Who Killed Schrodinger’s Cat?

In 1935 Erwin Schrödinger illustrated a hypothetical experiment to show that something is incorrect with the traditional analysis of Quantum Mechanics.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The [wave-function] of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. [1]

Schrödinger’s cat quickly emerged as the most famous example of what is now called the measurement problem, “the most controversial problem in physics today”, [2] with more than 30 youtube video clips devoted to it. (Less well-known is that Einstein suggested a similar bomb experiment to make the same point, stating “a sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems [can not be] a real state of affairs”. [3])

The measurement problem appears because QM does not offer a picture of reality when no one is looking. Instead we have particles that are neither here nor there, states that are in superpositions, and equations that merely provide probabilities. Most physicists strongly believe that these superpositions are real, and several even acknowledge that the cat can be both half dead and half alive. Then there are physicists who opt not to talk about reality.

I am a positivist who believes that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality, just whether they predict observations.— Stephen Hawking. [4]

Something was clearly missing.

That something came along later in the form of Quantum Field Theory— a theory that does offer a picture of reality, even when no one is looking. However there are numerous explanations and understandings of Quantum Field Theory, while some physicists reject it completely. For instance, N. David Mermin wrote in Physics Today, “I hope you will agree that you are not a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, [5] and Meinard Kuhlmann wrote in Scientific American, “quantum field theory … sounds like a theory of fields. Yet the fields supposedly described by the theory are not what physicists classically understand by the term field”. [6]

Among those who accept Quantum Field Theory, most observe Richard Feynman’s method based on particles and virtual particles, while Julian Schwinger’s (and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga’s) version, which is based only on fields, is much less well-known. [7] Surprisingly enough, Frank Wilczek discloses that Feynman later changed his mind:

Feynman told me that when he realized that his theory of photons and electrons is mathematically equivalent to the usual theory, it crushed his deepest hopes … He gave up when, as he worked out the mathematics of his version of quantum electrodynamics, he found the fields, introduced for convenience, taking on a life of their own. He told me he lost confidence in his program of emptying space. [8]

Although both approaches lead to the same equations, the physical pictures are very different. It is Schwinger’s Quantum Field Theory that we refer to in this article, but since this version is so little known, we need to first give a brief description.

Definition of field. A field is a property of space. This idea was proposed by Michael Faraday in 1845 as an explanation for electric and magnetic forces. However the concept that space has properties was not easy to accept, so when James Maxwell predicted the presence of EM waves in 1864, an ether was invented to carry the waves. It took many years before the ether was dispensed with and physicists approved that space itself has properties:

Click here and learn more.

“SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE” ISN’T ALL THAT SPOOKY

“Spooky action at a distance”, as Einstein called it, refers to the experimental fact that particles can impact each other instantly, even when separated by sizable distances. For example, if two photons are produced collectively in what is referred to as an entangled state and the angular momentum of one is altered, then the angular momentum of the other one will adjust in a corresponding manner at the same time, no matter how far away from each other the particles are. This “spooky” behavior has been known for almost a hundred years and still is a source of confusion.

Still there is a theory in which the result is not spooky, but rather a natural consequence. I’m referring to Quantum Field Theory, which describes a world constructed only of fields, with no particles. What we call a particle is really a piece, or quantum, of a field. Quanta are not localized like particles, but are spread out through space. For example, photons are pieces of the electromagnetic field and protons are parts of the matter field. These quanta evolve in a deterministic way as per the basic field equations and there is a term in these equations that restrains the speed of propagation to the velocity of light.

Even so the QFT equations don’t tell the whole story. There are events that are not explained by the field equations– for example, when a field quantum moves energy or momentum to a different object. This event is non-local in the sense that the change in, or even disappearance of, the quantum happens immediately, no matter how spread-out the field may be. It can even happen with two entangled quanta– no matter how much they are separated. In QFT, this is essential if each quanta is to act as a unit, as per the fundamental basis of QFT.

