Hello my friends. Before I share with you today’s idea, I should say once again that I’m not a trained quantum physicist nor a mathematician. And I have been criticize for talking about my, you know, my interpretations of quantum mechanics and quantum biology, quantum body, quantum mind, quantum consciousness. But I want to bring up something today as an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics with that caveat, and of course, most of you who are listening to this video, watching this video, are probably also not physicists. So my request is share this video with as many quantum physicists as you know or can find online to get their views. As you know, there are about 30 interpretations of quantum mechanics, which essentially Schrodinger’s equation, which is a mathematical recipe for predicting space time events upon observation.
So I had this thought. And the thought was that in particle physics, the way we treat the observer is an embodied human being, or typically an instrument or a physical system that interacts with a quantum particle. This interaction collapses what we call the particles wave function, causing it to transition from a superposition of states to a definite state. This, you know, standard way of looking at the observer as the interactor. I’m suggesting that the observer actually is non local, existing outside of space time, that it doesn’t directly interact but observes the entire entangled system, including the cat classical observer and the particles. In other words, you and the instrument you use are part of the observation.
This makes sense to me. I can observe my body, I can observe the instrument and I can observe the so called collapse of the wave function. The eye that observes is observing fourth both the classical observer and the particles. In other words, the non local observer that exists outside of space time observes the entire entangle system.
This perspective suggests that the seemingly separate events of observation and particle behavior are actually entangled aspects of a larger reality. So the view I’m offering observes the lines between observer and observed. The classical observer becomes part of the observed system. And the act of observation becomes an intent angled event. In this case, the non local observer would be consciousness, borderless, infinite, non local, spaceless, timeless, fundamental, irreducible and beyond all the observations because it is the only observer of all classical systems and the observe particles. So if I suggest this and if you share this, we could get opinions from other quantum physicists. This perspective could offer a way to reconcile different interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, which is focus on the act of measurement, and the many worse interpretation where all possibilities exist.
Of course, I’m sure there are challenges to verify the existence of a non local observer because it is the subject of all experience. The nature of the non local exserver would have to be consciousness itself, which is non local. And it’s not a property of the observed universe, but in that in which the observed universe is being observed. So, you know, there is, of course, the Everett, Ed Everet’s quantum mechanics, which aligns, which this view might align with the many worlds interpretation where all possibilities exist in separate branches of reality. It would clarify the observers as non local and it could also explore how ideas from string theory and cosmology might support the existence of a non local observer or a more fundamental reality. This, I have to say, is not a traditional view in any of the interpretations. And I know there are challenges to this view because you know of the way science is done and experiments are done, which always involves the embodied observer or a classical system as the observer. So I hope this raises some debate and explores the understanding of the nature of reality and the role of consciousness in the universe.
Please share this video with as many people to get their opinions, particularly if their academics and experts in quantum mechanics or physics and have credentials, because I don’t have any. So let me know what you think and, but also explore this with other physicists. Let’s get a conversation going.