Time – what it is and its nature – has from the beginning held mysteries for layman, philosopher, and physicist alike. Periodic phenomena from motions of heavenly bodies and pendulums to quantal atomic clocks provide the means to measure time intervals, and Newton’s absolute time is a background flow against which classical and non-relativistic quantum physics is played out. While internally consistent, these two fields of physics are incompatible with the requirement of treating space and time on an equal footing. Quantum field theories provide the answer, as both treated as parameters, physics residing instead in the states and operators. But even in classical physics and quantum mechanics, time-independent descriptions provide an alternative to an explicitly time-dependent one. These, including a general method of approach called invariant imbedding, are discussed as alternative representations of an underlying reality that is the concern of physics.
Time – what it is and its nature – has from the beginning held mysteries for layman, philosopher, and physicist alike. Periodic phenomena from motions of heavenly bodies and pendulums to quantal atomic clocks provide the means to measure time intervals, and Newton’s absolute time is a background flow against which classical and non-relativistic quantum physics is played out. While internally consistent, these two fields of physics are incompatible with the requirement of treating space and time on an equal footing. Quantum field theories provide the answer, as both treated as parameters, physics residing instead in the states and operators. But even in classical physics and quantum mechanics, time-independent descriptions provide an alternative to an explicitly time-dependent one. These, including a general method of approach called invariant imbedding, are discussed as alternative representations of an underlying reality that is the concern of physics.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
A quantum particle is often described as exhibiting dual particle-wave nature. A particle seems to be an object which obeys Newton’s laws/special relativity with a wave also being a phenomenon existing in Newtonian mechanics (special relativity). In other words the particle and wave are governed by x-t external variables which have infinite resolution. It was originally thought that x and t in addition to being external were absolute, but special relativity changed this idea. We have suggested in previous notes that a free quantum particle with energy E and momentum p creates its own space time i.e time intervals are proportional to 1/E and space to 1/p. This means no external clock is needed and different internal rulers and clocks exist for different E,p. It also suggests finite time and space intervals. In fact, an absolute is introduced namely A=0 = -Et+px with t and x being independent. This suggests that t→b/E and x→b/p. A is the free particle Lagrangian (both relativistic and nonrelativistic) with x and t being considered independent. Thus we suggest that the external x ruler and t clock of Newtonian mechanics represent an average of the internal picture and are also described by A, but with x/t=v and not x and t being treated as independent. In (1) we showed that having discrete x spacing with a running time (i.e. Netwon’s time variable) and insisting on spatial invariance leads to dA/dx partial = p. Thus instead of considering particle wave duality we suggest an underlying wave structure which creates its own spacetime intervals (1/E, 1/p), but may be mapped in certain situations to the external running x and t of Newton’s theory. For example, consider an electron (a quantum particle) with a fixed p moving over a distance much greater than its wavelength. It may be mapped to Newton’s external running x,t values with x=vt, but this is an average mapping into continuous x and t. In reality the situation is more complicated because there may be a Bohm-Aharonov effect occurring. Thus the underlying wave picture is in fact physically important and linked to interactions. Thus a self-ruler is not simply a measuring device - interactions may occur unlike in the case of the external ruler. Given that p defines a kind of spatial invariance approximated by a periodic function exp(ipx) (eigenfunction of -id/dx) and that Newton’s running time is not needed in a quantum bound state equilibrium, one may wonder what one should do in the case of a particle bound in a V(x) potential. In Newtonian mechanics V(x) suggests non-spatial invariance and v(x) velocity changes with x as well in contrast with exp(ipx) which is periodically invariant. In fact Newtonian mechanics (and Lagrangian/Hamiltonian as well) focus on d/dt i.e x(t). We have argued above that time intervals 1/E are independent of 1/p spatial ones. It may be noticed, however, that different p values lead to different wavelengths and so even though there is a kind of spatial invariance for each, when compared to each other this invariance is broken and superpositions of exp(ipx) may create local x probability densities. At the same they create spatial momentum densities because -d/dx (d/dx) 1/2m yields a kind of average kinetic energy when normalized. This seems to describe the x-p uncertainty relationship. In order to create spatial resolution (other than the built-in one in the wavelength) one needs to superpose different momenta, each of which are spatially invariant according to their periodic scheme exp(ipx). Thus one may create an average 1/2m <pp> and obtain a vrms. This may be described in terms of Newtonian external running x and t variables which have infinite resolution, but this vrms does not map to a physical state i.e to exp(i (mvrms) x) localized at x. Rather the various exp(ipx)’s which create vrms are the physical entities as may be seen by knocking a particle out of a bound state. The physical exp(ipx) momenta states have spatial invariance and so cannot be associated with a specific position in space. Only their superposition creates the notion of specific position in space, but then there is a distribution of p. This seems to be the basis for the x-p uncertainty principle. Thus we suggest that the particle of particle-wave duality is created through a mapping of a physical wave scenario to a continuous (infinite resolution) x-t scheme which in reality is an abstraction because each p,E free particle state has it sown internal clock-ruler i.e. 1/E and 1/p time and space units. Given that 1/E and 1/p have finite values the idea of dt and dx tending to 0 only makes sense as an abstraction which only holds in certain situations.
