour ago the cat was still in an uncertain state. The idea of ​​nonlocality in time provides the easiest way to explain the paradox – as suggested by the delayed choice experiment.

Out-of-body experiences (out-of-body experiences)

Are there other parapsychological phenomena other than far-sighting that can be explained by the quantum/idealistic model of consciousness? While it’s too early to definitively say that this is the case, there are indications that suggest we’d better keep an open mind on the matter.

Many people claim that they have actually experienced leaving their body. During these outings, they may visit friends, observe surgery performed on their own body, or even travel to distant places. This phenomenon is called “out-of-body experience” (OBE). The similarity of the OBE with the translocation of the “I” of the mind outside the body is undeniable, but how can this be? This is very similar to mind-body dualism.

The reality of out-of-body experience as a genuine phenomenon of consciousness is increasingly being questioned. Consider, for example, Michael Sabom’s book Memories of Death, which reports significant and systematic research into OBEs in relation to near-death experiences. As a cardiologist with access to medical records, Sabom was in a unique position to verify many of the technical details in patients’ reports of resuscitation efforts performed on their nearly dead bodies. His patients described very accurately procedures that were clearly beyond the sight of their physical bodies.

Since these patients had a long history of repeated hospitalizations and were very familiar with medical procedures, it would not be too surprising if they made successful guesses based on this knowledge. To rule out this possibility, Sabom used a control group of patients with the same medical histories, including near-death experiences, who had not experienced an OBE. When these patients were asked what they thought happened in the intensive care unit while they were on the verge of death, they gave very imprecise answers that, even in general, corresponded very little to the facts. Initially a skeptic, Sabom conducted his research with extreme care and evaluated its results according to the strict standards of the methodology of modern experimental psychology.

Can the mind really leave the body? In such parapsychological phenomena as OBEs, this is certainly the case. This legitimate question cannot be dismissed unceremoniously by citing hallucinations, as local materialist scientists sometimes try to do. Sabom, who has explored the question of whether OBEs are hallucinatory in nature very carefully, stated the following: “Unlike NDEs [near-death experiences], autoscopic hallucinations [seeing oneself] involve: 1) perception by the physical body (“original”) your projected image (“double”); 2) direct interaction between the “original” and the “double”; 3) are perceived as unreal; and 4) tend to evoke negative emotions. For these reasons, autoscopic hallucinations do not appear to be a plausible explanation for NDE.”

To be honest, when I first learned about OBEs in the early 1980s, I was quite impressed by this and other studies and began to look for some alternative way of understanding this phenomenon that would allow me to explain it from a scientific point of view – without citing neither hallucinations nor transmigration of the mind. Anyway, the talk of disembodied minds, or astral bodies as they are called in certain circles, watching their physical bodies undergo surgical operations seemed to me an unconvincing and simplistic explanation of what I could only accept as a subjective perception of the optical illusions.

To clarify this difference, let’s take the example of a well-known optical illusion. I have always been fascinated by the moon illusion: the fact that the moon on the horizon looks much larger in nature than in a photograph. Detailed experiments conducted by scientists, as well as my own loose tinkering with this phenomenon, have convinced me that it is associated with the illusion of size. When the moon is above the horizon, the brain mistakenly perceives it as being further away than when it is at its zenith and makes adjustments to make the image appear larger.

I continued to be haunted by the idea that the OBE must be some kind of illusion, but of what? In the meantime, I also studied the literature on visioning. It suddenly occurred to me that an OBE must be an illusory construct of far-sightedness, which is a non-local vision outside a person’s physical field of vision. From an objective point of view, Saibom’s patients, who were on the verge of death, did just that. But why the illusion of being outside the body?

When very young children see or hear something outside their field of sense perception, they experience the opposite difficulty to that experienced by the adult visionary. This childhood difficulty – the difficulty in exteriorizing the universe – arises from the fact that all our awareness of the external world actually occurs in our head, since visual and auditory images are formed in our brain. Gradually, using primarily their senses of touch and taste, children learn to exteriorize the world. They develop selective perception, allowing them to recognize distant visible or audible objects.

