This essay is intended to share the vies of the author of his Judeo-Christian belief and the physical validation of such believes based upon the theories of Quantum Mechanics. A fund way to remember how to "fix our manifested creation" by means of observation is as follows: "Keep an eye on the ball", "Do not drop the ball"

1. The “necessary observer” that Quantum Mechanics require is
described in the Bible
by Yo Creo
This essay will point to the Bible as the explanation that the Quantum Mechanics need
not be concerned with a conscious being observing creation to remain manifested as the
collapse effect of the wavefunction.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is
possible.” - Stuart Chase
ABSTRACT
According to the theory of Quantum Mechanics, the physical reality is a result of the
collapse of the wavefunction as a “local” manifestation of the non-local wavefunction.
Furthermore, the theory also requires that a conscious observer continuously be
observing the creation in order for it not to return to its waveform. Since God is omniscient
(all knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere) He is observing His creation
everywhere. The book of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible does make it clear that “He
saw…” in several occasions. Such a statement was a mystery to the author until the study
of Quantum Mechanics (as a hobby) stated that there is a need for a conscious observer
in order for a manifested. It should be noted that the wavefunction can easily be equated
to God Himself because the wavefunction “is the wave of all possible manifestations” and
God told Moses in Exodus 3:14, “God replied to Moses, "I Am Who I Am." Notice that
one can say, today, in terms of Quantum Mechanics (henceforth, QM): “Say this to the
people of Israel: The wavefunction has sent me [Moses] to you [the people of Israel]”.
Reference
NOVA – THE NATURE OF REALISTY, The physics of nothing, everything and all the things
in between (Page in this essay), 11/02/2011.
The explanation of how is it that God is the permanent observer begins with a quote from
the reference NOVA Article as follows:
“Quantum mechanics is full of strange things that cry out for an interpretation,” says
Cramer. There’s the problem of “spooky action at a distance,” the apparent
connection between “entangled” particles that seems to violate the finite speed of
light; and there’s Einstein’s famous discomfort with the idea that no reality exists
outside of our own perceptions. As Einstein put it: “Do you really think the moon
isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”
There’s also a niggling problem with exactly what defines “looking at it”—or, in
quantum-speak, what defines a “measurement.” If we truly cannot say anything

2. definite about a particle until after we’ve measured its state, then the act of
measuring it must be pretty special. But why? What happens in that moment?
Physicists often talk about it as the “collapse of the wavefunction”—that is, the
moment when all of the possible particle states represented in the probability
equation called the wavefunction collapse into a single, measured state. The
instantaneous collapse of an entity that wasn’t physically real to start with is weird
in itself.
The creation can be thought of a two-sped process similar to that required in the use of
Epoxy. The theological analog of the logos-observation is this, “God said” means “the
resin” and it is the manifestation of what God intended to create. “God saw that is was
good” is the hardener required to make the collapsed creation from the wavefunction to
remain permanent.
Creation, in this essay means “the manifestation (actualization) of something from the
wavefunction”. Therefore, when Genesis refers to actions as “separate…”, it means
“Creative design” just like a chef creates a mean from existing ingredients. That is,
Genesis would not say “and God saw that it was good”.
The act of creation in the bible is a cooperative effort of the triune God. Creation required
the planning, instructions (Spoken creative Word, The Logos – Jesus Christ), and the
Holly Spirit:
“And God said, let us (The Trinity) make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the [entire creation]” - Genesis 1: 26
Christ, the Eternal Word (The Logos or verb)
1
In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He existed in the beginning with God.
3
God created everything through Him, and nothing
was created except through Him.
4
The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness
can never extinguish it.” - John 1: 1-5
Now, here are the biblical quotes from Genesis, the 1St
book of the Bible, that clearly
show that is the “Permanent and omnipresent observer” God required by the theory of
QM:

3. “9
Then God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry
ground may appear.” And that is what happened. 10
God called the dry ground “land”
and the waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good.” – Genesis 1:9-10.
“14
Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let
them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. 15
Let these lights in the sky shine
down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16
God made two great lights—the larger
one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17
God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18
to govern the day and night, and to
separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.” – Genesis 1:14-
19.
20
Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled
with birds of every kind.” 21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that
scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the
same kind. And God saw that it was good. – Genesis 1:20-21.
24
Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring
of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild
animals.” And that is what happened. 25
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock,
and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that
it was good. – Genesis 1:24-25.
31
Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! –
Genesis 1:32.
Conclusion
It is self-evident that the intention of “God saying” and “God seeing” us an indicative of
His nature. Quantum Mechanics has discovered, to some extent, “The mind of God”
Epilogue
There are two (2) witness testifying about the existence of God’; The human conscience,
the internal witness, and Creation (aka, Nature) which is the witness external to the
human conscience. A biblical quote must be corroborated with a pertinent additional
quote or quotes, therefore, the closing of this essay utilizes the following two (2) biblical
quotes”:
“For the director of music. A psalm of David. ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the
skies proclaim the work of his hands.’” - Psalm 19:1
“18
But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress
the truth by their wickedness [humanistic philosophy]. 19
They know the truth about God
because he has made it obvious to them. 20
For ever since the world was created, people
have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his

4. invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not
knowing God.
21
Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks.
And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds
became dark and confused. 22
Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23
And
instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look
like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a
result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25
They traded the
truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead
of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.” - Romans 1:18:24

5. NOVA – THE NATURE OF REALISTY
The physics of nothing, everything and all the things in between
Quantum Physics
Debating the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics
By Kate Becker on Tue, 01 Nov 2011
Why is quantum mechanics like cricket? Because for me, no matter how many times the
rules are explained, I can’t seem to get my head around what the game is actually about.
Is quantum theory a system of equations? A description of the behavior of invisible
particles? A philosophy for the post-post-modern age?
And how strange is it that we even have to ask? Unlike other scientific theories, quantum
physics is so slippery that its formalism—the equations that add up to a mathematical
representation of what we humans call reality—is divorced from its physical
interpretation. Sure, we can solve the Schrödinger equation for the case of a particle
stuck in a box, but what is that telling us about how the natural world really works?
This isn’t a question you’d even think to ask about classical mechanics. Remember
Newton’s Second Law, the one relating force to mass and acceleration? Its formalism is
F=ma, and its interpretation is pretty simple: If you want to know the force an object is
exerting, just multiply its mass by its acceleration.
That’s F=ma. But what about:
“Quantum mechanics needs an explanation worse than other theories do because others
always had a physical picture that guided the formulation of the mathematics,” explains
John Cramer, a physicist at the University of Washington who also happens to be the
author of his own interpretation of quantum mechanics—more on that later. Newton had
his (possibly apocryphal) apples, his inclined planes, his cannonballs. Werner Heisenberg,
one of the “fathers” of quantum mechanics, by contrast, had some elegant mathematics,
a vision more akin to numerology than to a picture of the physical world, in Cramer’s
view.
“The Copenhagen interpretation is like a religious text,” says MIT physicist Max Tegmark.
“It leaves a lot open to interpretation.”

6. Yet Heisenberg, like his colleague Niels Bohr, felt that quantum mechanics needed no
further interpretation. This view, which is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation,
holds that there is no “objective reality” lurking beneath the formalism. If the equations
say that I have a 50% chance of measuring a particle in a certain state—say, spin up—
and then I go ahead and measure it in that state, what more is there to say? To guess
at what the particle was doing before I made the measurement would be worse than
speculation; nothing can be said about the particle except in the context of a
measurement. “Reality” is no more and no less than what our instruments and senses
reveal it to be. The Copenhagen interpretation may give you a headache, but according
to Anton Zeilinger, the University of Vienna physicist most famous for his teleportation
experiments, “It works, is useful to understand our experiments, and makes no
unnecessary assumptions.”
Still, many physicists find this notion unsatisfying. “Quantum mechanics is full of strange
things that cry out for an interpretation,” says Cramer. There’s the problem of “spooky
action at a distance,” the apparent connection between “entangled” particles that seems
to violate the finite speed of light; and there’s Einstein’s famous discomfort with the
idea that no reality exists outside of our own perceptions. As Einstein put it: “Do you
really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”
There’s also a niggling problem with exactly what defines “looking at it”—or, in
quantum-speak, what defines a “measurement.” If we truly cannot say anything definite
about a particle until after we’ve measured its state, then the act of measuring it must
be pretty special. But why? What happens in that moment? Physicists often talk about it
as the “collapse of the wavefunction”—that is, the moment when all of the possible
particle states represented in the probability equation called the wavefunction collapse
into a single, measured state. The instantaneous collapse of an entity that wasn’t
physically real to start with is weird in itself. But physicist Steven Weinberg pointed to
another weak link in this interpretation in a 2005 article in Physics Today: “The
Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a
measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated
classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the
same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe.”
If not Copenhagen, then what? Let’s take a quick tour of a handful of the (many!)
competing interpretations of quantum mechanics.
 Copenhagen interpretation: This is the interpretation we’ve just met, and the
one you’ll see in most physics books—though even Heisenberg and Bohr didn’t
always agree on the particulars. To put it in terms of our cricket analogy, let’s say
that you’re following a cricket match on your cell phone. Actually let’s make it a
baseball game because, as I’ve already confessed, I don’t understand cricket. So
you’re using one of those apps that updates the box score every time you press