There is a big difference between quantum collapse in QFT and wave-function collapse in QM. The former is a real physical change in the fields while the latter is a change in our knowledge. Even though we don’t have a theory to describe quantum collapse, there is nothing inconsistent about it. To quote from Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein:

In QFT the photon is a spread-out field, and the particle-like behavior takes place because each photon, or quantum of field, is consumed as a unit … It is a spread-out field quantum, but when it is taken in by an atom, the entire field disappears altogether, no matter how spread-out it is, and all its energy is placed into the atom. There is a big “whoosh” and the quantum is gone, like an elephant disappearing from a magician’s stage.

Quantum collapse is not a very simple concept to accept– perhaps more difficult than the concept of a field. Here I have been working hard, trying to persuade you that fields are a real property of space– indeed, the only reality– and now I am seeking you to consider that a quantum of field, spread out as it may be, quickly disappears into a tiny absorbing atom. But still it is a process that can be visualized without inconsistency. In fact, if a quantum is an entity that lives and dies as a unit, which is the very meaning of quantized fields, then quantum collapse must occur. A quantum can not divide and put half its energy in one area and half in another; that would violate the fundamental quantum principle. While QFT does not provide an explanation for when or why collapse occurs, some day we may have a theory that does. In any case, quantum collapse is important and has been confirmed experimentally.

Some physicists, including Einstein, have been bothered by the non-locality of quantum collapse, professing that it goes against a fundamental postulate of Relativity: that nothing can be transferred more quickly than the speed of light. Now Einstein’s postulate (which we must remember was only a guess) is certainly valid in relation to the evolution and propagation of fields as illustrated by the field equations. Having said that quantum collapse is not described by the field equations, so there is no reason to assume or to insist that it falls in the domain of Einstein’s postulate.

Learn more here.

Dear New York Times

In the write-up (“With faint chirp, scientists prove Einstein correct”, p. A1, 2/12/16) we study that black holes were part of Einstein’s theory. The reality is quite different. “Einstein argued vigorously against black holes [as] incompatible with reality” (see “Black Holes” by R. Anderson) and his rivals held back their acceptance for many years.

Einstein was also mistaken when he rejected Quantum Field Theory. According to his biographer A. Pais,” QFT was repugnant to him”. This is ironic because QFT, and only QFT, reveals and resolves the paradoxes of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that most people struggle with (see “Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein” by this writer).

Quite possibly the most significant irony is the statement, “according to Einstein’s theory, gravity is caused by objects warping space and time”. While that is what everybody accepts today, the truth is that Einstein recognized gravity as a force field, similar to electromagnetic fields, except that it is produced by mass, not charge. That an oscillating mass generates gravitational waves is no more incomprehensible or unexpected than that electromagnetic waves are produced when electrons move back and forth in an antenna. To Einstein, curvature was actually a consequential result, similar to the changes in space and time produced by motion according to his Special theory of Relativity.

Black holes. Contrary to many studies, black holes were actually not part of Einstein’s supposition. In fact Einstein argued strongly against black holes [as] incompatible with reality, and his opposition held back their approval for many years.

Synopsis. Gravitational waves are easy to understand if you accept gravity as a force field, similar to the electromagnetic field (QFT). And while the contraction effect is more subtle, it is not that much different from the F-L contraction that has been accepted for over a hundred years.

Read more here…

Recent Physics Theory Solves Paradoxes

By Rodney Brooks

For one hundred years, most people have found it impossible to understand physics. Examples include Joseph Heller (“writhing in an exasperating quandary over quantum mechanics”), Bill Clinton (“I hope I can finally understand physics before I leave the earth”, Richard Feynman (“One had to lose one’s common sense”), and even Albert Einstein (“fifty years of pondering have not brought me any closer to answering the question, what are light quanta?).

Julian Schwinger’s Insight to Physics

And yet, there is a theory that makes perfect sense and can be understood by any person. This concept, with roots in the 1930s, was ultimately developed by Julian Schwinger, who once had been called “the heir-apparent to Einstein’s mantle”. This accomplishment happened a number of years after Schwinger had already achieved physics fame for solving the “renormalization” problem, defined by the NY Times as “the most important development in the last 20 years” and was duly awarded the Nobel prize.

Still for Schwinger this was not good enough. He believed that Quantum Field Theory, as it stood then, was still lacking. His objective was to feature matter fields and force fields on an equivalent basis. After several years of hard work, he distributed a collection of five papers called “The theory of quantized fields” in 1951-54.

