International Journal of Physics
Volume 9, 2021 - Issue 5
Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/ijp

ISSN(Print): 2333-4568
ISSN(Online): 2333-4576

Article Versions

Export Article

Cite this article

- Normal Style
- MLA Style
- APA Style
- Chicago Style

Research Article

Open Access Peer-reviewed

Abhijit Manohar^{ }

Received June 06, 2021; Revised July 09, 2021; Accepted July 27, 2021

The paper generalizes and extends the 5 parameters of qualia required to generate subjective experience to physics. It presents the localization parameter and its relation to the collapse of the wave function to arrive at the plausible nature of physical universe and information field. Alternative interpretations and their merits are discussed with the merit of Information Field interpretation presented in this paper. Few important quantum experiments are reviewed in to substantiate and support the information field quantum interpretation. Finally, 8 postulates of information field are developed and enumerated towards the end of the paper. Alternate perspectives proposed historically about the nature of reality are discussed comprehensively. This paper exclusively discusses a new interpretation of non-relativistic quantum physics which does not by any means impact any of the already existing formulations of quantum mechanics.

The wave particle dilemma of Quantum Physics has roots in the pre-Socratic natural philosophy of Greece which had 2 opposing camps. The Ionian Eleatic camp supported “being” or “medium” as the homogenous, free of flow, immobile, infinite, without beginning or end of time, indivisible dense and heavy mass and the perturbation in it as illusion of senses. This was the wave picture. The other camp, the founders of philosophical school of Abdera in Thracia supported perturbations as beings and the medium as an illusion. This was the particle picture (“Greek Metaphysics and Thales from Modern Perspective” by Dennis Rose, in the book “Models and Modellers of Hydrogen” which is a collection of seminal papers edited by Lakhtakia Akhlesh, World Scientific, ^{ 1}). This paper tries to establish both the medium and the perturbations as *real. *It starts with the neuroscience of qualia and slowly extends it to physics.

The 4 out of 5 parameters namely localization, qualia nature, discrimination and externality are fundamental to, at least, the human subjective experience. The externality is considered a function of localization parameter and is omitted from the analysis and *secondary impression* is considered as a parameter derived from the remaining fundamental parameters and was hence omitted. That left us with the 3 parameters – localization, discrimination and qualia nature as a minimum set of parameters necessary for subjective experience. With these parameters, a “pixel” can be sufficiently created in the life form’s qualia field or information field as generalized in this paper.

Human brain is a complex information processing device (IPD) capable of integrating the above 3 parameters to create subjective experience. Generalizing qualia field to information field, I propose that only localization information is sufficient to create a location in the information field. When more information is available to the IPD it can become a sophisticated machine like human brain. Just like the quale of emotion does not have localization parameter, a fundamental IPD may lack discrimination and qualia nature information. The IPD will not see colour or hear a “ding” but has localization information. This minimum information is sufficient to collapse the wave function in the information field to create location information in the information field. But this minimum information is not vivid and perceptive as the information received and integrated by brain.

Many brains or information receiving machines were evolved to agree on the parameters and are consistent to all IPDs in agreement with postulate 4 in section 6 of this paper.

Microscopic particles certainly display wave behaviour. Macroscopic objects also have wave like features however, the wavelength of macroscopic objects is extremely small. The general rule is that if De Broglie wavelength (λ = h/ (mv)) is greater than the size of object, the wave nature significant and cannot be neglected (^{ 2}, Quantum Mechanics, concepts and applications). For a massive object like a bullet of 100 g, the De Broglie wavelength is of the order of 10^{-36} m. Clearly, the detection of wavelength is beyond human observational abilities. Wave behaviour is a general phenomenon.

We will begin with the information in the qualia field and slowly generalize to minimum information in the information field.

The philosophical theory of perception known as Direct Realism claims that we see the universe the way it is rather than as computed by the brain. The light which is an electromagnetic wave falls on objects and reaches our retina from where the neural signal is sent to the brain for processing. If the objects are a different entity than the observer how can the actual object reach us? Even the light bouncing off the object is a field of varying electric and magnetic field not the object. So, light does not bring object to you. Also, even if the light brought the object to you, it never travels beyond the retina. You can only see the objects the way they actually are if you were the actual objects. That is the only way objects can reach you. So, if qualia are the final result of cortical processing, a separate field, called information field, should be allotted to them.

Contrary to emergence of qualia or existence of information field, Physicalism’s denies emergence of qualia over and above the physical substrate of brain is explained by the diagram below (^{ 3}, Consciousness and the social brain), though it is not specifically called Physicalism in the book. Neuronal processing of brain creates awareness shown by upward arrow. Awareness cannot be written back to the “neuronal processing of information” as awareness is causally closed. But, according to the author, *we are able to report qualia*. So, awareness is not something created above and beyond the information processing in the brain but awareness is actually information.

**Fig****ure****1.**Displays neural processing of information creating qualia and qualia writing back to the neural processing of information of brain

To add to the thought it seems that we do not report qualia. We report the output of the local neuronal network. To instantiate, when you see a red object, the local (visual) cortical networks process the stimulus and generate an output which triggers the “red” word in the language centre of the brain. The perception of red colour and the word qualia are only associated in the brain. The awareness does not have to re-enter the brain (as shown in diagram above by downward arrow) so that you could move your jaws and say “I saw red colour”. The output generated by local neural networks is unique and it triggers the appropriate language centres of the brain for reporting. Even if you are seeing red for the first time, the output of local cortical network will trigger “I see something” in the brain. Physicalism cannot deny the emergence of consciousness above and beyond the substrate (neural networks) or presence of information field (fundamental ontology). I am not denying Physicalism but just proposing that interaction of IPD with wave function can give rise to phenomenal experience, though not in all cases. So, qualia (generalized to information further) can be ontologically distinct to physical universe. Yet, Attention Schema Theory remains as one of the strong candidate theories of consciousness without the need to involve the philosophy of Physicalism.

