To our present knowledge (but there is little doubt about) both Gravity and Quantumness are fundamental and general phenomena, meaning that their laws govern anything & everything. (The third such is Relativity, and as far as we know any further is at best such a general philosophy as e.g. Causality.) But Gravity and Quantumness, as well in their old forms as in the present best ones contradict each other.

But General Laws of Physics must not contradict each other. So if they contradict, they are incorrect. (At least one of them; but most probably both.) Very probably the way out would be Unification. Gravity & Relativity contradicted each other until 1916; then Einstein unified them, and the unified theory, General Relativity, is free of at least self-contradiction. Similarly, Relativity and Quantumness contradicted each other, but then they were unified c. 1947 as Quantum Field Theory. The unification was gradual, with such names as Dirac, Tomonaga &c., and the present status is a matter of argumentation. QFT does give infinities; but in some cases they are renormalisable, i.e. the infinities "can be removed". Also a lot of Field Theories, quite respectable in nonrelativistic limit, are unrenormalisable. Now this may mean that QFT is an erroneous Unification; but also that Relativity rules out the unrenormalisable Field Theories. This latter is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of QFT experts; and it may quite be correct. Anyways, Relativity rules out an acceleration to FTL velocities, and this "prediction" is generally accepted (with some sad feeling) by physicists.

Quantumness and Gravity are also in contradiction in their original forms (as I told), but up to now the unification is not ready. The need of it and the reasons why it has not been made are the topics of this series (which will be being unfold or in Latin simply evolving gradually in several steps. The main reason to write these sequences is Advertisement; either of my own or of my viewpoint about. My feeling is that we are not far from the unification (see e.g. Refs. [1]-[7]), but surely we are not yet ready.

I
must state that (Unified) Quantum Gravity is/will be not the (Final?) Theory of
Everything. The latter (sought by many, claimed by few and made by none so far)
would be a Unification of Gravity, Quantumness & Relativity, a theory
containing 3 fundamental constants, G, ~~h~~ & c, in a theory free of
self-contradiction. I am less ambitious (more realistic?) for looking the third
and last dual Unification, a Theory of G & ~~h~~. You will see that it
is a task enough in itself: and it would have quite enough new predictions in
itself.

At References for some articles I give English translation. This does not happen if I am able to reach the original.

Now let us proceed. The fifth part is OTL, from the 70’s, and we are again in Budapest.

**GRAVITY VERSUS/AND QUANTUMNESS, PART 5**

**SOME PROBLEMS WITH MEASUREMENT, 1974, OTL**

B. Lukács

CRIP RMKI, Theory Dept., & President of Matter Evolution Subcommittee of HAS

H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49, Budapest Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

**ABSTRACT**

Hungary again starts to develop QM, Hungarians being as nonlinear as Irish.

**1. INTRODUCTION**

So Microscopic Evolution is/seems to be deterministic; however Measurement is not. Back to the completion of the formalism of QM some people guessed errors here and wanted to get a paradox, or, stronger, a self-contradiction. Maybe the most fanatic of them was Einstein. But so far no self-contradiction is found, and measured quantities are for many digits in agreement with the calculations, as far as no relativistic effect is included. (If it is, still the calculations seem good, but they happen outside of Quantum Mechanics. QM is inherently nonrelativistic.)

Other people were not against the formalism, but they wanted to survey the quite surprising consequences of the Measurement Axioms. I will briefly discuss here 3 consequences: The Role of Mind. Schrödinger's Cat, and Reduction of Wave Packets.

When we have discussed them, we try to visualize the process in which tracks are formed in Wilson chamber. Finally, we mention the analogous case of photoemulsions. I try to remain at OTL 1974 arguments; for photoemulsions I never saw a discussion ready in 1974, but the problem is clearly in close analogy to that of the Wilson Chamber, which definitely was discussed in 1974 [8].

And why just 1974? Now, for the complete answer you must wait for the next part. However even the partial answer will be convincing: the Wilson Chamber problem was published in that year [8], Ágnes Holba already was measuring Reductions of Wave Packets [3], and she used photoemulsions for this.

