Throughout
the entire mankind's existence, the properties
of Nature, without exception, were discovered
through observations and experiments which were
catalogued and classified in accordance to
certain patterns that were noted to exist. To
each such pattern discovered, hypotheses were
associated which were further refined and tested
to determine whether a logical link could be
established among such hypotheses and whether
they could be reduced to an underlying common
denominator. Physical theories of Nature were
born out of such intellectual
processes.
Sir
Isaac Newton, in a letter written in 1672 to
Henry Oldenberg, the Secretary of the Royal
Society, articulated this process of discovering
'things' in Nature as follows:
|
 "For
the best and safest method of
philosophizing seems to be, first
diligently to investigate the
properties of things and establish them
by experiment, and then to seek
hypotheses to explain them. For
hypotheses ought to be fitted merely to
explain the properties of things and
not attempt to predetermine them except
in so far as they can be an aid to
experiments.
If
any one offers conjectures about the
truth of things from the mere
possibility of hypotheses, I do not see
how anything certain can be determined
in any science; for it is always
possible to contrive hypotheses, one
after another, which are found rich in
new
tribulations.
Wherefore I judged that one should
abstain from considering hypotheses as
from a fallacious argument, and that
the force of their opposition must be
removed, that one may arrive at a
maturer and more general
explanation."
[Underline
supplied.]
|
|
Preface
by I. Bernard Cohen in Isaac Newton's
Opticks (Dover Publications, Inc.,
1952, pp. xxiv-xxv).
|
|
On
Werner Heisenberg's Observational and
Experimental
Impasse
|
That
inward
discovery method of Physics, from
observations and experiments to the
creation of a theory, encapsulated so eloquently
by Newton, reached however an insurmountable
impasse when it arrived at studying the atomic
and subatomic worlds. It was Werner
Heisenberg who first recognized of an
inherent limitation posed by Classical Newtonian
Physics when one begins probing the atom and its
structure. The problem, as
Heisenberg
noted in 1927, was that when we perform
experiments at the atomic and subatomic level,
regardless how careful we are, we will
inevitably create and introduce
large
and uncontrollable
perturbations,
making therefore the results and the data
obtained highly unreliable.
In
his, now classic book, "The Physical
Principles of the Quantum Theory"
(Dover Publications, 1949, p. 3),
Heisenberg
made these critical observations:
|
 "...
[In] classical physics theories
it has always been assumed either that
this interaction is negligibly small,
or else that its effect can be
eliminated from the result by
calculations based on 'control'
experiments. This assumption is not
permissible in atomic physics;
the
interaction between observer and object
causes uncontrollable and large changes
in the system being
observed.
... The immediate consequence of this
circumstance is that
in
general every experiment performed to
determine some numerical quantity
renders the knowledge of others
illusory, since the uncontrollable
perturbation of the observed system
alters the values of previously
determined
quantities.
If this perturbation be followed in its
quantitative details, it appears that
in many cases it is impossible to
obtain an exact determination of the
simultaneous values of two variables,
but rather that there is a lower limit
to the accuracy with which they can be
known." [Underline
supplied.]
|
|
[W.
Heisenberg, Zeitschrift für
Physik, 43, 172,
1927]
|
That
observer effect (as it is known today)
was further illustrated by Heisenberg in his
1933 Nobel address and lecture. There, he most
beautifully illustrated of the imposibility in
studying, through observations, the
"electron-path concept" by providing a
thought experiment with having "a microscope
of extreme resolving power." Attempting to
observe "an electron in its path within an
atom" with that imaginary high-power
microscope, Heisenberg noted:
|
|
|
Arthur
Compton
His experiment of
low-intensity scattering
of light was used by
Heisenberg in his
seminal
argument.
|
|
|
"...
since the specimen in this microscope
would have to be illuminated with light
having an extreme short wavelength, the
first light quantum from the light
source to reach the electron and pass
into the observer's eye would eject the
electron completely from its path in
accordance with the laws of the Compton
effect. Consequently only one point of
the path would be observable
experimentally at any one
time."
Werner
Heisenberg: "The Development of Quantum
Mechanics"
Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1933, pp.
291-292.
|
|
|
|
|
Entering
The Dark
|
.
|
|
|
|
of
Quantum
Mechanics
|
|
.
|
1. In other words, in order to able to
see the electron in that dark, murky
zone, we must need to illuminate that place with
light! And when we do that and turn on
the light, the traveling photons of the
light will interact with existing
electrons, perturbing in that process "big time"
the entire terrain that is being observed. As
such, that big "uncontrollable perturbation"
created will alter significantly the studied
landscape making therefore the entire experiment
completely unreliable and thus worthless.