Physicists have been combating a particles-vs.-fields battle for over 100 years. There have been 3 “rounds”, starting when Einstein’s concept of light as a particle (called photon) triumphed over Maxwell’s belief that light is a field. Round 2 happened when Schrödinger’s hope for a field theory of matter was overcome by the particle-like behavior that physicists could not ignore. And round 3 took place when Schwinger’s field-based solution of renormalization was usurped by Feynman’s easier-to-use particle based approach.

For that reason, and others, Schwinger’s final development of Quantum Field Theory, which he regarded as far more noteworthy than his Nobel prize work, has been sadly ignored, and is indeed not known to most physicists– and to all of the general public.

Fortunately there are signs that QFT, in the true Schwingerian sense is reemerging, so in this sense it is a “new” theory There have been numerous books and articles, such as “The Lightness of Being” by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, “There are no particles, there are only fields” by Art Hobson, and “Fields of Color- The theory that escaped Einstein” by Rodney Brooks. The last one explains QFT to a lay reader, without any equations, and shows how this terrific “new” theory” resolves the paradoxes of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and physics that have confused so many people.

Discover more here!

 

GRAVITATIONAL WAVES REVEALED

By Rodney A. Brooks
author of “Fields of Color: The Theory That Escaped Einstein”.

The recent discovery of gravitational waves at LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) has captured the mind of the public. It will stand as one of the great accomplishments of experimental physics, in addition to the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 which it resembles. In fact by comparing these two experiments, you will see that understanding gravitational waves is not as difficult as you believe.

Contraction. Michaelson and Morley measured the speed of light at different times as the earth moved around its orbit. To their – and everyone’s – surprise, the speed turned out to be continuous, separate of the earth’s motion. This breakthrough caused great consternation until George FitzGerald and Hendrick Lorentz came up with the sole feasible explanation: objects in motion compress. Einstein then showed that this contraction is a consequence of his Principles of Relativity, but without saying why they contract (other than a need to conform to his Principles). In fact Lorentz had previously provided a partial explanation by showing that motion affects the way the electromagnetic field interacts with charges, causing objects to contract. However it wasn’t until Quantum Field Theory came along that a full explanation was found. In QFT, at least in Julian Schwinger’s model, everything is made of fields, even space itself, and motion affects the way all fields interact.

Waves. Electromagnetic waves, e.g., radio waves, have long been recognized and accepted as a natural phenomenon of fields. Now in QFT gravity is a field and, just as an oscillating electron in an antenna sends out radio waves, so a substantial mass moving back and forth will send out gravitational waves. But it didn’t take QFT to show this. Einstein also believed that gravity is a field that obeys his equations, just as the EM field obeys the equations of James Maxwell. In fact gravitational waves have been accepted by many physicists, from Einstein on down, who see gravity as a field.

Curvature. But what about “curvature of space-time”, which many people today say is what produces gravity? You may be shocked to learn that’s not how Einstein saw it. He believed that the gravitational field triggers things, even space itself, to contract, comparable to the way motion causes contraction. In fact Einstein used this analogy to show the correlation between motion-induced and gravity-induced contraction: they both affect the way fields work together. It is this gravity-induced contraction that is sometimes knowned as “curvature”.

Evidence. The first detection of gravitational waves was done at LIGO, using an apparatus similar to Michelson’s and Morley’s. In both experiments the time for light to travel along two perpendicular paths was examined, but because the gravitational field is much weaker than the EM field, the distances in the LIGO apparatus are much greater (miles instead of inches). Another difference is that while Michelson, not knowing about motion-induced contraction, anticipated to see a shift (and found none), the LIGO staff used the known gravity-induced contraction to view an alteration when a gravitational wave passed through.

Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein explains Quantum Field Theory to a lay audience, without any math. If you want to learn more about gravitational waves or about how QFT resolves the paradoxes of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, read Chapters 1 and 2, which can be seen free at http://quantum-field-theory.net.

Learn more here!

The Forgotten Genius of Physics

I began my graduate academic work in physics at Harvard University in 1956. Julian Schwinger had just completed his reformulation of Quantum Field Theory and was preparing to instruct a three-year series of courses. I took a seat fascinated, as did others.

