Since Dirac’s paper from 1930 on the theory of electrons and protons, the question about nothingness has pervaded the right conception of reality at large. Quantum Mechanics (QM) both allows and demands, at the same time, a highly counterintuitive take on the universe and the world. However, science at large remains cautious about the issue of nothingness. Apparently a referential and objectivistic view of the universe and things is preferred. This paper argues in favor of nothingness based on non-classical logics (NCLs) in general, and free logic, in particular. The crux of the issue is about thinking without presuppositions, or also, thinking about phenomena, systems and behaviors free of existence.
Since Dirac’s paper from 1930 on the theory of electrons and protons, the question about nothingness has pervaded the right conception of reality at large. Quantum Mechanics (QM) both allows and demands, at the same time, a highly counterintuitive take on the universe and the world. However, science at large remains cautious about the issue of nothingness. Apparently a referential and objectivistic view of the universe and things is preferred. This paper argues in favor of nothingness based on non-classical logics (NCLs) in general, and free logic, in particular. The crux of the issue is about thinking without presuppositions, or also, thinking about phenomena, systems and behaviors free of existence.
Since Dirac’s paper from 1930 on the theory of electrons and protons, the question about nothingness has pervaded the right conception of reality at large in the framework of physics. Quantum Mechanics (QM) both allows and demands, at the same time, a highly counterintuitive take on the universe and the world. However, science at large remains cautious about the issue of nothingness. Apparently a referential and objectivistic view of the universe and things is preferred. This paper argues in favor of nothingness based on non-classical logics (NCLs) in general, and free logic, in particular. The crux of the issue is about thinking without presuppositions, or also, thinking about phenomena, systems and behaviors free of existence and, moreover, of reference.
Several experiments have suggested that the complete indistinguishability of quantum systems is to be considered a real phenomenon. Experiments such as the HOM effect, the existence of BECs, the path identity cases, and many others are physical realities of today. Physicists `explain’ these phenomena using different models, such as Bohmian mechanics, relational quantum mechanics or the QBism approach. Most of these models are constructed within a standard mathematical framework, meaning standard mathematics, where all things can, even if only in principle, be distinguished from one another, so complete indistinguishability can only be mimicked. These approaches may work for physical purposes but are debatable regarding logical and metaphysical questions. If we accept that such questions are at least part of the philosophical aspect of quantum physics, then we are authorised to analyse them and try to offer an alternative. Looking for an alternative, we consider Alain Aspect’s and Anton Zeilinger’s views about quantum realism, opting for Aspect’s acceptance of some kind of reality behind the wave-function, while Zeilinger suggests that everything comes from information. In our opinion, the case is the opposite: it is information that comes from the existence of things. The aim of this paper is to justify why we think that the underlying reality (in Aspect’s sense) can be seen as a quantum ontology of non-individuals.
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. 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 to understand 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. Additionally, several hidden major assumptions have been present in Classical Mechanics (represented by continuum mathematics) since its inception by Newton that are blocking progress and understanding of quantum mechanics. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 1.195 10-07-2016 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 80, 70.4 Kw; 800 KB}
The author attempts to answer the questions there are in the title of this paper. These questions are questions that scientists and philosophers have been asking themselves for many decades since Quantum Mechanics was formulated to explain the phenomena of the atomic and subatomic world. First of all a short but complete historical review of the transition between Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics there is. It is preceded by some of the methodological premises that fit a certain vision of science. Then the author examines the issues and debates that have occurred on aspects of quantum mechanics such as realism, non-locality and probabilism (in contrast to determinism of Classic Mechanics). In doing this author llustrates the foundations of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics which, in an attempt to resolve these problems, have been given. The absurdities, and conflicts with the common sense, of quantum mechanics are shown to be largely apparent. In doing this, we examine the analogies of classical physics, as well as those of everyday life. Recent experimental results are taken into consideration. It is concluded that Quantum Mechanics presents elements of rupture more with Classical Physics than with the everyday experience.
When investigating theories at the tiniest conceivable scales in nature,
quantum logic is taking over from logic in the minds of almost
all researchers today. Dissatisfied, the author investigated how one can look
at things differently. This report is an overview of older material, but also
contains many new observations and calculations. Quantum mechanics is looked
upon as a tool, not as a theory. Examples are displayed of models that are
classical in essence, but can be analysed by the use of quantum techniques, and
we argue that even the Standard Model, together with gravitational
interactions, may be viewed as a quantum mechanical approach to analyse a
system that could be classical at its core. We then explain how these
apparently heretic thoughts can be reconciled with Bell's theorem and the usual
objections voiced against the notion of 'super determinism'. Our proposal would
eradicate the collapse problem and the measurement problem.
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}