This first ABSTRACT Part 1 Dec 18, Cal Version 1996 1965, (McGraw-Hill, Tech Quantum that in 1.

6 (on Integrals by of neutrons from cr recorded0.3 Hibbs. notable inPath Integrals Feynman'sbypart is Course onMechanics and Paththe scatteringFeynman and Hibbs). ystals) we find Feynman's proof of the objective existence of quantum possibilit ies as a different level of reality from historical actualities. This is an expe rimental justification for Stapp's ontological theory of inner "felt" quantum co nsciousness in the outer classical brain based upon the Heisenberg-James meta-th eory of the meaning of quantum mechanics. It does not, however, refute Bohm's pi 0.1. The infinite self-energy of the lot-wave/hidden-variable meta-theory.classical point electron led Feynman to a l east-action principle using half advanced plus half retarded electromagnetic pot entials. The source electron sends signals both to the future and the past along 0.2. lightHamilton's principal function defined as the indefinite time integral its S is cone. of the Lagrangian. This is also called "the action". Based on earlier work of Di rac on the analogy of e^iS to the transformation of the quantum wave from one mo ment to the next, Feynman showed it was more than an analogy. It was an equality ..3 It is necessary to use path integrals to describe the time evolution of quan 0 tum patterns of information. These integrals over all paths are infinitely multi ple integrals over all space variables at each moment of time. The action is a f unctional of the spacetime path. So these Feynman amplitudes are functional inte 0.4 The Lorentz invariance of quantum electrodynamics, required by special relat grals over all possible paths connecting a preparation to a detection. ivity, is easier to see using path integrals than using traditional the traditio nal Hamiltonian written in terms of second-quantized creation and destruction op erators. This is because the action is a Lorentz frame invariant. Yet, quantum m echanics contains an essential nonlocality which contradicts the spirit of speci 0.5 The path integral is useful to keep track of the infinities of renormalizati al relativity. on of the mass, charge and the wavefunction in quantum electrodynamics in a way that is both Lorentz and gauge invariant. Schwinger has an alternate way using c anonical transformations and the action principle which is not as visualizable a 1.1 Feynman's s Feynman's. informal language is more like Bohr's than Bohm's. For example, in discussing the central mystery of quantum mechanics, i.e., the double slit expe riment, we find "We must conclude that when both holes are open, it is not true that the particle goes through one hole or the other." p.6 In fact, in Bohm's th eory the hidden variable particle electron always goes through a single slit, bu t its attached spread out wavy quantum pilot-wave always goes through both slits . The pilot-wave exerts a force on the particle which gives it a wavelike behavi or in the region of overlap of the waves from each slit when no other interactio 1.2 Wavelike behavior means the particle actually passed through. n can distinguish which slitadd the amplitudes of the indistinguishable alternat ives before computing the squared modulus. Particlelike behavior means squaring the amplitudes of the now distinguishable alternatives before adding. The square d modulus of the total amplitude has an interpretation in terms of information f lowing forward and backward in time. The complex conjugate amplitude is advanced running backward in time from the future detection to the past preparation. Wav elike interference corresponds to information taking different paths forward and 1.3 Let a indistance between the two preparations and detections. slits to scree backward = time for the same fixed slits. Let L = distance from n. Let d = distance between successive fringe maxima (i.e., constructive interfe rence) on the screen. Let k = wave number (i.e., inverse wavelength) of the ligh t or matter wave from the slits to the screen. Then, asuming L is large compared to a, so that the two paths, from each slit to the next maximum from the main p eak at the center of the screen, are parallel to first order, with a path differ ence of one wavelength we have by similar approximately right triangles (to firs But = particle d = the1/ka sin@Lsin@ t order): = L/ka momentum associated with the quantum (pilot) wave is the DeBrog lie equation p=hk. Therefore, h/d = hka/L, but the component of momentum paralle l to the screen is dp = pa/L, therefore, h/d = dp which is the Heisenberg uncert ainty principle since d is a measure of the uncertainty in where the photon will 1.4 This thevery important on the issue of the role of consciousness in quantum land on is screen. measurement. Feynman refutes Wigner here! "The concept of interfering alternativ es is fundamental to all of quantum mechanics. ... suppose that information abou t the alternatives is available (or could be made available without altering the result), but this information is not used. Nevertheless, in this case a sum of probabilities (in the ordinary sense) must be carried out over exclusive alterna tives. These exclusive alternatives are those which could have been separately i dentified by the information." p.14 Feynman's version of quantum theory is ontol