Attending one of [Schwinger’s] formal lectures was comparable to hearing a new major concert by a very great composer, flawlessly performed by the composer himself … The delivery was magisterial, even, carefully worded, irresistible like a mighty river … Crowds of students and more senior people from both Harvard and MIT attended … I felt privileged– and not a little daunted– to witness physics being made by one of its greatest masters. – Walter Kohn, Nobel laureate (“Climbing the Mountain” by J. Mehra and K.A. Milton).

As Schwinger stood at the chalkboard, writing ambidextrously and speaking mellifluously in well-formed sentences, it was as if God Himself was presenting the Ten Commandments. The equations were so elegant that it seemed the entire world couldn’t be created any other way. From the barest of first basic principles, he derived all of QFT, even encompassing gravity. Not only was the mathematics beautiful, but the philosophic idea of a world made of properties of space seemed to me much more satisfying than mysterious particles. I was amazed and pleased to see how all the mysteries of relativity theory and quantum mechanics that I had previously seen so baffling disappeared or were resolved.

Regretably, Schwinger, once considered “the heir-apparent to Einstein’s mantle” by J. Robert Oppenheimer, never brought forth the effect he should have had on the world of physics or rather on the public at large. It is feasible that Schwinger’s very elegance was his undoing.

Julian Schwinger was one of the most important and influential scientists of the twentieth century … Yet even among physicists, recognition of his funda ¬ mental contributions remains limited, in part because his dense formal style ultimately proved less accessible than Feynman’s more intuitive approach. However, the structure of modern theoretical physics would be inconceivable without Schwinger’s manifold insights. His work underlies much of modern physics, the source of which is often unknown even to the practitioners. His legacy lives on not only through his work, but also through his many students, who include leaders in physics and other fields.– “Climbing the Mountain” by J. Mehra and K.A. Milton.

Schwinger is noted generally, if he is noted at all, for solving a calculational problem with QFT referred to as renormalization, for which he shared the 1965 Nobel prize with Sin-Itiro Tomanaga and Richard Feynman. Feynman’s manner, which had no theoretical basis, proved to be easier to work with than Schwinger’s (and Tomanaga’s) field-based approach, and Schwinger’s method was relegated to the archives. It is Feynman’s image, not Schwinger’s, that was enshrined on a postage stamp.

However Schwinger was not content with his renormalization work:

The pressure to account for those [experimental] results had produced a certain theoretical structure that was perfectly adequate for the original task, but demanded simplification and generalization … I needed time to go back to the beginnings of things … My retreat began at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the summer of 1949. It is only human that my first action was one of reaction. Like the silicon chip of more recent years, the Feynman diagram was bringing computation to the masses … But eventually one has to put it all together again, and then the piecemeal approach loses some of its attraction … Quantum field theory must deal with [force] fields and [matter] fields on a fully equivalent footing … Here was my challenge.– from “The Birth of Particle Physics”, ed. by Brown and Hoddeson.

Schwinger’s last version of the theory was published between 1951 and 1954 in a set of five papers entitled “The Theory of Quantized Fields”. I believe that the primary reason why these masterpieces have been overlooked is that many physicists identified them too difficult to understand. (I know one who could not get past the very first page.).

Schwinger went on from there to develop a brand-new method to QFT that he called source theory (and he called its practitioners “sourcerers”), which is also practically unknown.

In addition to these memorable contributions to Quantum Field Theory, Schwinger had other achievements. As a 19-year old graduate student at Columbia University he was the very first to determine the spin of the neutron. In 1957 he found the precise form for the weak field equations before Gell-mann and Feynman. He was the first to propose electroweak unification, for which Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam received the 1979 Nobel Prize. And he showed the Higgs mechanism before Peter Higgs, who shared the 2013 Nobel Prize with Francois Englert.

Read the complete article at Fields of Color.

 

Quantum Field Theory– A Solution to the “Measurement Problem”.

Definition of the “Measurement Problem”.

