Quantum Mechanics – First Three Posts

  • This topic has 23 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by Lal.
Viewing 19 reply threads
  • Author
    • #14496
    • #14503

      Photon is like a F1 race car going around a race circuit in super high speed which we cannot see. The race circuit is like the wave function defining the path the race car would take. We can’t know for sure at any one time, where this race car will be. But we do know that it must reside within the race circuit. When we are able to detect the race car precisely, it is always the race car that is detected and not the motion of the race car.

    • #14521

      Good metaphor Johny.

      Lal said: Photons are ALWAYS particles. They travel as particles and are detected as particles. But the position of a photon during travel cannot be pinned down to a point (due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; see, “What Is a Wave and What Is a Particle?”). Only POSSIBLE LOCATIONS of the photon at any time (and the probability of detection at each location) are provided by the wave function that represents the photon.

      Where as Wave just transport energy and not matter and that is perfectly correct in QM

      That being the case, the entanglement happens since the particle functions sometimes sometime behaves like wave or particle when observed.

      This I believe how thoughts behave when observed or not observed. Meaning, considering that each thought is made out of billions of particles which are non locular, then the probability of it taking a particular course cannot be predicted, but can be stated to be available, but when observed would collapse, thus coming to its basic state.

      The famous double slit experiment can be easily interpreted in my opinion considering each chitta veethi consisting of billions of particles going in a particular way as particles with one slit, but when put through double slit, it now has freedom to choose either to hit at one side or move through different sides thus creating an interference pattern. When these chitta veethi is observed, then it follows the straight line hypothesis where the particles seem to take a particular direction or side and stop creating the interference pattern which otherwise was happening without any measurement.

      Another way in my opinion is to look at where non locality need not always tend towards entanglement which has been proven by various experiments and that being the case, a person’s thought process v/s another person’s thought process on the same object can be same or varied depending upon what is being perceived (in a wave function) and how these particles decide on what would be the next action. If there were to be independence instead of interdependence, then say person’s A decision making can be said to be same as B or different than B or collapses or cancels out if these separable particles tend to change decision later. That would mean these particles are somehow entangled and creates mixed states where it might be local or non-local and prediction cannot be precisely made as particles tend to “decide” differently when observed and not observed.

      Lal, comments and criticism are welcome

    • #14524

      I have not yet pointed out one key point that I am trying to make with the new section. But the comments by Vilas (vilaskadival) got me thinking about the importance of making that point now. Thanks to Vilas for his comments. I would like everyone to give some thoughts to the following points.

      Puredhamma site so far has been all about the mind. The new section on quantum mechanics (QM), on the other hand, is all about matter (above the suddhashtaka stage).

      Those two areas operate on very different rules.

      Inert matter just follows a set of rules. Newtonian mechanics had a set of rules that were easier to grasp. QM rules (that deal with microscopic particles) are not so easy to grasp, but nonetheless are rules. If one knows the rules, one can calculate what is going to happen in a certain experiment that involves the motion of matter (in the case of QM, only probabilities can be calculated in many cases; but experimental results are always consistent with those calculations or predictions).

      But the mind is very different. Each person is very unpredictable. Any given person X has his/her own mind, and no one else can predict how X is going to react to a certain situation. Put it in another way, two people will respond differently under the same conditions. Some responses may look similar, but not the same. The more complex the situation is, the larger the differences in responses.

      There are many people who try to tie QM to consciousness. One may offhand think that I would try to do the same. But rules of QM are very different from the rules of the mind. What I am actually trying to do with this new section is to take this “perceived mystical aspect” out of QM. Once one understands some key basic facts, QM is actually easy to grasp. But the mind is unimaginably complex.

      Of course, there are some commonalities between the mind and the microscopic realm probed by QM. That involves quantum entanglement. And, I have only emphasized that aspect so far in this new section. But we always need to keep in mind that matter above the suddhashtaka stage and the mind are in TWO DIFFERENT realities (or need to be treated differently). Mind is the root cause of matter.

