P. F. González-Díaz / Natural Science 3 (2011) 397-400

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS

400

reality like the Schrödinger’s cat. And then quantum

cosmological models dictate that therefore we cannot

talk about the universe as a whole, but only what a given

observer inside it might measure.

Nevertheless, if we keep ourselves within the context

of what has been said above, then a quantum-cosmo-

logical observer must by itself be split into two un-

avoidably independent parts: the bone and flesh struc-

tures supporting the set of tools made of detectors, food

and breathing endorsements and displacement proce-

dures, so as the thermodynamic, psychological and cos-

mic arrow of times, etc., which all are classical in their

very nature and may be really separated from the very

concept of quantum observer to join the rest of the world,

so leaving the other, now quantum-mechanically rele-

vant part of the quantum observer: its mind. This is the

actual and unique designer of every observation or

measurement actions or decision making, and clearly

should form part of the entangled quantum universe, just

playing the role of that completing missing part required

by that universe to achieve quantum completion.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER

COMMENTS

As one conclusion we shall notice that the above ar-

guments lend support to the idea that we are daring to

suggest in this report that every single universe, in the

multiverse or not, is by itself an essentially quan-

tum-mechanical system endowed with all tools of quan-

tum information, which violated Bell’s inequalities [7],

and could by no means have any classical analog. At

first sight it might also be reconsidered that to deal with

a macroscopic mass using quantum mechanics one must

consequently correct the derivation of the equations de-

scribing the evolution of the universe and the behavior

of that mass itself. However, besides the feature that the

mass density is what matter here and this mass density is

extremely small for our currently accelerating universe,

the development that we have considered here has noting

to do with such an issue but with the nuclea-

tion/annihilation balance of those baby universes being

branched off and in throughout the large spacetime of

the current universe. In fact, as important outcomes from

such a balance we have the fixing of all particle masses

and physical constants, according an improved Coleman

mechanism [8,9] and the existence of quantum-optical

master equations as those given by Eqs.3 and 8, accord-

ing to the mechanisms described in References [2] and

[4] for baby universes created in self-correlated pairs.

Now, since there will always exist a nonzero contribu-

tion for nucleation of pairs of baby universes it follows

that the Coleman mechanism for the big fix [8] becomes

consistent [9,10]. We finally point out that the quan-

tum-mechanical entanglement energy for a single uni-

verse should be interpreted in terms of the existence of a

future event horizon, which is granted for any model of

the current accelerating universe, where entanglement is

established between the two independent spacetime re-

gions created by that horizon [11].

No boubt, this paper is too brief to provide definitive

description, analysis or discussion on the problem of

why the universe as a whole ought to be regarded as a

quantum object devoid of any classical analog. Even

though one therefore cannot provide with a fully consis-

tent answer to the question posed in the title, the paper

still contains the main basic ingredients needed to prop-

erly cook such an answer which should in any event

given in terms of the entangled baby universe pairs.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks Carmen Sigüenza and Salvador Robles-Pérez for

enlightening discussions and decisive technical help, and the Estación

Ecológica de Biocosmogía de Medellín, Spain, where part of this work

was carried out. This paper was supported by MICINN under Research

Project No. FIS2008-06332.

REFERENCES

[1] Zurek, W.H. (1991) Decoherence and the transition from

quantum to classical. Physics Today, 36.

[2] González-Díaz, P.F. (1992) Non Classical States in

Quantum Gravity. Physics Letters, 293, 294-298.

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90886-9

[3] González-Díaz, P.F. (1992) Regaining quantum in-

cohence for matter fields. Physical Review, D45, 499-

506. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.499

[4] González-Díaz, P.F. (1998) Quantum gravity and the

problem of measurement. International Journal of Theo-

retical Physics, 37, 249-256.

doi:10.1023/A:1026610616692

[5] González-Díaz, P.F. and Robles-Pérez, S. (2009) Entan-

gled accelerating universe. Physics Letters B, 679, 298-

304. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.08.006

[6] Reid, M.D. and Walls, D.F. (1986) Violations of classical

inequalities in quantum optics. Physical Review A, 34,

1260-1276. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.34.1260

[7] Bell, J.S. (1987) Speakable and unspekable in quantum

mechanics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

[8] Coleman, S.R. (1988) Why there is nothing rather than

something: A theory of cosmological constant. Nuclear

Physics B, 310, 643-668.

[9] González-Díaz, P.F. (2011) Is there a bigger fix in the

multiverse? e-Print: arXiv: 1102.2771v1.

[10] González-Díaz, P.F. (1993) Blackbody distribution for

wormholes. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 10, 2505.

doi:10.1088/0264-9381/10/12/009

[11] Müller, R. and Lousto, C.O. (1995) Entanglement en-

tropy in curved spacetimes with event horizons. Physical

Review D, 52, 4512-4517.

doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.4512