**2. THE ACTIVE MIND?**

Take a free wave packet of Y of some width S. It roughly means that the chance is 68 % to find the particle not farther from the center than S. If Y’s shape is Gaussian, you can calculate the evolution exactly: as a simple consequence of the Schrödinger equation, the shape remains Gaussian and the width increases as

S^{2} = S_{0}^{2} + (~~h~~/m)t (1)

where m is the mass of the structureless object. In QM the widening goes without limit. A free electron would develop 1 cm “smear” in ~1 s. Collisions with atoms may obscure this, but we can isolate the electron in near vacuum.

Now, if the detect somehow the electron, we find it somewhere within the macroscopical volume as a microscopical electron. By jargon, the wide wave function has reduced. Since this is a Measurement, we are not surprised that the reduction had a stochastic component (whither did it reduce?); but what did happen and how?

QM *formalism*
does not answer these questions, but we may try to answer. E.g. this reduction
may be either subjective or objective, depending on the “deeper meaning” of Y. If Y describes our *knowledge* about the electron,
then really almost nothing happened. Before Measurement we *knew* only
that the electron was somewhere in a macroscopic volume. But after catching it
we *know* its real location, so our *knowledge* (the Y) is naturally narrowed. But there is
another interpretation too, where mYY^{*}^{ }is
(or analogous to) a mass distribution of the electron. Until Measurement the
electron is “dispersed”, but the detector “reduces” it almost to a point.

Now, can a detector Measure? True, a detector is macroscopic, but interaction with a detector in principle could be described as a sequence of electron-atom interactions, of which none is Measurement; such a microscopic interaction cannot Reduce, but results in something similar to the previous state of Y via the Schrödinger equation. But then when can a Measurement happen?

Schools answered in various ways. Now let us follow Wigner ([9]}, mainly Chapters 12 & 13), who, in turn, follows Neumann, and majority opinion. He is transmitting the so called "Orthodox Interpretation" of Measurement.

Y is changing in two *different* ways.
When no Measurement happens, Y changes
continuously, according to the *deterministic* Schrödinger equation. In
contrast, in a Measurement, in the Reduction of the Wave Packet, Y's change is discontinous and *stochastic*.

Now let us see Measurement. Before Measurement the quantum system and the apparatus are disjoint. For simplicity's sake Measure energy, and let the system have a discrete energy spectrum. Also, let the apparatus be a computer-aided tool, showing on the monitor the actual energy state. So the micro system has the eigenstates & eigenvalues

{Y_{n}; E_{n}}

and the apparatus

{F_{n}; E_{n}}

Before the measurement the wave fuctions were formally united:

F*Y

because there was
no connection at all. The actual state of the *micro system* was some

Y = a^{n}Y_{n} (2)

(Einstein convention for summation!) We are indeed measuring the a's.

The mysterious Measurement is a process

F*Y =
F*a^{n}Y_{n} -> ∑_{n} a^{n}F_{n}Y_{n} (3)

and the strangeness of the process is shown by the fact that I cannot use now Einstein convention at rhs.

OK, this is Measurement. It is clearly not a continuous Evolution. Schrödinger Equation (being linear) cannot produce it.

One
consequence is that there are no F_{m}Y_{n}, mąn terms
in the wave function after Measurement. It seems as if it only meant that
Energy is E_{n} if the monitor shows E_{n}; which is simply the
definition how to measure. However Wigner shows something deeper here.

Let us
involve *two* humans in an experiment. I lead the experiment; but another
person is present too. The Measurement is simply a Yes/No (say, a light
emission), and the second person reports if Yes or No.

Before Measurement the state was

F*(a^{Yes}Y_{Yes}+a^{No}Y_{No})

F is unknown. After Measurement we get (see above):

a^{Yes}F_{Yes}Y_{Yes}+a^{No}F_{No}Y_{No}

But then, says Wigner, there is no such state that Person 2 believes that there was no light while indeed there was!

Let us
exclude blind observers trying to detect lights, or drunken ones. However, *who
Measures*? I, or Person 2?

If
Person 2 Measures, everything is OK. But if I Measure, then the measurement is
the process in which I ask Person 2: was there light or not? If Person 2 tells
Yes, the system goes to Eigenstate Yes, Reduces, and continues thence. If the
answer is No, again we proceed accordingly. But then ask Person 2 what was the
state *before I asked*! Surely it was not eigenstate (no Reduction yet);
still I bet that Person 2 will give the same answer for the pre-Measurement
state as well. As if a part of the scenario (that Person 2 was in superposed
state until I asked) had been lost!?