      Maybe I should write a post on this subject, because it is a very important issue. However, I would like us to discuss this in a bit more detail first to see whether what I am saying makes sense or not. It was not easy to explain these details in the paper that we submitted. So, one should really the posts where things are explained in more detail. In particular, the next post will be a critical one.

      So, I am glad that Vilas brought up his ideas. Instead of commenting specifically on them, I would like him and others to first think about what I described above.

    • #14525

      I agree with you Lal.
      QM is above Suddastaka stage and it is unfair to compare with Chitta. I did not mean that in my explanations but was looking at similarities when chitta or thought movements start, the particles behave based upon certain gati it follows and when there is change in gati due to tuning or by occurance, then the pattern changes which means the particles change from wave function to just follow a typical path.

      I’m also aware and 100% agree that matter is created by mind and not otherway around. Also it is right that people tend to connect QM to mind but that is not true. Please excuse me if I tend to give you that impression
      with my post. The operating level and rules are entirely different including the experiences one could get. Thus, mind is root cause of matter.

      Since you were talking about QM and Kamma & Kamma vipaka, a thought arrived in my mind to kindle that interface.

      However, coming to just QM, your explanation and research in this aspect is very good and appreciate the essence which you have brought here, because at a deeper level, we can see that Dhamma (as in mental formations) is connected with QM what science is trying to unearth using experiments conducted mathematically and logically.

    • #14537

      Can QM explain how can one change his or her destiny by doing unwholesome/wholesome deeds?

    • #14543

      QM cannot explain ANYTHING about mental aspects. That is what I was trying to say in my previous comment above.

      Many people have tried to show that QM can EXPLAIN how consciousness arises from inert matter. That is WRONG, and that is what I am trying to explain in the new section. I am working on a couple of posts to explain why their interpretations are not correct.

      This is why we could not get our paper published. Too many physicists think consciousness arise from inert matter in the brain, and that QM can explain how that happens. There are many papers/books written on that premise.

      However, when the correct interpretation of QM is understood, one can see the “interconnected-ness” of Nature. That is the importance of QM for us: to build confidence in Buddha Dhamma.

      With our new interpretation of QM one can see the interconnectedness of Nature, and that can explain how the Nature “knows” relationships among different people. For example, this is how X will be assigned an anantariya kamma vipaka, if X kills an Arahant. X may not have any idea who he killed.

      I have discussed several such examples in those three posts. Even if one is not familiar with QM, one can get the basic idea from the those posts. The paper (given as a pdf) itself could be too technical.

    • #14545

      Lal, this morning had interesting experiences while thinking about rupa formation and QM

      From your post about electron orbitals, we can infer on bramana and pari-bramana which gets energised by chitta. (covered in your post: https://puredhamma.net/living-dhamma/rupa-aggregate/bhuta-and-yathabhuta-what-do-they-really-mean/) Meaning, mind creating matter is what these electron orbitals are.

      When these create maha-bhoota from suddastaka, depending upon how the gati is, the rupa gets formed and that is what is sensed by the 6 senses and then goes about reacting to it

      Once it reaches maha-bhoota stage, these particles say photons or electrons or neutrons can possibly be anywhere within the measurement medium and will have wave function depending upon the gati defined by the gandabba

      This I felt very fascinating as an experience and wanted to share with you and also find out whether my assessment of QM wtih gati is right.

      Comments from you is welcome.

    • #14547

      Yes, Vilas. You got it!
      What you described is the essence of what happens.
      Rupa are created in our minds, of course in minute amounts that we cannot even see. In fact, they are emitted in rays, and that is what some people call “aura”.

      Some key facts that we will discuss in detail in the future:

      1.Gati get into rupa (via bhuta and maha bhuta stages) via varna, gandha, rasa, oja as well as the four satara maha bhuta (patavi, apo, tejo, vayo) in the suddhashtaka. Remember that suddhashataka means “made of eight”.
      2.The energy is embedded via bramana (rotation) and paribramana (spin or rotation around its own axis). A suddhadshtaka created by the mind lasts one-quarter of a maha kappa (age of the Solar system). The Solar system is destroyed when that energy runs out.