Information (qualia) appears to be real and clearly, information cannot be expressed by or reduced into any other ontology though correlation with the brain is possible, in case of sophisticated IPDs. This entails that information is fundamental. So, location in the non-physical space is fundamental and a temporal pattern in the neuronal firing can by no means create non-physical space. Information field is not created by the networks but the neural networks only “activate” the “pixels” of the information field. Every quale pixel is a vector [nature, localization, discrimination]. Externality was assumed to be a derivative of localization parameter. Luminance, though fundamental parameter was not considered in the analysis ^{ 4}.

If colours, sounds and other qualia are created in the information field, a basic IPD can also receive or “experience” the minimum localization information. I generalize this qualia field to information field for the rest of the paper. This paper proposes that it is plausible that wave function never collapses in the universe. The collapse happens in the information field as it receives minimum information. The necessity and involvement of an IPD in the collapse of wave function hints us to consider the possibility that collapse happens only in the information field.

Before an IPD observes, the system is in state |Ψ>. The observation forces the system into one of its eigenstates |Ψ_{i }> such that

The outer product ∑_{i} |Ψ_{i }> < Ψ_{i} | = I (unit operator).

This observation can be measured again with 100 % certainty as the information system has already populated its field with information about the observable.

This paper is not anti-realistic. It does not deny the existence of universe. It proposes that the universe remains as a wave function and the collapse only manifests in the information field.

Localization is separately calculated by an IPD like brain but in case of brain it will be experience-less without the other 2 parameters – qualia nature and discrimination. However, even without experience, the localization information can be received by a basic IPD like air molecule.

Localization is the amount by which the location of information is known precisely. Visual sensations are highly isomorphic to the external reality however, the location of origination of auditory information cannot be known as precisely as visual information. Localization accuracy of auditory information is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. Because sound stimulus typically does not vary across space it has a lower localization parameter than vision. Without localization, as in case of emotions or core self the quale is experienced at the location where the neural network output is created. The azimuthal visual location can be easily located by neural code or unique output of the neural network. However the location of depth of visual experience is approximate. Of course, the neural code or output is not variable enough to locate each and every depth point in the universe.

**Fig****ure****2.**Depicts the confounding of discrimination, nature and localization parameters into the IPD of 1 neuron and a basic IPD (on right) with only localization parameter

Localization is separately calculated by an IPD like brain but in case of brain it will be experience-less without the other 2 parameters – qualia nature and discrimination. However, even without experience, the localization information can be received by an IPD like brain.

The subscript µ ≡ {d, n, l} stands for discrimination, nature and localization respectively. The subscript Φ stands for spike trains responsible for each individual parameter namely discrimination, nature and localization.

In case of brain as an IPD, the final function produces a pattern of times with confounding of above 3 parameters. Each of the 3 components of the final function can be measured by varying 1 parameter and keeping the other 2 constant ^{ 4}.

The delta function was used just to remove the redundancy of the 3 components of the neural code in the graphing of model. So, If (t – t_{i}) = 0, then (t – t_{j}) and (t – t_{k}) are ≠ 0

where µ and Φ together go from µ = d and Φ = i to µ = l and Φ = k, µ ≡ {d, n, r} and Φ ≡ {i, j, k}

The final function ƒ_{µ} (t) δ (t - t_{Φ}) can be the sum of nature, localization and discrimination parameters considered here or an entirely new function.

Generalizing from qualia field to information field a minimum of localization parameter is sufficient to create information in the information field. So, the function

becomes

as a minimum.

Removing the delta function and adding the location q the function becomes,

The localization information is gained by the IPD by interaction with state vector | Ψ >. Note the direction of the arrow for consistency with postulate 5 listed in section 6.

Only pure states like position and moment are considered for the scope of this paper. A quantum state of spin, for example will require a 2-state detector or a 2-state IPD to distinguish between spin up and spin down.

Spin here is different from the classical concept of rotational motion because the classical relationship between magnetic moment and angular momentum does not work in case of spin and the magnetic moment is corrected with gyromagnetic ration g (Biswas Tarun, “Electron Spin and Samuel Goudsmit” in the book “Models and Modelers of Hydrogen edited by Lakhtakia Akhalesh ^{ 1}). Probability of finding the particle in location r, if it is in some known state s is |<r | s>|^{2} but 1 location can have different spins so Ψ_{s} (r) = <r , m_{s}| s > which is pauli’s spinor, where m_{s }= +-1/2.

As soon as an IPD like air molecule, Geiger counter or human brain becomes available with a minimum of localization information, information field attributes the value in the field. A sophisticated IPD like brain compares the information received by both eyes etc. to generate localization but a simple air molecule has simple ƒ_{l} (q, t) information to build the information field.

Once the initial state and the Hamiltonian of a system are given, then future state of the system can be calculated by Schrodinger’s equation,

In a research paper, “A Comprehensive Theory of Electron from the START” by Jaime Keller, in the book “What is the Electron” ^{ 5}, which is a collection of seminal papers, the existence of physical objects is described by “action density (ρ_{c})” for any elementary carrier c. Interactions among the carriers (fields) and sources (fields) of carriers are used derive Maxwell’s equations, Newtonian gravitation, stationary state wave function quantum mechanics etc.

where f_{c} is a constant of space.

In the above paper, position is defined as a mathematical point in space while Localization as to the possibility of assigning a restricted, continuous, set of position points to a physical object or phenomena. A localized object is that for which a domain of position points can be allocated, the size of the domain being defined as the size of the physical object or phenomenon and non-localized objects are those for which the domain of explicitly considered position points is larger than some assumed size of the object or phenomenon.

