Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
293
whole is unfolded into that moment and that moment is just that aspect. Likewise,
the next moment is simply another aspect of the whole. And the interesting point
is that each moment resembles its predecessors but also differs from them. I
explain this using the technical terms ‘injection’ and ‘projection’. Each moment
is a projection of the whole, as we said. But that moment is then injected or
introjected back into the whole. The next moment would then involve, in part, a
re-projection of that injection, and so on in-definitely.”
Sheldrake: “But don’t you get time in physics when you have a collapse of the
wave function?”
Bohm: “Yes, but that’s outside the framework of quantum physics today. That
collapse is not treated by any law at all, which means that the past is, as it were,
wiped out altogether… You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have
any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with
one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will
be followed by another one…”
In short the question is whether those “injections”, promoted by Bohm, would
be able to solve the problem of time in quantum mechanics? And further what are
those “injections” and what do they represent, and how could we formulate them by
rigorous mathematics? They should first of all represent quantum jumps in a similar
way as “projections”. We also know that “projections” are the results of our conscious
observations of the quantum systems, but if “injections” are quantum jumps as well,
how do we observe and measure them? Is it possible, that some complementation
or extension of the Copenhagen interpretation could finally lead to an ontological
justification of those “injections”, yet without having any epistemic access to them?
In other words, is there some, until now unknown, kind of quantum jumps in nature,
which can neither be explained on the basis of present-day quantum theory, nor
directly measured, and perhaps with no microscopic origin at all? As already said,
this will be the permeating topic of our paper, where in particular we will show how
Bohm’s “injections” will be closely related to the time reversibility/irreversibility
problem of Santilli.
5 The Paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat
This is the well-known paradox from the time when Einstein and Schrödinger
exchanged arguments regarding the indeterministic features of the newly conceived
quantum theory. Nevertheless today, against the background of the mentioned incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation, many alternatives are being developed
with Schrödinger’s cat playing an important testing role. J. D. Norton, the well-known
historian of physics, highlights the significance in the following terms [18]: “This
paradox of the Schrödinger’s cat is the most vivid expression of a lingering problem
in the foundations of quantum theory. In the last two decades especially, there has
been a huge amount of work devoted to finding variations to standard quantum theory
293
whole is unfolded into that moment and that moment is just that aspect. Likewise,
the next moment is simply another aspect of the whole. And the interesting point
is that each moment resembles its predecessors but also differs from them. I
explain this using the technical terms ‘injection’ and ‘projection’. Each moment
is a projection of the whole, as we said. But that moment is then injected or
introjected back into the whole. The next moment would then involve, in part, a
re-projection of that injection, and so on in-definitely.”
Sheldrake: “But don’t you get time in physics when you have a collapse of the
wave function?”
Bohm: “Yes, but that’s outside the framework of quantum physics today. That
collapse is not treated by any law at all, which means that the past is, as it were,
wiped out altogether… You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have
any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with
one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will
be followed by another one…”
In short the question is whether those “injections”, promoted by Bohm, would
be able to solve the problem of time in quantum mechanics? And further what are
those “injections” and what do they represent, and how could we formulate them by
rigorous mathematics? They should first of all represent quantum jumps in a similar
way as “projections”. We also know that “projections” are the results of our conscious
observations of the quantum systems, but if “injections” are quantum jumps as well,
how do we observe and measure them? Is it possible, that some complementation
or extension of the Copenhagen interpretation could finally lead to an ontological
justification of those “injections”, yet without having any epistemic access to them?
In other words, is there some, until now unknown, kind of quantum jumps in nature,
which can neither be explained on the basis of present-day quantum theory, nor
directly measured, and perhaps with no microscopic origin at all? As already said,
this will be the permeating topic of our paper, where in particular we will show how
Bohm’s “injections” will be closely related to the time reversibility/irreversibility
problem of Santilli.
5 The Paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat
This is the well-known paradox from the time when Einstein and Schrödinger
exchanged arguments regarding the indeterministic features of the newly conceived
quantum theory. Nevertheless today, against the background of the mentioned incompleteness of the Copenhagen interpretation, many alternatives are being developed
with Schrödinger’s cat playing an important testing role. J. D. Norton, the well-known
historian of physics, highlights the significance in the following terms [18]: “This
paradox of the Schrödinger’s cat is the most vivid expression of a lingering problem
in the foundations of quantum theory. In the last two decades especially, there has
been a huge amount of work devoted to finding variations to standard quantum theory