The New York Review of Books [January 19th
2017] has a critical essay by physicist Steven Weinberg, who teaches at the
University of Texas, Austin and has won a Nobel Prize in Physics and the
National Medal of Science: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics. [Page 51
In his essay Dr. (or Professor) Weinberg bemoans the state
of quantum mechanics, as it exists among physicists today, many eschewing the
probability aspects of quantum mechanics and struggling with quantum
For my purposes here, the whole idea that quantum mechanics
is under assault by the physics community, is pleasing, insofar as I see
quantum mechanics/theory much as Einstein did: “Quantum mechanics is very impressive.
But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing.” [In a 1926
letter to Max Born, cited by Weinberg on page 51.]
However, I like the concept of “quantum entanglement”
speculating, as you know, that UFOs, as von Neumann-like AI devices, may be
using or has used quantum entanglement to communicate, instantaneously between
machines or back to their original intergalactic venue.
Weinberg writes this, however:
“There is another requirement, satisfied in ordinary quantum
mechanics, that in entangled states the evolution of probabilities during
measurements cannot be used to send instantaneous signal, which would violate
the theory of relativity. Special relativity requires that no signal can travel
faster than the speed of light.” [Page 53]
I’ve proposed that communication, using quantum
entanglement, doesn’t involve “signals.” Particles, seduced by an advanced AI
species for communication, would be known by that species to have nothing to
do with “signals” or what we see as communication. Quantum entanglement is, as
I see it, an inherent, paranormal aspect of quantum particles, not unlike that
experienced by twins; that is, nothing is communicated between quantum twins;
they are “connected” by something intrinsic to their being, that interacts,
immediately, without signaling or communication as we understand it.
Quantum particles have a link that transcends connectivity
as we understand connectivity.
But that’s a side issue here.
Weinberg presents the arguments against quantum predictivity
while accepting the fact that quantum experiments can be used effectively with
the mechanisms of the theory, but writes that Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen
interpretation about the unpredictability in a measurement of spin in a quantum
state “is now widely felt to be unacceptable.” [Page 52]
Professor Weinberg writes about consciousness and reality in
the quantum context, which some of you would do well to read.
But let me be clear, Weinberg states that “the problems of
understanding measurement in the present form of quantum mechanics may be a
warning that the theory needs modification.” [Page 53]
My point may be that while quantum mechanics is the lingua
franca of physics today, it, too, will go (or is going) the way of
Newtonian physics, meaning that reality is something more complex and profound
than quantum mechanics (and physicists) think.
Thus, we have to concede that ufology, a pseudo-something,
has to be discarded by we UFO buffs, as it is iffier than quantum mechanics or
anything else in the realms with which we use it.
And we have to make proposals about UFO cases and reports
that are newer than new, something that most of my readers, here, and those
elsewhere in the UFO universe refuse to do, harking back to old, perfunctory
UFO “research” and explanations.
If Quantum Mechanics can be stressed by new-thought, how
much more so can UFO commentary and ufology be?