plantillas web en plantillas web
by Dra.Torres, MSc., PhD.
January 2007
revised March 2016
Since 2001 helping TRANS people web based at a distance
Quantum Entanglement


    We fear that question. Since the initial hominization from our ape ancestors we fear that question.

    We feel ourselves so real. We feel what we perceive so real. The world, the universe where we live is so big and so real.

    Since the beginning of humanization, starting to perceive the environment, ancestral humans did try to explain origins and realities. Creation myths did start, soul and spirit myths too.

    And there was the perception of mortality. In some time we would be dead. Where we would go? would we live after death?

    A lot of ideas did spread, from Africa, where our ape ancestors survived. Spirits of nature were created, and imagination erected ideas about life after death. The body would be destroyed, but our soul would survive. After death could have judgements, laws of reincarnation, and a lot of myths and imagination.

    The essential difference between the material body, and mind (the soul), surely for almost all was obvious. The crude matter could not have any relation with a living soul.

    But scientifically, what is mind?

    Where is our mind?

    It is related to my body, mainly to my head, but I MAY NOT DEFINE WHERE IT IS. All that exists is inside my universe, but inside my universe where is my mind?



    And so we do for centuries.

    It is better don't ask these questions!

    In a sense I know my mind is in my head. And at the same time it is diffused, in an strange not well defined way, among the universe outside me.

    What a difficult question to answer!


    With time, mainly more recently, at least during the XIXth century and later, we know all we perceive, we perceive trough nerves. Meat, alive body without nerves, can't perceive or feel.

    So we know for some time now, we perceive and feel trough alive nerves. But why and how nerves may feel or perceive?

    In a mysterious way, nerve terminals perceive signals and transform these signals in electric currents trough the movement of neurotransmitters. Up until a few decades, in a very mysterious way.

    But even knowing this, it is very different to know how mind, self perception, the self, the sense of I AM, could be generated by these currents.and neurotransmitters.

    Even among big mysteries, human primates after the XIXth century did start some real knowledge about mind

    And the much they knew, they more perceived that brain and mind were strictly related, among a cloud of mystery.

    The idea of the absolute independence of res cogitans from the res extensa, was near an end.


    The old best idea was, BY GOD. One or multiple gods. Or spirits if you prefer.

    From somewhere, in heaven probably, very far away, there were a special deposit of souls without a body.. Guarded by spirits, gandarvas, angels, or someone, also souls without bodies, but special ones.

    These ideas were very impressive ones in Antiquity and Middle Ages

    Nowadays they are a little bit old fashioned. But they still prevail in almost all mankind.

    But our medicine now does know with certainty that without nerves there is no sensations!

    So, now a lot of people knows the divine soul, (or mind), needs in some way, the nerves to operate.

    Nowadays also it is clear, the brain is absolutely important to keep the soul and the body alive together.

    When the brain dies, the couple soul-body dies, even when the heart works.

    If the soul is independent from the body, it is not totally independent from the brain in a mysterious manner

    That mystery is the key to understand the puzzle. How and why the soul is independent from matter essentially but is in a sense dependent of the brain? Is the matter of the brain magic or a special matter?

    A kind of special matter different from bricks or stones?


    Imagine a car without a pilot, a plane without a pilot, an elephant without a control.

    Imagine each cell of our body would like to follow its own particular way (that is more or less what happens with cancer cells)

    Organisms need to be organized. To work organized. to operate, to exist organized as one unity. The organism needs a system of unified control, as a chemical industry or a country.

    The soul, or mind, is the result of the system that trough nerves, may control the whole organism, as a whole, as one unity, an organization of billions of cells, or much more.Nowadays we know for sure, the soul needs the nerves to control the body.

    In other words Descartes's res cogitans needs matter to control matter.

    Soul, or mind, exists for sure, and affects matter trough material means.

    If they are intrinsically independents, how is that possible and why is this necessary? Mind moves matter. My mind, my will moves my legs. But it is possible only if my nerves are healthy. So my mind or soul moves matter but trough material means.

    The mystery now is how is that possible? Why the matter of the nerves is so special?


    There is a big mystery between soul and matter, between mind and nerves..

    We already talk a lot about soul or mind. What if now we think a little bit about matter?

    Is matter really as brute, as stupid as bricks or stones?

    I believe as souls (mind) are not so divine as thought some of our ancestors, matter is not so stupid as they also thought.

    Up until the end of XIXth century physicists thought as Sir Isaac Newton. Reality was made as a clock, with stupid material parts. Atoms were made by very small stupid bricks as planets circulating a nucleus as a Sun.

    If matter really was as stupid as they thought, the divine soul (mind) would never be able to move matter even the special matter of nerves.

    At the end of this century, Maxwell did start a small revolution, studying better electromagnetism, showing matter was capable of some mysterious behaviors generating strange movements even at a distance. At least someone was perceiving matter was not absolutely stupid as a brick..

    But the big change, the big knowledge came only in the beginning of the XXth century.

    Matter could be all things but it was not stupid in no way

    On the contrary! in a sense matter was absolutely magic. A magic matter yes, may communicate with mind. And much more than only communicate.

