Yearbook Letter Oct 13: Fill & Download for Free

I believe I already answered this exact question a few weeks ago. I hate to disagree with Dr Muller, but in this case, in my opinion, the uncertainty of the proton’s position is not an answer, sorry Dr Muller. Uncertainty is a black box that ‘in my opinion,’ is used to explain off too many phenomenon that no one wants to give thought to.The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle gives us the minimum constraint on a wave function’s position, not how BIG it can be. That is, The HUP is given byThe 4 pi in the denominator is the result of usually seeing Planck’s constant written in ‘reduced form,’ represented by h-bar. There are a few things to know here. First, Planck’s constant, by definition is indivisible, as it represents the smallest slice of energy possible in normal space-time. You therefore do not divide the indivisible h by 4 pi (I see this in doctoral level lectures, and it is the second most stupid thing I have ever seen; I’ll save the first most stupid for some other post). Second: pi is not even a rational number. Dividing the indivisible h by an irrational number that has no discrete value in itself is - absurd. Third, h-bar was written by Dirac because he recognized that since h only deals with wave functions, it must have a value fundamentally related to a wave cycle, which is 2-pi. This is why h-bar is h/2pi. Four: 4-pi represents two full wave cycles, the minimum number to describe a wave function as being in one of two possible positions. Thus, the 4-pi in the denominator purely represents the smallest amount of energy possible in normal space-time, spread over the minimum requirement for a wave cycle to be considered as being in more than one position.Five, sigma-x represents the distribution of possible locations of the wave function, sigma-p represents the distribution of velocities (and hence momenta) that got the wave function to those superpositions distributed over sigma-x. The equation ONLY STATES THAT THIS DISTRIBUTION MUST BE GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM SLICE OF ENERGY POSSIBLE IN NORMAL SPACE-TIME SPREAD OVER TWO WAVE CYCLES. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR ALLOWING A PROTON TO INFLATE TO 10,000 TIMES ITS SIZE.SIX: I don’t know how many times I have had to repeat this, the HUP only refers to wave functions, not ‘particles.’ Once a wave function is detected, it is no longer a wave function, and the HUP is non-sequitur. The proton is not a wave function. According to the Standard Model (We’ll go with that for a moment) it is a composite of we don’t know what. It has taken ‘particle physicists’ half a century of smashing them with a giant hammer to figure out that they don’t know what it is made of by looking at the broken pieces. The pieces, so far, weigh 100 times more than the thing before they smashed it with a hammer. So, they invoke the HUP to (Uncertainty Principle) claim the excess mass comes from the Uncertainty Principle, with a certainty out to about 15 decimal places… The spin of these invoked contents account for 2% of the proton’s spin. (Referred to a the ‘spin catastrophe.’)Now, we have someone claiming this composite region inflates to 10,000 to a million times it size, consistently, to explain the position of the electron; as absurd as the answer is, doesn’t answer the question, ‘why do electromagnetic things attract?’If we use the spin angular momentum of the electron, and the proton or positron, whatever, and think of it as a boomerang, I use this analogy:In Feynman terms, imagine a man in one boat and a woman in another. They have no means of propelling their boats, but happen they are supplied with boomerangs. How can they get their boats together? By throwing a boomerang away from the man, the woman would experience a reaction force from the boomerang towards the man. The boomerang could then circle round and approach the man from behind, and on reaching him, could exert a force on him towards the woman.In this diagram, the woman throws the boomerang (virtual photon, spin 1), which has spin +1/2, producing force Fv, the momentum of the throw also producing force F1. The man catches the boomerang, producing force F2. In this instance, there is an ‘attractive’ force, likened to the man being an electron and the woman being a positron. But why does the ‘force’ obey the inverse square law?We can generalize the electromagnetic force in terms of any constant, represented by k, two charges, and distance:And again, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, purely in terms of delta-E:In this case, delta-t is purely mediated by r^2, the distance.That is as close to a Feynman explanation as one would get, perhaps.A virtual photon is not massless, but is off mass shell, that is, possess mass. This is where we come to chirality and helicity. Helicity is a spinning massive particle, we’ll say counter clockwise. Because it has mass, it cannot go as fast as light, meaning thqat you can get in front of it and see it apparently spinning the opposite way, clockwise. Chirality refers to massless photons, which you cannot get in front of because you cannot exceed v=c to do so, so they only ‘spin’ in two polarization states, clockwise or counterclockwise.Because a virtual photon has mass, it is helic, not chiral, giving it 3 polarization