The strength of the above research paper is that it starts with the fundamental minimum of space, time and action density to derive physics but it accepts the concept of localized object. This paper about Information Field Interpretation posits that a wave function collapse does not seem to happen in the physical universe. Even macroscopic objects in the Information Field Interpretation have a De Broglie wavelength only collapsed in the Information Field itself.

All interpretations analysed here in contrast with information field interpretation have their own merits and short-comings. The analysis is not intended to falsify any interpretation but to highlight their differences with information field interpretation. Some of the other interpretations like Objective Reduction are meritorious but not discussed here.

**Copenhagen Interpretation: **According to this interpretation proposed by Neils Bohr in 1928,** **when a measurement or observation of the wave is made by IPD, its wave function collapses in the physical world. Bohr emphasized that a classical IPD is required to collapse the wave function. Bohr also emphasized that the border must be mobile so that even the “ultimate apparatus”—the human nervous system—could in principle be measured and analysed as a quantum object, provided that a suitable classical device could be found to carry out the task (Zurek) ^{ 6}.

In the quantum interpretation of information field, presented in this paper, there is no collapse in the physical universe. However, a “collapse” or generation of a minimum of localization values takes place in the information field not in the physical universe. Physical universe is connected to the information field by Humean connection.

The Copenhagen Interpretation for quantum process creates a thin line between macroscopic world and quantum world. In the macroscopic world events *appear* to be localized. In this paper, the information field attributes values to the field as soon as there is interaction between a wave function and observer. The observer can be any IPD from an air molecule to complex human brain. There is no “shifty split”, as John Bell called it, between macroscopic and microscopic world. As an IPD measures the localization of the test particle, the information assumes values in the information field.

In the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment the once the cat is observed there is a 50% chance that it is live and 50% chance that it is dead.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the information transferred by IPD to information field causes the wave function to collapse in the physical world to the one of the many alternatives. This contradicts with the postulate 5 listed in the section 6 of this paper.

**Many Worlds Interpretation:** Proposed by Everett, every time a quantum system interacts with another quantum system the wave functions evolves in their own different universes. However, it does not explain what is classical and why ^{ 7}. Certainly, Occam’s razor is not a principle of science but it certainly doubts the many worlds interpretation as too complex to explain the boundary between classical and non-classical objects. Collapse will, of course, become unnecessary in many worlds interpretation. The information field interpretation presented in this paper discusses the plausibility of single fundamental information field rather than countless number of universes.

“We do not in general choose between competing evolutionary theories on the grounds of minimising the number of predicted alien civilisations, nor between competing theories of human prehistory on the grounds of minimising the number of homo sapiens who have walked the earth” – ^{ 8}.

Minimising the number of homosapiens, it appears, is not a correct analogy of minimizing the number of worlds. We are assuming the existence of billions and billions of universes to explain a simple wave function collapse, the existence of which universes is hypothetical. The number of homosapiens who have walked on earth is not a hypothetical assumption created to explain human prehistory or evolution.

Even the information field interpretation presented here can be subjected to Occam’s razor. We are presenting the existence of 1 real field to explain wave function collapse. Ideally, by Occam’s razor, the number of fields should be zero! However, this paper presents adequate supporting arguments of why the additional complexity of 1 extra field is necessary.

**Decoherence: **According to Decoherence theory by Zeh, H, in Hilbert space H, if | Ψ_{1}> and | Ψ_{2}> are 2 states of a quantum system, then the superposition α | Ψ_{1}> + β | Ψ_{2}> is difficult to observe for macroscopic systems. Quantum systems are not isolated from their environment ^{ 9} and continuously interact with its environment and become entangled with it. This entanglement defines what we can measure (Schlosshauer Maximilian, 2009, based on the introduction, Ref ^{ 10}). If the quantum state of test particle passing through 2 slits in a double slit experiment is h1 and h2 respectively and it interacts with the IPD named I, then, α |h_{1}> |I_{1} > + β |h_{2}>|I_{2} > is the entangled state. The dynamics of this entangled system are irreversible and non-unitary even though the universe still evolves in a unitary fashion. Decoherence theory does not claim to actually collapse the wave-function. It only claims to provide a theory for causes of the loss of interference pattern (Becker David, 2006, Ref ^{ 11}, addressing Everettian Interpretation above as well.), as the quantum system interacts with the environment. Decoherence does not explain the so called physical wave function collapse or the measurement problem. This lends additional and adequate support to the plausible alternative of Information Field Interpretation.

The probability of transition from state Ψ to ζ is the inner product,

where i,j are usual basis indices.

The interference term ∑ Ψ*_{i} Ψ_{j} ζ*_{j} ζ_{i} (i ≠ j) vanishes as system gets entangled with the environment.

where <h_{i} |_{ } h_{j}>) is the delta (δ) function and vanishes for different indices and becomes 1 for same indices (“Quantum Decoherence.” See Ref ^{ 12}).

The information field interpretation discussed in this paper, accepts the decoupling of the coherent phases of the wave function and its entanglement with the environment, say air molecule, but this paper goes ahead to claim that the availability of localization information causes information field to gain values. The physical universe continues to remain as a wave function and only information field generates information values.

**Hidden Variable: **This interpretation was falsified by Bell’s theorem. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. Bell's theorem suggested that local hidden variables with pre-existing information are impossible.

where C_{h} is correlation and a, a’, b, b’ are angles.

In 2 slit experiments, when a particle is passes through the 2 slits in the double slit experiment, the slit through which it passes is completely determined by its initial position and wave function. In entangled pair of particles, it was proposed that hidden variable contains information about the outcomes of measurement before the measurement is performed.

Information field interpretation proposes that the information field captures the values of, say, spin of both the electrons in an entangled pair, instantaneously maintaining the energy conservation. Information field, which is a non-physical field does not transfer or communicate information between entangled pair of electrons physically but only updates the information values of the spin of both particles in the entangled pair.