      3. Each star system dies that way. Each individual start systems (like our Solar system) is destroyed after around 5-10 billion years, and that is a called a “supernova” event.

      4. While a normal human generates only insignificant of matter (suddhashtaka), one in jhana samapatti (where javana citta run continuously) one can generate significant amount of matter. This is how yogis with abhinna powers can create material things or convert one thing to another. But that requires a lot of practice.

      5. Energy embedded in spin and rotational modes can be seen everywhere: in electron orbital in atoms. Atomic orbitals in molecules. Solar system with its planets undergoing both spin and rotation. Whole galaxies undergoing rotation, etc.

      Anyway, that is just a brief summary. And now you can see why most physicists are wrong in saying that consciousness arises via quantum processes in the brain (from inert matter in the brain). It is the other way around: All matter is created via citta (specifically via javana citta). But a full explanation needs lot more details. This new section just lays the foundation.

    • #14548

      By the way, our proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on the work of Professor Richard Feynman. The book that mentioned in the posts was based on a series of 4 lectures.

      These are simple lectures delivered to non-physicists, and could be useful especially if one does not have access to the book:
      QED: Photons — Corpuscles of Light — Richard Feynman (1/4)

    • #14550

      Since matter is created by the mind, how then is matter evolved into lakes and mountains, stars and galaxies, and other physical objects that we see around us? What is the doctrine governing this mechanism and evolution?

    • #14553

      Thank you Lal.

      By the way, myself and my son like Richard Feynman a lot since he explains QM in a simple way.

      We both have watched videos, discussed in length and the moment you started about QM, was very happy that the stage is set right for Dhamma and QM as they are inter-linked – Mind makes matter and this is the right forum to explore within oneselves and get rid of Satkayaditti

    • #14555

      Johnny said: “Since matter is created by the mind, how then is matter evolved into lakes and mountains, stars and galaxies, and other physical objects that we see around us? What is the doctrine governing this mechanism and evolution?”

      That is a long story, which is condensed in the Agganna Sutta. It will take a long time to correctly describe what is in that sutta. If we start on that now, it will be hard to make sense.

      However, what is important now is to just see that QM cannot explain consciousness.
      However, the correct interpretation of QM is based on the “interconnectedness” of everything around us (including inert matter), and that is the second item of importance.

      Again, I don’t want to distract people from the actual practice. This section is for those who really want to “get to the bottom of it”. But this section is not necessary to attain the Sotapanna stage or any magga phala.

      P.S. I just saw the comment by Vilas: “Mind makes matter and this is the right forum to explore within oneselves and get rid of Satkayaditti”
      That is true.

    • #14558

      Johnny, Aganna Sutta precisely explains how the world comes into existence and at the time of dissolution, how all beings move into Abhassara Brahma realm and then depending upon gati of each of these beings, corruption starts to arrive.

      Which means, beings or gandabba now start creating matter based upon their gati and hence the entire world starts to evolve.

      I suggest you read this Sutta (none on internet has correct interpretation) but I found one here better than all others: http://www.palicanon.org/en/sutta-pitaka/transcribed-suttas/majjhima-nikaya/142-mn-88-bhitika-sutta-the-cloak.html

      Lal is very much right that explaining Aganna Sutta which is key to mystery to everything we see is a time consuming process. I guess he will start on this at appropriate time.

      In summary, everything what gandabba thinks or better using pali word of chitta is how the matter is formed using the suddastaka – 4 basic element of pathavi, apo, vayo, and tejo which is formed out of avijja and 4 upadrupa of vanna, rasa, gandha and ojha formed out of tanha or attachment.

      Which means, all beings which create matter are ignorant of how these are formed due to greed, aversion and blind faith (ignorance) coupled with attachment to all that can be created. So, beings start creating through thoughts and that is how world appears for that particular being (gandabba) and disappears (marana / cuti) since it is all bramana and pari-bramana or movement of these photons and electrons which make up the entire so called universe.