We
call that monumental recognition,
Heisenberg's Observational Indeterminacy
Principle (HOIP), mentioning again that
originally, Heisenberg used the word
"ungenauigkeit" ("indeterminacy") to
describe his observational-impasse recognition
that in the English-language version,
incorrectly, was translated as
"uncertainty."
|
Critical
Remark on Heisenberg's "Indeterminacy"
("Ungenauigkeit")
Principle
|
|
 The
Heisenberg's original HOIP
needs not be confused with the today's
evolved, degenerated, and totally
different proposition known as the
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
(HUP) which proclaims that the
position and the momentum
of a particle cannot be precisely
determined simultaneously because of
the particle's wave-like nature
[sic!].
According
to that hypothesized HUP,
the more precisely the
position
of a particle could be determined to
be, the less precisely its
momentum
could be obtained, and vice versa
[sic!].
 How
such an hypothesis, that is derived
from a mathematical inequality (which
stands as a pillar of Quantum
Mechanics), could be accepted without
the existence of a physical
causality?
That
evolved and degenerated principle of
HUP
is now no longer about the inherent
observational indeterminacy caused by
the observer's inherent intrusion (due
to the "large
and uncontrollable
perturbations"
created within the system by the
viewer's act of observation as
brilliantly noted by Heisenberg),
but is about an out-of-the-blue
willy-nilly proclamation claiming to be
the result of the wave-like nature of
matter.
As
such, through that scenario,
irrespective of the viewer's
observational intrusion, the
uncertainty of the measurements must
occur because of the inherent wave-like
characteristic of the matter itself
[sic!]. However, on the other
hand, it is now universally accepted
(and proven for electrons in
page 10),
that electrons in addition to their
wave-like nature, have also a
particle-like nature. And that dual
concomitant particle-wave nature of
electrons (and thus of matter), makes
the proclamation of HUP
(and
thus
of Quantum Mechanics), a proposition of
the Absurd as it negates the particle
characteristic of the matter's
nature.
|
That
initial observational barrier that
Heisenberg,
through his HOIP,
has recognized to exist for Particle Physics,
leads now to the recognition of the existence of
an Ultimate
Bottom Observational Frontier
(UBOF)
of Nature that is encapsulated into
|
The
First
Foundational
Universal Recognition Of
Nature
(1st
FURON)
|
There
is an Ultimate
Bottom Observational Frontier
(UBOF)
beyond which, Nature is no longer
accurately
observable.
|
|
Expansion
and
Remark:
Nature, at its nano-scale base
structure, as first recognized by
Werner Heisenberg, cannot be observed
without modifying or altering in a
significant way its existing natural
settings.
.That
is to say that the true, accurate
picture of Nature, at its nano-scale,
cannot be obtained through any
observational probe because, through
illumination, we are interfering and
destroying the original existing
settings.
.Indeed,
upon attempting to "see" that
bottom-level landscape of Nature, we
invariably need illumination which in
turn requires turning on the light. And
by introducing light into the system,
that, in itself, will change, through
interaction, in a dramatic fashion the
entire existed configuration that is
being studied.
.Thus,
the inherent process of illumination,
and nothing else, is the culprit of
that inherent distortion of the reality
governing the nano-structure of Nature.
Without the illumination, we need
therefore finding a new way of "seeing"
Nature at its nano-base ultimate level
of existence, and that new way can be
provided by
TRUTON!
.
|
|
|
Fundamental
Corollary of Classical Physics
Limitation:
|
|
By
the 1st
FURON,
it follows that the methods of
Classical Physics in obtaining
its results can no longer be
extended beyond
UBOF.
|
|
By those reasonings springing from
Heisenberg's
HOIP,
the future of experimental Particle Physics
could have been put to an abrupt end --something
that no one could have accepted. As such, in a
hurry the same Heisenberg came to the
rescue.
2.
Completely out-of-the-blue, Heisenberg
transformed his HOIP
into something completely different postulating
that a fundamental characteristics that exists
at the particle-level of Nature is that, there,
the position and the speed of a
particle cannot be determined
simultaneously with any controllable
precision.
According
to Heisenberg's revised postulate, known as
Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle (HUP),
we can measure one or another of that
position-speed pair, but we can not
measure both simultaneously with any precision.
And that apparent peculiarity was attributed to
exist in that particle nano-world called now
the quantum world. That out-of-the-blue
rather bizarre postulate, in spite of the strong
opposition received from various prominent
physsicists, began gradually in gaining traction
and acceptance chiefly because of the elegant
Mathematics that it was able to be covered with.
That Uncertainty
Principle eventually
become a foundational pillar of a "new" Physics
--the Quantum Physics.