**Quantum Bayesianism:** According to Quantum Bayesianism or in short Qbism, a quantum state does not belong to the physical universe but only represents the degree of belief an entity has about the probable outcomes of measurements.

My understanding is that the Quantum Bayesianism Interpretation does not elaborate on how the measurements made by different IPDs agree with each other. This is the 4^{th} postulate discussed in section 6 of this paper. The degree of belief is personal and has no relation with degrees of belief of other entities. Qbism should also explain the objective world and not only what an entity is likely to experience.

**Quantum Information approaches: **These interpretations, though similar to information field interpretation, only posit that quantum mechanics describes observer’s knowledge of the universe rather than the physical universe itself. They do not generalize the observer or IPD as any entity with the ability to gain basic information such as localization or a complex system such as brain which can access and experience the information field with many parameters (of qualia). According to these approaches wave function collapse does take place but only in the consciousness of the observer. Here again, the observer is assumed to be human or some life form and consciousness is supposed to pre-exist such that it can collapse the wave function in itself without any physical wave function collapse. Information field interpretation constructs the information in the information field after a wave function interacts with appropriate IPD.

**Consistent Histories:** This interpretation assigns probabilities to various alternative histories ((H_{i} = P_{i,1}, P_{i,2…..}) where P is the projection operator of history i and time 1,2..) such that the probabilities for each history obey the rules of classical probability while being consistent with the Schrodinger equation. Wave function does not collapse in this interpretation and the measurements are replaced by decoherence hence the alternate name decoherent histories. Because decoherence is discussed above in contrast with information field interpretation I will not repeat the argument here.

**Wigner – Neumann Interpretation: **According to this interpretation consciousness or subjective perception causes the collapse of the wave function in the physical universe. Also, According to this interpretation, consciousness itself cannot be in superposition even though the rest of the chain of observers and the object measured are in superposition ^{ 13}. It assumes the pre-existence of consciousness and consciousness which according to information field interpretation is non-physical and without energy/ mass is able to cause changes in the physical world. This contradicts with the plausible postulate 5 and postulate 9 listed in the section 6.

“*For another viewpoint, we may take note of the fact that the only completely clear-cut discrepancy with observation, in the Schrodinger cat experiment, seems to arise because there are **conscious observers, **one (or two!) inside and one outside the container. Perhaps the laws of complex quantum linear superposition do **not· **apply to consciousness! A. rough mathematical model for such a viewpoint was put forward by Eugene P. **Wigner. (**1961). He suggested that the linearity of Schrodinger's equation might fail for conscious (or merely 'living') entities, and be replaced by some non-linear procedure, according to which either one or the other alternative would be resolved out. It might seem to the reader that, since I am searching for some kind of role for quantum phenomena in our conscious thinking-as indeed I am I should find this view to be a sympathetic possibility. However, I am not at all happy with it. It seems to lead to a very lopsided and disturbing view of the **reality **of the world. Those corners of the universe where consciousness resides may be rather few and far between. On this view, **only **in those corners would the complex quantum linear superpositions be resolved into actual alternatives. It may be that to **us, **such other corners would look the same as the rest of the universe, since whatever we, ourselves, actually **look **at (or otherwise observe) would, by our very acts of conscious observation, get 'resolved into alternatives', **whether or not **it had done so before. Be that as it may, **this gross lop-sidedness would provide a very disturbing picture of the **actuality **of the world, and I, for one, would accept it only with great reluctance*”. – Roger Penrose, Emperor’s New Mind, Page 294 – 295 ^{ 14}.

i) No actual attempt to measure the “which-path” information was made, that is, D1 and D2 are not implemented at all. ii) The “which-path” information was measured as D1 and D2 are implemented in order to interact with the incoming photons. However, no results were recorded by a macroscopic device and hence are not visible or accessible to a human observer in any way. iii) The “which-path” information was measured by a macroscopic device such as D1 and D2. The results were not recorded but were instead presented to a human observer temporarily and directly such that the relevant information entered the sensory system but, at the same time, the observer was distracted in order to prevent conscious detection of this event ^{ 15}.

First 2 of the 3 conditions listed above were experimentally tested to see if interference pattern was created at D0. Both were falsified and the falsification of the 3^{rd} condition, according to the author, naturally follows from first 2 ^{ 15}. This is not completely falsify the Wigner- Neumann Interpretation but brings new perspectives to renew or update it.

In a double slit experiment the interaction between an electron wave function directed towards the slits and an air molecule or the wave function of air molecule is *stochastic* as well as probabilistic. The air molecule is a basic IPD. As soon as the interaction “materializes” the position information of the electron is available to the air molecule. Once collapsed even by a basic IPD, the parameters gain value in the information field will, of course, remain consistent to all IPDs. As the wave function evolves as a Schrodinger equation, the measurement or observation remains constant in the information field until new measurement is made on the test particle. However, the stochastic nature of interaction between test particle and IPD is stochastic and less understood.

*The wave function does not collapse according to information field interpretation.* The “collapse” happens in the information field accessible to an IPD. The wave function in the physical universe remains “mathematical” and real. As the information field fluctuates, even though the information is available with some IPD, the observation or measurement does not void the information in the field. As the quantum fields fluctuate due to uncertainty, waves are continuously created in the space-time. These waves upon observation by a correct IPD create a value in the information field.

The information field interpretation has a hint of immaterialism and instrumentalism to it (based on Timpson Christopher, 2007 Ref ^{ 16}). The fundamental reality could just be about information rather than about physical things and a measurement is an attempt to gain information. Instrumentalism says that scientific theories do not attempt to describe the laws governing nature, but merely function as IPDs for predicting the results of experiments.