      • #14559

        Thanks for the info and link vilaskadival!

    • #14573

      Since QM describes the interconnectedness of materiality, and mind creates matter, it implies that all sentient beings have a part in creating the universe since beginning-less time, right? And as of now, beings who have yet to attain full enlightenment, will still continue to contribute to the creation of future materiality.

    • #14576

      You are very right Johnny. Since matter is always created by beings, universe comes into existence, sustain for sometime and then dissolve.

      This process keeps on repeating itself unless the beings stop craving for matter and understand the worthlessness and then “stops” this never ending process of samsara.

      • #14617

        Aggañña Sutta and this video have proven Darwin’s theory of evolution to be false!

    • #14606

      It’s truly inconceivable and magnificent, vilaskadival.

      Allow me to share a very nice Youtube video:

      Timelapse of The Entire Universe

      Nature is the greatest creator. Ironically, this amusement park is not fun to hang around in. Between kamma and vipaka lies an infinitesimally small room for a great sage to find a way to ‘hack’ the curse of sansara. The methodology has been found and we owe it to the Buddha, ourselves, and all the sentient beings who had and are still facilitating our practice to end this sansaric odyssey.

    • #14607

      Thank you so much for the video Johnny. What you see there is almost what is explained in Agganna Sutta.

      You see how Buddha was able to see these and explain to those 2 Brahmin bhikku’s and for all of us, as you rightly said, need to either continue with this odyssey or get out of it and allow others to continue.

      With that approach, each one of us will get to a level to “let go” and “stop the wheeling process” as there is nothing substantial to hold as “I’m or mine” and stop creating matter from mind.

      There is another saying from Dhammapada: mano pubbangama dhamma, mano settha manomaya, manasa ce padutthena bhasati va karoti va which is exactly we are creating moment after moment and when awareness is cultivated, each one of us can “stop creating” since creation has destruction as the ultimate aim forever.

    • #14626

      Johnny said: “Aggañña Sutta and this video have proven Darwin’s theory of evolution to be false!”

      I normally do not like people posting too many youtube videos. But this is a good one.

      It is to the point and there are several key contradictions with Darwin’s theory of evolution are pointed out. As it says, “Time does not make impossible things possible”. Indeed!

      For those who are really into this subject, there is an in-depth analysis of why evolution theory is wrong in the book, “Signature in the Cell”, by Stephen C. Meyer (2009).

      • #14627

        Thanks Lal!

      • #47164

        Good morning from Australia, Lal. 

        I just want to try and understand this a little bit more if possible, especially in relation to the Aganna Sutta. 

        I am not saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution is 100% factual, however both the book you have suggested and the video shared by Johnny can be swiftly discredited with genuine evidence that supports evolution greater than “intelligent design”. 

        I can agree with the fact that the mind can/could influence adaptation in evolution, but that evolution is a well documented, observable and credible theory. 

        A friend in dhamma says this 

        “What you say explains generally the way Buddha explains things that Brahmas are not free from sansara they just think they are free from it. Buddha also mentions many times that were Brahmas, hell beings, etc. but in this sutta, Buddha is more detailed about explaining specific things that happened to our realm, while the general sense should be obvious I still wonder what would be the question or what is the issue with Buddha explanation as this can be pretty much simplified by that, there are some missing puzzles if we take for example the “light body Brahmas” ate the earth and become humans that means there would be a period of brahmans becoming humans – humans becoming animals, animals becoming bacterias (?) and process would reverse at some point back. It would be hard to find evidence for it unless we would find some inconsistencies in scientific research on that topic.

