A century ago, "past" and "future", previously strictly apart, mixed up and merged. Temporal terminology improved. Today, not actualized quantum states, that is merely "possible" alternatives, objectively "exist" (are real) when they interfere. Again, two previously strictly immiscible realms mix. Now, modal terminology is insufficient. Both times, extreme reactions reach from rejection of the empirical science to mystic holism. This paper shows how progress started with the relativization of previously absolute terms, first through Einstein's relativity and now through Everett's relative state description, which is a modal realism. The historical parallels suggest mere relativization is insufficient. A deformation of domains occurs: The determined past and the dependent future were restricted to smaller regions of space-time. This light cone description is superior to hyperspace foliations and already entails the modal realism of quantum mechanics. Moreover, an entirely new region, namely the "absolute elsewhere" was identified. The historical precedent suggests that modal terminology may need a similar extension. Discussing the modal realistic connection underlying both relativities, Popper's proof of future indeterminism is turned to shatter the past already into many worlds/minds, thus Everett relativity is merely the Bell inequality violating correlation between possible empirical records.
A century ago, "past" and "future", previously strictly apart, mixed up and merged. Temporal terminology improved. Today, not actualized quantum states, that is merely "possible" alternatives, objectively "exist" (are real) when they interfere. Again, two previously strictly immiscible realms mix. Now, modal terminology is insufficient. Both times, extreme reactions reach from rejection of the empirical science to mystic holism. This paper shows how progress started with the relativization of previously absolute terms, first through Einstein's relativity and now through Everett's relative state description, which is a modal realism. The historical parallels suggest mere relativization is insufficient. A deformation of domains occurs: The determined past and the dependent future were restricted to smaller regions of space-time. This light cone description is superior to hyperspace foliations and already entails the modal realism of quantum mechanics. Moreover, an entirely new region, namely the "absolute elsewhere" was identified. The historical precedent suggests that modal terminology may need a similar extension. Discussing the modal realistic connection underlying both relativities, Popper's proof of future indeterminism is turned to shatter the past already into many worlds/minds, thus Everett relativity is merely the Bell inequality violating correlation between possible empirical records.
Twentieth-century physics was shaped by two profound revolutions. The first, Einstein's relativity, banished absolute space and time from the foundations of physics. Motion, Einstein showed, possesses no absolute meaning—only relative motion between observers merits physical description. The second, quantum mechanics, dismantled the classical notion of determinacy. A physical quantity, before measurement, is not merely unknown but genuinely indefinite, suspended in a superposition of possibilities. These two revolutions, for all their splendor, have never spoken a common language. General relativity describes a world of continuous, deterministic geometry; quantum mechanics, a world of discrete, probabilistic events. Their unification—a theory of quantum gravity—remains the central unsolved problem of theoretical physics. We diagnose this impasse not as a technical failure, but as a conceptual incompleteness. The two revolutions, in their original domains, stopped short of questioning a premise both inherited from classical thought: that physical reality, determinacy, and facts themselves are absolute—that they exist independently of the framework through which they are described. Einstein relativized motion but left the existence of spacetime geometry absolute. Quantum mechanics relativized the values of observables but left the fact of an outcome unexplained, consigning it to the mysterious "measurement process." Neither theory asked: in what sense is a fact—that a quantity has a definite value, that an event has occurred, that a physical reality is thus and not otherwise—itself relative to a descriptive framework? This is the question the present work undertakes to answer. In doing so, it completes the program of relativity—not by appending new terms to old equations, but by extending the principle of relativity to its ultimate domain: being itself.