    Quantum physics did show humankind, matter is magic, made by space, time, possibility to move, to be, some constants and probabilities. All this permeated by a logic. Matter is pure magic.


    State space is the whole space of all the possible states of a system.

    Classical physics (Newtonian and Maxwell physics) has its state space as an Euclidean space. The relativity theory of Einstein has its state space as a Minkowski space. The chaotic state space from Poincare's chaos theory has its state space as an Euclidean space.

    What all these state spaces have in common?

    They have different dimensions, 3 or 4 or even more. But what they have in common?

    Up until quantum physics was discovered, the state space was always THE STATE SPACE OF OUR PERCEPTIONS.

    But what characterize these spaces, what is common among all of them?

    The simple fact that all these spaces are spaces of REAL NUMBERS.

    Almost during all humankind history, from our ancestral apes in Africa up until the quantum physics discovery, we were studying our own perception only.

    All we knew was ourselves. Our perception, the rules and relations of how we perceive things. We perceive only real numbers and real number spaces. Our mind, our soul, perceives (in a mysterious way trough material nerves) only real number spaces. So our mind reduces a complex material reality out there to perceptible real numbers.

    That is a fact, not controversial. We perceive only real number state spaces even if reality exists in mote complex state spaces. And matter, neural matter, really nerves, does that magic.

    Real numbers spaces give us our notion of different places, what we feel, we perceive as here, as there, as near, as far away. It is what we call a physical space, a space where we perceive and place things.

    That is not necessarily the kind of space reality happens.




      All that exists, exist as a quantic reality. ALL. ABSOLUTELY ALL.

      That ontological point of view is very far from the traditional one, that considers the quanticality a kind of mathematical and logical artifice to understand better matter fine grained structures.

      The TRADITIONAL ONTOLOGIC POINT OF VIEW IS TO CONSIDER PERCEPTION REAL, and the superpositions, coherence and multiple parallel trajectories or histories, as pure virtual logic.

      THAT ONTOLOGICAL SHIFT IS FUNDAMENTAL To understand MIND. To understand WHAT IT IS. To understand WHY and HOW it exists. And to understand Mind is a QUANTUM MIND. And how it is GENERATED.

      But what is a quantic reality?

      Surely it is a mystery, because it is pure magic.

      The reality is that magic, and magic pervades the reality

      What is that magic?

      I don't know and I believe nobody knows.

      But we have some imagination and some information. And a lot of research and labs as Atlas and CMS and Alice inside the CERN for example trying to discover more and more about that magic. The best people, the most talented and brilliant and intelligent people looking for more data to understand that magic.

      BECAUSE ALL IS QUANTIC. SMALL ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AS QUARKS, BOSONS AND LEPTONS. Particles as hadrons, nucleus of atoms, cells and crystals, nano particles and trees and organisms and humans, planets and stars, galaxies and black holes, ALL, ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT REALLY EXISTS IS QUANTIC.

      To be quantic it is not to be small. Submicroscopic.

      TO BE QUANTIC IS TO BE PLURAL,, TO BE AT THE SAME TIME DIFFERENT BEING ALWAYS EQUAL. , it is to live all parallel histories at the same time, it is to be all possible superpositions at the same time, it is to be all possibilities at the same time.


      In particle physics people study the behavior, or the histories, of particles. Particles of a species are all ontically equal. One photon, or one electron are equal to other of the same kind. they have not particular identities, there is not an electron John and an electron Mary, they are only electrons.Electrons have behaviors, photons have behaviors, and they have plural behaviors. When a photon or electron leaves a position and goes to another position, and they are changing almost continuously, they may have plural behaviors AT THE SAME TIME, as particles, as waves, following not a defined trajectories BUT ALWAYS following ALL TRAJECTORIES POSSIBLE at the same time, following parallel histories at the same time. AND THAT IS REAL. IS A FACT, NOT IMAGINATION. not ILLUSION. YES, it looks as magic. IT IS PURE MAGIC.

      Now imagine life. The histories of life,as life superpositions or parallel histories, as life quantum coherence. I don't say life of big complex of cells, as an elephant, but THE LIFE OF EACH CELL OF EACH ELEPHANT.Consider not only elephants but all cells from trees, humans, insects, grass, all alive cells that exist in the planet. HOW MANY CELLS EXISTS? A countable, a numerable infinite of cells, we could say.


      Surely, for each individual particular cell, it has its life, one life, one history (even each cell potentially living a full infinity of histories possible). But if I would write a big book named THE LIFE OF THE CELL, as I would do for a particle named cell ( as photon or electron), I would have to describe a full infinity of superpositions of lives (states), at the same time, of all alive cells from all alive organisms that are alive at the same time. A full plurality of parallel trajectories we call histories, between one initial point we call birth to an end point we call death. NOT ONLY ELECTRONS OR PHOTONS have quantic behaviors, also cells show quantic behaviors. All that may live multiple ways and trajectories, multiple behaviors at the same time (are we not women, daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, professionals, etc., etc., etc living a plurality of potential behaviors and histories AT THE SAME TIME?