7. “refresh,” but you can’t actually see the game in progress. According to the
Copenhagen interpretation, there is no game—just the results you get when you
ping the server. So it’s no use talking about whether the batter is getting into the
pitcher’s head, or the appearance of the rally squirrel, or even the trajectory the
ball takes on its way into the first baseman’s glove. The box score is real; the game
isn’t.
 Consistent histories: The Copenhagen interpretation applies to a situation in
which an observer (the baseball fan) makes a measurement (checks the score) on
some external system. But what happens when the observer is himself part of the
system—say, the shortstop? That’s the problem that a special breed of physicists
called quantum cosmologists encounter when they attempt to study the entire
universe as a single quantum system. The Copenhagen interpretation falls short
in this case, but the consistent histories interpretation, developed in the 1980s and
early 1990s, does away with external “observers” and “measurements”—they are
treated as part of one big system.
 Many worlds: We talked earlier about the problem of the collapsing
wavefunction. But what if the wavefunction never actually collapses? What if every
possibility it represents really does happen in its own universe? With every
measurement, each universe branches off into countless others, each of which in
turn branches into ever more universes. The many worlds interpretation was first
proposed in the 1950s by the young physicist Hugh Everett, and though it never
gained much traction at the time, its star is now ascending: In the film Parallel
Worlds, Parallel Lives, Tegmark called the many worlds interpretation “one of the
most important discoveries of all time in science,” and he and his colleagues
recently posited that Everett’s parallel universes might be congruent with the
parallel universes proposed by cosmologists. Of course, plenty of physicists can’t
stomach the idea of a multiplicity of fundamentally unobservable universes. Yet—
back to baseball for a moment—there is something appealing about an
interpretation that insists upon the existence of a universe in which the baseball
rolls squarely into Buckner’s glove; an interpretation that guarantees that every
heartbreaker in our universe is shadowed by a heroic comeback in another; an
interpretation in which the Red Sox and the Yankees win, year after year after
year.
 Transactional interpretation: The transactional interpretation might solve
some of quantum theory’s biggest quandaries, if you can get your head around
the idea of a wave with negative energy that travels back in time. The transactional
interpretation was first proposed in the 1980s by John Cramer, and suggests that
the wavefunction includes not just one but two probability waves—the familiar one
that travels forward in time, plus an exotic twin that travels backward. When they
meet, they exchange a “handshake” across space-time, says Cramer; at other

8. points, they cancel each other out completely, removing any telltale traces of the
journey backward in time.
So, is there any way to know which interpretation is right or wrong? “Unless you can
catch an interpretation deviating from the mathematics, you can’t rule it out,” says
Cramer. And though some experiments could maybe, possibly tip the scales in favor of
one interpretation or another, there is no consensus that any of the contenders above
have been favored or nixed by experiment. Perhaps, some physicists argue, the pursuit
of an interpretation is a flawed endeavor. “There is no logical necessity of a realistic
worldview to always be obtainable,” wrote Christopher Fuchs and Asher Peres in a Physics
Today opinion piece titled, transparently, “Quantum Theory Needs No ‘Interpretation’.”
“If the world is such that we can never identify a reality independent of our experimental
activity, then we must be prepared for that, too.” Perhaps the interpretation problem isn’t
a problem of quantum physics at all, but a problem of human beings.
Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
Kate Becker
Kate Becker is the editor of The Nature of Reality, where it is her mission to blow your
mind with physics. Kate studied physics at Oberlin College and astronomy at Cornell
University, and spent seven years as senior researcher for NOVA and NOVA scienceNOW.
Support provided by:
Related Posts
1. Can Quantum Computing Reveal the True Meaning of Quantum Mechanics?
2. Quantum Biology: Better Living Through Quantum Mechanics
3. Who’s Afraid of Quantum Mechanics?
4. What If Quantum Mechanics Went On Strike?
From NOVA Online
 How Vultures Can Eat Rotten Meat
Posted on 3 November 2015, 5:00 AM: Why don't vultures get food poisoning?
 North America Sky Tour
Posted on 3 November 2015, 5:00 AM: Fly coast to coast to see highlights of how North
America took the shape it is today.
 Towers of Chalk in Kansas

9. Posted on 3 November 2015, 5:00 AM - Amidst the flat plains of Kansas are the gorgeous
remains of an ancient inland sea.
 CyberWar Threat
Posted on 3 November 2015, 5:00 AM - As internet connections multiply so do points of
attack and risks to national security.
 Making North America: Origins
Posted on 3 November 2015, 5:00 AM - Experience the colossal geologic forces that
shaped our continent over billions of years.
More from PBS
 Science & Nature
Explore the best of PBS science programs and science news. Video and web content from
your favorite PBS shows like Nature, NOVA, and more. Animals, space and astronomy,
natural history, environment and environmental issues, …
 New Space Telescope to Map Dark Matter
This week, NASA announced that it will partner with the European Space Agency to send
a 4,760-pound spacecraft into space to peer out over billions of galaxies in an effort to
map and measure the universe. Its purpose: to investigate the mysteries of dark matter
and dark energy.
Funded by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) Fund, a donor-advised fund of the
Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
 National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Google and Cancer Treatment
Centers of America. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund
for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers.
 This website was produced for PBS Online by WGBH. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-
profit organization. Website © 1996-2016 WGBH Educational Foundation.