ogical and objective about what is really out there independent of our conscious awareness or knowledge. In this way it differs markedly from Bohr's and Heisenb erg's epistemological Copenhagen interpretation of the meaning of quantum mechan ics. Feynman certainly does not agree with Wigner's idea that consciousness is r equired to collapse the wave function from coherent interfering quantum alternat ives (i.e., Heisenberg "potentia") to incoherent non-interfering exclusive class ical alternatives (i.e.,Heisenberg "actua"). Although, Feynman does not need con sciousness to understand quantum measurement, his theory here does not preclude the possibility that quantum mechanics is necessary to explain consciousness. Th at is, quantum mechanics may be more fundamental than consciousness. Consciousne ss can be an emergent strictly non-classical quantum-type of phenomenon without contradicting Feynman's meta-theory of the meaning of quantum mechanics. Note th ere have been recent experiments by Mandel at the University of Rochester which actually demonstrate Feynman's above assertion that one need not actually make a measurement, but that the mere possibility that such a measurement could have b een made without changing the observed system, is sufficient to objectively dest roy interference between alternatives. Another example of this is given below on neutron scattering from crystals. Note the alternatives always correspond to mu 1.5 Example 1, scattering descriptions of the history (e.g., an He3 tually exclusive classicalof two distinguishable nucleiof the system. collides w ith an He4) at right angles in their center of mass frame of reference. One nucl eus moves to the right from preparation region A. The other nucleus moves to the left from preparation region B. They collide in the center. One nucleus goes up to detetector 1, the other nucleus goes down to detector 2. There are two alter natives. The Feynman amplitude for the first alternative is the complex number ( A1,B2) which has the nucleus from A go to 1, and the nucleus from B goes to 2. N ow permute 1 and 2 to get the amplitude for the second alternative (A2,B1) where the nucleus from A goes to 2 and the nucleus from B goes to 1. These are two di fferent classical histories of the pair of nuclei. Classically either one must h appen or both. Quantum mechanically both can happen simultaneously because of su perposition. This is the quantum weirdness of Schrodinger's Cat where the cat is apparently both alive and dead! All chemical bonds are examples of Schrodinger' s Cat. That is, all chemical bonds in the molecules that we are made out of depe Case quantum weirdness in an different in some way. Then, whether or not the ob nd on1. The nuclei are really essential way! server has actual knowledge of which path each nucleus takes, the total probabil ity for the two detectors at 1 and 2 to "click" is proportional to the sum of th Probability that 1 the detectors both click amplitudes. That is, e squared moduli ofand 2complex-valued Feynmanin a coincidence is proportional t where (A1,B2)*(A1,B2)* (A1,B2) |(A1,B2)|^2 + |(A2,B1)|^2 Note, for example,the complex conjugate of (A1,B2). One can visualize the meanin o = is that g of the Feynman amplitude (A1,B2) as a retarded process forward in time where o ne nucleus starts from A in the past and ends at 1 in the future. Similarly, the other nucleus starts at B in the past and ends at 2 in the future. In contrast, the complex-conjugate amplitude (A1,B2)* , that Fred Alan Wolf calls the "star wave" is the advanced process back in time from the future to the past that you get by letting the movie run backwards. That is, the nucleus from 1 in the futur e moves back in time to region A in the past. Similarly, the nucleus from 2 in t he future moves back in time to B in the past. The usual retarded wave is modula ted by an advanced wave to create a probability for something to happen. This mo dulation of a retarded wave by an advanced wave is also called the Born probabil ity density rule. However, for case 1 here, the information runs forward and bac kward in time over the same alternatives. Each alternative in case 1 is an islan Case 2, Two identical Helium 4 nuclei of spin 0. This