      SO, NOT ONLY an elementary particle, a boson or a lepton be at the same time particle and wave, and not a particle and a wave, but all same particles and waves possible as a superposition of real states.A superposition of states with a distribution of probabilities.

      It is essential to understand this.

      Humans, as ALIVE PARTICLES do the same as a species of particle named not photons or cells but humans.

      I love a figure, A JOKE BY A CHINESE STUDENT OF PHYSICS showing as a joke a big truth (a truth he probably did not perceive completely, I imagine). See the graph:

      Let's change that graph a little. It is not the life of one person and its imaginary possibilities but ALL REAL LIVES LIVED BY ALL HUMAN BEINGS (by all particles of our kind) all living parallel lives and histories at the same time. It is a quantum superposition. Isn't it?

      The life of each of us, 8 billion humans in parallel, is ONE POSSIBLE HISTORY OR TRAJECTORY of the superposition of all human histories possible.Studying our SPECIES AS A KIND OF PARTICLE we would see a quantum superposition and each of us would be ONE POSSIBILITY for the species.



      What is a Feynman diagram. Why Feynman invented them. What he sought. Feynman wanted to calculate the path integrals, he would like to sum all possible paralell stories of each kind of particle, adding all ways possible to find at the maximum possible accuracy WHAT WE PERCEIVE.
      We can not forget that in physics we need always to prove things experimentally, that is, through our perception. So Feynman moved heavens and earth, studied and added all possible paths to sum them and verify that THE MORE STORIES calculated and included the more approached he was from experimental observations (more near our own perception he could model). In other words, Feynman was NOT INTERESTED IN details of the superposed STORIES BUT only in THE SUM OF THE MAXIMUM OF THEM, because the more included in the calculation, the more the result approached the experimental observation or measurement in the laboratory, the way we perceive. Our goal in this case follows the inverse path in relation to Feynman's goal. We know what we perceive. We want to know how we may get to the possible stories, understand them, map them, recognize its signatures, its fingerprints and typologies? This point of view for us is the important point of view (to able us to recognize and measure identities, and mainly gender identities in our purpose). END OF THIS IMPORTANT NOTE.

      I suggest now you stop reading me, and you take some 10 or 20 dollars and go to a near scientific library, to buy a very special booklet (see below reference books number 1).

      That book, it is not to read superficially , as a magazine. It is to ruminate, to read and read again, and one more time, to fix the ideas full and deep inside your mind, because these are the most important ideas to understand reality. Taught by the master of masters of physics, Richard Feynman. Taught by him to common people, as you and me. We all, we may understand the most refined logic of physics with the master.

      The fuzzy logic of reality , as the master teaches, is not that way or that other way. The ways are all present all the same time, as that way and that way too, and all possible infinite ways.

      Yes, it is pure magic

      Master Feynman did bigger magic than Dumbledore in Hogwarts

      Later, when we will debate each thesis we intend to answer, the first thesis will be WHY IF REALITY IS COHERENT in the sense of plural, full of infinite supperpositions that are real and exist at the same time, why we perceive not that magic?

      What we may say now is, the magic is here, all matter is fully magic, and we can't perceive. BUT ALL MATTER, ALL REALITY, ALL THAT REALLY EXISTS IS QUANTUM COHERENT PERMANENTLY, even if we perceive nothing. That is the ontology we consider and we need to consider to answer our questions about the quantum erection of mind by alive matter.

      Then we have a first unexpected conclusion, very unexpected. Our divine soul is limited, magic is matter.

      Reality is magic really, not only matter but space, time, matter, energy, void even constants and probabilities, and all possibilities THAT EXIST ALL THE TIME AT A SAME TIME is magic. And is real.


      Where does exist that magical reality? In which place in which space? In which state space?

      The states reality exists may not be defined by real numbers. They may not be defined by single numbers. They ate defined by vectors

      Vectors are more than simple numbers. they have directions, they have in each direction the sense of up or down. As an arrow.

      There are simple vectorial spaces in real number spaces. Reality states may not be defined in these spaces.

      Reality states happens in vectorial complex spaces, in complex numbers spaces.

      Complex numbers have two parts, a real part and an imaginary part. To have a mental image, imagine a real number in a space. the real number would be A POINT in that space. Now imagine a sphere, with the center at that point. a unitary sphere. that sphere would be the complex number, the center point a real number and the surface of the sphere the complex number with its imaginary part. The imaginary part would be the surface

      The complex number space will not be a simple physical space we may perceive. It has an imaginary part we may imagine but not perceive. That part is as real as the real part but we may not perceive.

      The complex numbers space is a physical space, BUT FOR US, IT LOOKS LIKE A LOGIC SPACE

      We can't perceive it as a physical space, we only may IMAGINE IT AS A LOGIC SPACE.

      Here we have a big mystery. Physical spaces for the reality FOR US we need to imagine as LOGIC spaces. What would we be for reality? (Maldacena , another big physicist, suggests, someone that could perceive the full plurality of REALITY would perceive us as holographic images!)

