Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Contemporary state of fundamental physical research

M. V. Lokajíček

Published Oct 14, 2016• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

The contemporary scientific and technological progress has been given fully by the results of classical mechanics from the 19th century when the so called European values were accepted practically by the whole educated world. The given results and conclusions were gained on the basis of causal ontological approach proposed in principle by Socrates and developed further by Aristotle. This approach has been, however, fully extruded by phenomenological approach (causality not required) in the 20th century, which has disallowed practically any further actual scientific progress. Three very different theories have been applied to physical reality: classical mechanics in standard macroscopic region, Copenhagen quantum mechanics in microscopic region, and special theory of reality (STR) in both the regions in the case of systems consisting of objects having high velocity values. Any explanation or description of transitions between different regions and between different theories have not been provided until now. The situation has been complicated when the existence of inertial mass increase with rising velocity (predicted by STR) was affirmed in the first half of the past century, while any more detailed comparison with experiment data has not been presented. In this paper this knowledge evolution in the modern period will be described. It will be shown, too, that some mistaking assumptions and statements contradicting to the earlier successful causal ontological approach have existed in the contemporary scientific system. It will be then demonstrated that practically all known knowledge pieces may be described by one common theory based on slightly generalized Hamilton equations for all regions of reality. All known observed characteristics of physical reality may be described in such a case on the basis of the causal ontological approach.

Related papers

CLASSICAL MECHANICS AND CONTEMPORARY FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL RESEARCH

Мarian Аmbrozy, M. V. Lokajíček, Michal Valčo

The contemporary scientific and technological progress builds on the accomplishments of classical mechanics from the 19th century when the so-called 'European scientific method and values' were accepted practically by the whole educated world.Most scientific results and conclusions were reached based on the causal ontological approach proposed in principle already by Plato's Socrates and developed further by Aristotle.Despite the late-modern paradigm shift in science (Galilei, Newton, etc.), the topicality of the ontological approach proposed by Aristotle (II.Analytics) remains.On the other hand, 19th and 20th century philosophers, mainly positivists such as Mach and Avenarius but also Schlick and Carnap, attempted to change this approach to unify scientific knowledge in accordance with an ideological, i.e. positivist outlook on reality.The authors place a special emphasis on the contribution of Rudolf Carnap and his interaction with Martin Heidegger.Three very different theories are applied to physical reality in the present: classical mechanics in the standard macroscopic realm, Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the microscopic realm, and special theory of reality in both realms in the case of systems consisting of objects having higher velocity values.Any explanation or description of transitions between different realms and theories had not been provided until now.Our paper describes the corresponding evolution in the modern period and identifies the underlying false philosophical assumptions and statements existing in today's scientific systems.We will then demonstrate that one common theory for all realms of reality may exist; one that will be based fully on Hamilton equations (only the law

Philosophia International Journal of Philosophy•Jun 1, 2019•2 citations

The Contemporary State of Fundamental Physical Research and the Future Path to Scientific Knowledge

M. V. Lokajíček, J Procházka

Classical physics has enabled the acquisition of significant knowledge of the physical properties of nature on a standard macroscopic scale. These achievements were driven by use of the causal ontological approach (proposed originally by Aristotle) to formulate models of physical reality. At the beginning of the 20th century, however, the physics community began to prefer models based on a fundamentally different approach to human knowledge. Copenhagen quantum mechanics (CQM) was used to describe the micro-world. The special theory of relativity was used to describe the kinematics of objects moving at high velocity values in both the macroscopic and microscopic regions. This phenomenological approach to knowledge has been more focused on how things appear - instead of their actual properties and causal sequence. In the middle of the 20th century, the causal ontological approach was used to develop a significant scientific advance: the systematization of fundamental strongly interacting particles on the basis of unified algebra in three-dimensional isotopic spin space for spin values 1, 1/2, and 0. However, it was later strongly deformed under the influence of the phenomenological approach and the quark model. This paper will show that practically all contemporary theoretical models of physical reality contain mistakes or unresolved problems. Further scientific progress can be obtained if (and only if) scientists return to the successful causal ontological approach and falsification. Classical physics may be slightly generalized to enable the description of inertia mass increase in dependence on velocity, replacing the relativity theory and CQM. New assumptions may then be employed using generalized classical physics (GCP) to formulate new descriptions of observed phenomena that were previously inaccurately interpreted and used to promote fundamentally inadequate theories.