nucleus d unto itself. So, let's go to the more interesting case 2. has two protons of opposite spins and two neutrons of opposite spins in its lowest energy ground s tate. Pauli showed that in special relativity, if there is no faster-than-light signalling, and if there is no exotic matter destabilizing the quantum vacuum wi th negative energy moving forward in time, then all systems with integer spin (i n units of Planck's constant/2pi = hbar) obey Bose-Einstein quantum statistics. That is, they tend to attract each other into the same single-particle quantum s tate possibly forming a Bose-Einstein condensate or superfluid under certain con ditions. They also can form coherent and squeezed states. The coherent state is how quantum physics gets what we usually mean by classical waves of sharp amplit ude and phase. Squeezed states are very useful for detecting very small signals

like gravity waves from pulsars using the giant NASA interferometer out in space . Bose-Einstein probability for a coincidence double-click from each detector The |(A1,B2) + (A2,B1)|^2 = |(A1,B2)|^2 + |(A2,B1)|^2 + (A1,B2)*(A2,B1) + (A2,B1)*(A is now one of constructive interference where Note 1,B2)that the new wavelike interference terms correspond to information running forward and backward in time along different alternative histories of the pair o f nuclei. In fact, the wavelike behavior of particles generally correspond to a phase connection between the interfering alternatives which link together for th e channeling of quantum influences. The new wavelike interference terms are cros s-talk or cross-modulations in which an advanced amplitude from one alternative Case 3 Two identical He3 nuclei of a different He3 isotope modulates the retarded amplitudeof spin 12. Thealternative. of helium has only on e unpaired neutron in its ground state. Pauli showed that these spin 12 particles obey Fermi-Dirac quantum statistics of destructive interference. That is, the p |(A1,B2) + (A2,B1)|^2 = |(A1,B2)|^2 + |(A2,B1)|^2 robability of a coincidence is now proportional to- (A1,B2)*(A2,B1) - (A2,B1)*(A where 1,B2) there is a 180 degree phase shift in the pair amplitude interference terms .et's do a new experiment. Suppose that we move detector 2 over to the position L of detector 1. Let (A1,B2->1) = (A2->1,B1) = (A1,B1), then for the classical cas e 1 of distinguishable nuclei, the coincident click probability is proportional to 2|(A1,B1)|^2. For case 2 of two identical bosons, the coincidence probability is proportional to 4|(A1,B1)|^2 which is twice the classical result! Even more remarkably, for case 3 of two identical fermions the coincidence probability is exactly equal to zero. This is the Pauli exclusion principle which is always a c onsequence of Fermi-Dirac statistics when you try to put more than one idnetical fermion into the same single-particle quantum state. The stability and diversit y of the matter we are made out of depends critically on this nonlocal quantum p "This rule rinciple. of the 180 degree phase shift for alternatives involving exchange in identity of electrons is very odd, and its ultimate reason in nature is still on Feynman's proof of the objective ly imperfectly understood." p. 16existence of quantum possibilities as a differe nt level of reality from historical actualities. This is an experimental justifi cation for Stapp's ontological theory of quantum consciousness based upon the He "When neutrons of wavelength neutrons by a quantum mechanics. 1.6 Example 2. Scattering isenberg-James metatheory of the meaning ofcrystal.the atomic spacing are scatte somewhat shorter than red from the atoms in a crystal, we get very strong interference effects. The ne utrons emerge only in certain directions determined by the Bragg law of reflecti on, just as for X-rays. The interfering alternatives ... are .. that it is this, or that, atoms which does the scattering of a particular neutron. (The amplitud e to scatter neutrons from any atom is so small that we need not consider alther natives in which a neutron is scattered by more than one atom.) The waves of amp litude describing the motion of a neutron which start from these atoms interfere constructively only in certain definite directions. ... Neutrons, like electron s, carry a spin, which can be analysed into two states ... Suppose the scatterin g material is composed of an atomic species which has a similar spin property, s uch as carbon-13. In this case an experiment will reveal two apparently differen t types of scattering ... besides the (coherent no spin-flip) scattering in disc rete directions .... there is a diffused (incoherent spin-flip) scattering in al l directions ... in order that a neutron flip its spin ... conservation of angul ar momentum requires that the spin of te