      FOR US, the vectorial complex number space (named Hilbert space) of reality state space is a LOGICAL SPACE and we need a lot of effort to have an idea of the space where WE REALLY EXIST and we may not perceive.

      A good image to try to feel better that reality is to remember the MATRIX movie. Reality exists in a physical space we may not perceive. And what we perceive as physical state space is not the real, but one mental over simplification of the real, reality entangled with us, create as mind

      But something magical happens. Incredibly magical. We perceive not the state space where reality happens, we mentally generate an over simplification of that state, AND WHAT WE PERCEIVE IS REAL, even not perceiving as reality is.

      That is pure magic.

      All around us, inside and outside us, we live in a Hilbert space we don't perceive, full of superpositions and quantum coherence we may not perceive , we in contact with that magic material reality, fully immersed in it, our neural system entangled to reality perceive a coarse grained over simplification and we see a spectrum, a phantom, a blurred image of the reality, but what we perceive, even a so bad image full of distortions and poor mappings, IS REAL.




      How does the classical physical world emerge out of the quantum realm?

      See reference 1 for Scientific papers below. That is the doctorate dissertation by JOHANNES KOFLER. He says at the first chapter textually (about decoherence)

      "This dissertation addresses this question from a novel perspective and develops an approach to the quantum-to-classical transition fully within quantum theory and conceptually different from already existing models.

      It neither needs to refer to the environment of a system (environmental decoherence model) nor to change the quantum laws itself (collapse models) but puts the stress on the limits of observability of quantum phenomena due to our measurement apparatuses.

      Using a quantum spin as a model object, we first demonstrate that for unrestricted measurement accuracy the system’s time evolution cannot be described classically and is in conflict with macrorealism through violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality.

      This conflict remains even if the spin is arbitrarily large and macroscopic. Under realistic conditions in every-day life, however, we are only able to perform coarse-grained measurements and do not resolve individual quantum levels of the macroscopic system.

      As we show, it is this mere restriction to fuzzy measurements which is sufficient to see the natural emergence of macrorealism and the classical Newtonian laws out of the full quantum formalism:

      The system’s time evolution governed by the Schrodinger equation and the state projection induced by measurements. This resolves the apparent impossibility of how classical realism and deterministic laws can emerge out of fundamentally random quantum events. "

      From our ONTOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, reality as quantum states are always coherent states. Quantum coherence is related to the superposition of states. The reality is never defined as one state, but by the whole superposition of states.

      The usual ontological position of physicists is to consider PERCEPTION REAL, and QUANTUM COHERENCE, QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION OR PATH INTEGRALS, simple mathematical ways to calculate things very precisely, with no ontological reality.


      I believe really, the ontology I consider, will be clear, explains a lot of things, the traditional one may not explain.

      Now, a text from Wikipedia, defining Feynman's way to define the quantum plurality of states, as a sum of parallel trajectories, or stories ( as superpositions or coherence of states). That is a very powerful formulation of quantum reality:

      "Feynman showed that Dirac's quantum action was, for most cases of interest, simply equal to the classical action, appropriately discretized. This means that the classical action is the phase acquired by quantum evolution between two fixed endpoints. He proposed to recover all of quantum mechanics from the following postulates:

      The probability for an event is given by the modulus length squared of a complex number called the "probability amplitude".

      The probability amplitude is given by adding together the contributions of all paths in configuration space.

      The contribution of a path is proportional to , where S is the action given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the path.

      In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process, then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of postulate 3 over the space of all possible paths of the system in between the initial and final states, including those that are absurd by classical standards.

      In calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to another in a given time, it is correct to include paths in which the particle describes elaborate curlicues, curves in which the particle shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth.

      The path integral assigns to all these amplitudes equal weight but varying phase, or argument of the complex number.

      Contributions from paths wildly different from the classical trajectory may be suppressed by interference.

      Feynman showed that this formulation of quantum mechanics is equivalent to the canonical approach to quantum mechanics when the Hamiltonian is at most quadratic in the momentum. An amplitude computed according to Feynman's principles will also obey the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian corresponding to the given action.

      The path integral formulation of quantum field theory represents the transition amplitude (corresponding to the classical correlation function) as a weighted sum of all possible histories of the system from the initial to the final state. A Feynman diagram is a graphical representation of a perturbative contribution to the transition amplitude."

      Why have I good evidence that my proposed ontology is much more accurate than the traditional one? BECAUSE AS MUCH STORIES ARE INCLUDED TO CALCULATE PATH INTEGRALS, FOR ANY REAL SYSTEM, THE RESULT IS MORE PRECISE, NEARER THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.So that result, absolutely confirmed scientifically, confirms REALITY AS QUANTIC even if we may not perceive it, and not the contrary.

      So I believe there are good evidences to say REALITY IS ALWAYS QUANTIC IN ITS FULL SENSE, and our perception is only an oversimplification of it.


      When we did talk about Divine Souls and Mind, in relation to nerves, that are matter, in quantum physics we are talking about entangled realities. Relation, correlation, in quantum sciences is called entanglement.

      It is not difficult to perceive we are all the time talking about entanglement, when we talk about mind and matter.