There are different ways out. For example, Everett's Many World Scenario [10], but that has its own strangenesses as well. Maybe the least disturbing solution is [9] that Minds have unique positions in Measurements. And if Person 2's Mind already acted, the Reduction has happened.

I could argue further. What happens if indeed Person 2 is totally drunk? What is the outcome if Person 2 is a chimpanzee answering in sign language of deaf-mutes (a quite feasible simple experiment)? And if Person 2 deliberately lies? But now I continue.

So,
assume that only Minds can Measure. To be sure, no observation does disprove this opinion (so far?). But it
is *strange*. And in principle the fate of Y depends on how many times did it Reduce. If we
include a chimpanzee with a simple apparatus amongst the lab people, maybe
sooner or later we can decide if the chjmp has a Mind, or simply uses the
deaf-mute sign language Mindlessly.

Any other possibility?

**3.
SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT**

This is a classical Gedankenexperiment [11]; the actual result is of secondary importance. A cat is closed into an otherwise cosy compartment aboard a rocket; but there is a detonator too in the container. The detonator is triggered by a particle detector, detecting the output of a radioactive decay. The detonation is strong enough to kill the cat and demolish the apparatuses, but weak for rupturing the walls. The rocket is launched to a, say, half an hour flight.

Now,
after some detailed calibration we can achieve that the *probability* of
the detonation be just 50 % during the flight. So launching the rocket 1000
times and after flight taking it apart, we have the detonation cca. 500 times,
and not in another 500. I am sure, this prediction is correct.

However now let us look at the cat. If only Mind can Measure and cats do not have Minds, then in the last minute before taking the rocket apart the cat was a superposed state

Y = (1/Ö2){e^{iA}Y_{alive} + e^{iB}Y_{dead}} (4)

And this is a
strange enough state, since a dead cat *macroscopically* differs from an alive
one. How does this state work?

Lot of people simply hate Superposition (4) telling that it is meaningless; but then something should prevent its development. And all unwanted superpositions of macroscopically different states can be prevented in the same way. Assume that the Schrödinger equation is not exactly linear. The simplest generalisation is:

((-~~h~~^{2}/2m)D + V(x))Y + Aa(YY^{*})Y =i~~h~~(¶Y/¶t) (5)

Here a(YY^{*}) is a functional with macroscopic value if
Y contains macroscopically different
components, and *a* has the correct energy dimension, while A is a
dimensionless “coupling constant”.

Let us
assume that we want an equation preventing the superposition of states centered
at substantially different places (R_{1}-R_{2}). We do not have
yet any experiments so simply guess the form as (DR)^{2}. Then the rhs. is ~EY. and so the dimension of a must be [erg].
But we want the quadratic form since sign is meaningless:

a ~
b*(DR)^{2 } (6)

So

[b]
= g/s^{2} (7)

And this
combination we cannot form from m and ~~h~~!

Nevermind; c is an Universal Constant too. (In OTL Einstein recognised its universality just 100 years ago.) Then there is a unique solution

b ~ m^{3}c^{4}/~~h~~^{2} (8)

Then let us apply eq.
(5) on an electron. Electrons do survive 10^{-8}
cm differences in superposition (cca. the difference between ground state and 1^{st}
excitation in the H atom). That is true if

A ~
10^{-6} (9)

Which is not a problem at all. Now applying the equation on cats, superposition is impossible above

DR_{cr} ~ 10^{-41} cm
(10)

Since death struggles cause much bigger elongations, now the disturbing (4) superposition is prevented. Are you happy?

I am not yet. Namely, the absurdly small permitted DR means that the superposition aborts well below 50 % dead component. Possibly this means that the cat will be found dead in many, many cases when the detonator seems intact. The result of avoiding the superposition (4) is more mysterious than the superposition was.

This
is not a proof; you may invent other functionals a(YY^{*}) too, and *maybe* one will be good. Maybe.
Not too promising.

**4. OBJECTIVE
REDUCTION OF WAVE PACKETS**

Then came L. Jánossy, the Materialistic Scientist, in 1971. He called himself such. And look; there is a direct link to Part 3.

Namely, L. Jánossy was the stepson of György Lukács, the Popular Comissar in the Kármán-Hevesy-Rybár-Pekár story.