Is
that Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle (HUP)
a far-fetched assumption representative of the
particle world or is it something else? Well,
upon pondering over that rather fundamental
question, accidentally, a flying butterfly was
able provide the initial
answer!!
We
note that when the butterfly stay still, with
ease we can determine its exact position.
However, as the butterfly begin to fly, its
erratic motion will create a challenge to keep
up determining its position and that challenge
increases significantly with the increase of its
speed. So the correlation between speed
and position become apparent: the greater
the speed, the more difficult was to determine
its exact position.
So,
yes, we see merit in
Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle (HUP):
the faster a particle will move, the less
precise the measurement of its position can be
determined. We thus, have no problem in
elevating HUP
to
Heisenberg's Inverse-Order
Observational
Conjecture (HIOC):
|
|
The position
and speed
of
a moving object are influenced by each
other in an
inverse-order
relationship:
|
when
attempting to measure them
simultaneously, the precision
of that measurement varies
inversely
with their speed: the
lower/higher is the speed, the
higher/lower is the precision
in determining the object's
exact
possition.
|
|
So, HIOC
tells
us that the higher the speed of an object is,
the lower the precision in determining the
object's position is going to be. Is that all,
that we can say? Not really. And that is
because, for millenia,
Heisenberg's
HIOC
was well known in the animal kingdom!! Indeed,
let us take, for instance, the lions. They
continuously are facing Heisenberg's
HIOC
when chasing the nearby zebras. Upon locking-in
on a zebra for the kill and, as the zebra begins
to run away, increasing its speed, its stripes
will generate an optical illusion for the
chasing lion to a point where zebra's position
can no longer be determined with any precision.
That is WHY lions have such a hard time in
catching the nearby zebras!!
|
BTW, that rather remarkable study with
zebras was first published in the
Zoology Journal by Martin J. How
(of Australia, now a Royal Society
University Fellow at University of
Bristol, UK) and Johannes M.
Zanker (of Royal Holloway
University of London, UK) under the
title "Motion camouflage induced by
zebra stripes." [(v. 117, issue
3, June 2014, pp.
163-170).]
|
|
|
The
authors argued in that zebra article
that "the observer's visual
system is flooded with erroneous motion
signals that correspond to two
well-known visual illusions:
 (i)
the wagon-wheel effect (perceived
motion inversion due to spatiotemporal
aliasing); and
(ii) barber-pole illusion
(misperceived direction of motion due
to the aperture effect) and predict
that these two illusory effect act
together to confuse biting insects
approaching in the air
[as
illustrated and supplied by us in here
of a butterfly with a stripe pattern,
animated figure at
left],
or possibly mammalian predators during
the hunt, particularly when two or more
zebras are observed moving together as
a heaard."
|
Well,
so much about optical illusionary effects. The
question that inevitably now arises is this
one:
What Heisenberg's HIOC
and
visual illusions have to to do with the
fundamental Physics describing Nature, in the
first place?
The short answer is of course, nothing, but
absolutely nothing. The study of sense
perceptions (senpers),
as interesting as it may be, lies indeed outside
the realm of fundamental Physics and, as such,
Quantum
Mechanics
whose pillar is Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle (HUP)
needs to reside indeed outside of the realm of
fundamental Physics. Respectfully, we make no
mistake about that.
Time
is long overdue indeed to properly place Quantum
Mechanics (that purports to describe Nature at
its base-level state of existence) to its proper
place. And that proper place where Quantum
Mechanics actually belongs is a place away, far
away, from the realm of fundamental Physics. How
humans perceive or can observe Nature is surely
a most interesting subject, but which, most
certainly, is not a subject of fundamental
Physics and again, respectfully, we make no
mistake about that.
On
the Birth of Quantum Mechanics through
Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle
and Its Connection to Einstein's
Special Theory of
Relativity
|
That
profound recognition of Heisenberg that
Classical Physics, through its existing
inductive method, was not able to probe Nature
at its atomic and nuclear level as noted in the
1st FURON,
posed a formidable challenge for the direction
of Physics. A rational person, in a normal state
of mind, would have concluded that experiments
designed of probing Nature at its atomic and
subatomic levels are useless because the data
obtained are highly corrupted and
uncontrollable. But such a scenario --dictated
by
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
(HUP)
was not something that could stand regardless of
the rationality involved. As such, something
else had to be added.
Well,
with no other alternative available to be
pursued, a radically new approach was coined by
Heisenberg to be the solution were logic and
rationality need no longer reign supreme as the
irrationality --under certain circumstances--
was quite useful and thus allowed to enter into
the realm of the "new"
Physics
called now the "modern"
Physics to
be differentiated from
"classical"
Physics were
no such impurities of logic were allowed to
exist.