      The relation of two things, in the reality realm, considering our ontological point of principle, by definition needs to be an entanglement of states. We know MIND AND NERVES ARE RELATED, then that relation needs to be an entanglement.

      But what is a quantum entanglement?

      I did found a simple but very good text to explain quantum entanglement ()

      ★ { The term “entanglement” (“Verschrankung” in the original German phrasing) was introduced by Erwin Schrodinger in 1935 in order to describe an intrinsic feature of quantum mechanics, that arises from the structure of Hilbert space, i.e. the superposition principle of the states therein.

      He stated that:

      " A composite quantum system, whose subsystems are distant from each other, is in an “entangled state” if the total system is in a well defined state, but the subsystems themselves are not."

      To formulate this statement more rigorously let us look at systems of two components, e.g. two spin 1/2 particles or two photons, and construct the four possible product states (eigenstates of σz),

      | ↑⟩ ⊗ |↑⟩ , |↑⟩ ⊗ |↓⟩ , |↓⟩ ⊗ |↑⟩ , |↓⟩ ⊗ |↓⟩ .(1)

      These states are of the class of the so-called “separable” states, or just “product” states. In quantum information theory the left subsystem is often called Alice and the right one Bob.

      For photons the arrow notation of the σz eigenstates is usually replaced by the letters H and V, standing for horizontal and vertical polarization respectively

      | H⟩ ⊗ |H⟩ , |H⟩ ⊗ |V ⟩ , |V ⟩ ⊗ |H⟩ , |V ⟩ ⊗ |V ⟩ (2)

      Generally, instead of the states of Eq. (1) and (2), one could use any quantum system consisting of two subsystems, i.e. a bipartite system with each two degrees of freedom, called a 2-qubit state.

      But whichever of the above product states you choose, the states of the individual subsystems Alice and Bob are well defined. For example, for the state |↑⟩ ⊗ |↓⟩, when measuring the spin along the z-direction, the outcome of the measurements of Alice will be “up”, i.e. determined by the state |↑⟩, while Bob’s result will be always “down”, i.e. determined by the state |↓⟩.

      From these product states we can form linear combinations, e.g.

      ψ±= 1 √ 2 (|↑⟩ |↓⟩ ± |↓⟩ |↑⟩) (3)

      φ±= 1 √ 2 (|↑⟩ |↑⟩ ± |↓⟩ |↓⟩) . (4)

      These are the four (maximally) entangled 2-qubit states, called the Bell states.

      Let us try to grasp what entanglement in terms of e.g. the Bell state |ψ±⟩ means.

      Consider two observers, Alice and Bob, who are far apart, both performing measurements on their part of the entangled state.

      They will both get the results ↑ or ↓ equally often, i.e. with a probability of 1/2 , which means that neither of the subsystems is in a well def ined state.

      But on the other hand, everytime Alice measures ↑, Bob will with certainty measure the result ↓ and vice versa, i.e. the measurement results are perfectly correlated.

      This has some far reaching consequences for the structure of the theory, i.e. it leads to a loss of locality and/or realism of the theory, which is backed up by experiments. } ★

      One step back. A little but important resume of entanglement history: Shrodinger statement from 1935 (as showed above) the EPR paradox from 1935 and John Bell inequalities from 1964.

      ■ { The EPR (Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen) paradox was formulated in 1935 as a gedankenexperiment to strengthen the claim that quantum mechanics in its probabilistic character was somehow incomplete.

      The argumentation was later on reformulated by David Bohm in 1952 (see Ref. [19]) for the simple quantum mechanical system of two spin 1/2 particles, which is the way we will present the problem here.

      The main argument of EPR is based on three requirements

      1. Completeness: Every element of physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory in order for the theory to be complete.

      2. Realism: If the value of a physical quantity can be predicted with certainty, i.e. probability 1, without disturbing the system, then the quantity has physical reality.

      3. Locality: There is no action at a distance. Measurements on a (sub)system do not affect measurements on (sub)systems that are far away.

      EPR then conclude that under certain circumstances quantum mechanics is not a complete theory.

      To understand this claim, let us consider two spin 1/2 particles in the spin singlet state |ψ−⟩, the antisymmetric Bell state, and let them propagate in opposite direction along the x-axis from their source.

      Let then two observers, Alice and Bob, perform spin measurement along the z-direction.

      Quantum mechanics tells us that for the state

      ψ−= 1 √ 2 (|↑⟩ |↓⟩ − |↓⟩ |↑⟩) (5)

      the result measured by Alice will be undetermined, i.e. either ↑ or ↓, but if Alice measures ↑, then Bob will measure ↓ with certainty and vice versa, which assigns physical reality to the spin of Bob’s particle in the sense of EPR.

      Since there is no disturbance or action at a distance, EPR conclude, quantum mechanics does not contain any information about predetermined measurement outcomes and is therefore incomplete.

      To account for the missing information, there must be some inaccessible parameter, a hidden variable, to determine which spin eigenvalue is realized in the measurement.