        In the timeline there should be the time when the process is reversed by certain causes and conditions, to pinpoint that would be the “proof” but without 4th jhana or some kind of proof I would just assume (I’m not really into assuming but this topic of Dhamma aspects is least “important” in terms of Dhamma progress, results and meditation, etc.) just we have no way to disapprove it but neither to approve it so it will be the gray area that we are just too limited with information we hold at that time”

        Look forward to having this conversation because I’m struggling a little bit with blind faith aspects. But ultimately I am asking, is this anti-evolution, the de-evolution theory or how should we take the context of this sutta so it’s applicable in an accurate world view?

    • #47165

      Hello, autumn!

      You wrote: “I am not saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution is 100% factual, however both the book you have suggested and the video shared by Johnny can be swiftly discredited with genuine evidence that supports evolution greater than “intelligent design”.

      By the book I suggested, I think you mean Feynman’s QED? Of course, that book doesn’t say anything about evolution. That book explains my hypothesis that quantum mechanics is embedded in Buddha Dhamma. See #3 of the post, “Quantum Mechanics – A New Interpretation,” for the paper describing what I mean.

      • There are many videos on YouTube on both sides of the argument about Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is just a “theory”; it has not been proven or unproven with “scientific methods.” 
      • Those who believe in that theory see enough evidence for themselves. Those who oppose it see enough evidence the other way. 
      • The real question is: Do scientific theories currently accepted by scientists provide a coherent worldview? Scientists admit that there are many “holes” in our understanding. Do scientists say that they fully understand the workings of the human body? No. They do not. They don’t even understand how a living cell came into existence; see “Living Cell – How Did the First Cell Come to Existence?
      • On the other hand, those who have comprehended the teachings of Buddha believe that taken as a whole, it does provide a complete understanding. However, it is impossible to convince someone who does not have that background.

      You wrote: “I can agree with the fact that the mind can/could influence adaptation in evolution, but that evolution is a well documented, observable and credible theory.”

      • I’m afraid I have to disagree. There is a consensus that it is the best theory that the scientists have. But there is never a “conclusive proof.”
      • If you read the book “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer, there are ample scientific arguments against the “theory of evolution.” I am aware that he is a fundamentalist Christian. Of course, I don’t agree with his explanation that a Creator created all life. But that does not change the facts he presents. My post above points out that modern science cannot even explain how the living cell could have “evolved.” Any person with expertise in bioscience will admit that they start building their theories starting with the living cell; they have no idea how it came into existence.

      Regarding the comments of “A friend in dhamma” you quoted: I don’t think he has a good understanding of Buddha Dhamma. 

      • The following part of his comment tells me that he does not understand the “Agganna Sutta” where the Buddha explains how life evolves on the Earth: ” there are some missing puzzles if we take for example the “light body Brahmas” ate the earth and become humans..”
      • I have written an introduction to the Agganna Sutta: “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)” but it will take many such posts to discuss that deep sutta and to provide a decent explanation. Buddha Dhamma is more profound than quantum mechanics or any other branch of modern science.

      If someone can understand the Agganna Sutta, then it will become evident that the “de-evolution process” (starting with “humans with Brahma-like” subtle bodies) cannot be reversed. What happens is that the Earth (Solar system and a cluster of other star systems close-by) will be destroyed in a supernova explosion at some point (scientists do agree on that. ) What they don’t know is that those start systems will be re-formed many billions of years after that. It is a cyclic process that has no beginning or end. My post provides some basic concepts/steps involved.

      Finally, you wrote: “..I’m struggling a little bit with blind faith aspects.”

      • If one can understand the fundamentals of Buddha’s worldview, one will realize that there is nothing to be taken on “blind faith.” In contrast, scientific theories are just that” “theories,” and scientists readily admit to it. Over the years, scientific theories have been revised repeatedly to match new observations; yet, Buddha Dhamma remains the same: “Dhamma and Science – Introduction.” By Buddha Dhamma, I mean the 57 books in the Tipitaka written 2000 years ago: “Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma.”
      • I have discussed these issues in more detail in a series of posts: “Origin of Life.” There is no need to repeat those explanations. If you can read them and have questions, that is probably the best way to have a productive discussion.
Viewing 19 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.