Speculations on a Quantum Observer Dependence to UAP Orbs
The following article is highly speculative and contains several conjectures without proof. These are not suggested as hypothesis, but merely ideas from which after further thoughts hypothesis may emerge. This is written to spark conversations on the likely physics basis of the objects we will be examining. For any fellow physicist reading this, you are asked not to take this too seriously, but more as a conversation piece from which further discussions may be facilitated. The author fully acknowledges that all the ideas suggested below may be wrong and there are alternative ideas which may be considered instead, for which you are encouraged to propose if insights into this strange phenomenon are to be elucidated. In essence, the article below is an attempt to bring together several ideas in order to construct a synthesis of understanding as to the physics nature of the objects under examination - widely known as orbs, a frequently observed aspect of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP).
As mentioned in a previous post, since this author has seen both plasma like orbs and spherical metallic looking structures, we have made the assumption that these are one and the same object but viewed under different conditions, particularly pertaining to the day or night, but also what energy state the orb is in. We have termed this an orb equivalence principle (described in a previous post <Read Here>) and we fully accept that this connection between what may be two separate classes of objects may be erroneous. Yet it was made to see where such thinking might lead.
One of the topics that has come up in association with UAP orbs is a connection to the conscious observer. This might either imply that orbs are themselves manifest of intelligence, or they are a technology that is constructed by an intelligence yet has an ability to connect to the observer through this technology. For this to be true, there would have to be a quantum connection between the observer and the observed. There is no evidence for this in physics, although one of the interpretations of the quantum theory from Niels Bohr was an observer dependence to any measurements and so the idea should be considered, even if we cannot prove it. This is also known as a Copenhagen interpretation.
Such a phenomenon associated with orbs would apparently be termed Psionics - although this author is not personally aware of any physics theory that would support such a fantastic notion. We know that the American intelligence established had a project in the 1970s called Project Stargate, which investigated the potential for psychic phenomena in military applications and this author knows some of the people associated with that study. This was also related to an earlier Project Sun Streak <Read Here>.
The idea of a conscious observer connection to the observation of orbs, struck a chord with me since during the observations I have personally experienced I did sense an observer dependent phenomenon. In particular, with the daytime sightings I had, on each occasion I tried to grab an optical aid, such as binoculars or a phone camera, but when I did so the object disappeared. This gave me a sense that it was aware I was observing it, and I also felt that I was aware, that it was aware - an instinct I cannot explain or justify but is one I experienced. On the second observation for example, as I saw the object I was approaching a tree tunnel and had the presence of mind to slowly get my camera ready in order to try and take a photo, since I sensed that if it saw me doing so it would vanish (as it did). But why did I act in that way? What gave me the feeling that I should take such a precaution since I had no real basis for thinking so? Indeed, this perception contradicted the fact that other observers around the world have apparently been able to take perfectly good photos of similar objects so why would I be any different? I can only report how I felt at the time.
This is all an act of high strangeness indeed. Although I admit this is a purely subjective interpretation, I cannot deny the possibility of a Psionics related hypothesis, even if I personally find it absurd from an objective measurement point of view. For example, I have never been convinced by the claims of remote viewing and I have expressed my scepticism to those in the UAP community. This is because I have no idea how this would work in practice, but if it did, we can surely say that it would likely have a basis in quantum mechanics; such as in the probability of a particle (through its wavefunction) to exist outside of its potential well.
In addition, the idea of a quantum mechanical interpretation to the phenomenon has also made me think about a different idea to explain the flight characteristics of objects. What if an object could behave like a particle with mass or a particle without mass and so move between these two extremes? This way, when we see characteristics indicative of instantaneous acceleration or cloaking, might we in fact be looking at motion that is manifest of a quantum nature, and it merely appears to us to have these characteristics as the external observer, but for example when the object vanishes this would be consistent with a significant increase in the uncertainty in the position of the object. This is opposite to the current thinking that supposes that any such hypervelocity motion would be associated with gravitational effects described by an updated version of the General Theory of Relativity.
There are two uncertainty laws in physics pertaining to measurement which we now define, where dx is the uncertainty in position, dP is the uncertainty in momentum, dE is the uncertainty in energy of a quantum state and dt is the uncertainty in time in terms of the duration of a quantum state or the pulse duration of an energy excitation. These are given by inequalities as a function of the Planck constant h as follows:
In terms of the first uncertainty equation, when an object is constrained to a small box and not undergoing extensive motion, we can say that its position is well known (dx —> 0) and all of the uncertainty is in its momentum (dP —> infinity). Conversely, when the object appears to undergo instantaneous acceleration all of the uncertainty goes into its position (dx —> infinity) and its momentum becomes well defined (dP —> 0).