Einstein's
lunatic Special Theory of Relativity
(STR)
suddenly become extremely appealing to
Heisenberg not because of its results that were
meaningless and unusable in Heisenberg's Quantum
Mechanics, but because of the irrational
modality that those results were obtained.
Particularly, Heisenberg has been impressed with
the fact that Einstein's theory of relativity
(which had gained some momentum for its general
acceptance) was based on an approach
incorporating those two (2) novel
characteristics:
|
.i)
that when needed, willy-nilly
hypotheses can be created in a hurry,
with no immediate rationale for their
existence, to justify the incorporation
of certain predetermined results (such
as that the speed light is the maximum
speed attainable in the Universe), and
place them --ad hoc-- at the top of the
theory, claiming to represent
fundamental and universal "laws of
Nature" and,
.ii)
that when in an impasse and
difficulty to find a coherent picture
and theory of Nature, we can always
find refuge in blaming our Mind for its
"biological" inadequacy in not being
able to grasp Nature at its most
fundamental levels of existence on the
grounds that our Mind and Brain
biologically evolved only to deal with
"things" derived from our everyday
experience.
Accordingly,
by that incredulous reasoning, when
dealing with matters outside our
everyday experience, the Mind --through
its biological limitations-- is not
able to render coherent descriptions of
Nature or form a coherent mental
picture, and thus it is perfectly
acceptable, as a matter of necessity,
to introduce irrationalities and
incoherencies into such descriptions
and theories of Nature.
|
!
|
Tell
that cockamamie to a
mathematician
that our current cultivated
Mind cannot render logical
inferences outside the world
of which we have no experience
and which we cannot observe
and see, for yourself, the
answer that you may get after
the insanity is being ruled
out!
|
|
Heisenberg saw that approach pioneered by
Einstein as the ticket to the solution for his
problem. Following Einstein, Heisenberg elevated
his Observational
Indeterminacy Principle (HOIP)
to the extraordinary status that it represented
an ultimate "law of Nature" and gave to it a new
form vested in a mathematical expression. Also,
following Einstein, Heisenberg blamed the Mind
and its purported (biological) limitation for
the necessity of introducing an incoherent
language for expressing and describing phenomena
at the atomic and subatomic levels. In several
places of his quoted book,
Heisenberg articulated all these points as
follows.
In
his Introductory chapter (ibid.,
pp. 3-4), Heisenberg noted:
|
"The
starting-point of the critique of the
relativity theory was the postulate
that there is no signal velocity
greater than that of light.
In
a similar manner, this lower limit to
the accuracy with which certain
variables can be known simultaneously
may be postulated as a law of Nature
(in the form of the so-called
uncertainty
relations)
and made the starting-point of the
critique which forms the subject matter
of the following pages.
These
uncertainty relations gives us that
measure of freedom from the limitations
of classical
concepts
which is necessary for a consistent
description of atomic processes."
[Underline
supplied.]
|
The linkage in approach to Einstein's relativity
theory was essential for Heisenberg to justify
and consolidate his own position as he noted of
this (ibid.,
p. 62):
|
"With
the advent of Einstein's relativity
theory it was necessary for the first
time to recognize that the physical
world differed from the ideal world
conceived in terms of everyday
experience."
|
Then, with this linkage to Einstein's relativity
theory being established, Heisenberg went for
his desired setup alluding to the inadequacies
of the Mind when dealing with profound concepts
of Nature such as the one posed by the
relativity theory ((ibid.,
p. 62):
|
...
but as the mind is always slow to
adjust itself to an extended range of
experience and
concepts,
the theory of relativity seemed at
first repellently abstract.
Nonetheless, the simplicity of its
solution for a vexatious problem has
gained it universal acceptance. As is
clear from what has been said,
the
resolution of the paradoxes of atomic
physics can be accomplished only by
further renunciation of old and
cherished
ideas.
Most important of these is the idea
that natural phenomena obey exact laws
--the principle of causality."
[Underline
supplied.]
|
Now with that setup being in place, Heisenberg
went in full force for the kill, attacking
mercilessly the Language provided and developed
by the Mind as being wholly inadequate when
dealing with the atomic world (ibid.,
p. 11):
|
"It
is not surprising that our language
should be incapable of describing the
processes occurring within the atoms,
for, as has been remarked, it was
invented to describe the experiences of
daily life, and these consist only of
processes involving exceedingly large
numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is
very difficult to modify our language
so that it will be able to describe
these atomic processes, for words can
only describe things of which we can
form mental pictures, and this ability,
too, is the result of daily experience.
