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
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
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.
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.
This work presents a historical-epistemological analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics. From a philosophical point of view, the relationships between quantum mechanics and scientific realism are highlighted, as well as the influence of the neo-positivist philosophy of the first decades of the 20th century. The great significance of measurement in the context of quantum mechanics is underlined, as an essential element in providing a coherent description of reality moving from the microcosm to the macrocosm, as well as the role that the measurement apparatus and the consciousness of the observer assume during the act of measurement, the ontological problem, the problem of the objectification of the wave function and the problem of the definition of discernibility. This is followed by an overview of the most important alternative proposals to the standard interpretation (Copenhagen interpretation), with particular reference to hidden variable theories, and other alternatives to standard quantum mechanics that profoundly modify the vision of reality, such as the Everett’s many-worlds theory, the QBism, the unified holistic approach.
We present a historical-epistemological analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics, highlighting the relationships between quantum mechanics and scientific realism, as well as the influence of the neo-positivist philosophy of the first decades of the 20th century. The great significance of the measurement process in the context of quantum mechanics is underlined as an essential element in providing a coherent description of reality, moving from micro to macrocosm, as well as the role that the measurement apparatus and the consciousness of the observer assume during the act of measurement, the related ontological problems, the question of the objectification of the wave function, and that of the definition of discernibility. We consider also an overview of the most important alternative proposals to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation), with particular reference to hidden variable theories and other alternatives to standard quantum mechanics philosophical approach, that are modifying the vision of reality, such as the Everett’s many-worlds theory, the QBism and unified holistic approaches, such as the Primordial Dynamic Space.
The aim of this chapter is to present some very basic principles of classical mechanics. They can help us understand the novelty of quantum theory. Classical mechanics was founded by Newton and contemporary 17th-century natural philosophers, and further developed in the 18th and 19th centuries by many physicists and mathematicians, as a result of the search for a rational, causal, and scientific explanation of the universe. In classical mechanics, real-world objects are modeled as a collection of point particles, i.e., objects with negligible size. The motion of a point particle is characterized by a small number of parameters such as its position, mass, velocity, and the forces applied to it. The position of a point particle is defined with respect to an arbitrary fixed reference point in the three- dimensional Euclidean space, which is usually chosen as the origin of some coordinate system. The velocity of a point particle is the rate of change of its position with time. The force applied to a point particle (called the external force) is the cause for the point particle x y z A to undergo a certain change in its velocity, i.e., an acceleration (Newton’s second law of motion). For the sake of simplicity, here we shall refer to a point particle or a collection of point particles simply as an object. Newton’s first law of motion states that if an object experiences no net external force, then its velocity is constant, i.e., the object is either at rest or it moves in a straight line with a constant speed. The first law of motion postulates the existence of a certain set of frames of reference called inertial reference frames, relative to which the motion of an object not subject to external forces is a straight line at a constant speed. For this reason, Newton’s first law is also referred to as the law of inertia.
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}