In terms of the second uncertainty equation, when an object is constrained within a small box and not undergoing extensive motion, we can say that its energy is well defined (dE —> 0) and all the uncertainty is in its pulse duration (dt —> infinity). Conversely, when the object appears to undergo instantaneous acceleration all the uncertainty goes into its energy measurement (dE —> infinity) and its pulse duration becomes well defined (dt —> 0).
For any particle the total energy is given by the sum of the potential energy V(x) and the Potential energy T, where the two terms are defined within a sum by:
So that for a massless photon where m = 0 we find that:
The momentum is given as a function of the frequency v, wavelength lambda and Planck's constant h so that:
Therefore the energy is given by:
For a particle with mass, in the non-relativistic limit the total energy can be approximated by the first two terms in a series expansion:
The first term is simply the rest energy. The second term becomes the classical kinetic energy equation when we substitute for the mass and velocity in the momentum. So that when the particle is at rest (p = 0) the total energy is approximated by the kinetic energy:
For completeness, we should say that in quantum mechanics the total energy of a particle is represented by the time-independent Schrodinger equation:
Where H-bar is the Hamiltonian operator, psi(x) is the wavefunction of the particle and E is the total energy eigenvalue. Then written in one-dimension the wave equation is given by:
The exact form of the total energy equation depends on what case one is considering. This includes classical, relativistic and quantum scenarios. We do not go into any further detail here however and instead focus on simple equations to garner insight. But in this context a particle’s wavefunction cannot be simultaneously localised in both position and momentum space, and so if the wavefunction is narrowed in position space such as to determine an accurate position, then this requires that the wavefunction in momentum space is spread out.
We can then take this standard quantum theory for measurement and apply it to the objects that are seen, and we propose to states on a continuum known as a lower energy state and an excited state. The lower energy state is likely to be manifest of a slow-motion object with a dull luminosity towards the infrared. The exited state is likely to be manifest of a faster motion object with a bright luminosity towards the visible light, then ultra-violet and even x-ray wavelengths in terms of any expected emission.
In the table below an attempt is made to quantify these two states of lowest to highest energy and what the expected properties will be, as well as an excited state in between. In particular we assume that at the extremes of the lower energy state (perhaps towards some ground state) the objects behave similar to a particle with mass, and at the extremes of the higher energy states the objects behave similar to a particle with no mass.
Within this paradigm, when in an observed mass configuration, the objects appear as material objects and may even appear mundane. When undergoing some rapid vanishing act, the objects have an essentially zero rest mass and are manifest of pure energy - that is all of their mass is converted into energy. Between these two states are other modes of operation along a line of a continuum of performance properties, and with characteristic emission wavelengths for the light that appears visible to an observer and this depends on the degree of excitation above a minimum ground state level.
For me personally I have seen three types of objects. (a) Spherical looking objects in the daytime under slow motion that looked very much like a material you could touch, possibly metallic but also possibly some composite (b) white objects at night shining as bright as the stars (c) slow moving yellow/golden orbs usually on their own at night. Each of these may represent the same object but under different regimes of operation mode. The specific mode they are in will determine how they appear, the brightness of any light emission and the colour of that light.
It is interesting that the author has personally observed these three states, and collectively they represent three separate data points from which has enabled this synthesis. Without those observations such speculations would not have been made. The author has also relied on the observations of other witnesses across the globe in the construction of this model, which is put together as a conjecture for consideration. This is the conjecture formed by this author and we will call it the Quantum Evanesce Principle or QEP, where an object can exist between a state equivalent to a large particle with mass analogous to an electron, or one that is massless and analogous to a photon.
Speculating further, at very high energy, since all of the mass is converted into energy, it is no longer constrained by the limits of special relativity and so can for example travel at the speed of light and for which in its metric time has no meaning and the spacetime interval between two points is zero, otherwise known as a null interval, where ds^2 = 0. This means that when in this mode Lorentz contraction and the effects of time dilation would not apply, provided the orb was travelling at a speed v = c. To do this, the orb would have to instantaneously transmute from an object mass at low speed, to an object with no mass at high speed, and then into one that is superluminal. Otherwise, to merely approach c would imply an extreme degree of length contraction. Once the object can travel at a speed equal to the speed of light, all distances along its path would collapse to a single point and so it would instantaneously arrive at its destination. In principle, this means that such objects could travel here from anywhere in the Universe. Similarly, since there would be no time dilation associated with the journey, no time would have elapsed.
We might take this idea further and suppose that the orbs can operate like atoms in atomic energy levels, in that they have a fundamental ground state and are able to become excited into higher energy states. Since these higher energy states may be unstable there would be a limit to how long they could remain in those states and eventually would have to decay back down to a fundamental ground state level, where they could remain for an indefinitely long time and where the uncertainty does not apply since they were now governed by classical laws.
