Summary. This paper presents two novel models, The Toolbag Exclusion Principle and the Invisibility Conundrum to describe the quantum behaviour of macroscopic objects in the real world, with reference to the properties of the common screwdriver.
The possibility that quantum phenomena may apply to events in the macroscopic world was first proposed by Schrödinger, who left it famously unresolved. This paper describes an experimental system in which quantum uncertainties can be studied under the conditions of the ‘real world’.
Consider two points, A and B. A is defined as ‘the workshop’ and B as ‘the job’ or ‘ the site’. There is also a third point, C, but in general no-
The experimental procedure is called ‘ the job’ and it is located at point B, but the mystery is, who started it, or why it is being done at all, as it turns out that Mrs S didn’t want it done and Mr S was reluctant to do it. Mrs S is often heard to say that it would have been better to ‘get the man in’, but naturally this does not go down well with Mr S, although his motivation is only partially understandable. However, the point is that ‘the job’ is underway and there is some sense in which it will be finished eventually and in order to achieve this an object called the toolbox, but usually better described as the toolbag, will often move from point A to point B and back, possibly stopping at point C, although the reasons for this remain obscure.
Here the nature of the toolbox must be examined in some detail, because this is where the action, or more commonly inaction, lies. The first point to be established is that it is only a concept. Some would describe it as a wave equation that can collapse to reveal its solid contents, here known as ‘the tools’. There are clearly cases where it can be termed as de-
Mr S’s mistress, known here as Miss/Mrs X, would, if she existed, certainly have known a thing or two about entanglement, but because nobody can decide whether or not X is the known or the unknown, this remains unhelpful, especially because Mrs S would both believe everything she had to say and disbelieve it at the same time.
At this stage it is necessary to make a brief digression to discuss the Theory of Causality which explains that when something goes wrong, it must be somebody’s fault. A deeper analysis suggests that it is intricately bound up with the fact that nothing can travel faster than light, thereby irreversibly undermining the excuse, “ It couldn’t have been me, I wasn’t there at the time”. Nevertheless there is a fundamental problem here; something can appear to travel faster than light provided that that light is not switched on, and, for example, in times like this a screwdriver can fail to locate the screw-
Scientists aware of this problem have made great steps to solve it. The approach has been to design an electrical screwdriver which also has a light pointing in the direction of ‘the job’ with both the light and the rotating action being activated by a switch. However a feature called ‘Parity’ has proved to present an insurmountable problem. Because a single switch controls both functions, the light only illuminates the job in time to see ‘the damage’ being done. but not in time to prevent it. Providing a solution to this problem has baffled some of the finest brains of the engineering community.
The fact that causality is preserved because information cannot travel faster than light has been derived from a study of the symmetries of nature and reveals another deep structure. Whilst someone is always responsible when things go wrong, the same person cannot be held responsible if they go right.
Armed with all of these facts we can now go forward with a discussion of the nature of time and how it happens that the time perceived by Mrs S and that perceived by Mr S are quite different, and how this difference is subject to intense perturbation in the presence of ‘the job’. Basically time is divided into units, often called seconds, as in the expression, ‘It’ll only take a second’ often presumed to be the time required to travel between A and B. In fact there is another symmetry of nature involved because for every A-
To return to the contents of the toolbag, the one positive conclusion we can make is that they do exist, but this is where the root of the problem lies and once again it can be best illustrated by consideration of the class of objects known as ‘screwdrivers’. Archeology has not so far revealed whether or not the screw came before a related object, now termed ‘the screwdriver’ and the reasons for this reverberate down to the present time, but will not be discussed here. The screw itself has two parts, the screw-
The paradox, mentioned above, is that uncertainty is nothing more than the evil twin of certainty. If the worker (here Mr S) is quite certain that the screws at point B are exclusively of the straight groove type and fills the toolbag accordingly, he will find on arrival at B that they have all changed to become the cross-
It is now that Mr S realises that within the space-
He now realised that the tools could only adopt high or low energy states in the presence of an external field and this lead directly to the concept of the ‘unsuspected exception field’ or USE field and its remarkable properties. To explain his accumulated results, such a field must have two possible states, the ‘full’, or F state and the ‘low’ or L state. Here F would correspond with the high energy state and L with the lower energy state of the tools. At first sight it seemed that these energy levels might be expressed by F=1 and L=0, but further analysis showed that L has the most unusual property of tending to zero, but never reaching it, and it is for this reason that it is now called the ‘less’ state.
This property of the USE field is as remarkable in its way as the fact that the neutron is less stable than the proton. Thus, just as the sun did not immediately burn out in a blaze of glory, the old view that there is nothing new underneath it is also untenable. Because L must retain a low, but non-
He is about to break the good news of this discovery to Mrs S, but decides that she will see it as a very weak excuse. Besides he has already lost the overwhelming confidence that accompanied this realisation. Later he has the warm and comfortable feeling that Miss/Mrs X would understand him completely, but a sudden fleeting view of further implications of his theory shows the less stimulating picture of a man ‘ hoist by his own petard’.
The general consensus is that the Toolbag Exclusion Principle has its roots in the Invisibility Conundrum (IC), namely that tools of any kind become invisible either just after you finish using them, or, in more unfortunate cases, just before. Whether or not these phenomenon are independent, it is clear that they hybridise to maximise the value of -
The Invisibility Conundrum, on the other hand, has not been fully discussed because Mr S remains under the illusion that this is a problem he will be able to fix, as, to use his own words, “It won’t happen again.” The consequence is that Mrs S never finds out about it and any chance of sorting it out remains extremely remote.
As for Miss/Mrs X, all that can be said here is that Mr and Mrs S each hoped (h) and feared (f) that she did/did not, exist, but another universal exclusion principle dictated that four so-
exchange continuously between them and, although not intuitively obvious in the macroscopic world, resolved into an attraction that increased continuously with the distance of separation.
Meanwhile Miss/Mrs X, would, had she been visible, be seen to be looking at the world with a strange blend of eagerness and indifference, in front of her a shallow dish that may, or may not, once have contained cream.
1) Why does E=MC2? Cox and Forshaw. De Capo Press 2009.