He, fortunately for him, lived not in the Soviet Union, but in Oxford and then Dublin. (His brother, Ferenc, lived in Moscow, and once Beriya sent him to a work camp. I do not know, why; maybe nobody knew, many times the crimes were imaginary. But J. Varga, excellent Hungarian economist in Moscow won F. Jánossy on cards from Beriya, so he was released.) L. Jánossy worked in Cosmic Radiation, and during that he discovered something he properly named Spurious Scattering. While doing this, he was Devote Materialist, as politically proper.

In 1951 he returned to Hungary, got the new Central Research Institute for Physics, and started to look for borderlines of Quantum Mechanics, as Linearity of the Schrödinger Equation, or Improved Two-Slit Experiments. In the 60's he believed to give an alternative for Quantum Mechanics. He did never accept the interpretation of the Copenhagen School or the "Orthodox Interpretation", why, Mind is simply the product of Matter, so it cannot have any central role in Wave Packet Reduction. (I think he was right.) Nobody amongst Hungarian colleagues accepted his Alternative QM, although if you have some imagination, some consequences of the Schrödinger Equation can be interpreted as a strange Continuum Physics.

Now,
on May 13, 1971, he had a lecture at CRIP. (In that time
he was the leader of an Academic Body supervising the scientific activity of
CRIP, so *ours*). I attended to the lecture.

He told that the "Orthodox Interpretation" is Idealistic. I did not like philosophical/political slogans but I did not like that solution either. He then formulated a solution. Assume that the finite maximal size of a wave packet is a Physical Law. Namely, assume that if the width of a packet exceeds a limit, then Physics cuts the packet into two, throws away one half, and renormalizes the other to 1. Then the Laws of Physics would solve lots of problems, surely including Schrödinger's Cat, without referring Mind.

I was not overly interested. Anyways, he had also an Alternative General Relativity, without Curved Space-Time, and I belonged to the Orthodox Einsteinian Research Group. But he had the right to postulate Alternative Wave Packet Reductions; they can hardly be worse than the Orthodox Interpretation of QM. And then he suggested an experiment to decide.

Well,
he came from Cosmic Radiation. Much later I met with the ideas of the Italian Ghirardi,
Rimini & Weber, also coming from Cosmic Radiation business; these were
similar. But let us go back to Jánossy. Imagine a particle track, imprinted
into photoemulsion. If no electric & magnetic fields are applied, one would
expect a straight track. (As first approximation; there are disturbing effects,
see later.) But *if* Nature is cutting and throwing away, the track will
zigzag. By observing the zigzags you can determine how frequently Nature cuts.
Then the packet (maybe) cannot be macroscopically wide, and maybe other
problems with superpositions of macroscopically different states will vanish
too.

In that time another Hungarian already started to attack the problem from another angle. Maybe Jánossy knew it, maybe not; but acted purposefully. His friends in Serpukhov (the biggest accelerator in that time) irradiated several photographic plates with monoenergetic, several dozen GeV protons. Then with the plates he went to the head of the Cosmic Radiation Department of CRIP, and asked for help. More definitely, he asked for 1 (one) physicist measuring the zigzags. The idea was not absurd, plus he was the head of the body supervising the CRIP, so he got a lady physicist; she was Ágnes Holba. Ms. Holba listened to the problem and asked for assistant girls. She got two; and the Spurious Scattering Process started. It went for 4 years, and the results were published in 1991 (!); you will be understand in due course, why.

**5. A
RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM GRAVITY: VIRTUAL GRAVITY WAVES**

In Hungary Doctor of Science does not have anything to do with Ph.D. Doctor of Science is the last rank below Academician, and, e.g., you cannot start to fight for it below a hundred citations. F. Károlyházy started about 1970, and defended his Theses in 1974 [8]. His aim was Quantum Gravity.

However he did not follow the ATL scenario without Einstein: rather he started from General Relativity and tried to impose Quantum Uncertainties to the proper amount.

The method is described in [8] & [12]; and later we applied it to definite problems [13], [14]. The approach is really ingenious and roughly goes as follows.

General Relativity remains true in Unification, but space-time curvature cannot be a c-number, since the sources are Quantized. This means that curvature, or metrics, is not sharp. Therefore we visualize the evolution of physical systems on an infinite multiplicity of space-times, differing in "small perturbations". The set of space-times is chosen according to the Uncertainty Principles, and each physical quantity must be evaluated on all space-times and then some average is to be calculated. Especially the “small perturbations” were Gravity waves; why not?