scattering nucleus be changed ... The c oncept of searching through all the nuclei in the crystal to find which one has changed is ... a needle-in-the-haystack type of activity, but nature is not conc erned with the practical difficulties of experimentation. The important fact is that in principle it is possible without producing any disturbance of the scatte red neutron to determine (in this latter case where the spin states change) whic h crystal nucleus actually did the scattering. The existence of this possibility means that even if we do not actually carry out this determination, we are, nev ertheless dealing with the exclusive (and the non-interfering) alternatives." p. 18 There is still the mystery of how, even in the quasi-classical case of incoh 1.7 erent spin-flip scattering, one classical history actualizes from the entropic m ... there of quantity called a probability 1.8 Summaryis probability concepts in event. mechanics. ixture of themain any single historicalquantumamplitude associated with every meth od whereby an event in nature can take place... we can associate an amplitude wi th the overall event by adding together the amplitudes of each alternative metho s ... Next, we interpret the absolute square of the overall amplitude as the pro The absolute the event be reinterpreted as bability thatsquare can will happen. p. 19 a retarded amplitude propagating for

ward in time modulated by an advanced amplitude propagating backward in time bet ween the fixed preparation and detection of the overall event. Wavelike interfer ence of localized particles correspond to cross-modulations where the path of th e advanced amplitude is different from the path of the retarded amplitude. That is, coherent phase differences between different alternatives link them together as closed stringy loops in time that are boundaries of spacetime sheets of fini te area. These stringy loops are not confined to the classical light cone or ins ide it. In general they correspond to quantum fluctuations from virtual processe s. Only the classical limit regions of constructive interference are required to obey the rules special relativity. Furthermore, any extension of quantum mechan ics to a new post-quantum mechanics can expect a modification in the rule that t he absolute square of the overall amplitude is the probability that an event wil l actualize. The idea of actualization presupposes the making of an irreversible record that cannot be quantum erased. The arrow of time of the classical second law of thermodynamics enters the picture here. On the other hand, unlike Wigners meta-theory of the meaning of quantum mechanics that consciousness of the obser ver-participator collapses the coherent amplitude into a single actual alternati ve, Feynman says No. There is no observer-created subjective physical reality at t he quantum level in the case that the observer is trying to get knowledge of a s ystem that is not itself. That is, Feynman does not at all consider the case of s elf-measurement where it can be said that we are responsible for the creation of our own inner psychic reality of felt-experience. What Wigner is talking about, in contrast, would be a kind of psychokinesis between a human mind and a materia l object that is not the body attached to the mind. The Bohm quantum force is ce rtainly an explanation of how a quantum mind changes the material configuration of its classical brain in a situation of self-measurement. Thus, Feynman and Hibbs If we on the objectivity ofof the event before its conclusion with an observation wrote interrupt the course external quantum reality that: on the state of the particles involved in the event, we disturb the constructio n of the overall amplitude ... the amplitudes associated with the excluded state s can no longer be added in as alternatives in computing the overall amplitude. ... Further, it does not matter if we actually observe and record the outcome of the measurement or not, so long as the measurement equipment is working. Obviou sly, we could observe the outcome anytime we wished. The operation of the measur ing equipment is sufficient to disturb the system and its probability amplitude. The key p. 19 phrase is "Further, it does not matter if we actually observe and record the outcome of the measurement or not, so long as the measurement equipment is working". Feynman does not treat interaction-free measurements (e.g. Renningers tho ught experiment) and self-measurement by a sentient measuring apparatus introspe cting into its own state in a strange Godel loop. Also note that it is clear tha t the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was only meant to apply to measurements th at are not self-measurements. In fact, David Albert has shown that one can beat