Please download the paper and then read the abstract (since crucial formulas are not appearing in this window, and also hyperlinks are not working). This is just a brief overview: Relativity is inside the light cone phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics is outside the light cone phenomena, dictated just by the scale (i.e. whether we use classical/human scale or sub-atomic scale). This recent paper [ ‘ Quantum principle of relativity’; Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert, New. J. Phys. 22 (2020) 033098] has shown that every exotic Quantum effect like superposition, entanglement, probabilistic behavior, multiple paths etc. can be explained just by allowing super-luminal possibility. The 'inside the light cone' phenomena, and the 'outside the light cone' phenomena together span the entire region within the space and time axes. Only in unison they complete the entire picture. We failed to realize that the same spacetime is getting split into 'space like' and 'time like’ regions based on scale. And the reason behind this is not the magical ( ? ) speed of light. That would have turned both relativity and quantum mechanics into mere branches of electromagnetism. The true reason is much deeper and at a very fundamental level of our universe. It turns out that the c is the radial expansion velocity of our universe. But why does the transition from Relativity to Quantum Mechanics happens with decreasing size scale? That’s because, this is what is happens to spatial and temporal dimensions at different scales: 3+1 (Classical regime) <=> 2+2 (Compton regime) <=> 1+3 (Planck regime). Just as space and time exchange roles at the event horizon of a Black Hole, similarly, spatial and temporal dimensions switch roles for extremely small scales (although due to a completely different mechanism). Why this happens is difficult to expalin without the true model of our universe. But, once explained, it becomes "Why didn't I think about it before? I was plain silly!" From the center of universe viewpoint, simultaneity is absolute (as demanded by Sagnac effect), and there is indeed absolute universal time (as demanded by quantum mechanics). From our viewpoint (located at an awkward position in the universe), locality is absolute, and velocity c is the upper limit, and remains constant for every observer. This turns (our) space and time into inseparable twins, and makes (our) time a relative concept. This solves the time problem which had so stubbornly resisted the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are like two sides of the same coin. But understanding the relation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is a bit tricky, because according to General Relativity, gravity is the warping/curvature of the 4 dimensional spacetime itself. At first sight, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem to be utterly incompatible! But actually, Special Relativity’s big brother General Relativity only complicates things a bit, but does not become inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics altogether. The only difference between the warped spacetime of General Relativity, and the flat spacetime of Special Relativity is very similar to the difference between a stretched rubber membrane, with and without a metal ball placed on it. This paper does not sacrifice any of the spectacular success of General Relativity and also does not compromise with any of the stunningly accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics. And yet, this paper harmoniously brings Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity together. Just bear in mind that Nature simply cannot afford to make our two greatest theories incompatible. After all, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were based on what nature was actually telling us, and nature herself would be accountable for any genuine contradiction (but not for the breakdown of our physics due to our misunderstanding!). And, by the way, this paper solves some of the most pressing problems in both Physics & Cosmology. The 'Principle of Least Action' which comes closest to a 'Theory of Everything' arises as a direct consequence of better SpaceTime theory proposed in this paper. Also, we can see why the symmetries of nature (which gives rise to the crucial conservation principles in Physics according to the Noether's theorems) arises in the first place. Gentle reminder: Please download the paper and then read the abstract.
Please download the paper and then read the abstract (since crucial formulas are not appearing in this window, and also hyperlinks are not working). This is just a brief overview: Relativity is inside the light cone phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics is outside the light cone phenomena, dictated just by the scale (i.e. whether we use classical/human scale or sub-atomic scale). This recent paper [ ‘ Quantum principle of relativity’; Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert, New. J. Phys. 22 (2020) 033098] has shown that every exotic Quantum effect like superposition, entanglement, probabilistic behavior, multiple paths etc. can be explained just by allowing super-luminal possibility. The 'inside the light cone' phenomena, and the 'outside the light cone' phenomena together span the entire region within the space and time axes. Only in unison they complete the entire picture. We failed to realize that the same spacetime is getting split into 'space like' and 'time like’ regions based on scale. And the reason behind this is not the magical ( ? ) speed of light. That would have turned both relativity and quantum mechanics into mere branches of electromagnetism. The true reason is much deeper and at a very fundamental level of our universe. It turns out that the c is the radial expansion velocity of our universe. But why does the transition from Relativity to Quantum Mechanics happens with decreasing size scale? That’s because, this is what is happens to spatial and temporal dimensions at different scales: 3+1 (Classical regime) <=> 2+2 (Compton regime) <=> 1+3 (Planck regime). Just as space and time exchange roles at the event horizon of a Black Hole, similarly, spatial and temporal dimensions switch roles for extremely small scales (although due to a completely different mechanism). Why this happens is difficult