Studies on A. Einstein. B. Podolsky and N. Rosen argument that “quantum mechanics is not a complete theory,” III: Illustrative examples and applications
In the preceding Papers I and II of this series, we have presented a review and upgrade of basic mathematical, physical and chemical methods, and provided a confirmation of the apparent proof of the EPR argument [1] that extended particles within physical media (interior dynamical problems) admit classical counterparts [9], while Einstein’s determinism appears to be progressively verified with the increase of the density of the medium [10]. In this third and final paper of the series, we shown that the EPT argument in general, and Einstein’s determinism in particular, appear to be progressively verified in the structure of mesons, baryon, nuclei, and molecular bonds while being fully verified at the limit of gravitational collapse. We additionally show, apparently for the first time, the validity of the EPR final statement to the effect that the wavefunction [of quantum mechanics] does not provide a complete description of the physical reality” since the covering isowavefunctions of hadronic mechanics provide an otherwise impossible representation of all characteristics of various physical and chemical interior systems existing in nature.
In the preceding Papers I and II of this series, we have presented a review and upgrade of basic mathematical, physical and chemical methods, and provided a confirmation of the apparent proof of the EPR argument [1] that extended particles within physical media (interior dynamical problems) admit classical counterparts [9], while Einstein’s determinism appears to be progressively verified with the increase of the density of the medium [10]. In this third and final paper of the series, we shown that the EPT argument in general, and Einstein’s determinism in particular, appear to be progressively verified in the structure of mesons, baryon, nuclei, and molecular bonds while being fully verified at the limit of gravitational collapse. We additionally show, apparently for the first time, the validity of the EPR final statement to the effect that the wavefunction [of quantum mechanics] does not provide a complete description of the physical reality” since the covering isowavefunctions of hadronic mechanics provide an otherwise impossible representation of all characteristics of various physical and chemical interior systems existing in nature.
In1935, A.Einsteinexpressedhishistoricalview, jointly with B.Podolsky and N. Rosen, that quantum mechanics could be “completed” into a form recovering classical determinism at least under limit conditions (EPR argument). In the preceding Paper I, we have outlined the basic methods underlying the “completion” of quantum mechanics into hadronic mechanics for the representation of extended particles within physical media. In this Paper II, we study the isosymmetries for interior dynamical systems; we confirm the 1998 apparent proof that interior dynamical systems admit a classical counterpart; we confirm the 2019 apparent proof that Einstein’s determinism is progressively approached for extended particles in the interior of hadrons, nuclei and stars, while being fully achieved in the interior of gravitational collapse; and we show for the first time that the recovering of Einstein’s determinism in interior systems implies the removal of quantum mechanical divergencies. In the subsequent Paper III, we present a number of illustrative examples and novel applications in mathematics, physics and chemistry.
In 1935, A. Einstein expressed his view, jointly with B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, that ”quantum mechanics is not a complete theory” (EPR argument). Following decades of preparatory studies, R. M. Santilli published in 1998 a paper showing that the objections against the EPR argument are valid for point-like particles in vacuum (exterior dynamical systems), but the same objections are inapplicable (rather than being violated) for extended particles within hyperdense physical media (interior dynamical systems) because the latter systems appear to admit an identical classical counterpart when treated with the isotopic branch of hadronic mathematics and mechanics. In a more recent paper, Santilli has shown that quantum uncertainties of extended particles appear to progressively tend to zero when in the interior of hadrons, nuclei and stars, and appear to be identically null at the limit of gravitational collapse, essentially along the EPR argument. In this first paper, we review, upgrade and specialize the basic mathematical, physical and chemical methods for the study of the EPR argument. In two subsequent papers, we review the above results and provide specific illustrations and applications.
From a phenomenological and experimental viewpoint, quantum mechanics is remarkably successful in explaining effects and processes in the microscopic world. Recently, however, a growing body of literature has revisited the theory's own formal foundations, specifically addressing issues of self-consistency and completeness. As a major historical example of these foundational challenges, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument famously claimed that the theory is incomplete. While many valid criticisms and refutations of the EPR logic exist, they generally rely on a combination of technical results and conceptual objections to EPR's interpretive assumptions, thus transcending the plain quantum framework itself. Motivated by these trends of examining the theory's structural limits, here we revisit the EPR argument. Focusing on elements essential to the EPR reasoning, we first analyze general quantum correlations for EPR states: (i) the fact that their observables are always associated with non-commuting operators, and (ii) the nature of the correlated information obtained through measurement. From these two points alone, and relying strictly on the core rules of quantum mechanics, we demonstrate how to overturn the alleged EPR incompleteness without invoking any extraneous propositions. Consequently, we show that the standard formalism alone suffices to resolve such type of skepticism regarding the theory's physical reach. This offers, at least in a paradigmatic instance, a powerful indication of a structurally well-founded, self-consistent quantum theory.