The ATL's diverge, of course, and this is due to gravitational coupling to the different "perturbations" on different space-times, so a particle of microscopical mass remains practically unaffected for long times. This is hopeful for micro/macro differences, always expected.

You
can solve the Schrödinger equation in each space-time; the small curvatures
appear as some random "gravity fields", going into the VY term. Of course, the Y's of one initial state diverge on the
different space-times. Károlyházy suggesteed that when the average spread *in
phases* becomes comparable to p, then
the different Y's could not interfere anymore, so Superposition is broken down. Then Nature takes one half of the set, and
throws away the other. Hence a stochastic behaviour appears, *even without
Measurement*.

There is some inherent similarity to Jánossy's suggestion (see the previous Chapter), although the startpoints very much differ. No surprise that [8] also predicts zigzag motions. But now not for ultrarelativistic protons, but for colloid grains. Already in [8] Károlyházy found that the "anomalous Brownian motion" would be easiest to observe for such objects.

The statement is more explicit in [13] & [14], so let us go there. First let us note that in a theory which is Unification of Relativity, Gravity & Quantumness a fundamental mass scale

M_{Pl}
= (~~h~~c/G)^{1/2} ~ 10^{-5} g (11)

always occurs. But the Károlyházy theory contains another scale, which is not quite a mass scale, nevertheless fundamental.

Let us argue now only qualitatively; we shall meet the same scale again in Part 6 and then we will use a somewhat more rigorous language. There are macro bodies (say, an iron sphere) and micro particles, say an electron. Let us restrict ourselves to simple bodies with negligible internal structures, which can be characterized by a mass M and a linear size R; and nothing else.

Now
see two extrema. For an electron we get that the superposition breaks down at center
of mass uncertainty a_{c} after time t_{c} which are

a_{c}
~ 10^{35} cm, t_{c} ~ 10^{70} s (12)

greater than
Universe. So the wave packet of a free electron *never* Reduces without
Measurement. We may tell that this is par excellence Micro or Quantum
behaviour.

On the other hand, for a 1 cm iron ball

a_{c}
~ 10^{-16} cm, t_{c} ~ 10^{-4} s (13)

The rapid Reductions keep down on micro scales the uncertainty of the position; for all practical purposes the ball is a Macro or Classical object, even if it is not absolutely hopeless to try to observe the "Brownian motion" of the ball coming from Reductions.

So we got the Quantum behaviour of Micro objects in one direction and the Classical (or Newtonian) one of Macro ones. This is nice. And the borderline between the two old regions is around the line

M^{3}R
~ ~~h~~^{2}/G ~ 10^{-47} g^{3}cm (14)

Then indeed, particles are always Quantum; e.g. for a proton the dimensionless

Q ş R~~h~~^{2}/M^{3}G (15)

is 10^{12},
so indeed many TeV accelerated protons would be needed to see *something*
non-Q. On the other hand, cm sized metal balls Q~10^{-}^{50},
so they are C. But let us see a SQUID.

In it
superconducting Cooper pairs build up a *macroscopic* Q state in a cm
ring. Now, for one Cooper pair Q would be 10^{33}. This means that the
Q state is still coherent with 10^{10} Cooper pairs. If something is Big
but Light enough, it is still Micro. And observe that there is no *c* in
Condition (14)!

The
behaviour of the model is very near to Reality; but there is still some problem.
Evaluating further consequences it turns out that laboratory lead bricks would
emit deadly X-ray radiation [5], or that there would be observable deviations
from Newtonian planetary orbits (and *not* as the perihelion advance of
Mercury!) [4]. We guess what condition equation of [8] was a premature choice,
and we could replace it with a better one (see the details in [2]). However
this was the point where L. Diósi and myself tried to fulfil a more realistic
program of the Last *Dual* Unification, from the beginning without *c*,
as O'Gallaghan in the Einsteinless ATL (Part 4) did. This will be discussed in
Part 6; here I only note that in the lack of experiments the *Trial*
Unification is risky.

**6. DUST &
MIST IN WILSON CHAMBERS**

Károlyházy summarizes the various opinions about the mystery of Measurement. He distinguishes 4 "schools"; let us follow him. First is the

*Orthodox school*. They believe in the separation of System
(what is measured) and Mind (what recognizes the result). The wave packet
Reduces when Mind Records. So Quantum Mechanics does not describe Mind.