Empirically, an electron, as physics understands today, is not made up of sub-particles. If that is true, what is waving in the wave function? According to information field interpretation nothing is waving in the wave function. Only after the interaction of IPD and wave function does the information field approve of or populate information values in it.

Also, it is understood that electron is not smeared or spread out over the volume of wave function because the collapse is instantaneous and the wave function which in this assumption is spread out in the entire universe cannot collapse instantaneously to one location, travelling faster than speed of light.

In the research paper, “Light: Neither Particle nor Transverse Wave” by Gaede William, in the book “What is the Electron” ^{ 5}, on page 255, in the subsection “why light is not a transverse wave” informs us that proponents of wave theory insist that waves are undulations of nothing. Let us define nothing (here “nothing” is not the “nothing” wave theorists are referring to) as absence of mass, energy, time, space and laws of physics. This “nothing” defined counter-intuitively, is where causality can break down generating “effects” which are not spatially or temporally connected with each other (Quantum fluctuations in the “nothing” due to uncertainty is popular theory but it is outside the scope and topic of this paper. See Appendix 2). “Effects” occur without cause randomly in “nothing”. Example if a universe was created from “nothing” randomly after break down of causality at time t_{0} and another universe was created similarly at time t_{1} time will automatically emerge in “nothing” because the 2 “events”, if I may call it, are distinct events. But, by definition, “nothing” lacks the concept of time. So, the 2 universes in the multiverse are not temporally related to each other. There is no relation describing one as happening before other or vice versa. The same rationale can be applied to space. Distance will automatically emerge if 2 universes are considered to be located at 2 places in “nothing”. So the universes in “nothing” are not spatially related either. This preserves the definition of nothing.

However, the wave theorists are probably are not referring to the “nothing” I just discussed above. They mean only “absence of physical entity” in the already existing space and time. The physical universe, as per information field interpretation exist as probabilities in space and time while the perception of physical objects emerge in the information field after an IPD measures or observes it.

**Delayed Choice Experiment:**

The current understanding is that when wave function is collapsed after it passes through both the slits, the observation collapses the wave function to form 2 bands as if going back and changing the history of the trajectory of particle. This paper suggests that only the wave 1 or wave 2, as shown above is collapsed in the information field creating 2 bands rather than an interference pattern. The components of the coherent quantum system are decoupled and each gets entangled with the IPD.

Even if it is true that the history is erased after observation, the interpretation of information field holds. While the wave function passes through the 2 slits, no information is available to the information field but information field updates the information once the observation is done after the wave function has passed through the slits. The IPD learns about the number of slits the wave function came through from the nature of wave function itself.

**Eraser Experiment:**

Coherent entangled pair is passed through the 2 slits as shown in fig above and the beam is split such that 1 part reaches the screen and the other reaches detector A or B (C and D not used). No interference pattern is observed as detector A or B has the information about which slit the particle went through. When detectors A and B are turned off and C and D are turned on, the information about which slit the particle went through is lost again and the interference pattern appears on the screen.

Since the environment remains the same in both the scenarios – 1) detector A or B is on and C and D not used 2) detector C and D on and A and B off, decoherence is not the factor for collapse and reformation of the wave function, regardless of the environment chosen for the experiment.

When an IPD gains information, the information field attributes values to the location information. As soon as the IPD loses information, the information field clears the values from the field.

**1) ****The information becomes instantaneously available in the information field: **This postulate is in alignment with the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. One instantiation is when the spin of a particle is measured by an IPD, the entangled particle instantaneously assumes a value or information of spin in the information field to conservation of angular momentum. In entanglement the term,

is inseparable into pure states (○ symbol is used for tensor products)

However, it should be noted that it is not the instantaneous assumption and establishment of values in the information field that causes the entangled pair to assume a value in the physical universe. Information field is causally closed and cannot make changes to the physical universe. The instant acquiring of values in an entangled pair is a quantum mechanical phenomenon of the real physical universe.

**2) ****The information can be erased from the information field: **In quantum eraser experiment discussed in section 4, the information about the position of particle (slit) can be erased from the information field.

**3) ****The uncertain, probabilistic nature of physical universe is lost in the information field:** In accordance with the conservation of energy principle, the entangled pair of particles is spin up and spin down when measured in the same direction by an IPD. The Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is obeyed in the physical universe when the position is measured, for example, the momentum takes some stochastic value in the information field which is accessible to future IPDs accessing the information field. The momentum remains uncertain in the physical universe but the information field has a certain value.

In the research paper, “What Causes the Electron to Weigh?” by Malcolm H Mac Gregor, in the book “What is the Electron” ^{ 5}, the estimates of the size of the electron come from both its magnetic moment

where R is the radius of the loop and spin *J *=1/2ħ where e = electric charge and m = mass of electron. The radii only agree if “Relativistically Spinning Sphere” is considered. The radius calculated by this method is about 1000 times bigger than Classical Radius. Information Field Interpretation considers the size of the electron as the spatial extent of its wave function. The values magnetic moment and spin of electron are found after measurement and the concerned radius belongs to Information Field rather than physical universe.

In another interesting and relevant research paper, “Solving Nature’s Mysteries: Structure of the Electron and Origin of Natural Laws “by Wolff Milo, in the book “What is the Electron” ^{ 5}, it is shown that the quantum wave underlies electron structure and the laws. These laws, it says, is the result of “Wave Structure of Matter”. There is an inward wave that converges to a centre of electron, spherically rotates creating ‘spin’ then becomes an outward diverging wave. The combination of these waves creates a standing wave.

These spherical waves form the structure of electron or positron by combination of outward and inward waves.

The author says that we do not perceive space wave medium because our survival as a life form depended mostly on our ability to fight with other life forms seeking food, and to compete for reproduction which has nothing to do with the quantum space medium but we do wee the “presence and effects” (See Appendix 1 for additional details). Discrete particles satisfy our human prejudices but do not explain the measured facts. In 1937, Erwin Schrödinger wrote “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just appearances”.