the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for special pairs of incompatible observabl es in a self-measurment which also involves photographs of other worlds violating th e dogma of Everetts original meta-theory of many worlds for the meaning of quantum mechanics. Everett mistakenly assumed that conscious observers could never be aw First their parallel selves in the structure a point source 1.9 Introducing the path slit experiment from next quantum S to a pointlike p are ofconsider the doubleintegral - universesof thedoor. amplitude. article detector D fixed at some position on the screen. Let the double-slit pla te be called Xa. There are two amplitudes. (S, Xa1,D) and (S,Xa2,D). Now suppose , we drill more slits in the plate Xa. Lets drill n of them. We then have the set of na amplitudes {(S,Xaj,D): j = 1, 2, ....na}. The total amplitude to start at the point source S and end up at the detection point D is the sum of all of the se amplitudes. Now imagine na getting very large so that the sum approaches the single integral of dXa(S,Xb,D). Next, put in a second plate Xb. Do the same thin g by drilling nb slits in the second plate. We now have a set of na.nb amplitude s whose sum approaches the double-integral of dXadXb(S,Xa,Xb,D). Keep increasing the number of plates between S and D. In the idealized continuum limit we get a n infinitely multiple integral over all possible paths in space between S and D. We have to include the possibility of paths looping behind S and beyond D. This is Feynmans physical idea of the path integral for all paths that are not discri 1.10 The amplitudes evolve deterministically from the fixed Schrodinger equation minated among by some objective interaction independent of our knowledge.

. The probabilities which are the squared moduli express the indeterminism of si ngle quantum events. These are two very different processes. Complete determinis m and complete indeterminism co-exist in quantum mechanics as two different obje ctive levels of quantum reality in the standard Copenhagen-type interpretations or meta-theories of the meaning of quantum mechanics. It is very remarkable that this interpretation does not lead to any inconsistencies .. one never quite lose 1.11 feeling not there is something subconscious, the subject. superconsciou s theSarfatti thatFeynman: Sentience, peculiar aboutconscious, and p. 22 s, cannot happen in quantum mechanics because it is not compatible with either d eterminism or indeterminism. Sentience, or the physical elan vital, exists on the edge between determinism and indeterminism. It requires a new kind of post-quant um mechanics for living organizations of matter and radiation that limits to qua 1.12 Feynman mentions still unsolved fundamental philosophical not physics problems. ntum mechanics when a certain vital parameter called back-action goes to zero. I. Show that the squared modulus probability axiom is the only consistent interpr They are: etation ...Why can we only predict the probability that a given experiment will lead to a definite result? From what does the uncertainty arise? Almost without a doubt it arises from the need to amplify the effects of single atomic events t o such a level that they may be readily observed by large systems. The details o f this have been analyzed only on the assumption that the [Born axiom] |amplitud e|^2 is a probability, and the consistency of this assumption has been shown. It would be an interesting problem to show that no other consistent interpretation Bohm,be made. p.22 can and also Vigier, introduced a sub-quantum level. When the degrees of freed om of that level are in thermal equilibrium he gets the above Born axiom. This s uggests that pumped non-equilibrium of the sub-quantum level will correspond to the back-action effects of post-quantum mechanics where the Born axiom, and Eber hards theorem (i.e., no superluminal clairvoyance and retroactive precognition vi a nonlocality is possible in quantum mechanics), break down. Bohm showed in 1952 that even without the sub-quantum level assuming the Born axiom initially along with zero back-action preserves the Born axiom as the system evolves in time. N ote, however, that back-action spoils the Born axiom even if it is assumed initi II. ... there seems to be a lack of symmetry in time of our knowledge and our felt ally. -experience. Our knowledge of the past is qualitatively different from our knowle dge of the future. In what way is only the probability of a future event accessi ble to us, whereas the certainty of a past event can often be apparently asserte d? .... Obviously, we are again involved in the consequences of the large sizes of ourselves and of our measuring equipment. ... What seems to be needed is the statistical mechanics of the amplifying apparatus.