Then comes the

*Copenhagen** school*. When the Micro system is coupled to a Macro
apparatus, already the total, Micro

+Macro system has a wave function. However this Macro wave function is *not*
a superposition.

The third is a radical solution, the

*Everett** school*. There is no reduction at all, and the observer's
Mind is also coupled to the Micro system, not only the apparatus. So no
possibility is lost; but that Mind-state of ours which did not see the light,
evolves on an Alternative TimeLine.

And finally there is the

*Transition zone
school*. They believe in
something between Micro & Macro, where interesting things happen, but our
theory is still unable to handle it. Then the strange evolution happens in
the transition zone (14).

It seems that Wigner preferred (more or less) the Orthodox school together with such authors as Schrödinger and London. Bohr, Heisenberg & followers liked the Copenhagen school, Everett and many supergravity people the Everett school, and the first serious champion of Transition zone school was Ludwig [15]; Károlyházy believes also in this approach (and also do I).

In his theory Károlyházy simulates the evolution of droplet tracks in Wilson chambers. Although now Wilson chambers belong to heroic past, lots in textbooks are based on Wilson chamber photographs, so let us see how they evolve.

The question is: why we see a definite track although it is stochastic which slit the particle took, and exactly where went (as we see this from interference patterns). First some commonplaces. There is an overcooled water vapour in the chamber (in the sense that air could not retain all the vapour), so it would be higher entropy state if some vapour formed droplets. However the air is very clean, so there are no condensation nuclei, so droplet formation is slow. But the charged particle acts as a moving condensation nucleus, and droplets are immediately formed.

However
take a situation when the particle is in a superposition of *two
macroscopically different paths*. We know that such states exist.

OK,
the electron is light, so Microscopic, so the superposition would last 10^{70}
s, so it survives. But the vapour track is much heavier, and it would not
survive so long. He gets that "for orientation" again M^{3}R
shows Micro/Macro behaviour, but now R is the distance of 2 half-tracks. At the
beginning "several hundreds" of molecules form the half-tracks;
accumulation will come later. Indeed, such pre-tracks are microscopic, even
with 1 cm distance.

Then comes
Accumulation. While he does not give a number, my guess is that Superposition
breaks down when the track consists of cca. 10^{7} molecules. But then
it breaks down within 10^{-7} s [8].

Obviously
less molecules would not give recordable track; even with 10^{7} the
track would be noncontinuous & monomolecular. So Siamese twin tracks cannot
be expected even if we know that some electrons take both slits.

While there are explanations of the single-track phenomenon which even do not refer to Transition zone (see e.g. [16]), the Károlyházy explanation works straightforwardly. Obviously there can be something in Transition.

**7.
PHOTOEMULSIONS, LATENT PICTURES, DEVELOPING, &C.**

OK, but the tracks on Jánossy's plates were in photoemulsions. Holba was not disturbed: her only duty was to organise & direct the measurements of tracks. (That is not Measurement; it is purely Classical.) She was not told The Theory, and she did not ask to be told.

Now, I
could tell: it goes as in the previous Chapter; only substitute H_{2}O
with Ag. Indeed, here it would be premature to tell everything; we are only in
1974. Still, I must mention some characteristics.

Photoemulsions have some carrier material plus AgBr. Illumination reduces a tiny part of AgBr to Ag. But that is really a tiny fraction.

Photoemulsions
are *grainy*. Grain size depends on quality, production, &c., but is
roughly at 100-500 mµ size. In such a grain some 10 of AgBr molecules are
reduced by light.

Then
you *develop* the stuff. Tricky chemicals reduce more AgBr in the neighbourhood
of free Ag atoms. If they do it too vehemently, there will be blackness even at
non-illuminated points, which should rather be avoided. I do not know exactly
what happens with Br atoms, but I guess they go to the solution. This process
takes several minutes.

After
that comes *fixation*. Another chemical solves the remaining AgBr, and
then the negative picture can be brought to lights.

Now, take a charged particle producing Siamese twins in the emulsion. Sometimes between irradiation and fixation the superposition surely breaks down, as in Wilson chambers; but when?

