"Local reality is violated in the quantum world". What does this mean?

Past thoughts unearthed form where they were buried.

local reality is violated in the quantum world, what does this mean? What are the implications of such a statement? The glossary entry ( see Reference?) refers to realism1 as

"the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured",

and consequently observed. We refer to the world around us as reality, we say the real world. That means the world has properties that exist even before they are measured, observed by us. That the objects, that make up the world, have properties that exist even before they are measured, observed by us. What is the connection between properties and existence? Does existence requires properties to assume itself , to manifest itself? The attributes of the objects that existence is made up of, that together make up the concepts, the information.

Consciousness-existence, as defined by Kaufman, the whole which through the myriad yin-yang like processes has produced the diversity of existence we experience, observe.

If realism is violated literally that means either that

"a particle has not got properties that exist before it is measured, observed"

or that

"a particle has properties that do not exist before it is measured, observed"

or put in other words,

"particles do not have properties and they attain properties only when they are observed, we observe them"2,

from the 'either' statement;

and

"particles properties exist because they are observed, we observe them",

from the 'or' statement.

Both versions accept that there are particles. The first version says that particles do not have properties, they do not have size, no dimensions, no form and they acquire dimensions form size when we observe them. The second version says that particles have properties, they have size, dimensions and form but these properties do not exist, and they are only brought into existence after they are observed, we observe them. Is there any difference between the two statements? Particles without properties acquiring them later and particles with properties that do not exist. Exist for whom? For us? Is existence a fabrication? Something that has been invented to nurture our cherished ego, to signify our importance in the world, among its other objects? May be all these boils down to observation. As when observed either, particles, without properties, acquire properties, or, particles, with properties, are brought into existence. What is observation? What is measurement?
#

1 while reality, in the example of entangled particles which allow Alice and Bob to obtain the same result when they both measure independently the polarisation of their photon part of the entangled photon pair, requires that there must be some element in the physical world that allows Alice to know Bob's results. The element, required by reality, is the carrier of the process, the reality aspect; and the process, by which the entangled photons arrange their quantum states, refer to the locality aspect where the speed of light provides the basis for the process, as it entails that no physical action can instantly go from Alice to Bob.

Are Feynman's advanced and retarded waves an answer to this dilemma? Do these waves demand an extension of the currently conceived boundaries of reality and locality alike? Is a re-think of the dimension of time, imperative in reaching a fuller understanding of reality and locality? Future and past, two concepts we use to comprehend time. By themselves abstract, in construction, defining the process, used from the aspect of processes and not of the carriers of processes. Though when referring to spacetime, time assumes qualities of "volume", acquires "substance", becomes "tangible", but as yet elusive. Can the advanced and retarded waves give a new insight to the concept of spacetime? To provide a basis upon which to build its infrastructure. The relationships inherent, in the spacetime level presumably underlying reality, our reality; which determine its build-up. Relationships that by themselves are non-local and non-real, but together (assembling in a whole?) give rise to local and real phenomena, to reality and locality. And the advanced and retarded waves, as they have been described by Feynman, to be used to define these relationships and as such the spacetime infrastructure. From the conception of a "frozen" universe with time loosely defined as another dimension in par with the other three spatial dimensions, the conception of advanced and retarded waves should be used to enhance further the "spatial" quality of time, the "dimensionality" of time. To explore possible implications in spacetime infrastructure.
#

2 Existence attains an anthropic quality. The concept is realised as a result of action, a re-action feedback input, of a subject. A subject brings about existence, by its actions.

The collapse?

So many new ideas coming across in these couple of pages of Julian Jaynes paper. Bringing along so many new thoughts. I need to let them time to settle in my mind, assimilate themselves, fit, adjust without bothering me. Bother my consciousness, my senses my awareness. Let them go about, and do whatever stuff they do, and let them come back to me,(M(m)y conscious self?), whenever they are ready. In the meantime let us amuse ourselves.

This thing about collapse was going around my mind. Let's see whether Schroedinger's cat is dead or alive. Collapse what? The quantum uncertainty? It is being some time since I bothered about quantum phenomena and it is harder to pull the relevant concepts. The memory loops, the synapses, have weakened, not as resilient as they used to be.

Och well, at least they are there.

The Fibonacci number sequence and space bound by hyper-dimensional objects

Volume is defined as "the measure of space taken up by a three-dimensional object". As for example the space bound by a cube which is three-dimensional and is measured in cubic centimetres (cm³) units. But what about the space bound by a four-dimensional object, a tesseract or hypercube. Can we use the same term, volume, to define the space bound? Since the space bound by a tesseract is four-dimensional and not three-dimensional falls out of the boundaries prescribed by the prevailing definition for volume.

In order to get an idea about the space bound by hyper-dimensional objects, we can apply the same simple rules we use to find the space bound by a cube, namely multiply the area times the height of an adjacent side, and for a unit cube you get,

                                           1 cm² X 1 cm = 1 cm³

the unit for measuring volume, the cubic centimetre (cm³).

By applying the same rule in a tesseract, which has six cube sides, we multiply the volume of one side times the area of an adjacent cube side, so the unit tesseract has

                                           1 cm³ X 1 cm² = 1 cm⁵

the quintic centimetre (cm⁵). The measurement unit of four-dimensional space?

By applying the same rule for a penteract, which has tesseracts as sides, we multiply the space bound by a tesseract (cm⁵) times the volume of the cube side of an adjacent tesseract (cm³), so the unit penteract has

                                           1 cm⁵ x 1 cm³ = 1 cm⁸

So centimetre to the power of 8 (cm⁸), the measurement unit of five-dimensional space?

Continuing on for a hexeract, which has penteracts as sides, the unit for six-dimensional space is (cm¹³).

By looking at the powers of the units of measurement from the known three dimensions to the hyper dimensions, namely length (cm), surface (cm²), volume (cm³) to four-dimensional (cm⁵), five-dimensional (cm⁸) and six-dimensional (cm¹³), …

the sequence 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 is the Fibonacci numbers sequence.

.. hyper-dimensions ..their evolution ..spiral ..

.. spiral systems .. that the longer they extend ..they become frail ..wither and die .. 

.. as they have been observed ..in nature .. (Goethe) ..

.. hyper-dimensions ..have limits ..do not exist beyond these limits .. may ..up to 5 ..penteracts ..

.. and these limits ..can be surmised ..by looking at the limits of ..nature's spiral systems ..