Subject: What we cannot do quantum-mechanically?
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:56:09 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: "M.P. Seevinck" <>

Re: M.P. Seevinck, Holism, Physical Theories and Quantum Mechanics, quant-ph/0402047 v1, 5 February 2004

Dear Dr. Seevinck,

I'm reading your quant-ph/0402047 with great interest. You wrote: "Furthermore, and finally, the operational view expounded here is an example of the idea that we might get fundamental new insights or foundational principles from investigating what we can and can not do quantum mechanically."

Sounds like we need to look for some implications from no-go theorems.

I think what we cannot do quantum-mechanically is to look at our wristwatch and say that at some instant of time, as read by our watch, a quantum particle is in superposition of two or more states. I mean, in a Hilbert space with dimension greater than 2, the set of projection operators cannot be endowed with a Boolean structure, and it is not possible to attach truth-values to them. The quantum beast is in some both-yes-and-no state(s), and is UNspeakable,

Since there are no time operators in QM, and our physical clocks read the physical time like a classical trajectory in the phase space of classical mechanics, this special quantum state cannot be read by our (inanimate) clocks, ever.

That strange "time parameter" in the Schrödinger equation can be mapped to the time read by a physical clock only and exclusively only in one instant of time. The so-called time-dependence of quantum states is a dependence on one instant of time of a future measurement, relative to one instant of time of another measurement already performed.

There is nothing in the standard QM that could tell us what the hell might have happened to the quantum particle in the gap between these two instants of time, as read by our clocks. Hence we cannot build quantum computers, ever. Can't control the beast in the gap.

I wonder if you would agree.


Dimi Chakalov

Note: I know how difficult is to consider the possibilities that the wave pattern in the double-slit experiment could be a very misleading artifact, and the apparent wave-like behavior could bear only a remote resemblance with the quantum "waves". Many people have been searching for some empty waves, but it seems to me that the implications from their absence is not quite understood, which is why I tried to explain my viewpoint above. It is certainly not original.

The case of another type of empty waves, known as gravitational waves, is a bit more complicated. The common belief is that they also "travel" in the 3-D space, but I tend to disagree. The puzzle with these empty waves is known since 1917, and will be examined next month in my new web site at Einstein wanted to know "His thoughts" which determine exact, point-like values of all physical quantities. I called these "thoughts" causal field, and suggested that the whole universe evolves like a human brain along a putative universal time arrow. Of course, the same universal time arrow runs the human brain as well.

I anticipate severe resistance from the established physical community, since I strictly follow Einstein and do not talk about God with anthropomorphic concepts, for example, as some "great supervisor". No. God is a bare mathematical "point" hidden inside the instant 'now' from the universal time arrow. Always been there, always will.

I will try to explain this at GR17. I will soon submit the abstract of a paper, entitled: "Human brain dynamics and quantum gravity". Compared to a physical clock, the human brain reads time in a very different way, which can be easily demonstrated to the audience of GR17 (it will take approximately one minute), since they all have brains. Then follows the model of the continuum, and the claims that this new treatment of time might -- just might -- solve (i) the paradox of time identified by St. Augustine, (ii) the task of recovering the classical spacetime from nonlocal diffeomorphism-invariant observables, and (iii) the Hilbert space problem. All this for 15 min, as read by your clock.

There might -- just might -- be a little problem, however. The person in charge of GR17 may not be very happy that his former boss, Prof. A. Ashtekar, would be challenged, along with some of the keynote speakers. I have a gut feeling that ... well, you never know.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!

D. Chakalov
Saturday, February 7, 2004
Last update: Sunday, February 8, 2004