**8. OUTLOOK**

I
close here the story of 1974, although Refs. [13] & [14] belong there.
These papers wanted to discuss experimental consequences. Tiny colloid grains
are quite “alive”, but it is really difficult to isolate colloid grains for
measurements. A ~cm metal ball on a 10 m rope as pendulum would make some
movements, bigger than the Brownian motion, but how to rule out microearthquakes?
Our best candidate was a ~ 1 cwt dumbbell on a satellite. It will move
unstoppably to and fro. Nobody yet wanted to take the suggestion. But note:
this motion is *not* the effect of an external mover. The objects are just
*in the spacetime*, as anything else; so anything fulfilling (14) will
move quite substantially. OK, metal objects will move *randomly*.

And what happened with Jánossy, Holba and the plates? Now, from 1975 to 1978 Ms. Holba bore two children, so did not direct the measurement of tracks. She returned in 1978, but she was not exactly in direct connection with Jánossy, there were at least two levels in between. And then, still in 1978, Jánossy died in a heart attack. Holba did not know the Theory; her bosses also did not know. (I knew, partly, but I did not know about the measurement.) The experimental data remained in a storage bin for 12 (!) years. There were data on punched tape too. But they could be read only by Bulgarian tape readers (no joke), and sometimes between 1978 & 1990 they went out of use. I still saw the punched tape in 1990 but the content was more obscure than the Etruscan theology of Lintel Book.

Look: something always is hindering Unification of Gravity & Quantization in Hungary.

**REFERENCES**

[1] L. Diósi
& B. Lukács: In Favor of a Newtonian Quantum Gravity. Annln. Phys. **44**,
488 (1987)

[2] L. Diósi
& B. Lukács: On the Minimum Uncertainty of Space-Time Geodesics. Phys. Lett.
**A142**, 331 (1989)

[3] Ágnes
Holba & B. Lukács: Is the Anomalous Brownian Motion Seen in Emulsions? Acta
Phys. Hung. **70**, 121 (1991)

[4] L. Diósi
& B. Lukács: Károlyházy's Quantum Space-Time Generates Neutron Star Density
in Vacuum. Nuovo Cim. **108B**, 1419 (1993)

[5] L. Diósi
& B. Lukács: Calculations of X-Ray Signals from Károlyházy's Hazy
Space-Time. Phys. Lett. **A181**, 366 (1993)

[6] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Is the Spurious Scattering a Quantum Gravity Phenomenon?. in Stochastic Evolution of Quantum States in Open Systems and in Measurement Problems, eds. L. Diósi & B. Lukács. World Scientific, Singapore, 1994, p. 69

[7] B. Lukács: Triality in the Depth of Physics? On the Fundamental Unification. in Proc. 6th Symp. on Matter Evolution, eds. B. Lukács & al., KFKI-1995-21, p. 6. Also on Internet: http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/3DEPTH.htm

[8] F. Károlyházy:
Gravitáció és makroszkopikus
testek kvantummechanikája. Magy.
Fiz. Foly. **XXII**, 23 (1974)

[9] E. P. Wigner: Symmetries and Reflections. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1967

[10] H.
Everett III: Relative State Formulation of
Quantum Mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. **29**, 454 (1957) )

[11] E.
Schrödinger: Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissensch.
**23**, 807; 823; 844 (1935). See also: Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. **31**,
555 (1935)

[12] F. Károlyházy:
Gravitation and Quantum Mechanics of Macroscopic Bodies. Nuovo Cim. **A42**
(**A52**?), 390 (1966). (There must be some misprint behind. I did not find
the paper, and L. Diósi informed me that the first coordinate is wrong; but
that is cited in [8].)

[13] F. Károlyházy, A. Frenkel & B. Lukács: On the Possibility of Observing the Eventual Breakdown of the Superposition Principle. In: Physics As Natural Philosophy, ed. By A. Shimony & H. Feshbach, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 1982, p. 204

[14] F. Károlyházy, A. Frenkel & B. Lukács: On the Possible Role of Gravity in the Reduction of the Wave Function. In: Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, ed. by R. Penrose & C. J. Isham, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 109

[15] G. Ludwig: Solved and Unsolved Problems in the Quantum Mechanics of Measurement. In: Werner Heisenberg und die Physik Unserer Zeit. Braunschweig, F. Vieweg & Sohn, 1961

[16] A. A. Broyles: Explaining Cloud Chamber Tracks. UFIFT-HEP-92-21

Part 3: Hungary, 1918-19, OTL/ATL.

Part 5: 1974, OTL. ---You are here.

Part 7: 1990, experiments, OTL.

**My HomePage, with some other studies**, if you are curious.