Fortunately, mathematics is not subject
to this limitation, and it has been
possible to invent a mathematical
scheme --the quantum theory-- which
seems entirely adequate for the
treatment of atomic processes; for
visualization, however, we must content
ourselves with two incomplete analogies
--the wave picture and the corpuscular
picture."
|
Pondering over that nagging "schizophrenic"
representation vested in the duality
particle-wave picture, Heisenberg blamed this
situation on Language as well! (ibid.,
p. 10):
|
"Light
and matter are both single entities,
and the apparent duality arises in the
limitations of our language."
[sic!]
|
With this everything was set, in terms of
justification and explanation, to proceed
embarking into a new theoretical world pioneered
by Einstein, where anything conforming to a
willy-nilly mathematical scheme can be accepted
as a theory of the atomic and subatomic world
regardless of whether or not the results
obtained have any meaning, sense, or any
physical rationality for their existence.
The
mathematical scheme and not the Physics was what
counted in this
description.
The fact that this description, from time to
time, as needed, would stray away from logic,
coherence, common sense, or rational intuition
and rational thinking was perfectly acceptable
due to the limitations of the Mind and Language
which were so zealously professed to exist.
Since no formal constraints existed in this new
theoretical world anything could have been added
to the existing "mathematical scheme" until we
could reach "explaining" the desired
result.
Thus,
Heisenberg's initial uncertainty principle based
on the recognition that all experimental data at
the atomic and subatomic level carry
"uncontrollable large uncertainties" let him
transform this recognition into a vehicle for
transporting us into a new world free from the
constraints and limitations that Logic, Common
Sense Intuition, and Rational Thinking would
provide --a world called the quantum
mechanics world. And Heisenberg noted of the
blessings that this new found world could
provide were his Uncertainty Principle was able
to be incorporated as one of its pillars
(ibid.,
p. 4):
|
"These
uncertainty relations gives us that
measure of freedom from the limitations
of classical concepts which is
necessary for a consistent description
of atomic processes."
|
Sadly, the only "consistency" in the
descriptions provided in this new quantum
mechanics world was that there those
descriptions no longer needed to have any
physical meaning associated with them and, that
they could be expressed into a Language that
defies our common sense and rationality. Yes,
there, in that world, we can enjoy --for
whatever it is worth-- an absolute "freedom from
the limitations of classical
concepts."
Now,
that Einstein's relativity theory had served its
purpose for setting up a new framework for the
theoretical studies at the atomic and subatomic
level --the quantum mechanics framework,
Heisenberg saw no need to be tied up anymore
with Einstein's theory which could no longer be
used in any other way. For Heisenberg it was
time to move on, not before however dismantling
one of Einstein's most sacred physical
principles of Nature embodied in the law of
causality and formalized first by Isaac Newton
in his seminal Principia. Heisenberg made
note for the necessity of such a move in his
Introductory chapter of his referenced quantum
theory book (ibid.,
p. 2):
|
"Although
the theory of relativity makes the
greatest of demands on the ability for
abstract thought, still it fulfills the
traditional requirements of science in
so far as it permits a division of the
world into subject and object (observer
and observed) and hence a clear
formulation of the law of causality.
This is the very point at which the
difficulties of the quantum theory
begin."
|
Let us then take a closer look at this dramatic
departure from both Classical Physics and
Einstein's relativity theory which Heisenberg
had advocated to be necessary to take place in
order to "understand" the atomic and subatomic
worlds.
On
the Abolishment of Causality in the
Quantum Mechanics Theory
To Follow from Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle
|
Since
we cannot predict the outcome of an experimental
result at the atomic and subatomic level, we can
no longer talk or associate here any meaning to
the cause-effect relationship since to a cause,
according to Heisenberg, we no longer can
associate one determinable effect as now this
principle is being substituted with an
uncertainty effect dictated by his Uncertainty
Principle. And because of this, in turn,
according to Heisenberg, we no longer can talk,
in a meaningful way, about the exact laws of
Nature as they need to be substituted with laws
dictated by the mathematical Theory of
Probability. Heisenberg made his argument on the
necessity of abolishing the deterministic view
of Nature (that to each cause it corresponds a
well defined effect) as follows
(ibid.,
pp. 62-64):
|
"...
our ordinary description of Nature, and
the idea of exact laws, rests on the
assumption that it is possible to
observe the phenomena without
appreciably influencing them.
To
coordinate a definite cause to a
definite effect has sense only when
both can be observed without
introducing a foreign element
disturbing their
interrelation.
The law of causality, because of its
very nature, can only be defined for
isolated systems, and in atomic physics
even approximately isolated systems
cannot be observed. This might have
been foreseen, for in atomic physics we
are dealing with entities that are (so
far as we know) ultimate and
indivisible. There exist no
infinitesimals by the aid of which an
observation might be made without
appreciable perturbation.