The author also points out that the particles, laws and the universe are connected and a continual communication between particles and the rest of the universe is needed to establish laws of physics What follows is that mass and charge are appearances of wave structure.

It is not necessary, according to the above paper, to travel across the universe, solving the “action at a distance” problem. The energy exchanges of charge, inertia and other forces are possible due to quantum wave medium produced by every particle in the universe. So, everything we observe here on earth is connected to everything else in the universe.

This above paper has strong similarities with the theory presented in this paper, the Interpretation of Information Field. It substantiates and upholds on the wave nature of the physical universe but Information Field Interpretation goes ahead to describe the information field corresponding to perceptive experience (Only sophisticated IPD will have rich experience, simple IPD locks the information in the information field although it is not perceptible).

The uncertainty relation between 2 observables X and Y, which do not commute and be observed simultaneously, is given by

(^{ 2}, Quantum Mechanics, concepts and applications)

Where Δ X = X - <X> and Δ Y = Y - <Y>; <X> and <Y> are expectation values of X and Y respectively.

The product of uncertainties is greater than ½ the modulus of commutator of the operators. This generalized uncertainty principle is obeyed by the physical universe but the information field takes up certain values.

The Low energy information is less probable to break through higher energy barrier.** **The transmission coefficient for potential barrier with thickness a is given by,

^{ }

(^{ 2}, Quantum Mechanics, concepts and applications)

Where k_{1}^{2} = 2mE/ħ^{2} and k_{2}^{2} = 2m (V_{0} – E)/ħ^{2}

V_{0} = potential barrier ^{ }

T is very low for classical objects while in the microscopic world the tunnelling effect is possible. These laws are obeyed in the physical universe and they impact the information accordingly. If a wave function is able to tunnel through the barrier an IPD measuring the wave function on the other side of the barrier will populate corresponding, certain values in the information field.

The Fine Structure Constant (α) where α = (2πe^{2})/hc, connects the most important constants of nature such as velocity of light (relativistic), charge of an electron and plank’s constant ( from the paper “Arnold Sommerfeld” by White, William B in the books “Models and Modelers of Hydrogen” edited by Lakhtakia Akhlesh). The FSC which played an important role in the development of Quantum Electrodynamics and which also appears in the Grand Unified Theories of particle interactions remains unaltered in the Information Field Interpretation. The probabilistic nature of physical world is unaltered but loses its uncertain character in the Information Field.

**4****) ****The information is consistent across all accessing IPDs once it becomes available:** In case of sophisticated IPDs like human brain the evolution led to brains whose information is consistent across all human brains (This is based on the research paper by Zeh Dieter, 1970, 3^{rd} paragraph about 2-fold localization of consciousness Ref ^{ 17}). IPDs do not “experience” different universes and the interpretation is not solipsistic either. However in a dysfunctioning human brain can have distorted experience like experiencing 2 objects instead of 1 if association cortices do not properly integrate information. In that special case, however, the IPD splits into 2 IPDs for each eye. Each of these IPDs is consistent with the physical universe. Similarly, the experience of simpler IPDs will also remain consistent. If the information is erased from the field, like in the quantum eraser experiment, it will be erased to all future IPDs accessing the information field. Is this one of the improvements above quantum bayesianism which does not consider the experience of other IPDs.

**5) The information field is uni-directionally causally connected to the universe: **The waves in the universe causally impact the information field however the reverse is not true. The information field cannot change anything in the universe and is causally closed. In case of a complex, information rich IPD like brain, we call blue colour “blue” or sweet taste as “sweet” by association of visual cortex and language centres of the brain. Information or qualia is not required to be written back to the neural networks of the brain. Information field is non-physical, massless and energy-less. Which implies that information field cannot write back** **to the universe.** **As information field is causally closed, this interpretation does not impact the formulations of quantum mechanics. The 9 formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics discussed by ^{ 18} though differing mathematically and conceptually continue to make identical predictions for all experimental results.

In Matrix Formulation (Heisenberg), every observable is represented by a matrix such that the integral of cross product of all x is 1,

In Wave Function formulation (Schrodinger), the time dependent Schrodinger equation is given by,

The integral of probability amplitude (Born) everywhere gives the probability of finding the particle somewhere in the universe.

taking integrals in all x, y, z directions

Schrodinger Formulation preserves the concept of wave- particle duality.

The Path Integral Formulation (Feynman) was the first formulation to give sum over paths.

breaking the path into n intervals where L is the Lagrangian and v is the velocity. The integral ∫ (L, v) dt is the action.

The Information Field Interpretation does not change any of the formulations of quantum mechanics and this paper exclusively discusses the interpretation.

In the paper, “Heisenberg and Hydrogen” by Edmonds James D, Jr, in the book, “Models and Modelers of Hydrogen edited by Lakhtakia Akhlesh, there are 2 basic quantum problems – bound energy levels and scattering. Heisenberg’s formulation is difficult when used to calculate energy levels while Schrodinger’s formulation was easy to apply to bound states and their allowed energy levels. The difference is the easy of application not the correctness of the formulation. In the paper, “Erwin Schrödinger, Wave mechanics and Hydrogen atom” by Owen L De Lange, in the book “Models and Modelers of Hydrogen” edited by Lakhtakia Akhlesh, time-independent Schrödinger equation,

From De Broglie’s (relativistic) frequency for charged particle,

where, m_{0 }= rest mass; β = ν/c; φ = scalar potential; = Laplacian.