to expalin without the true model of our universe. But, once explained, it becomes "Why didn't I think about it before? I was plain silly!" From the center of universe viewpoint, simultaneity is absolute (as demanded by Sagnac effect), and there is indeed absolute universal time (as demanded by quantum mechanics). From our viewpoint (located at an awkward position in the universe), locality is absolute, and velocity c is the upper limit, and remains constant for every observer. This turns (our) space and time into inseparable twins, and makes (our) time a relative concept. This solves the time problem which had so stubbornly resisted the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are like two sides of the same coin. But understanding the relation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is a bit tricky, because according to General Relativity, gravity is the warping/curvature of the 4 dimensional spacetime itself. At first sight, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem to be utterly incompatible! But actually, Special Relativity’s big brother General Relativity only complicates things a bit, but does not become inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics altogether. The only difference between the warped spacetime of General Relativity, and the flat spacetime of Special Relativity is very similar to the difference between a stretched rubber membrane, with and without a metal ball placed on it. This paper does not sacrifice any of the spectacular success of General Relativity and also does not compromise with any of the stunningly accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics. And yet, this paper harmoniously brings Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity together. Just bear in mind that Nature simply cannot afford to make our two greatest theories incompatible. After all, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were based on what nature was actually telling us, and nature herself would be accountable for any genuine contradiction (but not for the breakdown of our physics due to our misunderstanding!). And, by the way, this paper solves some of the most pressing problems in both Physics & Cosmology. The 'Principle of Least Action' which comes closest to a 'Theory of Everything' arises as a direct consequence of better SpaceTime theory proposed in this paper. Also, we can see why the symmetries of nature (which gives rise to the crucial conservation principles in Physics according to the Noether's theorems) arises in the first place. Gentle reminder: Please download the paper and then read the abstract.
This chapter repeats for quantum mechanics the comparison carried out for relativity in Chapter 5. Its thesis is that the same three interpretative families, neo-Kantian, empiricist and scientific realist, reappear in the philosophical reception of quantum mechanics, but in a more radical form, because the dispute now reaches the meaning of the quantum state, of probability and of measurement. The chapter first identifies what the formalism established in Chapter 4 leaves open and treats the Copenhagen framework as a point of departure rather than a unified doctrine. It then reconstructs the neo-Kantian interpretation (the Kantian affinities of Bohr’s complementarity, Cassirer, Grete Hermann and contemporary transcendental perspectives), the empiricist interpretation (Heisenberg’s observability principle, instrumentalism, Schlick, Frank, Reichenbach and van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism) and, on equal terms, the realist interpretation: Einstein and the EPR argument, Popper’s propensities, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, Bell’s beables and local causality, realist modal interpretations, and the Everett and collapse programmes. The realist family is the most developed of the three in quantum mechanics, but it is also internally plural: it affirms that the theory refers to a mind-independent reality while disagreeing about whether that reality consists of particles, fields, propensities, branching worlds or definite and possible properties. On this basis the chapter compares the three interpretations of causality and of stationary action. Causality appears as a relativized condition of objective description, as a statistical relation without surplus content, or as an objective but non-local structure; stationary action appears as a coordination axiom of quantum dynamics, as an empirically equivalent formulation, or as a real dynamical structure that in Bohm’s theory directly guides motion. The result confirms the pattern of Chapter 5 and identifies the precise point, the relation between quantum possibility and actuality, from which the BBMT bridge of Chapter 7 will start.
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
The establishment of the Heisenberg-Schrodinger quantum mechanics in 1926 was undoubtedly the most important event m the history of twentieth-century science - for science itself, even if not for society. One might therefore suppose that the metaphysical conclusions associated with quantum mechanics are a major part of our present view of the world The purpose of this paper is to show that two of these conclusions - indeterminism, and the denial of independent reality to atomic properties - are not unique to quantum mechanics, but emerged as the culmination of historical trends begun m the nineteenth century It postulates cyclic oscillation between 'Romantic' and 'Realist' periods m science and culture, and ascribes a gradual breakdown of belief in determinism to debates about irreversibility. Albert Einstein's opposition to the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum mechanics was based on a preference for realism as much as a dislike for indeterminism, and the 'Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox' was a formidable challenge to subjectivist instrumentalism. Following the revival of realist interpretations m the 1950s, new experiments seem to have reconfirmed the subjectivist view But there is currently strong disagreement on what kind of subjectivism is scientifically legitimate; John Wheeler's version of the 'anthropic principle' and parapsychological explanations both conflict with the naive realism that has dominated the Western Intellectual tradition since the seventeenth century.