The colours of the orbs shown in this graphic are arbitrary and not in any particular order. A full study of historical observations would be required to determine the likely regime of EM emission for different types of orbs.
If the orbs act in a way that is analogous to atoms, then we might also have an explanation for what some observers report as erratic behaviour, where the objects appear to appear and re-appear at different locations, giving rise to the perception of instantaneous acceleration. But instead, we might be looking at the equivalent of an interference pattern. For an individual particle like an electron, when it passes through the holes in a two slit experiment, an interference pattern is traced out, since we cannot predict where in the pattern any individual electron will land. Similarly, it may be that the orb momentarily acts like a wave, and when it re-materialises so that it is again acting like a particle, there is no certainty about where it will emerge, and potentially it is on any spot of an interference pattern. The question is, what would generate the equivalent of the two holes in the first place to cause the interference pattern, and this would have to be a capability of the orb technology itself.
One suggestion may be that the orbs have the capability to open some higher dimensional worm hole for an instant, perhaps from the quantum vacuum of space, analogous to an Einstein-Rosen Bridge as imagined in 1935 by Albert Einstein when he was trying to describe the transport of electrons through a field theory. But in the opening of these higher dimensional constructs, might they act like the effective slits, from which the wave passes and emerges on the other side as an interference pattern. We acknowledge this is wild speculation.
But wait, you might argue that this is impossible since quantum effects do not have a visible influence over macroscopic objects. This is mainly due to the incredible small value of the Planck’s constant. This has a value of h = 6.626*10^-34 Js, or a reduced Planck’s constant value of hbar = h/2pi = 1.054*10^-34 Js. The Planck constant is also known as the smallest possible quantum of action or energy transfer in a physics process, and it is related to the energy E and frequency f in a light wave through E = hf.
Since Planck’s constant is extremely small any uncertainties in measurements will also only be noticeable at microscopic scales such as at the atomic level. But for a macroscopic object the uncertainties would be so small they can be considered negligible when compared to their mass and momentum. At least this is our experience and why quantum effects do not permeate into the macroscopic world or it would cause chaos for our ability to exist and survive based on reasonable projections of the future.
Consider for example the case of a m = 10 kg spherical orb moving at a velocity of v = 10 m/s but with an uncertainty in its velocity of order dv = 10^-10 m/s. The uncertainty in the momentum would be given by mdv = 10 kg * 10^-10 m/s = 110^-9 kg m/s, and the uncertainty in its position would be given by dx > h/(2pi*dp) = 1.054*10^-24 m. Since this is such a low value it cannot possibly have any influence on a macroscopic object.
The idea that a macroscopic object is not influenced by the characteristics of their quantum states is known as quantum decoherence, since the superposition of states that characterise the quantum system become definite states that are entangled with the surrounding environment and any quantum effects are averaged out and therefore negligible. For this situation to be reversed, where quantum effects were influencing macroscopic objects, they would have to take on the property of quantum coherence. How could this possibly be achieved?
Particles can also be viewed as waves, as originally proposed by Louis de Broglie in 1924 and within this perspective matter can be seen as de Broglie waves, where the wavelength is associated with a particle momentum p and the Planck constant lambda = h/p. This insight is what led to the development of particle wave equations such as by Schrodinger in 1925.
Whilst an atomic sized object will be characterised with wave-like properties, its wavelength will be extremely small when compared to the large mass of the object, as shown by the de Broglie equation for wavelength lambda = h/p = h / (m x v). But the de Broglie wavelength for quantum particles is very small, such as at the pico-meter scale, where 1 pico-m = 10^-12 m and this is known as the atomic scale. Since for macroscopic objects the mass is even greater, and the wavelength is inversely proportional to the mass, the greater the mass the smaller the wavelength, and so it becomes so small that it is impossible to observe any interference.
What if Planck’s constant could be changed for an instant so that quantum effects are visible on a macroscopic scale? This would have profound implications for phenomena such as the Photoelectric effect for quantised energy, blackbody radiation emission, the scattering of x-rays by electrons in Compton scattering and quantised energy levels in atomic spectra. Yet, what if it was possible to artificially change the value of the Planck’s constant so that a macroscopic object would be subject to quantum laws in a visible way? Let us consider this as a thought experiment.
