After a very successful flurry of activities for a few decades to maximize the benefits of the formalism of Quantum Mechanics to connect the micro and macro universe, the applied physics community has successfully engineered sustained technological innovations for human social advancements. However, a significant segment of the theoretical physics community put their endeavors essentially in inventing realities that are esthetically pleasing to our human logics (epistemology) rather than staying focused on discovering the actual physical realities in nature driven by cosmic logics (ontology). The purpose of this paper is an attempt to formulate a Reality Epistemology that can leverage our enormous successes in science to re‐focus our attention to discovering nature's realities by understanding the physical processes behind all natural interactions that collectively make the cosmic evolution progressing forward. We underscore the deviation from seeking reality to justify the key premise of the paper. We can “see” (measure) the universe only through the “eyes” of the various sensors (detectors). None of these sensors are completely known to us as yet. All sensors also have inherently limited capabilities to respond to input signals and limited capabilities to “report” only a part of all that it experiences. We are thus forced to develop our mathematical theories mixing our human logics and incomplete information and hence they are all provisional and incomplete since they are predicting only correctly measured but limited report by the detector. Thus, we should be careful not to jump into conclusion that we have captured all the necessary cosmic logics behind the interactions involved. We dissect the measurement process in a generic way along with well defined steps to apply Reality Epistemology, which will jointly allow us to develop a scientific methodology of iteratively refining our “successful” human logics that can evolve towards our goal of capturing the cosmic logics. The core content of this paper was first presented at the 2007 QTRF‐4 conference at the Vaxjo University [1].
After a very successful flurry of activities for a few decades to maximize the benefits of the formalism of Quantum Mechanics to connect the micro and macro universe, the applied physics community has successfully engineered sustained technological innovations for human social advancements. However, a significant segment of the theoretical physics community put their endeavors essentially in inventing realities that are esthetically pleasing to our human logics (epistemology) rather than staying focused on discovering the actual physical realities in nature driven by cosmic logics (ontology). The purpose of this paper is an attempt to formulate a Reality Epistemology that can leverage our enormous successes in science to re‐focus our attention to discovering nature's realities by understanding the physical processes behind all natural interactions that collectively make the cosmic evolution progressing forward. We underscore the deviation from seeking reality to justify the key premise of the paper. We can “see” (measure) the universe only through the “eyes” of the various sensors (detectors). None of these sensors are completely known to us as yet. All sensors also have inherently limited capabilities to respond to input signals and limited capabilities to “report” only a part of all that it experiences. We are thus forced to develop our mathematical theories mixing our human logics and incomplete information and hence they are all provisional and incomplete since they are predicting only correctly measured but limited report by the detector. Thus, we should be careful not to jump into conclusion that we have captured all the necessary cosmic logics behind the interactions involved. We dissect the measurement process in a generic way along with well defined steps to apply Reality Epistemology, which will jointly allow us to develop a scientific methodology of iteratively refining our “successful” human logics that can evolve towards our goal of capturing the cosmic logics. The core content of this paper was first presented at the 2007 QTRF‐4 conference at the Vaxjo University [1].
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
Despite the extraordinary successes the two great bastions of 20th century science (Quantum Theory and General Relativity) are troubled with serious conceptual and mathematical difficulties. As a result, further growth of fundamental science is at stake. Is this the end of science? Optimistic answer is ``NOT''! In this work, it is argued that science must continue its cruise, but with anew strategy -- a thorough recourse into the grass-root level working of science is inevitable. In fact, our conventional scientific methods are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower (human mind) -- which makes perception possible. It makes a person or scientist to recognize or refute the existence of an object or a phenomenon. It is also tempted to evince that working of human mind is epistemically scientific and can, in principle, be completely deciphered. It's inclusion in scientific theories, although tedious, can certainly spark a revolution in our understanding of nature and reality.
We use the following epistemology—understanding and visualizing the invisible processes behind all natural phenomena through iterative reconstruction and/or refinement of current working theories towards their limits, constitute our best approach towards discovering actual realities of nature followed by new break‐through theories. We use this epistemology to explore the roots of statistical nature of the real world—classical physics, quantum physics and even our mental constructs. Diversity is a natural and healthy outcome of this statistical nature. First, we use a two‐beam superposition experiment as an illustrative example of the quantum world to visualize the root of fluctuations (or randomness) in the photo electron counting statistics. We recognize that the fluctuating weak background fields make the quantum world inherently random but the fluctuations are still statistically bounded, indicating that the fundamental laws of nature are still causal. Theoreticians will be challenged for ever to construct a causal and closed form theory free of statistical randomness out of incomplete information. We show by analyzing the essential steps behind any experiment that gaps in the information gathered about any phenomenon is inevitable. This lack of information also influences our personal epistemologies to have “statistical spread” due to its molecular origin, albeit bounded and constrained by the causally driven atomic and molecular interactions across the board. While there are clear differences in the root and manifestation of classical and quantum statistical behavior, on a fundamental level they originate in our theories due to lack of complete information about everything that is involved in every interaction in our experiments. Statistical nature of our theories is a product of incomplete information and we should take it as an inevitable paradigm.