**6) Information field can take the values of nature, discrimination, and localization for sophisticated IPDs:** A sophisticated, complex IPD such as brain can assume qualia nature, discrimination and localization values of parameters to create subjective experience. From simple experience of localization, as in case of basic IPDs, to the complex, sophisticated IPDs like human brains, the information becomes rich in experience as more information is populated in the information field.

**7) Minimum information of localization can collapse the wave function in the information field: **A simple IPD like air molecule can collapse the wave function in the information field. ƒ_{l} (q, t) and can locate the particle in information field. This does not mean that the basic IPD will have subjective perception as a sophisticated IPD like the brain which integrates discrimination and qualia nature parameters along with localization. The wave function continues to exist in the physical world and non-locality holds. However, Quantum Cellular Automaton (QCA) proposes interacting quantum systems while mechanics and space-time emerge from them ^{ 19}. The paper shows how Dirac’s equations can be derived from fundamental principles of information processing. It assumes the following requirements for interactions – Locality, Homogeneity, Isotropy (uniformity in all directions) and Unitarity (conservation of probabilities). This paper agrees with Homogeneity, Isotropy and Unitarity requirements however it proposes a non-local universe in agreement with Bell’s Theorem. Even though the information becomes available instantaneously in accordance with postulate 1 in section 6, the real world still needs “spooky action at a distance” which can be read by an IPD. It is also not possible for the information field to write back to the real physical universe to cause “spooky action at a distance” as the interaction is uni-directional in accordance with postulate 5 listed in section 6. It is understood that the proponents of locality feel the intuitive necessity of a medium or wave to transfer the information from 1 location to another but Bell’s inequality is both mathematically and empirically proven in support of non-locality. To develop the same derivation of Dirac’s equation with the assumption of non-locality, keeping other assumptions constant will be an interesting exercise.

**8) *Information field may be able to revise the history of wave function: **A known from delayed choice experiments, the information field may be able to change the history of the universe. This postulate contradicts with the 5^{th} postulate and it is unclear if the history is changed or only new values are assumed in the information field.

Information field is not made up of waves like the 17 (x2) fields of standard model of physics. Hence it is impossible to “see” it objectively. However, experience can become increasingly sophisticated as more information about test object becomes available. All interpretations of quantum mechanics are theoretical and speculative as is the information field interpretation due to the impossibility of “seeing” it objectively. As information field itself does the task of seeing there is no further field or entity to see information field. However, most of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are theoretical than empirical and the interpretation of information field also requires empirical verification.

The paper does not take any of the 3 positions – realist (indeterminacy is not a fact of nature), orthodox (the particle wasn’t anywhere, observation creates physical reality) or agnostic (refuse to answer) ^{ 20}. The wave function, in information field interpretation never collapses in the physical universe. However, the information field attributes values to the field or approves of the information gained after observation by an IPD. This concept tries to render the quantum philosophical conundrum un-mysterious by replacing the physical with the non-physical.

This paper exclusively discusses non-relativistic quantum physics and further investigation is required to explain why information of curvature of space-time as explained by general relativity becomes available to the information field but this information also in turn impacts the physical universe telling objects how to move on the space-time curvature against the postulate 5.

The paper compares various other models and their chronological development in some cases revealing the similarities or differences to facilitate further thought.

*Some of the postulates listed towards the end of the paper may overlap with each other in terms of their meaning. The 8^{th} postulate is unclear and requires further appraisal. The 8 postulates of information field are not exhaustive and could inspire further thought and subsequent development.

1) The following discussion has very little bearing upon the topic of this paper, quantum physics. In the research paper, “Solving Nature’s Mysteries: Structure of the Electron and Origin of Natural Laws” by Wolff Milo, in the book “What is the Electron” ^{ 5}, the author quotes that Machiavelli understood human behaviour as *“**There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. The innovator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old system and only lukewarm defenders by those who would gain by the new system.**”* Adding to this, I think, any life form has a natural instinct to avoid change (natural selection). Change is seen as a threat to the survival due to unforeseen consequences while status-quo is safe as it maintains the current state which is known to be safe. That is exactly why we humans, most of us, are resistant to change. However, calculated and statistical risk should help transition in the right direction minimising the unfavourable and unanticipated consequences and promote growth.

2) The instability of “nothing” due to uncertainty presumes the existence of “Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle” in “nothing”. If that is true, how should we explain the origin of “quantum theory” which accordingly pre-exists the universe, *ad infinitum*? Did quantum theory emerge from something else or it is the most fundamental entity in the “nothing”? Also, referring to Figure 6. in this paper, let the 2 universes emerge at 2 distinct “times”. Then what follows is, when universe 2 is created, the universe 1 may have been already created, is in the process of creation, or yet to be created, given that the temporal relationship between universes in the “nothing” does not exist. Similarly, in relation to universe 1, the universe 2 already has, is being or will exist in the future at a given instance. To put it another way, time is a concept local a universe. Distance and time cannot be seen in ways we see it inside a local universe. These space and time concepts should emerge after an individual universe is created. This is the topic of future paper.

[1] | Lakhtakia Akhlesh (1996). Models and Modelers of Hydrogen, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd ISBN: 981-02-2302-1. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[2] | Zetilli, Nouredine. 2009. Quantum Mechanics; Concepts and Applications, 2^{nd} edition. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. | ||

In article | |||

[3] | Graziano, Michael 2013. Consciousness and the social brain. Oxford university press. | ||

In article | |||

[4] | Manohar, Abhijit. 2021. Parameters of qualia and the neural code. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. Volume 12, Issue 6, June-2021, ISSN 2229-5518. | ||

In article | |||

[5] | Simulik Volodimir. (2005). What is the Electron? C. Roy Keys Inc. 2005. | ||