arXiv:1610.08331•Oct 14, 2016•1 citation

The velocity increase of mass and the classical physics

M. V. Lokajíček

In the past century it was believed that both the main theories (quantum mechanics and special relativity) predicted the existence of physical processes that could not be explained in the framework of classical physics. However, it has been shown recently that the solutions of Schroedinger equation have described the physical situation practically in full agreement with classical equations. The given equation represents the combination of classical equations with the statistical distribution of corresponding parameters and the properties of microscopic objects may be interpreted on the ontological basis as it corresponds to our sensual knowledge. It will be shown now that also the main experimentally relevant relativistic phenomenon (i.e., the mass increase with velocity) may be interpreted in the framework of classical physics. A different prediction for this increase will be then derived, which gives the possibility to decide on experimental basis which alternative is more preferable (relativistic or classical).

arXiv:0711.0061•Nov 1, 2007•0 citations

The relativistic mass increase and classical physics

I.R. Durrani

In the past century it was believed that both the main theories (quantum mechanics and special relativity) predicted the existence of physical processes that could not be explained in the framework of classical physics. However, it has been shown recently that the solutions of Schrbdinger's equations have described the physical situation practically in full agreement with classical equations. The given equation represents the combination of classical equations with the statistical distribution of corresponding parameters, and the properties of microscopic objects may be interpreted on the ontological basis as it corresponds to our sensual knowledge.

Bulletin of Pure & Applied Sciences- Physics•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Problems of Quantum Mechanics (UET7B)

H. J. Spencer

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}

•May 1, 2017•0 citations

On the Foundations of Quantum Physics

T. Bergstein

During the past two or three centuries western philosophy and science have confirmed each other in their ontological attitude towards external reality. The particular opinion that physical objects have an existence completely independent of observation was established as the necessary basis for all scientific investigation. The discovery in quantum physics that the phenomena ultimately constituting the stability of the material world cannot be separated from the instruments of observation was necessarily felt disastrous to the scientific world-picture, and many philosophers and scientists, including celebrated physicists, are still trying by all means to save ontology in quantum physics. The motive power behind this activity is the belief that the objectivity of science can be maintained only if the elementary particles of matter can be objectified in the usual way. The present chapter deals with the fundamental conditions in quantum physics which entail a complete breakdown of the conceptual frame of classical mechanics