A Causal Photon Model for Optical Scientists & Engineers Causal Physics: Photons by Non Interactions of Waves redefines the mathematical Superposition Principle as an operational Superposition Effect; which is the measurable physical transformation experienced by a detector due to stimulations induced by multiple waves simultaneously acting on the detecting dipoles. This light-matter interaction process driven model emerges naturally by incorporating the observed properties, Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) and quantized photo detectors needing to fill up their "quantum-cups" with the required quantity of energy from all the stimulating waves around it. By not incorporating this NIW-property explicitly, quantum mechanics failed to extract various embedded realities in the theory while incorporated unnecessary hypotheses like wave-particle duality. The book utilizes this NIW-property to explain all the major optical phenomena (diffraction, spectrometry, coherence.) without using any self-contradictory hypotheses that are prevalent now. An Unconventional Book for All Physicists The book redefines the old ether (constituting the space) as a stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF), holding all the energy of the universe (no need for Dark Energy of Dark Matter). CTF sustains perpetually propagating EM waves as its linear excitations and the particles as self-looped localized resonant non-linear excitations. Tensions are identified by Maxwell, then the velocities of emitting and detecting atoms through the CTF contribute to the Doppler shifts separately. This calls for re-visiting physical processes behind Hubble Redshift and hence Expanding Universe. Novel Strategy for All Critical Thinkers: Visualize the Invisibles The success of the book derives from a novel thinking strategy of visualizing the invisible interaction processes, named as Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). This is over and above the prevailing strategy of Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). The approach inspires the next generation of physicists to recognizing that the "foundation of the edifice of physics" has not yet been finalized. IPM-E will stimulate more of us to become technology innovators by learning to emulate the ontologically real physical processes in nature and become more evolution congruent. Critical thinkers without expertise in optical science and engineering, will appreciate the value of the content by reading the book backward, starting from Ch.12; which explains the critical thinking methodology besides giving a very brief summary of the contents in the previous chapters. Establishes that abandoning the wave-particle-duality actually allows us to extract more realities out of quantum mechanics. Illustrates how the discovery of the NIW-property profoundly impacts several branches of fundamental physics, including Doppler effect and hence the cosmological red shift Summarizes that many ad hoc hypotheses from physics can be removed, a la Occam’s razor, while improving the reality and comprehension of some of the current working theories Demonstrates that our persistent attempts to restore causality in physical theories will be guided by our capability to visualize the invisible light matter interaction processes that are behind the emergence of all measurable data Draws close attention to the invisible but ontological interaction processes behind various optical phenomena so we can emulate them more efficiently and knowledgably in spite of limitations of our theories Designed as a reference book for general physics and philosophy, this optical science and engineering book is an ideal resource for optical engineers, physicists, and those working with modern optical equipment and high precision instrumentation.
Physicists usually admit a rather naive concept of physical reality: it is the object they are investigating using experiments understood as actions in the real world.in theoretical physics, the object of investigation is not the real world itself but its mathematical description which is considered as describing physical reality as exactly as possible.i present arguments from philosophy of science and from recent work in the theory of gravitational physics which indicate a possibility to defend also antirealistic views, and clarify in which sense both standpoints can be viable.
In the Preface to this book, we started with Alice and Bob having very different views of their observations. Alice used an optical telescope and reported nothing unusual about a distant galaxy that she could see. Bob, on the other hand, detected intense radio activity in that galaxy. Our question was: who has the true view of that galaxy? We advised the reader that the answer is not Alice . Neither is it Bob . The answer is not both of them , nor is it neither of them . It is not a trick question either. So what is the answer that this book would supply? Our answer will come presently. While this book has set forth a definite mathematical perspective on empirical physics, it has contained quite a lot of commentary that might be disparaged as metaphysics or philosophy. Such commentary is generally frowned on in science, because it has no empirical content. It is vacuous. In our defense, we point out the obvious: science is not a robotic activity; it is carried out by humans and these are driven by their metaphysical, philosophical, and emotional imperatives. For instance, the hard-core scientific view that quantum theory needs no interpretation but only application is itself a philosophy. It is no more than a conditioned response, based on opinion and subscription to current scientific norms. It is, indeed, a philosophy of how to do quantum mechanics. So we all do it, in one way or another. Our concern in this book is that the way that we do it should be based soundly on scientific principles. The quantized detector approach that we describe and use in this book is our attempt to do just that. There is an excellent paper on all of this that has the provocative title “Quantum Theory Needs No Interpretation,” by Fuchs and Peres (2000). It seems on the face of it to dismiss any sort of “interpretation” of quantum mechanics. In fact, close reading of it confirms (to us at least) the agenda that we have set out in this book. Yes, quantum mechanics needs no interpretation, when it is being applied to processes that take place in the information void .