      EPR thus demand a hidden variable theory (HVT) to explain this problem. In the same year as the EPR paper was published, Bohr replied (using the same title for his paper as EPR, i.e. “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete ?) " criticizing their perception of reality and sweeping away their arguments without really answering the interesting paradox presented in the EPR paper.

      But due to Bohr’s great authority the physical community followed his view that quantum mechanics is complete and the case rested for nearly 30 years, until John Bell published his famous article in 1964, presenting a way to solve the debate.

      Bell Inequalities: In 1964 John S. Bell published an article proposing a solution to the (until then purely philosophical) Bohr-Einstein debate, which made it possible to determine experimentally, whether or not the requirements of the EPR paradox are fulfilled in Nature.}■

      The essence of Bell’s proposal can be formulated in the following theorem:

      Bell’s theorem : In certain experiments all local realistic theories (LRT) are incompatible with quantum mechanics.

      A good introduction for BELL's theorem by Nino Zanghi, Physics Department, University of Genoa, Italy

      ★ Bell's theorem asserts that if certain predictions of quantum theory are correct then our world is non-local. "Non-local" here means that there exist interactions between events that are too far apart in space and too close together in time for the events to be connected even by signals moving at the speed of light.

      This theorem was proved in 1964 by John Stewart Bell and has been in recent decades the subject of extensive analysis, discussion, and development by both physicists and philosophers of science.

      The relevant predictions of quantum theory were first convincingly confirmed by the experiment of Aspect et al. in 1982; they have been even more convincingly reconfirmed many times since.

      In light of Bell's theorem, the experiments thus establish that our world is non-local. This conclusion is very surprising, since non-locality is normally taken to be prohibited by the theory of relativity. ★

      I like a lot a simple and very useful for us conclusion from Bell's theorem:

      1. If a relation is REAL and LOCAL, it is not quantum entangled.

      2. If the relation is REAL but NON LOCAL, it is a quantum entanglement.

      3. If a relation is not REAL and LOCAL, it is a quantum entanglement

      4. If a relation is not REAL and NON LOCAL it is a quantum entanglement.

      The consequence 1 explains why Einstein was so disgusted with quantum systems all his life. PERCEPTION PERCEIVE THINGS AND FACTS AS IF THEY WERE LOCAL, ALWAYS. And Einstein was right, real and local at a distance, may not be explained completely by quantum physics.

      But for us the important consequence is the number 2. The relation IS REAL , but NON LOCAL. That relation may be explained, completely, by quantum entanglement.


      We will not discuss here detailed mathematical solutions. Only logic consistencies.

      We will consider the consequence 2 showed above for the Bell theorem and Schrodinger definition for entangled states as a good criteria for ontological conclusions.

      We need then analyze:

      (1) If there is a relation between two facts that are distant one from the other

      (2) If the object of the fact at a distance is surely real

      (3) If the relation is non local, in the sense that it happens almost instantaneously even if the distance among facts are very far away from each other.

      If , for two interconnected facts at a far distance we may show these 3 asserts are correct than there is a quantum entanglement.

      To confirm, to reinforce the conclusion we may consider also the check of the statement by Schrodinger about the global system and its parts.


      How works a sensor neuron?

        ♥ The nervous system has many types of sensory neurons. Nerve endings on one end of each neuron are encased in a special structure to sense a specific stimulus.

      Chemoreceptors sense chemicals. The olfactory bulb that monitors your sense of smell has chemoreceptors that sense odors (chemicals in the air). Taste buds have chemoreceptors to detect chemicals dissolved in liquids. Chemoreceptors in the brain also monitor the concentration of carbon dioxide in the blood and cerebrospinal fluid to help control your rate of breathing.

      Mechanoreceptors sense touch, pressure and distortion (stretch). Stretch receptors in your muscle tendons are the first link in the knee-jerk reflex.

      Photoreceptors, which sense light, are found in the retinas of your eyes.

      Thermoreceptors are free nerve endings that sense temperature, but we're not sure exactly how they do this. Changes in temperature could affect the movements of ions across the cell membrane and influence action potentials in that way.

      Nociceptors are free nerve endings that sense pain. They respond to a variety of stimuli (heat, pressure, chemicals) and sense tissue damage.

      Auditory receptors in the inner ear sense vibrations from sound waves.

      Typically, a stimulus causes ionic changes in the receptor neuron's dendrites, which lead to the formation of action potentials in the receptor neurons.

      These action potentials travel the sensory neuron, which connects to a motor neuron (and possibly an ascending neuron) in the spinal cord.

      The action potential causes neurotransmitter release within the presynaptic cell.

      The neurotransmitter binds to the postsynaptic cell and elicits an action potential there.

      The action potential will travel the length of the postsynaptic cell to another synapse on the effector cell (like a muscle cell, skin, blood vessel, gland), where its neurotransmitter will cause a response in the effector cell (like a muscle contraction).

      Alternatively, the postsynaptic cell may be another neuron that transmits the signal to another neuron in the brain or spinal cord.♥

      To trigger one qubit of information the sensor system need to move ions (that are big considering the so fine grained structure of reality, and later to move macro molecules of neurotransmitters, that are enormous structures when we consider the so big resolution of reality, based on Planck sizes and elementary particles as quarks, bosons and leptons.