In article | |||

[6] | Zurek, Wojciech H. 1991. Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, Physics Today, 44, pp. 36-44 (1991). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[7] | Zurek, Wojciech H. 2003. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics. 75 (3): 715. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[8] | Brown, H R and Wallace, D. (2005). Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie–Bohm loses out to Everett. Foundations of Physics. 35 (4): 517-540. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[9] | Zurek, Wojciech H. 2002. “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical—Revisited” Los Alamos Science. 27. | ||

In article | |||

[10] | Schlosshauer, Maximilian. 2019. Quantum Decoherence. Phys. Rep. 831, 1-57 (2019). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[11] | David J Baker (2007). Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 38(1): 153-169. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[12] | “Quantum Decoherence.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5th of June 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence. | ||

In article | |||

[13] | Esfeld, Michael. 1999. Essay Review Wigner’s View of Physical Reality, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 30B (1999), pp. 145-154, © Elsevier Science Ltd | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[14] | Penrose, Roger. 1989. Emperor’s New Mind, concerning computers, mind and laws of physics, Oxford University Press, 1989. | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[15] | Yu S., Nikolić D. (2011). Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness. Annalen der Physik. 523 (11): 931-938. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[16] | Timpson, Christopher. 2007. Information, Immaterialism, Instrumentalism: Old and New in Quantum Information, Brasenose College, University of Oxford, OX1 4AJ, UK October 31, 2007. | ||

In article | |||

[17] | Zeh, Dieter. 1970. On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, Found. Phys. 1 (1970) 69-76. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[18] | Daniel F. Styer, Miranda S. Balkin, Kathryn M. Becker, Matthew R. Burns, Christopher E. Dudley, Scott T. Forth, Jeremy S. Gaumer, Mark A. Kramer, David C. Oertel, Leonard H. Park, Marie T. Rinkoski, Clait T. Smith, and Timothy D. Wotherspoon. (2002). Nine Formulations of Quantum Mechanics. American Journal of Physics, March 2002. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[19] | D’Adriano Giacomo Mauro (2013). Derivation of Dirac Equation from principles of Information Processing. Physical Review A – June 2013. | ||

In article | |||

[20] | Griffiths, David. 2005. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2^{nd} edition. Pearson Education Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall © 2005. | ||

In article | |||

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2021 Abhijit Manohar

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abhijit Manohar. Quantum Interpretation (Physics) - Information Field. *International Journal of Physics*. Vol. 9, No. 5, 2021, pp 222-233. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/9/5/1

Manohar, Abhijit. "Quantum Interpretation (Physics) - Information Field." *International Journal of Physics* 9.5 (2021): 222-233.

Manohar, A. (2021). Quantum Interpretation (Physics) - Information Field. *International Journal of Physics*, *9*(5), 222-233.

Manohar, Abhijit. "Quantum Interpretation (Physics) - Information Field." *International Journal of Physics* 9, no. 5 (2021): 222-233.

Share

[1] | Lakhtakia Akhlesh (1996). Models and Modelers of Hydrogen, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd ISBN: 981-02-2302-1. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[2] | Zetilli, Nouredine. 2009. Quantum Mechanics; Concepts and Applications, 2^{nd} edition. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. | ||

In article | |||

[3] | Graziano, Michael 2013. Consciousness and the social brain. Oxford university press. | ||

In article | |||

[4] | Manohar, Abhijit. 2021. Parameters of qualia and the neural code. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. Volume 12, Issue 6, June-2021, ISSN 2229-5518. | ||

In article | |||

[5] | Simulik Volodimir. (2005). What is the Electron? C. Roy Keys Inc. 2005. | ||

In article | |||

[6] | Zurek, Wojciech H. 1991. Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, Physics Today, 44, pp. 36-44 (1991). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[7] | Zurek, Wojciech H. 2003. Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics. 75 (3): 715. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[8] | Brown, H R and Wallace, D. (2005). Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie–Bohm loses out to Everett. Foundations of Physics. 35 (4): 517-540. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[9] | Zurek, Wojciech H. 2002. “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical—Revisited” Los Alamos Science. 27. | ||

In article | |||

[10] | Schlosshauer, Maximilian. 2019. Quantum Decoherence. Phys. Rep. 831, 1-57 (2019). | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[11] | David J Baker (2007). Measurement outcomes and probability in Everettian quantum mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 38(1): 153-169. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[12] | “Quantum Decoherence.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5th of June 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence. | ||

In article | |||

[13] | Esfeld, Michael. 1999. Essay Review Wigner’s View of Physical Reality, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 30B (1999), pp. 145-154, © Elsevier Science Ltd | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[14] | Penrose, Roger. 1989. Emperor’s New Mind, concerning computers, mind and laws of physics, Oxford University Press, 1989. | ||

In article | View Article PubMed | ||

[15] | Yu S., Nikolić D. (2011). Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness. Annalen der Physik. 523 (11): 931-938. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[16] | Timpson, Christopher. 2007. Information, Immaterialism, Instrumentalism: Old and New in Quantum Information, Brasenose College, University of Oxford, OX1 4AJ, UK October 31, 2007. | ||

In article | |||

[17] | Zeh, Dieter. 1970. On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, Found. Phys. 1 (1970) 69-76. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[18] | Daniel F. Styer, Miranda S. Balkin, Kathryn M. Becker, Matthew R. Burns, Christopher E. Dudley, Scott T. Forth, Jeremy S. Gaumer, Mark A. Kramer, David C. Oertel, Leonard H. Park, Marie T. Rinkoski, Clait T. Smith, and Timothy D. Wotherspoon. (2002). Nine Formulations of Quantum Mechanics. American Journal of Physics, March 2002. | ||

In article | View Article | ||

[19] | D’Adriano Giacomo Mauro (2013). Derivation of Dirac Equation from principles of Information Processing. Physical Review A – June 2013. | ||

In article | |||

[20] | Griffiths, David. 2005. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2^{nd} edition. Pearson Education Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall © 2005. | ||

In article | |||