•Jan 1, 1972•4 citations
The contemporary scientific and technological progress has been given fully by the results of classical mechanics from the 19th century when the so called European values were accepted practically by the whole educated world. The given results and conclusions were gained on the basis of causal ontological approach proposed in principle by Socrates and developed further by Aristotle. This approach has been, however, fully extruded by phenomenological approach (causality not required) in the 20th century, which has disallowed practically any further actual scientific progress. Three very different theories have been applied to physical reality: classical mechanics in standard macroscopic region, Copenhagen quantum mechanics in microscopic region, and special theory of reality (STR) in both the regions in the case of systems consisting of objects having high velocity values. Any explanation or description of transitions between different regions and between different theories have not been provided until now. The situation has been complicated when the existence of inertial mass increase with rising velocity (predicted by STR) was affirmed in the first half of the past century, while any more detailed comparison with experiment data has not been presented. In this paper this knowledge evolution in the modern period will be described. It will be shown, too, that some mistaking assumptions and statements contradicting to the earlier successful causal ontological approach have existed in the contemporary scientific system. It will be then demonstrated that practically all known knowledge pieces may be described by one common theory based on slightly generalized Hamilton equations for all regions of reality. All known observed characteristics of physical reality may be described in such a case on the basis of the causal ontological approach.
The contemporary scientific and technological progress builds on the accomplishments of classical mechanics from the 19th century when the so-called 'European scientific method and values' were accepted practically by the whole educated world.Most scientific results and conclusions were reached based on the causal ontological approach proposed in principle already by Plato's Socrates and developed further by Aristotle.Despite the late-modern paradigm shift in science (Galilei, Newton, etc.), the topicality of the ontological approach proposed by Aristotle (II.Analytics) remains.On the other hand, 19th and 20th century philosophers, mainly positivists such as Mach and Avenarius but also Schlick and Carnap, attempted to change this approach to unify scientific knowledge in accordance with an ideological, i.e. positivist outlook on reality.The authors place a special emphasis on the contribution of Rudolf Carnap and his interaction with Martin Heidegger.Three very different theories are applied to physical reality in the present: classical mechanics in the standard macroscopic realm, Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the microscopic realm, and special theory of reality in both realms in the case of systems consisting of objects having higher velocity values.Any explanation or description of transitions between different realms and theories had not been provided until now.Our paper describes the corresponding evolution in the modern period and identifies the underlying false philosophical assumptions and statements existing in today's scientific systems.We will then demonstrate that one common theory for all realms of reality may exist; one that will be based fully on Hamilton equations (only the law
Classical physics has enabled the acquisition of significant knowledge of the physical properties of nature on a standard macroscopic scale. These achievements were driven by use of the causal ontological approach (proposed originally by Aristotle) to formulate models of physical reality. At the beginning of the 20th century, however, the physics community began to prefer models based on a fundamentally different approach to human knowledge. Copenhagen quantum mechanics (CQM) was used to describe the micro-world. The special theory of relativity was used to describe the kinematics of objects moving at high velocity values in both the macroscopic and microscopic regions. This phenomenological approach to knowledge has been more focused on how things appear - instead of their actual properties and causal sequence. In the middle of the 20th century, the causal ontological approach was used to develop a significant scientific advance: the systematization of fundamental strongly interacting particles on the basis of unified algebra in three-dimensional isotopic spin space for spin values 1, 1/2, and 0. However, it was later strongly deformed under the influence of the phenomenological approach and the quark model. This paper will show that practically all contemporary theoretical models of physical reality contain mistakes or unresolved problems. Further scientific progress can be obtained if (and only if) scientists return to the successful causal ontological approach and falsification. Classical physics may be slightly generalized to enable the description of inertia mass increase in dependence on velocity, replacing the relativity theory and CQM. New assumptions may then be employed using generalized classical physics (GCP) to formulate new descriptions of observed phenomena that were previously inaccurately interpreted and used to promote fundamentally inadequate theories.
In the past century it was believed that both the main theories (quantum mechanics and special relativity) predicted the existence of physical processes that could not be explained in the framework of classical physics. However, it has been shown recently that the solutions of Schroedinger equation have described the physical situation practically in full agreement with classical equations. The given equation represents the combination of classical equations with the statistical distribution of corresponding parameters and the properties of microscopic objects may be interpreted on the ontological basis as it corresponds to our sensual knowledge. It will be shown now that also the main experimentally relevant relativistic phenomenon (i.e., the mass increase with velocity) may be interpreted in the framework of classical physics. A different prediction for this increase will be then derived, which gives the possibility to decide on experimental basis which alternative is more preferable (relativistic or classical).
In the past century it was believed that both the main theories (quantum mechanics and special relativity) predicted the existence of physical processes that could not be explained in the framework of classical physics. However, it has been shown recently that the solutions of Schrbdinger's equations have described the physical situation practically in full agreement with classical equations. The given equation represents the combination of classical equations with the statistical distribution of corresponding parameters, and the properties of microscopic objects may be interpreted on the ontological basis as it corresponds to our sensual knowledge.
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}
During the past two or three centuries western philosophy and science have confirmed each other in their ontological attitude towards external reality. The particular opinion that physical objects have an existence completely independent of observation was established as the necessary basis for all scientific investigation. The discovery in quantum physics that the phenomena ultimately constituting the stability of the material world cannot be separated from the instruments of observation was necessarily felt disastrous to the scientific world-picture, and many philosophers and scientists, including celebrated physicists, are still trying by all means to save ontology in quantum physics. The motive power behind this activity is the belief that the objectivity of science can be maintained only if the elementary particles of matter can be objectified in the usual way. The present chapter deals with the fundamental conditions in quantum physics which entail a complete breakdown of the conceptual frame of classical mechanics