Quantum Mechanics is appropriately named because it is mostly about the mechanics of working out probability problems as they apply to the mysterious effect of measurement that makes energy present as quantum particle-waves. It is easy to visualize a quantum particle but there seems to be no way to visualize a “probability wave” so there has never been a clear interpretation of what quantum physics tells us – or should tell us – about the underlying essence of reality. Fortunately, a new approach was discovered and proven to work in biology that treats the mystery of life like a locking system and provides not only the key, but also the keyhole and the direction in which to turn it. In this paper the systems approach is introduced, including some background information on the history of how the systems approach has integrated elements of substance philosophy with process philosophy and has become a powerful tool for use in science. Here, it is applied to physics and used to represent the transformation of implicit energy into an explicit space-time quantum domain superimposed on a relativistic time-space background. These two “products” are then correlated with two of four blocks in a basic control-system diagram (input and output) commonly used in control-systems engineering. (The four blocks are input, transfer function, output and feedback function) Because they are explicit, they can be drawn explicitly on the space versus time plot as a map of motion. We emphasize that this is a map – an explicit projection of an implicit function (in this case, a plot of space versus time is a projection of the variance we call motion) represented as an implicit domain (a perpendicular dimension). We recognizing that a feedback function is equivalent to and therefore implies a back-projection or reflection back “up” into that “implicate order.” These two implicit functions (projection and reflection) are then correlated with the transfer function and feedback function in the control system. The motion function is related to the probability wave by the name used in statistics – the “variance” of a statistical distribution – and we point out that each axis of the space-time domain is scaled by standard “deviations,” which define the explicit scales. Because a standard deviation is the square root of a variance, the square space that maps as a relativistic scalar plot (a standard Cartesian coordinate system) of space versus time or “space-time” actually represents one of two square roots of the implicit variance we call motion. In essence, our measurements of this domain keep us rooted in physical reality. However, this coordinate system is shown to be just the root – one part of a “whole system” that includes a non-physical implicit feedback function. The feedback function is correlated with the “reflection” of the explicit domain, i.e. inverse-space and inverse-time, presented as a phase space called time-space and represented as a unit of spatial frequency versus temporal frequency. These frequency representations are shown to be the two well-known equations for quantum energy from quantum mechanics and they are used to identify energy-space as “the quantum domain” inside of, or superimposed on the background “relativistic domain,” which is a scalar space. These two domains are then shown to be coupled at the point where both scales are equal to “1”. As a whole, and in the language of quantum field theory, this model is a graphical representation of an energy-momentum tensor and as a visual model, it provides a clear conceptual interpretation of complexity theory, in which reality is expressed as the superposition of a self-organizing control system that convolves with a dissipative open system or “sea of disorder” and transforms it into physical units of order. This “holomorphic systems approach” is similar to, but much simpler and visually illustrative than the mathematically rigorous discussion On Symmetry and the Reality of Holomorphic Hartree–Fock Wavefunctions [1] or the Kohn-Sham Density Functional Theory [2]. Furthermore, it reveals that the question about the beginning of time is a question fallacy, by representing the equivalence of space and time as S=Tc2, and presents it geometrically to be the exact same relation as the mass-energy equivalence equation E=mc2. The model also reveals that quantized energy (which Huynh and Thom refer to as self-consistent fields or SCF) projects as a characteristic and allows one to visualize the solution to the particle-wave duality “problem” as being a change in perspective. It’s the change in perspective that makes the particle-like property and wave-like property appear as “emergent” – analogous to what would appear when one visualizes an object from two different perspectives – at rest with respect to one’s own body yet in motion relative to some other “moving” body. The approach also reveals how the transfer function and feedback function act to transform matter, adding the fourth component (the Controller) and making it a complete control system: a self-organizing, self-sensing system that can see itself explicitly and reflect upon itself implicitly. How that correlates with living systems becomes obvious.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.