Second
among the requirements traditionally
imposed on a physical theory is that it
must explain all phenomena as relations
between objects existing in space and
time. This requirement has suffered
relaxation in the course of the
development of physics. ...
Now,
as a geometric or kinematic description
of a process implies observation, it
follows that such a description of
atomic processes necessarily precludes
the exact validity of the law of
causality --and
conversely.
Bohr
has pointed out that it is therefore
impossible to demand that both
requirements be fulfilled by the
quantum theory. They represent
complementary and mutually exclusive
aspects of atomic phenomena. ... This
indeterminateness of the picture of the
process is a direct result of the
indeterminateness of the concept
'observation'
--it
is not possible to decide, other than
arbitrarily, what objects are to be
considered as part of the observed
system and what as the observer's
apparatus.
... Even when this arbitrariness is
taken into account the concept
'observation' belongs, strictly
speaking, to the class of ideas
borrowed from the experiences of
everyday life. It can only be carried
over to atomic phenomena when due
regard is paid to the limitations
placed on all space-time descriptions
by the uncertainty principle."
[Underline
supplied.]
|
A rational person analyzing Heisenberg's
arguments based on this formulation of his
Uncertainty Principle, clearly is impressed by
the depth of this principle, but not by the
consequences that are inferred to exist. Surely,
just because we cannot determine with precision
the effect to result of a given cause, this does
not mean that there is no deterministic
relationship between the respective cause and
its corresponding effect.
The
only thing, that a rational person can conclude
is that the method employed in forecasting the
result (or the effect, if you will) is not
capable to render an exact solution. But just
because our method is deficient in forecasting
with exactness a result this does not mean the
result will not occur exactly when it
should.
You
see, Nature could care less whether or not we
can keep up with the complexities of its
behavior. Just because we cannot predict, with
our forecasting method, when and where exactly
rain will occur on Earth this does not mean that
in fact rain will not occur exactly when and
where the conditions for the rain are
met.
That distinction
is paramount and it can never be blurred away.
To bypass and override that distinction,
Heisenberg, as we have seen above, has elevated
--with no rationality or any sort of
justification-- his Uncertainty Principle to the
ultimate status, by postulating it, to be a "law
of Nature."
But that
approach clearly cannot be supported for a
rational theory of Nature. And that is
because
the deterministic cause-effect
is always present in Nature regardless of our
abilities of being able to predict it or not,
regardless of whether we have observed it or
not, regardless of whether we exist or not! If
the input is the cause and the output is the
effect, then in Nature always to each input will
correspond a determined and precise
output.
The
input can be a sum of many individual 'actions'
acting simultaneously which could be independent
or dependent (linearly or non-linearly) from
each other, and the output of this is the
cumulative superimposed effect or 'reaction'
obtained which always manifests its existence in
a deterministic way whether we can predict it or
not.
With
that language and terminology employed, we have
that
to a superimposed cumulative action always a
deterministic reaction will correspond which
will manifest its existence in a precise and
well-defined way.
But
that realization,
on a further reflection, is in fact a
generalization of Newton's Third Law of Motion
which states that to every (linear) action
there is always opposed an equal (linear)
reaction.
The
existence of a reaction to every action is due
to the fact that the reaction is nothing
more,
nor less,
than the concrete expression of a real
relationship
that the action has established with its
surrounding
environment.
It
is of paramount importance to further recognize,
beyond a shadow of doubt, the
following:
1)
That
there is no distinction between how Nature
operates at large scale (the macro cosmos) or
at the most minute scale (the micro
cosmos).
And
that is because there is
one,
and only one,
logic upon which the entire Universe
"functions." If that would not have been the
case, then an internal self-conflict would
have developed resulting in the inability of
the Universe to exist, as a unit, and thus of
the Universe's inability to exist at all. And
second,
2)
That
the logic upon which the Universe "functions"
is one and the same with the logic upon which
our Mind is "equipped to function"
as
illustrated through countless of examples
that can be provided from our everyday
experience.
To
recapitulate, there is one and only one
universal principle of operation in Nature:
to
each real, physical cause it
corresponds a real, well-defined
physical effect which is the real
form of manifestation and expression
of the cause's existence. The effect
is always the real manifestation of
the relationship
that the cause has established with
its environmental medium. Depending
on the initial conditions, that
relationship
can be a simple or a complex one,
but always a deterministic
one.
|
Let
us conclude with this Part by noting that if
Heisenberg's
Uncertainty
Principle
was truly a principle of Nature governing the
atomic and subatomic systems, then we, for
instance, would never could have been able to
build an atomic bomb or use atomic energy in any
deterministic and precise way! No, Nature does
not employ or function on uncertain terms or
uncertain principles. The only uncertainties
that we can associate to a phenomenon of Nature
are our own predicaments derived from our
particular method of forecasting. But that is,
of course, an entirely different
thing.