A significant question in physics these days is “the measurement problem”, likewise known as “collapse of the “wave-function”. The issue developed in the early days of Quantum Mechanics as a result of the probabilistic nature of the equations. Because the QM wave-function describes merely probabilities, the outcome of a physical measurement can only be calculated as a probability. This naturally brings about the question: When a measurement is made, at exactly what point is the ultimate result “decided upon”. Some folks believed that the role of the observer was critical, and that the “decision” was generated when someone looked. This led Schrödinger to design his well-known cat experiment to demonstrate how ludicrous such an idea was. It is not usually known, but Einstein also proposed a bomb experiment for the same reason, saying that “a sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. can not be a real state of affairs, for in reality there is just no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.” At a later time, Einstein remarked, “Does the moon exist only when I look at it?”.

The controversy continues to this day, with a few individuals still thinking that Schrödingers cat remains in a superposition of dead and alive until somebody looks. On the other hand most people believe that the QM wave-function “collapses” at some earlier point, before the uncertainty achieves a macroscopic level– with the definition of “macroscopic” being the primary question (e.g., GRW theory, Penrose Interpretation, Physics forum). A few people take the “many worlds” perspective, in which there is no “collapse”, but a splitting into various worlds that include every possible histories and futures. There have been a lot of experiments designed to address this question, e.g., “Towards quantum superposition of a mirror”.

We will now find that an unequivocal solution to this question is supplied by Quantum Field theory. But because this theory has been neglected or misunderstood by many physicists, we need to initially specify what we mean by QFT.

Definition of Quantum Field Theory.
The Quantum Field Theaory referred to within this post is the Schwinger version where there are no particles, there are only fields, not the Feynman version which is based on particles. * The two versions are mathematically equivalent, but the concepts backing them are very different, and it is the Feynman model that is chosen by the majority of Quantum Field Theory physicists.

* According to Frank Wilczek, Feynman ultimately changed his mind: “Feynman told me that when he realized that his theory of photons and electrons is mathematically equivalent to the usual theory, it crushed his deepest hopes … He gave up when … he found the fields introduced for convenience, taking on a life of their own.”.

In Quantum Field Theory, as we will make use of the term henceforward, the world is comprised of fields and only fields. Fields are defined as characteristics of space or, to put it in a different way, space is comprised of fields. The field concept was introduced by Michael Faraday in 1845 as an illustration for electric and magnetic forces. Even so the idea was not easy for folks to accept and so when Maxwell showed that these particular equations predicted the existence of EM waves, the concept of an ether was introduced to carry the waves. These days, however, it is normally accepted that space can possess properties:.

To deny the ether is essentially to presume that empty space has no physical qualities whatsoever. The key realities of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.– A. Einstein (R2003, p. 75).

Moreover space-time on its own had emerged as a dynamical medium– an ether, if there ever was one.– F. Wilczek (“The persistence of ether”, Physics Today, Jan. 1999, p. 11).

Although the Schrödinger equation is the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation for matter fields, there is an important and fundamental difference between Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Mechanics. One illustrates the strength of fields at a given point, the other describes the probability that particles could be found at that point, or that a given state exists…..

For the rest of this interesting article visit the blog at Fields of Color!

Why Time? “Dilates”?

Time “dilation” has been most probably the best-known connected with the relativity benefits because of the twin paradox. The following the scenario: An astronaut leaves on a space rocket going at nearly the speed of light. Shortly after whizzing around the galaxy she comes back to find that her (non-identical) twin brother in the world is actually an elderly adult male with a lengthy beard whilst she herself is literally young. Today this is actually mind-boggling. Why must time pass even more slowly just due to the fact that you are actually moving? Precisely what physical explanation will we identify when it comes to that?

Intuitive explanation. The explanation is once again founded on the field character of matter, described by the field equations. Consider a pair of atoms in a rocket ship (or in its contents). Suppose that one atom produces a field disturbance and also the second that intrusion reaches the second atom something occurs. (It is the interaction among atoms, it goes without saying, that triggers everything to happen.) Presently if the transport is moving, the next atom is going to have gone further ahead, thus the disturbance must travel a greater distance to get there, even after taking the F-L contraction into account. Considering that fields travel at a set rate, it is going to subsequently take longer for the disruption that one may reach the second atom. (Disturbances that propagate in the backward direction have a shorter distance to travel, but this effect turns out to be not as great.) Simply put, things happen more slowly when you’re moving because the fields have to travel a greater distance.