      So, comparing with the resolution of reality, we may say, surely sensor neurons are coarse grained with low resolution.


      We have nothing to say more about the fine grained high resolution reality.

      Reality is as a so fine grained structure as it could be. The granulation is finite but extremely fine, as fine as is possible to be fine.




      I believe Kofler already did answer this question.
      When any measurement (and sensor neuron perception is a measurement) is made in quantum so fine grained reality, when the instrument works generating much more coarse grained resolution information, quantum coherence is not perceived, and what is measured (or perceived) loses information and quantum coherence information is lost, remaining only the measurement (or perception) of decoherence.

      Obviously there is an experimental gap, because we need to prove experimentally that the sensor neurons are coarse grained enough, to lose quantum coherence perception (for us now it is obvious, but someone will this in a quantum optic lab soon, surely).

      Leonard Susskind explains the measurement (or perception) of decoherent states suggesting, in a sense, we may measure (or perceive) only MOST PROBABLE VALUES, in a sense we measure always (or perceive) MEAN VALUES of all things.

      The mental images we erect based on perceived informations by neuron sensors, are MOST PROBABLE APPEARANCES , in a sense, mean appearances things look like, through coarse grained sensor neurons possibilities. Our brain, says Antonio Damasio, generates PERCEPTIVE IMAGES working sensor neurons information. So we perceive COARSE GRAINED, DECOHERENT MODE PERCEPTIVE IMAGES, erected as what we perceive as reality, BUT REALLY A COARSE GRAINED MOST PROBABLE VALUE, as a perceptive image of a much more complex reality we may not perceive (remember, MEAN VALUES DO NOT EXIST, in no way exist a mean human being, a mean story, a mean something. But that is how our universe is made. By means , by things that in a sense are irrealities. Ontically are irrealities, but these are THE BEST ONTOLOGICAL REALITIES WE MAY PERCEIVE)

      Our sense of space, time, objects, world, universe, ourselves, are erected this way. WE PERCEIVE NOT REALITIES AS AS THEY ARE, full of quantum coherence, superpositions, multiple paths and histories, but as MEAN VALUES, AS AN OVER SIMPLIFICATION, as is quantum decoherence.

      I hope it is more clear now.


      We have 4 criteria to consider, 3 from Bell's inequalities and one from Schrodinger statement.

      Let's start with the first condition by Bell's. It states that two things need to be in relation, wiyh each other. For us, reality and the observer need to be in relation between each other. I believe that relation is obvious. Yhe organic observer, human or any other, is immersed, is part of yhe whole reality. It is impossible stay aside from someghing we are part and are immersed in.

      But even in relation to, we may be in a "classical" relation, or in a wuantum relation we name quantum entanglement.

      In a classical relation, how could we "PERCEIVE" something outside? how "perceives" a tv camera images?

      The organic alive observer as the tv camera, both are made by quantum matter, existing immersed in quanyum reality. Neuron sensors as digital sensors ARE IN RELATION with reality out there and in RELATION WITH THAT REALITY, receive and process for example visual images, generating synaptic or digital information signals, that will be transmitted and worked by systems, internal in organic alive organisms (through central nervous systems, or brains) or by digital devices, indide or outside the digital sensor devices.

      Probably the digital sensor will be more accurate, more fine grained with more detailed resolution than the organic sensor , because to move electrons needs less energy than to move ions and macromolecules.

      What is important for us here is to show, for the organic alive observer as for the tv sensor, both are IN RELATION WITH THE REALITY OUT THERE SURELY, as considers the relation 1 based on Bell's theorem.

      now lets consider the condition 2 based on Bell. The relation between the organic alive observer and the reality out there is very intimate and generates something REAL or NOT REAL.

      The same question about the tv sensor and the reality out there.

      Let's analize the tv sensor first.

      To do so let's imagine a tennis game, at Wimbledon's central court. Federer was fighting his match against Nadal. And there is the ball. And here near me is a tv camera ready to "see" the ball, the players, the match, alive, in full colors, a live transmition by my tv channel.

      How could my tv camera see the match? See the ball?

      The digital image sensor to see, to produce an IMAGE CAPTION, it needs to be in relation with the ball, for example. In an INSTANT, a very little time inyer all, a d o e after the other, DISCRETELY BUT VERY FAST ONE MOMENT AFTER THE OTHER, THE SENSOR IN TELATION WIYH THE BALL RECEIVE THE INFORMATION and immediately transmits that information cidified elevtronically, to another debice far away that almost instantly will decodify it and project the image of the ball in a tv monitor, or millions of tv mo itors all arounf the world.

      At the exact instant of the CAPTION OF THE BALL , is the ball real? Surely the ball inside Wimbeldon's court is real, when Nadal applies a beautifull top spin backhand shot. But the shot image AT THE EXACTLY MOMENT OF THE CAPTION is it real at the tv sensor?