On 25 March 1935, the Physical Review received a paper from Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, with the title “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” A few days later, on 30 March 1935, I was born. My life with Einstein was off to a promising start. Some would call it an inauspicious start. Abraham Pais, for example, says in his otherwise admirable biography of Einstein [1] that “the only part of this article that will ultimately survive, I believe, is this last phrase [ No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this ], which so poignantly summarizes Einstein's views on quantum mechanics in his later years.” But today, in this centenary of the Einstein annus mirabilis, as the EPR paper and I both turn 70, it is, in fact, the most cited of all Einstein's papers [2]. The debate over its conceptual implications rages hotter than ever, and for the first time, practical (well, for the moment still gedanken practical) applications of the EPR effect have emerged in cryptography and in other areas of quantum information processing. Being only five weeks old, I was unprepared to pay attention to the article that appeared in the New York Times on 4 May 1935 under an elaborate set of headlines and subheads: And I was completely oblivious to the stern rebuke from Einstein himself, published three days later in the Times , which declared that “any information upon which the article … is based was given to you without my authority. It is my invariable practice to discuss scientific matters only in the appropriate forum and I deprecate advance publication of any announcement in regard to such matters in the secular press.” Apparently Podolsky had tipped off the Times to the article, which did not appear in the sacred press until the 15 May issue of Physical Review. It is not clear that Einstein ever forgave him, and I wish I had been old enough to send Podolsky a cross letter myself. Anyone growing up in America in the 1940s knew that the preeminent genius of our age, and perhaps of any other, lived in Princeton, New Jersey, had a predilection for baggy sweaters, and was always badly in need of a haircut—as far ahead of his time in dress and grooming as he was ahead in science during his 1905 annus mirabilis.
Two problems with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument originate from the difficult-to-explain continual dismissal of Minkowski’s demonstration that the concept of spacetime represents a real four-dimensional world and is not just a mathematical space. The uncritical employment of the traditional three-dimensional language to the description of this argument leads (e.g., in its Bohm's version) to those problems: (1) due to the collapse of the common wavefunction of the constituents 1 and 2 of a disintegrated system, caused by the measurement of 1's spin (event E1), and due the conservation of the total spin, 2's spin is \textit{instantaneously} determined (event E2), which in three-dimensional language inescapably means that E2 is \textit{caused} by E1 (using merely a different word -- `correlation' -- does not explain anything in three-dimensional language); (2) events E1 and E2 are simultaneous \textit{only} for an observer A, who was at rest with respect to the disintegrated system, and therefore the total spin is not conserved for arbitrarily large periods of time for all observers in relative motion with respect to A and there exists a class of observers B for whom event E2 occurs \textit{before} E1, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the fundamental implicit assumption that the physical world is three-dimensional. When the reality of spacetime is explicitly recognized, (1) the paradoxes of the non-conservation of the total spin and that E2 happens before E1 for observers B do not arise (because there is no `before' and `after' in spacetime) and the statement that there is a correlation between E1 and E2 makes a perfect sense, and (2) a spacetime model of the quantum object can then be considered (by also taking into account the non-fully-realized experimental fact that the quantum object \textit{actually} exists everywhere where its wavefunction is different from zero) in order to address the fundamental incompleteness of quantum mechanics -- that it deals not with the quantum object itself, but only with its states. The paper ends with a discussion of a prediction by the proposed spacetime model of the electron that can be tested experimentally probably by the quadratic Stark effect.
In this paper, we continue the study initiated in preceding works of the argument by A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen according to which quantum mechanics could be “completed” into a broader theory recovering classical determinism. By using the previously achieved isotopic lifting of applied mathematics into isomathematics and that of quantum mechanics into the isotopic branch of hadronic mechanics, we show that extended particles appear to progressively approach classical determinism in the interior of hadrons, nuclei and stars, and appear to recover classical determinism at the limit conditions in the interior of gravitational collapse