An analogy. Consider two men on a raft who exchange information by calling back and forth to each other. Suppose further that this exchange of information determines the evolution of events on the raft. That is, when B receives information from A he makes certain things happen, and when B calls back to A, other things happen. The problem is, it takes time for the sound waves to travel from A to B and by the time the sound reaches B, he will have moved to a new position B’. Therefore the sound must travel through a greater distance and the communication will take longer than if the raft were at rest.

http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/time-dilates

How Lengths Contract Through Movement

The notion in regard to contraction was initially submitted by a somewhat unheard of Irish physicist, George Francis FitzGerald. FitzGerald shared his idea in a brief communication to the American Journal Science in 1891, ten years after Michelson’s first documented result, furthermore he proposed a cause.

I propose that virtually the only theory that is able to resolve this “conflict” is that the length of form changes, conforming as they are moving through the ether or even across it, by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their accelerations to that of light. We understand that energy forces are impacted by the motion of the energized bodies relative to the ether, furthermore it appears to be a not improbable supposition that the molecular forces are undoubtedly influenced by the motion, and that the proportions of a body alters as a result.

While FitzGerald described the ether, which was thought to be the carrier for light waves at the time, the objective viewpoint holds with or without the ether. Somewhat later his somewhat timid suggestion that molecular forces are actually altered by motion was actually repeated and honed by the most recognized physicist of the time.

Although FitzGerald was actually little known outside Ireland, the Dutch scientist Hendrik Lorentz was certainly identified as the greatest physicist since Maxwell. In 1902 he and Pieter Zeeman received the second Nobel Prize ever awarded for identifying the “Zeeman effect” that resulted in the discovery of electron spin (Chapter 6). Einstein described Lorentz “the most well-rounded and harmonious personality he had met in his entire life” (P1982, p. 169). Upon Lorentz’s passing, Europe’s greatest physicists attended the funeral and three minutes of silence were actually observed throughout Holland.

Lorentz had actually not seen FitzGerald’s study, yet he too recognized that Michelson’s strange result could make sense in the event that the apparatus contracted along the direction of motion. He went further than FitzGerald; he did the calculation (not an easy one) using Maxwell’s equations. When he found that the theoretical contraction accurately compensated for the extra traveling distance, this was surely one of the great “Eureka” moments in physics, equal to those of Newton and Einstein.

http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/lenths-contract-motion

Why I Wrote “Fields of Color”.

This particular publication began from a chapter as part of a book I once was going to pen, entitled “Can Robots Have Orgasms?” The following is how that title came to pass.  In the event that in my early years I thought about consciousness whatsoever, I probably accepted that the human brain performs according the laws of physics and chemistry, like every other organ of the body. But then one day I took into account pain–that powerful searing sense that will make one shriek and yell. Pain, I thought, certainly can not be clarified simply by fields or particles or relativity or quantum mechanics or even quantum field theory. This is without a doubt something which is quite separate, considerably unique from exactly what occurs inside a computer or even in any other piece of equipment. I thought about all the other things that computers can’t feel, one of which is the intense pleasure of an orgasm.

Then one day we got a visitor– a smart young computer hot shot. I questioned him while we were sitting down for dinner “Do you think a computer can ever experience a sexual orgasm?” Carefully this chap started to tell me just how one could produce an orgasm simply by putting the ideal 0’s as well as the 1’s into the proper sequence. Naturally this was simply nonsense, so I informed him he had flunked the test and couldn’t have any dinner.

I didn’t really. We fed him, yet the man did give me the idea for the title: “Can Robots Have Orgasms?” As it turned out, I gradually abandoned the book given that I concluded that a book that boiled down to merely a single word (“No”) most likely would not sell. That being said I had indeed already prepared or outlined chapters that I called “dead ends” about three examinations which have been proposed for consciousness: Artificial Intelligence, Religion, and Quantum Mechanics. To my way of thinking these all fail to offer an answer, or any sort of hope regarding an answer. However, as I tackled the chapter entitled “Quantum Mechanics”, I realized that all the quantum mechanical explanations ignored Quantum Field Theory. Then I realized that QFT is ignored everywhere, as though it never ever existed. Which is why I wrote the book that I wrote.

http://www.quantum-field-theory. net/wrote-fields-color