states. The 3rd polarization state is observed by passing the slow moving virtual photon and watching it ‘spin’ apparently in the opposite direction.Its mass and 3rd polarization state account for the boomerang effect shown above. Note that in order for the boomerang argument to work, the arrow goes around and points the opposite way, as seen coming at you as opposed to the helic spin of when it was launched.I hope this over simplified explanation helps. As for the proton’s uncertain position as a wave function, you will note that the delta-t in the HUP equation above simply will not allow for a proton to extend as far as a valence electron. So, that is just wrong.In fact, as I look at this a few months later, I can tell you exactly how wrong it is. A virtual photon mediating a magnetic field can live exactly 3 wavelengths. That is a certainty; exactly three. This is referred to as a Near Field Effect. Radio antennas, for instance, produce a powerful magnetic field that does not drop off with the square of the distance. For instance, if your transmission is at 300 megahertz, then your wavelength is 1 meter. The magnetic field produced by the Near Field Photons is exactly uniform throughout a 3 meter domain from the antenna; then comes to a dead stop, like a brick wall.A proton has a diameter of 1 femtometer, 10^-15 meters. The first electron orbital is out at 10^-10 meters. That means Muller’s Uncertainty Principle explanation has to extend the proton diameter 5 orders of magnitude greater than it normal cross section. In order for that to happen, the delta-t has to decrease by 5 orders of magnitude, spontaneously. In this amount of time, if you do the algebra, you find that the massive virtual photon actually has to exceed the speed of light in order for there to be any prayer of that answer being in any way possible.The proton has a diameter of 10E-15 meters, a hydrogen atoms valence electron is 10E-10 meters, meaning the uncertainty principle would have to allow the photon to inflate to 10,000 times its diameter, for just the lowest ground state of hydrogen. When you take the virtual photon mass and spin angular momentum, that is impossible. The HUP will work no magic here. The argument via HUP might hold some, but very little, water if the virtual photon had no mass, but this is not the case.The uncertainty of the photon’s position is also equally outward as it is inward, that is, of what little uncertainty there is in a virtual photon’s position (because of its mass, reduces the uncertainty, such as the uncertainty of a battle ship’s position) it is not emitted unidirectionally away from the proton from the electron. This exacting vector must be exactly 180 degrees opposite the proton’s position to be true. Since it is the electron’s position that is uniquely uncertain, this requires the electron to have 1) a certain position and 2) foreknowledge of its vector toward the proton from where it will be when it emits the virtual photon, exactly 180 degrees away from the proton’s position and 3) a reason for emitting only photons 180 degrees away from the proton.Thinking inside the box and staying there because it feels safe when people agree with you is why we are living in the Holocene Extinction. If we thought for ourselves, the world would change; would already have done so.I’d like to thank Dmitry Popov for catching my typos, I was writing proton when I was thinking photon.I answered a similar question at When we say that spin-1/2 fermions must go through 720 degrees to equal the 360 degrees required by spin-1 bosons, what exactly is being measured?I found this in an old text I wrote some years ago:It is not possible to ignore the relativistic effect of velocity of recession. Therefore, G takes on G’ as a function of t’, given by simple time dilation.REFERENCESPersonal lecture (conference) notes: Leonard Susskind, lecture July, 2013Personal lecture (conference) notes: Mark van Raamsdonk of the University of British Columbia, Oct 2015Personal lecture (conference) notes: Erik Verlinde, Oct 2017Personal lecture (conference) notes: Gerard T’ Hooft Feb 2015Personal lecture (conference) notes: Gerard T’ Hooft May 20131.Astier, Pierre (Supernova Legacy Survey); Guy; Regnault; Pain; Aubourg; Balam; Basa; Carlberg; Fabbro; Fouchez; Hook; Howell; Lafoux; Neill; Palanque-Delabrouille; Perrett; Pritchet; Rich; Sullivan; Taillet; Aldering; Antilogus; Arsenijevic; Balland; Baumont; Bronder; Courtois; Ellis; Filiol; et al. (2006). "The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and W from the first year data set". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 447: 31–48. arXiv:astro-ph/0510447 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2006A&A...447...31A. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054185.2.Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang (2007). "Constraints on holographic dark energy models using the differential ages of passively evolving galaxies". Modern Physics Letters A. 22 (1): 41. arXiv:astro-ph/0605596 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007MPLA...22...41Y. doi:10.1142/S0217732307020889.3.Haoyi Wan; Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang; Jie Zhou (2007). "Constraints on the DGP Universe Using Observational Hubble parameter". Physics Letters B. 651 (5): 352. arXiv:0706.2723 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007PhLB..651..352W. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.053.4.Cong Ma; Tongjie Zhang (2010). "Power of Observational Hubble Parameter Data: a Figure of Merit Exploration". Astrophysical Journal. 730 (2): 74. arXiv:1007.3787 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011ApJ...730...74M. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/74.5.Tongjie Zhang; Cong Ma; Tian Lan (2010). "Constraints on the Dark Side of the Universe and Observational Hubble Parameter Data". Advances in Astronomy. 2010 (1): 1. arXiv:1010.1307 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010AdAst2010E..81Z. doi:10.1155/2010/184284.6.Wiltshire, D. (2008). "Cosmological equivalence principle and the weak-field limit". Physical Review D. 78 (8): 084032. arXiv:0809.1183 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78h4032W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.084032.7.Gray, Stuart. "Dark questions remain over dark energy". ABC Science Australia. Retrieved 27 January 2013.8.Merali, Zeeya (March 2012). "Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 27 January 2013.9.H. Arp, Dark Energy and the Hubble Constan ;arXiv:0712.3180 (Cornell University)10.Arp, H. 1990, Ap&SS 167, 18311.Arp, H. 1994, 430, 7412.Arp, H. 1998a, Seeing Red, Apeiron, Montreal13.Arp, H. 1998b, ApJ 496, 66114.Arp, H. 2002, ApJ 571, 61515.Bell, M. 2007, ApJ 667, L12916.Freedman,W., Madore, B., Gibson, B. et al. 2001, ApJ 553, 4717.Narlikar J. 1977, Ann. Phys. 107, 32518.Narlikar J. and Das, P. 1980, ApJ 240, 40119.Narlikar J., Arp H. 1993 ApJ 405, 5120.Sandage A., Tamman, G., Saha, A. 1998 Phys. Rep. 307, 1– 8 –21.Sandage, A. et al. 2006, ApJ 653, 84322.Shafieloo. A. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 380(4), 157323.White, S. 2007, astro-ph, arXiv:0704.22924.Wimmel, Hermann (1992). Quantum Physics & Observed Reality: A Critical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. World Scientific. p. 2. ISBN 978-981-02-1010-6.25.J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg, The historical development of quantum theory, Springer-Verlag, 2001, p. 271.26.Howard, Don (2004). "Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology" (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 71 (5): 669–682. doi:10.1086/425941. JSTOR 10.1086/425941.27.Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables. I & II". Physical Review. 85 (2): 166–193. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.28.H. Kragh, Quantum generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 210. ("the term 'Copenhagen interpretation' was not used in the 1930s but first entered the physicist’s vocabulary in 1955 when Heisenberg used it in criticizing certain unorthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics.")29.Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper, 195830.Olival Freire Jr., "Science and exile: David Bohm, the hot times of the Cold War, and his struggle for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics", Historical Studies on the Physical and Biological Sciences, Volume 36, Number 1, 200531."Popper's experiment and the Copenhagen interpretation". Stud. History Philos. Modern Physics. 33: 23. arXiv:quant-ph/9910078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1999quant.ph.10078P.32.Bohr, N. (1928). 'The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory', Nature, 121: 580–590, doi:10.1038/121580a033.Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Z. Phys. 43: 172–198.34.Jammer, M. (1982). 'Einstein and quantum physics', pp. 59–76 in Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives; the Centennial Symposium in Jerusalem, edited by G. Holton, Y. Elkana, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, ISBN 0-691-08299-5.35.Born, M. (1955). "Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics". Science. 122 (3172): 675–679. Bibcode:1955Sci...122..675B. doi:10.1126/science.122.3172.675. PMID 17798674.36.Bohr, N. (1928). 'The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory', Nature, 121: 580–590, doi:10.1038/121580a0, p. 58637.Claus Kiefer (2002). "On the interpretation of quantum theory – from Copenhagen to the present day". arXiv:quant-ph/021015238.David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", I, Physical Review, (1952), 85, pp 166–17939.David Bohm, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", II, Physical Review, (1952), 85, pp 180–19340.Hugh Everett, Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics vol 29, (1957) pp 454–462, based on unitary time evolution without discontinuities.41.H. Dieter Zeh, On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory, Foundation of Physics, vol. 1, pp. 69–76, (1970).42.Wojciech H. Zurek, Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into what Mixture does the Wave Packet Collapse?, Physical Review D, 24, pp. 1516–1525 (1981)43.Wojciech H. Zurek, Environment-Induced Superselection Rules, Physical Review D, 26, pp.1862–1880, (1982)44.Camilleri, K (2006). "Heisenberg and the wave–particle duality". Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 37: 298–315.45.Camilleri, K. (2009). Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: the Physicist as Philosopher, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, ISBN 978-0-521-88484-6.46.Duane, W. (1923). The transfer in quanta of radiation momentum to matter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 9(5): 158–164.47.Jammer, M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: the Interpretations of QM in Historical Perspective, Wiley, ISBN 0-471-43958-4, pp. 453–455.48.Gribbin, J. Q for Quantum49.Max Tegmark (1998). "The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?". Fortsch. Phys. 46 (6–8): 855–862. arXiv:quant-ph/9709032 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1998ForPh..46..855T. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:6/8<855::AID-PROP855>http://3.0.CO;2-Q.50.M. Schlosshauer; J. Kofler; A. Zeilinger (2013). "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 44 (3): 222–230. arXiv:1301.1069 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013SHPMP..44..222S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004.51.C. Sommer, "Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics", arXiv:1303.2719. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2719v152.T. Norsen, S. Nelson, "Yet Another Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics", arXiv:1306.4646. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4646v2.pdf53.Steven Weinberg (19 January 2017). "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 8 January 2017.54.Erwin Schrödinger, in an article in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323–38.55.Nairz, Olaf; Brezger, Björn; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2001). "Diffraction of Complex Molecules by Structures Made of Light". Physical Review Letters. 87 (16): 160401. arXiv:quant-ph/0110012 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87p0401N. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.160401. PMID 11690188.56.Brezger, Björn; Hackermüller, Lucia; Uttenthaler, Stefan; Petschinka, Julia; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2002). "Matter-Wave Interferometer for Large Molecules". Physical Review Letters. 88 (10): 100404. arXiv:quant-ph/0202158 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvL..88j0404B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404. PMID 1190933457.Beller, M. (1992), “The Birth of Bohr's Complementarity: The Context and the Dialogues”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 147–180.58.Beller, M. (1999), Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.59.Brock, S. (2003), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Quantum Physics in the Light of the Helmholtzian Tradition of Theoretical Physics, Berlin: Logos Verlag.60.Bunge, M. (1967), “The Turn of the Tide”, in Mario Bunge (ed.) Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12.61.Camilleri, K. (2006), “Heisenberg and the Wave-particle Duality”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 298–315.62.Camilleri, K. (2007), “Bohr, Heisenberg and the Divergent Views of Complementarity”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 514–528.63.Chevalley, C. (1991), “Introduction: Le dessin et la couleur”, in Niels Bohr, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine, Edmond Bauer and Roland Omnès (trans.), Catherine Chevalley (ed.), Paris: Gallimard, pp. 17–140.64.Chevalley, C. (1994), “Niels Bohr's Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (eds), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 33–55.65.Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson (1999), “Maximal Beable Subalgebras of Quantum Mechanical Observables”, in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38: 2441–248466.Clifton, R. and H. Halvorson (2002), “Reconsidering Bohr's reply to EPR”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher,67.Cushing, J. (1994),Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency, and the Copenhagen Hegemony, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.68.Dickson, M. (2001), “The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr's Reply to EPR”, in Heidelberger, M. & F. Stadler (eds.) History of Philosophy of Science — New Trends and Perspectives Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 263–275.69.Dickson, M. (2002), “Bohr on Bell: A Proposed Reading of Bohr and Its Implications for Bell's Theorem”, in Placek, T. and J. Butterfield (eds.) Non-locality and Modality Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher,70.Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935),“Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 47: 777–780.71.Faye, J. (1991), Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Antirealist View of Quantum Mechanics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.72.Faye, J. (2008), “Niels Bohr and the Vienna Circle”, in Manninen, J. and F. Stadler (eds.) The Vienna Circle in the Nordic Countries (The Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, 14), Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.73.Faye, J., and H. Folse (eds.) (1994), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume 158), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.74.Folse, H. (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. The Framework of Complementarity, Amsterdam: North Holland.75.Folse, H. (1986), “Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds), PSA 1986: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. I, East Lansing: PSA, pp. 96–104.76.Folse, H. (1994), “Bohr's Framework of Complementarity