No
rational theory of Nature can be based on a
foundational pillar proclaiming that to a
defined physical cause there will not
necessarily correspond a deterministic effect,
as that contradicts, in a fundamental way, our
way of thinking, our way of drawing inferences.
Our evolved cultivated Mind will not allow for
such an inference to take place. Just because we
cannot predict in a deterministic way the effect
resulted from a cause OR
that we cannot even "see" the respective effect,
this does not mean that a deterministic effect
does not in fact exist. As we have seen from the
presentation given above, it is a fundamental
recognition that in Nature to each action
always will correspond a reaction which will
manifest its existence, in a deterministic way,
either directly or indirectly.
Any
theory purporting to be a theory of Nature which
does not subscribe to that fundamental
principle, is a theory, par excellence, of the
Absurd. That is why Quantum Mechanics is par
excellence a mechanics of the absurd
(MOA).
Quantum
Mechanics theory, having as its foundational
pillar a negation of that fundamental principle
of Nature through Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle, is an example, of such "par
excellence" mechanics
of the Absurd
(MOA).
It is imperative that Quantum Mechanics theory,
which is disguised under the coat of advanced
Mathematics, no longer be permitted to represent
the atomic and subatomic theory of Nature and be
exposed for what it stands for, for what it is,
and for what it is purported to be.
An
intellectual standing against Quantum Mechanics
theory must be made, as the continuing
acceptance of that irrational theory of Nature
represents, in the final analysis, first and
foremost, an affront to the Mind's cultivated
intelligence and, to its ability to comprehend
in a rational manner, the atomic and subatomic
level of organization of matter.
Another
staggering consequence that immediately follows
from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, when
elevated as a fundamental law of Nature, is that
a particle, at the same time, can be in
two (2) different places!
That absurdity,
which offends the Mind in a direct flagrant way,
was needed to be accepted since according to the
proponents of Quantum Mechanics theory, there,
at the atomic and subatomic level, Nature is
governed by different rules which may appear to
the Mind as inconsistencies of logic.
P.
A. M. Dirac, another founder of Quantum
Mechanics theory articulated this very point in
the Preface of his classic book The Principles
of Quantum Mechanics (Fourth Edition, Oxford
Press, 1958, pp. vii-viii) as follows:
|
"It
has become increasingly evident in
recent times, however, that Nature
works on a different plan
[sic!].
Her fundamental laws do not govern the
world as it appears in our mental
picture in any very direct way, but
instead they control a substratum of
which we cannot form a mental picture
without introducing irrelevancies."
[Underline
supplied.]
|
|
Dirac's
proclamation that Mathematics should
dictate Physics, should never ever
happen:
PS>
There is a floating joke around, for a
number of decades, of how
mathematicians view physicists that use
solely Mathematics for their
theoretical
work:
|
|
|
That absolute nonsense, which has been embraced
almost blindly, as an act of some faith, by
those who preach Quantum Mechanics theory, as
representing a principle of Nature, cannot be
left unexposed as it represents the greatest
impediment to a true theory of Nature describing
the atomic and subatomic level.
It
bears repeating and repeating, again and again,
that there
is one, and only one, logic upon which the
Universe "functions" since if this would not
been the case, then an internal "functional"
conflict would have had emerged making it
impossible for the Universe to exist as a unit.
And that logic, upon which the Universe
"functions," is identical with the logic upon
which the Mind "functions," as illustrated
through countless examples derived from our
everyday
experience.
Because of that unity in logic, for the
Nature's modus operandi, that we
recognize to exist, we are striving to find a
true rational unified theory of Nature
(TRUTON). It is because of that recognition,
that the Quantum Mechanics theory must be
expunged, as being utterly repugnant, at its
very core of existence. The so-called quantum
logic (quantogic) is par excellence
an example of a logic of the irrational reaching
the level of the Absurd
(Absurdogic).
Following
that quantogic,
we immediately can recognize its fallacy. For
instance, following that quantum logic, we can
now talk say, of a table being in two (2)
distinct places at the same time! That very
point, of the absurdity of such type of results,
was articulated, for instance, by
Sir
Roger
Penrose
of Oxford University in England, in an
interview with The New York Times, as
follows:
|
 "I
can think of a[t] least one
major area, which I'm absolutely sure
is missing from the present-day
physics, which probably will come in
the next 50 years or so, and it will be
a tremendous revolution. It has to do
with how to understand quantum
mechanics. See, quantum mechanics
describes small-scale phenomena --
atoms, molecules, particles. And if you
have certain rules, which if you try to
apply them to large objects, they give
you nonsense. They will tell you that a
baseball can be here and there at the
same time.