Again, let us consider a 10 kg mass moving at 10 m/s and let us say we want to observe an uncertainty in the position of around dx = 1 cm = 0.01 m. The uncertainty in the momentum would then become dp = hbar / (2dx) = hbar / (20.01) = 5.27x10^-33 kg m/s. Since the momentum uncertainty is also related to the velocity uncertainty through dp = mdv, then dv = dp/m, so that for a 10 kg mass we get dv = hbar / (2 x 0.01m x 10 kg) = 5.27x10^-34 m/s. Then for the velocity uncertainty to be noticeable, it would have to have a value that exceeds the velocity we are examining, so equal to or greater than 10 m/s so that
This is an enormous value compared to the present value which was cited earlier. It is also worth noting that the Planck’s constant is linked to gravity through some fundamental units in terms of the Gravitational constant G and the speed of light c. Using the reduced Planck constant, this leads to the definitions of the smallest scales known as the Planck length Lp, Planck time tp and Planck mass Mp as follows
Speculating, if it was at all possible to change the speed of light, the gravitational constant, or the Planck time, Planck length or Planck mass, even for an instant, then this would give rise to a different value of the Planck constant, i.e.
Alternatively, if we wanted to equate these terms with respect to the gravitational constant, we would find the following forms
The gravitational constant has the current value of G = 6.674x10^11 m^3/kgs^2. If we assumed the reduced Planck mass calculated above as a macroscopic value at hbar = 0.2 Js, and kept the speed of light the same and the Planck mass the same this would lead to a required value for the gravitational constant of G = 1.266x10^23 m^3/kgs^2, which seems absurd but that is what we compute. Alternatively, to have the same effect the Planck mass would have to be increased to a value of 947,833,923 kg or approximately 16 orders of magnitude higher than its current value.
These extreme orders of magnitude changes suggest that if the orbs were operating in a quantum state but on a macroscopic level, then they would likely be using some other mechanism that what is described above. To my mind, it suggests a revision to our spatial scale in terms of our fundamental definitions of the Planck scale, and this may be related to higher dimensions, perhaps where the Planck values are distributed over several dimensions, so that the artificial manipulation of one is made easier than suggested by the above calculations.
To perform manipulations of the sort described above, this would likely suggest some understanding of a quantum description of gravity, since it would require an ability to dial down the rest mass of the object, where all relativistic limitations to flight are removed. In relativity, as an object with mass undergoes relativistic speed, it will also undergo a relativistic mass increase, as well as time dilation and length contraction. But if you can dial down the rest mass to a zero value, then the object will perform like a photon. It will not undergo time dilation or length contraction, and its position will effectively be spread out since it is everywhere and everywhen simultaneously.
How this would be achieved is anyone’s guess but would require an on-board technology that likely has access to the neutral quantum vacuum and possibly hyper dimensions of space. One idea was published by a friend on mine years ago, Dr Richard Obousy. In his doctoral thesis [“Investigation into Compactified Dimensions: Casimir Energies and Phenomenological Aspects”, Baylor University, 2008] he proposed accessing the quantum vacuum and increasing the energy density of one dimension of space, so that the other dimensions would be inflated. This remains the only proposal I am aware of for how to produce something like a warp bubble type effect and is an original idea; although I am out of date with the current literature. It relied on a connection between Casimir Energy, compact extra dimensions of space and the Cosmological Constant, where the constant was equated to the vacuum energy density:
The assertion is that general relativity shows that within the physics of a compactified space, this effects the expansion rate of a non-compact space, so that a fixed compactification radius for one dimension can result in the expansion of the three-volume due to Casimir effects. That is to say the act of contracting a dimension of space is able to inflate the remaining dimensions. Obousy further calculated that for the local Cosmological constant this is characterised by 10^42 J/m^3, and the amount of energy required to be injected locally, assuming a 10 cubic metre sphere, to inflate a dimension would be given by
Alternatively, if we were to assume a 1 m cubic sphere (like the orbs discussed in this article) then energy requirements would still be 10^42 J. Clearly such a large amount of energy is beyond our current civilization technological capability. Indeed, it is unlikely that the orbs are also accessing the level of energy and might suggest they are using a mechanism based on physics which is currently unknown to us
Since these objects may be able to operate in this manner, this may imply they are unpiloted and autonomous drones of some form but manifest of high intelligence. This would suggest they operate under different conditions to other objects that have been observed, such as saucers, which may be piloted and still capable of hypersonic velocities. Since several observers have seen the orbs being deployed from saucers, this would support the idea that they are some forms of sub-probe deployed by a piloted craft.
In summary, we do not know the origin or the nature of these orb-like objects. But it is the speculation of this author that they are likely an intelligence and consciously aware technology. They are also likely not from our world, and one of the considerations for this is the extraterretrial hypothesis. In addition, they likely have a function in being here and the different types of orbs that have been seen likely relates to the different functions of operability. Understanding this, may give significant insight into their mission and purpose.
To derive a complete model, similar to the one suggested above, a comprehensive survey would be required of all orb observations and their characteristic physics properties to include brightness, luminosity, colour, size, speed and in the context of the background conditions. This data could then be assembled into a form of ‘taxonomy’ (for want of a better phrase) and then the relationship between each object defined. This is a suggested project that others with more time may wish to undertake.