and the Realism Debate”, in J. Faye and H. Folse (1994), pp. 119–139.77.Gomatam, R. (2007), “Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation — Are the two incompatible?”, in Philosophy of Science, 74(5): 736–748.78.Halvorson, H. (2004), “Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 45–56.79.Hebor, J. (2005), The Standard Conception as Genuine Quantum Realism, Odense: The University Press of Southern Denmark.80.Heisenberg, W. (1955), “The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory”, in W. Pauli (ed), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, London: Pergamon pp. 12–29.81.Heisenberg, W. (1958), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, London: Goerge Allen & Unwin.82.Held, C. (1994), “The Meaning of Complementarity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25: 871–893.83.Henderson, J. R. (2010), “Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: Mechanisms of collapse as a typologically determinative”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 1–8.84.Honner, J. (1987), The Description of Nature: Niels Bohr and The Philosophy of Quantum Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.85.Hooker, C. A. (1972), “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality”, in R. G. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–305.86.Howard, D. (1994), “What Makes a Classical Concept Classical? Toward a Reconstruction of Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics”, in Faye and Folse (1994), pp. 201–229.87.Howard, D. (2004), “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation?’ A Study in Mythology”, Philosophy of Science, 71: 669–682.88.Kaiser, D. (1992), “More Roots of Complementarity: Kantian Aspects and Influences”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23: 213–239.89.Katsumori, M. (2005), Niels Bohr's Complementarity. Its Structure, History, and Intersections with Hermeneutics and Deconstruction, Ph.D. Dissertation, Vrije University Amsterdam.90.Landsman, N. P. (2006),“When champions meet: Rethinking the Bohr-Einstein debate.”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 212–242.91.Landsman, N.P. (2007), “Between classical and quantum”, in Handbook of Philosophy of Science (Volume 2: Philosophy of Physics), J. Earman & J. Butterfield (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 415–555.92.Massimi, M. (2005), Pauli's Exclusion Principle. The Origin and Validation of a Scientific Principle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.93.Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.94.Petruccioli, S. (1993), Atoms, Metaphors and Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.95.Plotnitsky, A. (1994), Complementarity: Anti-Epistemology after Bohr and Derrida, Durham: Duke University Press.96.Popper, K. R. (1967), “Quantum Mechanics Without ‘the Observer’”, in Mario Bunge (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality, New York: Springer, pp. 1–12.97.Schlosshauer, M. Camilleri, K. (2011), “What classicality? Decoherence and Bohr's classical concepts”, in Advances in Quantum Theory, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 1327, pp. 26–35.98.Tanona, S. (2004a), “Uncertainty in Bohr's Response to the Heisenberg Microscope”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 483–507.99.Tanona, S. (2004b), “Idealization and Formalism in Bohr's Approach to Quantum Theory”, in Philosophy of Science, 71: 683–695.100.Whitaker, M.A.B. (2004), “The EPR Paper and Bohr's Response: A Reassessment”, in Foundation of Physics, 34: 1305–1340.101.Zinkernagel, H. (2011), “Some Trends in the Philosophy of Physics”, in Teoria, 26(2): 215–241.102.Zinkernagel, H. (forthcoming), “Are we living in a quantum world? Bohr and quantum fundamentalism”, in The Danish Royal Academy of Sciences and Letters' Series.103.Larson, Calculus, 9th Edition, Theorem 3.10104.Dimitar Valev, Estimations of total mass and energy of the universe; April 8, 2010, arXiv:1004.1035v1 [physics.gen-ph] 7 Apr 2010105.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.106.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.107.David H. Reser et al, Claustrum projections to prefrontal cortex in the capuchinmonkey (Cebus apella); SYSTEMS NEUROSCIENCE, published: 03 July 2014;doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00123108.Cambridge, Mark Thomson, University of (2013). Modern particle physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107034266.109.Hawking, Stephen (1998). A brief history of time (Updated and expanded tenth anniversary ed.). New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 9780553896923.110.Mitrofanov, Igor G. (April 1994). "Cosmic gamma-ray burst sources: The phenomenon with the smallest angular size in the observable universe". Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 424 (2): 546–549.111.M. Tegmark; N. Bostrom (2005). "Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?" (PDF). Nature. 438 (5875): 754. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..754T. doi:10.1038/438754a. PMID 16341005.112.L. Susskind, "The anthropic landscape of string theory", arXiv:hep-th/0302219.113.M. Douglas, "The statistics of string / M theory vacua", JHEP 0305, 46 (2003). arXiv:hep-th/0303194; S. Ashok and M. Douglas, "Counting flux vacua", JHEP 0401, 060 (2004).114.M.S. Turner; F. Wilczek (1982). "Is our vacuum metastable?" (PDF). Nature. 