In an adult, the unfamiliar experience of far-sighting an object outside the visual field should cause significantly more cognitive chaos than a child’s experience. The adult’s conditioned and deeply ingrained perceptual system tells us that the object is somewhere else; therefore, in order to “see” it, you need to be “there”. As with the moon illusion, the brain mistakenly interprets non-local far-sightedness as an out-of-body experience. So if a person watches himself being operated on under general anesthesia, which is normally impossible, his soul, or astral body, should be near the ceiling or at the other end of the room – since that is where he seems to perceive what is happening.

Once I realized that an OBE could be a visionary phenomenon, the veil lifted. Finally I had an explanation for the OBE that could satisfy the scientist’s skepticism. The key to resolving the paradox is the nonlocality of our consciousness.

By the way, if you are skeptical about the nonlocality of far vision and believe that it may be mediated by some as yet undetected local signals, then you should know that researchers, especially in Russia, have been searching for such signals for many years and have found nothing. In some of their experiments, psychics had to demonstrate their ESP abilities while sitting in a Faraday cage, but these shielding cages do not appear to have any noticeable effect on ESP.

In addition, local signals propagate from their source into the surrounding space, so their intensity should decrease with distance from the source. In contrast, with non-local communication no such attenuation is observed. Since the available evidence suggests that there is no decline in distance vision, distance vision must be nonlocal. It is therefore logical to conclude that psychic phenomena, such as far vision and out-of-body experiences, are examples of non-local action of consciousness.

Any attempt to dismiss a misunderstood phenomenon by simply explaining it as a hallucination becomes irrelevant if a consistent scientific theory can be applied. Quantum mechanics supports such a theory, providing decisive evidence for the nonlocality of consciousness; it poses an empirical challenge to the dogma of locality as a universal limiting principle.

Perhaps even more surprising is that the idea of ​​nonlocality of consciousness resolves not only the paradoxes of extrasensory perception, but, as we will see in the next chapter, also the paradoxes of ordinary perception.

In all likelihood, as it becomes clear that Bell’s theorem and the Aspect experiment have indeed heralded the demise of material realism, scientific resistance to accepting the validity of far-sighting experiments and other psychic phenomena will begin to wane. At a recent Physical Society conference, someone overheard one physicist say to another, “Only someone with a brain of stone would care about Bell’s theorem.” Even more encouragingly, a survey of physicists attending the conference found that Bell’s theorem concerned 39% of them. Given such a high percentage, it is quite possible to expect that the idealistic paradigm of physics will receive an impartial assessment.

The book “The Self-Aware Universe. How consciousness creates the material world.” Amit Goswami

Contents

PREFACE
PART I. The Union of Science and Spirituality
CHAPTER 1. THE CHAPTER AND THE BRIDGE
CHAPTER 2. OLD PHYSICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE
CHAPTER 3. QUANTUM PHYSICS AND THE DEATH OF MATERIAL REALISM
CHAPTER 4. THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONISTIC IDEALISM
PART II. IDEALISM AND THE RESOLUTION OF QUANTUM PARADOXES
CHAPTER 5. OBJECTS IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME AND EFFECTS THAT PRECEDE THEIR CAUSES
CHAPTER 6. THE NINE LIVES OF SCHRODINGER’S CAT
CHAPTER 7. I CHOOSE WITH THEREFORE, I AM
CHAPTER 8. THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX
CHAPTER 9. RECONCILIATION OF REALISM AND IDEALISM
PART III. SELF-REFERENCE: HOW ONE BECOMES MANY
CHAPTER 10. EXPLORING THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM
CHAPTER 11. IN SEARCH OF THE QUANTUM MIND
CHAPTER 12. PARADOXES AND COMPLEX HIERARCHIES
CHAPTER 13. “I” OF CONSCIOUSNESS
CHAPTER 14. UNIFICATION OF PSYCHOLOGIES
PART IV . RETURN OF CHARM
CHAPTER 15. WAR AND PEACE
CHAPTER 16. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CREATIVITY
CHAPTER 17. THE AWAKENING OF BUDDHA
CHAPTER 18. IDEALISMAL THEORY OF ETHICS
CHAPTER 19. SPIRITUAL JOY
GLOBAR OF TERMS