Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
385
4. Born rule versus einselection: The probability of transitions based on microscopic projections is calculated from the Born rule. Its megascopic mirror is
einselection, taking into account influences from all environments. The concept
of einselection was originally coined by Zurek [45] in his quantum decoherence
program aimed to replace the Born rule. As we have shown, the Born law cannot be replaced, and we have revealed the true meaning of einselection as the
megascopic counterpart of the microscopic Born rule. It means that the latter
remains tied with the microscopic projections, while einselection determines the
probabilities of the megascopic injection transitions.
5. von Neumann–Wigner rule versus Jung’s rule: In microscopic quantum physics
the von Neumann–Wigner rule binds together elementary particles with the conscious mind, and its perfect megascopic analogy must exist as well, binding
together the whole Universe with the collective unconscious. An observer’s
activity, i.e. a measurement, causes microscopic quantum jumps and hence a
discontinuity of the deterministic Schrödinger equation. Since all events in our
world must have their reason, it is reasonable to postulate a similar megascopic
analogy: the existence of megascopic “measurements” as the activity of the collective unconscious causing megascopic quantum jumps. Due to Jung’s success
formulating the concept of the collective unconscious [155], we have suggested
to call the megascopic mirror of the von Neumann–Wigner rule as the Jung rule.
We have also applied the above mentioned megascopic rules to superconductivity,
and we will give three main reasons why superconductivity (BCS) will not provide
a microscopic explanation:
(1) Every microscopic theory must result in the Born rule for estimating the probabilities of the density and the velocity of superconducting carriers, i.e. demonstrate that these quantities have to be experimentally measurable. But as we
know, they are in principle non-measurable.
(2) Microscopic theories do not allow us to avoid the universal concept of Bloch
states for the description of superconducting carriers. It means that the mass of
the carriers must take the effective mass of electrons into account. But this is in
direct contradiction with measurements of the London moment, where only the
bare electronic mass and not the effective one is reported.
(3) According to the second form of van Fraassen’s argument, asymmetry cannot
arise ex nihilo. We know that the original asymmetry can be present in the form
of an external magnetic field around the superconductor, but no microscopic
theory is able to explain the mechanism of the Meissner effect, when a superconductor is cooled below the critical temperature. Moreover, a constant magnetic
field cannot cause any acceleration of the superconducting carriers. It means
that no microscopic theory is capable to implement the original asymmetry,
contradicting the second form of van Fraassen’s argument.
Nevertheless, superconductors can be, and have been, described macroscopically
on the quantum level. Such a wave function representing macroscopically-occupied
quantum states was proposed already by London [66], from which one could derive
385
4. Born rule versus einselection: The probability of transitions based on microscopic projections is calculated from the Born rule. Its megascopic mirror is
einselection, taking into account influences from all environments. The concept
of einselection was originally coined by Zurek [45] in his quantum decoherence
program aimed to replace the Born rule. As we have shown, the Born law cannot be replaced, and we have revealed the true meaning of einselection as the
megascopic counterpart of the microscopic Born rule. It means that the latter
remains tied with the microscopic projections, while einselection determines the
probabilities of the megascopic injection transitions.
5. von Neumann–Wigner rule versus Jung’s rule: In microscopic quantum physics
the von Neumann–Wigner rule binds together elementary particles with the conscious mind, and its perfect megascopic analogy must exist as well, binding
together the whole Universe with the collective unconscious. An observer’s
activity, i.e. a measurement, causes microscopic quantum jumps and hence a
discontinuity of the deterministic Schrödinger equation. Since all events in our
world must have their reason, it is reasonable to postulate a similar megascopic
analogy: the existence of megascopic “measurements” as the activity of the collective unconscious causing megascopic quantum jumps. Due to Jung’s success
formulating the concept of the collective unconscious [155], we have suggested
to call the megascopic mirror of the von Neumann–Wigner rule as the Jung rule.
We have also applied the above mentioned megascopic rules to superconductivity,
and we will give three main reasons why superconductivity (BCS) will not provide
a microscopic explanation:
(1) Every microscopic theory must result in the Born rule for estimating the probabilities of the density and the velocity of superconducting carriers, i.e. demonstrate that these quantities have to be experimentally measurable. But as we
know, they are in principle non-measurable.
(2) Microscopic theories do not allow us to avoid the universal concept of Bloch
states for the description of superconducting carriers. It means that the mass of
the carriers must take the effective mass of electrons into account. But this is in
direct contradiction with measurements of the London moment, where only the
bare electronic mass and not the effective one is reported.
(3) According to the second form of van Fraassen’s argument, asymmetry cannot
arise ex nihilo. We know that the original asymmetry can be present in the form
of an external magnetic field around the superconductor, but no microscopic
theory is able to explain the mechanism of the Meissner effect, when a superconductor is cooled below the critical temperature. Moreover, a constant magnetic
field cannot cause any acceleration of the superconducting carriers. It means
that no microscopic theory is capable to implement the original asymmetry,
contradicting the second form of van Fraassen’s argument.
Nevertheless, superconductors can be, and have been, described macroscopically
on the quantum level. Such a wave function representing macroscopically-occupied
quantum states was proposed already by London [66], from which one could derive