298 (5875): 633–634. Bibcode:1982Natur.298..633T. doi:10.1038/298633a0. Retrieved 2015-10-31.115.Coleman, Sidney; De Luccia, Frank (1980-06-15). "Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay" (PDF). Physical Review D. D21 (12): 3305–3315. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.3305C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305.116.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.117.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.118.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.119.Peralta, Eyder (2013-02-19). "If Higgs Boson Calculations Are Right, A Catastrophic 'Bubble' Could End Universe". Home Page Top Stories. Article cites Fermilab's Joseph Lykken: "The bubble forms through an unlikely quantum fluctuation, at a random time and place," Lykken tells us. "So in principle it could happen tomorrow, but then most likely in a very distant galaxy, so we are still safe for billions of years before it gets to us."120.N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, “The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,” JHEP 06 (2007) 060, arXiv:hep-th/0601001121.R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and M. Lippert, “Probabilities in the landscape: The Decay of nearly flat space,” Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 046008, arXiv:hep-th/0603105122.A. Aguirre, T. Banks, and M. Johnson, “Regulating eternal inflation. II. The Great divide,” JHEP 08 (2006) 065, arXiv:hep-th/0603107123.H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland,” arXiv:1610.01533124.U. H. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, and S. C. Vargas, “Universal isolation in the AdS landscape,” arXiv:1605.09289125.A. Hebecker, F. Rompineve, and A. Westphal, “Axion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,” JHEP 04 (2016) 157, arXiv:1512.03768126.A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, S. Theisen, and L. T. Witkowski, “Can Gravitational Instantons Really Constrain Axion Inflation?,” arXiv:1607.06814127.M. Cvetic and H. H. Soleng, “Supergravity domain walls,” Phys. Rept. 282 (1997) 159–223, arXiv:hep-th/9604090128.S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, “Gravitational Effects on and of Vacuum Decay,” Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3305.129.M. Cvetic, S. Griffies, and S.-J. Rey, “Nonperturbative stability of supergravity and superstring vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B389 (1993) 3–24, arXiv:hep-th/9206004130.B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, “Evidence for a Lattice Weak Gravity Conjecture,” arXiv:1606.08437131.L. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind, “Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant,” JHEP 10 (2002) 011, arXiv:hep-th/0208013132.B. Freivogel, “Making predictions in the multiverse,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 204007, arXiv:1105.0244133.R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and I.-S. Yang, “Properties of the scale factor measure,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 063513, arXiv:0808.3770134.A. De Simone, A. H. Guth, A. D. Linde, M. Noorbala, M. P. Salem, and A. Vilenkin, “Boltzmann brains and the scale-factor cutoff measure of the ultiverse,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 063520, arXiv:0808.3778135.G. T. Horowitz, J. Orgera, and J. Polchinski, “Nonperturbative Instability of AdS(5) x S**5/Z(k),” Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 024004,arXiv:0709.4262136.I. Heemskerk, J. Penedones, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, “Holography from Conformal Field Theory,” JHEP 10 (2009) 079,arXiv:0907.0151137.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568.138.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378.139.M. Stone (1977). "Semiclassical methods for unstable states". Phys. Lett. B. 67 (2): 186–188. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..186S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90099-5.140.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.141.S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory". Phys. Rev. D15: 2929–36. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2929C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929.142.C. Callan; S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections". Phys. Rev. D16: 1762–68. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1762C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762.143.Instantons in Gauge Theories. Edited by Mikhail A. Shifman. World Scientific, 1994.144.Interactions Between Charged Particles in a Magnetic Field. By Hrachya Nersisyan, Christian Toepffer, Günter Zwicknagel. Springer, Apr 19, 2007145.Large-Order Behaviour of Perturbation Theory. Edited by J.C. Le Guillou, J. Zinn-Justin. Elsevier, Dec 2, 2012.146.Patrick Heelan, REALITY IN HEISENBERG'S PHILOSOPHY - Chapter Eight of Heelan's Quantum Mechanics and Objectivity. Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies of Science, 1965147.Vassilios Karakostas∗. Realism and Objectivism in Quantum Mechanics . Journal for General Philosophy of Science 2012 (Vol. 43, Issue 1)Andrea Oldofredi∗ Michael Esfeld. On the possibility of a realist ontological commitment in quantum mechanics. arXiv:1801.05307v1 [quant-ph] 13 Jan 2018