Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena?

I believe the multifaceted nature of reality makes this impossible

I consider that reality physics is a model that can address the fundamental elements of reality in three parts. These elements are information, process and change. These parts are conditions that have both local (physical) and non-local (non-physical) properties.

I think that we should consider these combined elements and properties as being representative of a matrix of all that “IS’. These words mean that the local and non-local mechanics of reality are an informational stochastic process. This is as if it were events relating to its own reference frame as well as objects emanating from itself. This process relating to the matrix is without time, and under certain circumstances (relating to conditions, influences and effects relating thereto) might then be aware of itself as being in a ‘state of something’. It is this state of awareness of itself that we call space. Some physicists refer to this space as being space foam. We measure movement and change in space with clocks and this is why Einstein called space, space-time.

From a physical science perspective therefore, when we consider that this matrix of informational conditions ‘surrounds’ us in every conceivable set of circumstances that such circumstances are both macroscopic and microscopic in nature. Furthermore it is possible to understand that macroscopic and microscopic somehow influence each other. This includes all that is physical and all that is not. Thus it can be said that it is from these space-time conditions that elementary particles such as electrons, neutrino’s, gluons, preons and quarks might emerge. It is these five types of informational ‘things’ that are necessary to give these things some sort of local and non-local status that we can identify with and make sense of. This includes under what circumstances, and how and why we ‘fit’ into this informational matrix as well.

Thus I feel that quantum mechanics is neither a precise theory nor does it ‘dig’ deep enough into the matrix of informational reality that I am discussing at this time. When I say deep enough I mean into the sub quantum domain where hidden geometric forms, entangled fractal patterns and other similar type hidden variables from which sub-quantum ‘things’ can be mathematically identified and predicted. This includes what the ‘natural energy of the universe might be, where mass and charge come from and where from do particles obtain the properties that they do.

My purpose today is to bring forward a series of quotations from a document entitled ‘The Quantum Interventions’. These quotations come from the eminent physicists Antony Valentini at a time when he was being interviewed by journalist Maximiliasan Schlosshauer with respect to the quantum mechanics debate. This includes Valentini’s criticism of it. This document is in a lengthy question and answer format. Here are questions Valentini discusses in question seven. You will find that Valentini discusses certain items that are also relational to my introductory words above.

This is the difficulty of separating physics things that are informationally non-local and local. When I address the question of separating macroscopic and microscopic things with regard to question seven. I will not always attempt to formally address the particular difficulties Valentini seems to have identified with quantum mechanics. What I will do at different times is to relate Valentini’s words and ideas to some of the ideas I have presented to you in the opening section of this blog, as well as express my ideas with respect to any given point that I feel are appropriate to further discuss.

I have cut and pasted eight different parts of text from question seven as described and have made eight different sets of comments and I have addressed each one separately.

Quotation 1.


What Valentini appears to be saying is that the world we experience and observe around us is incomplete at its deepest physical level. I believe it when he says that there are no precisely defined boundaries between the microscopic and macroscopic level is because in my opinion there is none. The reason for this is that reality physics is both informational, and local and non-local at the same time. I say that informational non-local physics at its deepest level ‘dominates’ local physics. Local physics is somehow beholden to non-local physics as is demonstrated by quantum entanglement theory and new physics discoveries relating to the influences and effects of hidden variables. Hidden variables are associated with and described in this associated and important non-locality blog that I recently posted. I believe that there is no such thing as objective reality. There is a describable reality like I am discussing with you today in the local reference frame of space time reality. However, this does not include the influence and effects of non-local fields (including entanglement) upon the local reality field that we refer to as we commonly state as being objective reality.

Quotation 2.


What Valentini seems to be discussing here is that whereas an apparatus positioned in a lab may point in a particular direction with respect to particles, it generally has indefinite positions relating to them. he says that because of the inseparable relationship between macroscopic and microscopic systems there can never be a definite relationship between both scales of either. You will see why I agree with Valentini, that such a separation is impossible. This is because of the properties of both non-locality and entanglement that are unpredictable with regard to the local macroscopic field of objects and events relating to these objects in any reference frame.

Question 3.


Valentini raises the question as to what is real and not real. What he is questioning is the common use of language with respect to different reference frames as well as that of an observer. Vaalentini is questioning why ‘something’ is only real in physics once it has been observed. He distinguishes what is real and not real with respect to reality science by dismissing the notion of ‘realness’ with any object or event. Valentini seems to be saying that realness should be related to being a state of tangible objectiveness with respect to something such as if a cat is dead or alive or not. I say that because of the concurrent relational properties of entanglement of local and non-local physics no specific human reasoning can be applied to such a relationship. This is because we are applying local reasoning to discuss such physics and not always intuitive elements as well. The best that can be done is to attempt to predict something.

Question 4.


Valentini continues to discuss the elements of item three. What he seems to be suggesting is that it is not correct for physics to say that the ever changing measurement in a lab physics problem has something to do with a higher being (a God’s eye view’) of all that ‘IS’. This is either inside or outside the lab. He is saying that the dial and pointer associated with any given apparatus relates to the apparatus only. The facts relating to the apparatus are in respect of how ‘something’ is influencing the apparatus to provide measurable information in the manner that it does. So such a fact is a local fact. The fact that a local fact is a response to a separate non-local fact (whether it might be in the mind of the observer or wider non measureable space foam influence) means that any true fact is one that incorporates both local and non-local information with respect to their concurrent relationship with each other.

Question 5.


Valentini talks about what the word logic really means. He relates logic as being related to clear thinking and description. He distinguishes between creative mathematical descriptions and predictions with clear thinking. He says it is a mistake to dismiss something (like an inconclusive lab experiment) when such a a failure is related to classical (rigid) logic. In other words he is saying that a clear problem deserves a clear answer devoid of classical rules or expectations to the meaning of the word logic.

Question 6.


Valentini says it is wrong to to dismiss objective reality as being reality on a macroscopic scale. I have addressed the notion of reality and what it is in various question responses above.

Question 7.


Valentini says that in order to make quantum mechanics a precise theory there must be ‘something’ that extends into into the macroscopic domain. This microscopic domain is the matrix of non-local information that not only means something unto itself but also its concurrent local (physical) domain as well. The Awareness model demonstrates this relationship, as do others.

Question 8.


Valentini says it is wrong for physics to talk only about definite states of objective reality relating to macroscopic reality and this is why there is so much controversy in the realm of of physics. He points out that there is obvious ambiguity when one tries to separate things that are macroscopic and macroscopic. I have addressed the inappropriateness of this where I have described reality ass being an informational one of process and change in relation to itself. This means with reference to the matrix of information that I have described.

If you have found merit in some of Valentini’s ideas I urge you to further review the whole of the interview with Valentini relating to the subject ‘The Quantum Interventions’.

You will find that the contents of my blog entitled “The inescapable duality of all “things”” are complementary to this presentation.

This blog forms a unit of information with respect to my conceptual unity theory.