      One minimun instant of time LATER THE CAPTION, surely the captured image was not real, but only a image, with no substance in it. Only pixels, bites, information. BUT AT THE IMMATERIAL MOMENT OF THE CAPTION, the captured image was real.

      So, when someone in China, Singapore, Argentina or United States is seeing the tremendous service Federer did shot for an ace, it was no more real, but an image only, information projected as image and sound, in an electronic screen, seconds or miliseconds after the caption.

      Only at the exact moment of the caption, the captured was real. Immediately later it has no more reality than bites pixels and electronic digital codes and signals. Obviously all decoded images by screens, are not real, but only images.

      Now let's analyze the reality of alive organic organisms, as monkeys and human primates for example, when happens the relation between the neuron sensors and reality. THE CAPTION OF INFORMATION by neuron sensors are different from the caption of tv digital sensors?

      Yes and No.

      No, they are not different, as the relation process between reality and sensor. the inner relation between reality and sensor is strictly the same.

      But yes, they are different. The digital may be much more sensible and fine grained than the organic, the synaptic. So THE QUALITY, THE RESOLUTION MAY BE DIFFERENT but the relation, the ONTICAL RELATION IS OF THE SAME KIND.

      But then i suggest another question. Are mental images, the same as tv images? Which were the differences?

      Some years ago, some 20 years ago I had the opportunity to know the so important work developed by Antonio Damasio on neurobiology about mind, and how the brain works. I learned then that the brain generates, working the informations captured by sensor neurons, PERCEPTIVE IMAGES (visual, olfactory, etc etc etc). The rework of these images would generate feelings, thoughts etc. I remember then I did ask myself - where, in WHICH SCREEN, are erected these perceptive images? Damasio DID NOT PROPOSE OR ANSWER THAT QUESTION, but I already did believe than THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION.

      The biggest difference between the tv apparatus and the alive organic apparatus IS THAT SCREEN.

      We know the tv screen where tv information decodes the captured information by the digital sensors, IS ABSOLUTELY IN NO ONTICAL RELATION WITH TWHAT WAS CAPTUrED BY THE TV SENSOR. The ONLY MOMENT WHEN THERE WAS THAT RELATION WAS AT THE CAPTION INSTANT, and never more. So the SCREEN where tv images are decodified have NOTHING TO DO ONTICALLY with the reality of the tennis ball, the tennis court, Nadal or Federer or Wimbledon.

      What about the MENTAL SCREEN? Where is it placed? How it works? It decodes the synaptic signals generating images where?

      I love these questions

      TV images are ontically independent from tje reality that did generate the images. Imagine now MENTAL IMAGES ARE NEVER INDEPENDENT FROM THE CAPTURED REALITY, BUT ALWAYS IN RELATION WITH THAT REALITY.

      Is this not real? You see the ball, the ball is real, what you see is real and conyinues being real.

      So where is the screen of mental images?

      In a mysterious sense, reality was captured, the information worked by the brain, and the brain has as the dcreen for the generated imagrs, the same reality out there. THE ONTICAL RELATION NEVER VANISHES. Both , reality and mental images are ALWAYS ONTICALLY IN YHE MOST INTIMATE RELATION POSSIBLE.

      That is a fact. A factual experimental and scientific truth we live day after day moment after moment all the time.

      So we may say with the most sure scientific truth, what the tv shows IS A MERE IMAGE from something that was captured. the image IS NOT REAL.. But what we perceive through our mental images IS REAL, the caption process was the same but the way the i ages were eorked is diffetent and mental images ARE REAL.

      Now the third and most interesting of Bell's theorem consequences. The REAL IS LOCAL? Or if it is real IT IS NOT LOCAL?





    Quantum Entanglement


    • 1. TEXTBOOKS

      1. FEYNMAN, R.P. - QED the strange theory of light and matter, Penguin, 1985 (my copy is from 1990 edition - only 152 small pocket book pages of PURE MAGIC)

      2. SUSSKIND, L. & FRIEDMAN, A. - Quantum Mechanics THE THEORETICAL MINIMUN what you need to know to start doing physics, Basic Books, 2014 (an essential, precious book)

      3. STAPP, H. --- Mindful Universe - Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer, Springer, 2007. Henry Stapp (University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Natinal Laboratory, Email:

      4. STAPP, H.

      5. DEUTSCH, I.H. Phys 521 F14 University of New Mexico, 2014 (a wonderful graduation course in quantum mechanics by prof. Deutsch)

      6.DRIGO FILHO, E --- Supersimetria Aplicada a Mecanica Quantica, UNESP, 2009

      7.DIRAC, PAM --- The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford, 1930

      8. von NEUMANN, J --- Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton, 1955 ( German original, 1931)


      1. KOFLER, Johannes, - Titel der Dissertation: Quantum violation of macroscopic realism and the transition to classical physics, DISSERTATION arXiv:0812.0238v1 [quant-ph] 1 Dec 2008 Verfasser Johannes Kofler angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (precious work, where Kofler shows how a coarse grained measurement of something so fine grained as an elementary particle, brings decoherence, the lack of quantum coherence by the coarse low resolution measurement.)


    free counters

    website stat