There
are endless ways that people try to
argue around this. But to me, it says
that the theory is just not right
..."
|
Science
Section of The New York Times of
January 19, 1999, p. D3, or on the
Internet at
<http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/011999sci-penrose-cosmos.html>
|
Not only that the hocus-pocus Quantum Mechanics
theory represents a wrong theory of Nature based
on wrong principles and sustained with faulty
and irrational arguments devoid of any physical
meaning, but also and foremost it represents an
intellectual affront and a sham with no parallel
in the entire recorded history of science. In
fact, we do not mind repeating Richard
Feynman's
candid reflection that:
|
|
|
|
On
TRUTON's Bottom-Up Path of
Discovery
|
It
is the purpose and scope of TRUTON to establish
a rational foundation for understanding
Nature from one single principle, law, cause, or
"logic" of operation. The method employed here,
never used before in the form presented herein,
is modeled from Mathematics where we start with
certain primary propositions, called axioms, and
then using rational thinking --and only rational
thinking-- an entire theory is build
up.
Unlike
Mathematics (where those axioms can be
any proposition that cannot be derived
from anything else and cannot lead to rational
contradictory results), in TRUTON
--The Rational Unified Theory Of
Nature, those primary propositions, in
addition, must have physical roots and
connotations that cannot "offend" our given
common
sense
provided by our cultivated Mind which herein
reigns supreme.
Our
modeled mathematical method of discovering
things in Nature, should not be confused with
the long standing method of using Mathematics as
a tool in deriving results of Nature. We will
not use Mathematics per se, but
instead we will use its deductive outward
method of how it obtains its results and
nothing else.
TRUTON
therefore is, par excellence, a deductive rather
than an inductive theory of Nature. The
rationale and the necessity of its deductive
approach springs from the recognition of
Heisenberg that the inductive method of
Classical Physics is no longer capable of
furnishing us, reliable
results,
when we begin studying the atomic and subatomic
level of existence of Nature.
Since
the mathematical method of discovering things
will be our guide, let us begin our contemplated
journey with some basic preparatory work. No
matter what branch of Mathematics that we may
wish to consider for our guidance, they all are
guided by the same methodology in deriving their
respective results which is:
- start
with some primary propositions,
called axioms, to satisfy these
two (2) basic requirements:
i)
that they could not be
derived from one another
nor from anything else;
and
ii) that they do
not lead to
contradictory results
(theorems);
|
|
|
then,
|
- establish
some primary relation or law that
the primary "elements" will
obey
|
|
and
then, finally
|
- build
up all your results by employing
exclusively rational deductive
reasoning from that primary relation
or law.
|
To
help us in our guidance, let us zoom our
attention at Geometry and, for simplicity, at
the Euclidean Geometry that is most familiar to
a great majority of people.
In
the modern treatment of the Euclidean Geometry,
we note that mathematicians start with
certain
undefined primary elements
such as point, line, and
plane;
|
|
and
with
|
certain
undefined primary relations
such as the 'on' relation as in "the
point lies 'on' the line."
|
Then, this set of undefined primary elements and
relations are being subjected to a set of
primary, unproven propositions called axioms
which need to be logically compatible i.e., not
leading to contradictory results. From there,
using the rational deductive reasoning, the
entire Geometry is build up. Well, in most
general terms, that shall be our blueprint for
creating, from the ground up, our new theory of
Nature --TRUTON.
|
.
|
|
The rational deductive road which we
are choosing to pursue, from the bottom
up, in studying Nature is a road which
has never been traveled before and, as
such, extreme caution is necessary. As
noted, so far in Physics and for that
matter in the rest of Natural Sciences,
throughout the entire history of
physical science, the direction of
theoretical work was done, if you will,
"inwards":
we
started with the result
(provided by observations
or experiments) and went
"inwards" attempting to
find an explanation for the
result obtained.
|
|
In
Mathematics, on the other
hand, as we have noted, the
method of obtaining
theoretical results has been
exactly in the opposite
direction being, if you will,
in the "outwards" direction:
you start with certain primary
propositions called axioms and
then you work your way "up"
deriving results which are
build up from the previous
results and so on. It is this
"outwards" direction from the
ground up that we shall
attempt to initiate as the new
direction of studying
Nature.
|
|
With that directional blueprint in hand,
before we begin in earnest with our trutonian
journey, we want to have at our disposal,
also for guidance, a foundational
philosophical blueprint --the subject of
the next page.
.
