Twin physics is a unification theory, based upon the mathematical definition of complementarity, in which physical phenomena are described as entangled appearances of certainty and uncertainty. Experimental results of quantum mechanics, the view of Heisenberg and relativity theory of Einstein are incorporated. Physical descriptions on a quantum-mechanical scale as well as an astronomical scale can be reconciled by considering them in that way. Applying twin physics, more insight has been gained into fundamental phenomena, known as the four forces of nature, as well as elementary particles and spaces; new insights emerge in the fields of nanophysics, optics, magnetism and astronomy. These results gave rise to the idea generalizing the mathematical structure of twin physics to a much broader so-called ‘twin view’, applicable to phenomena in general, for instance the commercial traffic. In the twin view, some kind of unit for the considered phenomenon in general has to be selected, as well as a few characteristic qualities to describe the interaction between these units. For each quality, a set of four elements has to be defined, two by two being complementary. Each pair has to contain a determinate item, describing ‘certainty’, and an indeterminate one, describing ‘uncertainty'. Moreover, one pair has to be of major importance and the other pair of minor importance. As an example, the construction of these sets in twin physics is shown. Special attention is paid to finding indeterminate items, as science is historically mainly oriented to determinate items. Finally, by defining suitable operators, the theory can be applied in a relatively easy way.
Twin physics is a unification theory, based upon the mathematical definition of complementarity, in which physical phenomena are described as entangled appearances of certainty and uncertainty. Experimental results of quantum mechanics, the view of Heisenberg and relativity theory of Einstein are incorporated. Physical descriptions on a quantum-mechanical scale as well as an astronomical scale can be reconciled by considering them in that way. Applying twin physics, more insight has been gained into fundamental phenomena, known as the four forces of nature, as well as elementary particles and spaces; new insights emerge in the fields of nanophysics, optics, magnetism and astronomy. These results gave rise to the idea generalizing the mathematical structure of twin physics to a much broader so-called ‘twin view’, applicable to phenomena in general, for instance the commercial traffic. In the twin view, some kind of unit for the considered phenomenon in general has to be selected, as well as a few characteristic qualities to describe the interaction between these units. For each quality, a set of four elements has to be defined, two by two being complementary. Each pair has to contain a determinate item, describing ‘certainty’, and an indeterminate one, describing ‘uncertainty'. Moreover, one pair has to be of major importance and the other pair of minor importance. As an example, the construction of these sets in twin physics is shown. Special attention is paid to finding indeterminate items, as science is historically mainly oriented to determinate items. Finally, by defining suitable operators, the theory can be applied in a relatively easy way.
Twin physics is a new physical model, in which the basic features of quantum mechanics and relativity theory are combined to a manageable description, reaching from sub-atomic to astronomic phenomena and so creating a bridge between large- and smallscale phenomena. This is obtained by using the Heisenberg principle, the definition of complementarity by Jammer and the ideas of Einstein. The used formalism is fully complementary, developed on the concept that each phenomenon has determinate as well as indeterminate aspects, being mutually independent. These aspects occur joined in nature, in such a manner that one of both dominates an observation and the other acts as a small disturbance. Some illustrative examples from everyday life will be given. The basic item is the Heisenberg-unit (H-unit), defined as a constant amount of potential energy and supplied with complementary attributes of time, space, and charge. Only by interaction between two H-units, their potential energy can be transformed into physical items. The resulting phenomena can be described in an easily accessible geometric way. Applying the formulation to all kind of possible interactions between H-units, descriptions of a series of elementary particles as well as the four forces of nature, neutron decay and gravitational waves are obtained.
The most surprising result is the appearance of four types of electrons, having features being unknown in classical physics. In this lecture we focus upon two of them, having no mass and a short-range magnetic field around. After an introduction of twin physics without going deep into the theoretical basics, their features are explained in detail. These types of electrons are supposed to provide nanomaterial’s with conductivity much higher than known from classical experiments; also, they are expected to reveal hidden mechanisms in chemistry.
The two most important areas in modern physics are quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Unlike classical physics, where Newton's mechanics dominates, these two areas change human beings' fundamental view of the universe. One of the theories that build up the base of quantum mechanics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Starting from a thought experiment, Heisenberg's microscope in the setting of classical physics, Werner Heisenberg built a bridge between classical and quantum physics by presenting a counterintuitive outcome in the thought experiment. Since then, the observer of a physics phenomenon is no longer a bystander. The behavior of observation became a part of the physical experiment. To come up with a mathematical expression that can describe such a new discovery, Heisenberg came up with matrix mechanics and the concept of complementary variables. There is a trade-off between a pair of complementary variables. When one of them is measured precisely, meaning the information of that variable is known on a large scale, the other variable can not be measured precisely, meaning there is no way to know enough information about the other variable. The principle indicates a fundamental limit on what human beings can know about the unknown variables. The discoveries of other complementary variables help physicists know the new image of the physics world under new rules.
On the basis of quantum-mechanical realism and the philosophical view that “determinism and indeterminism are mutually dual and symbiotically coexisting,” philosophical and physical perspectives are integrated to propose the “constraint–uncertainty” hypothesis in this paper. Combined with a temporal ontology of “a determined history and an open future,” a unified interpretative framework for quantum phenomena is established. First, in conjunction with experimental results on fullerene quantum interference and spin decoherence in diamond NV centers, the core hypothesis is proposed: when a system is subject to a single dominant constraint, its behavior exhibits deterministic characteristics and uncertainty is suppressed; when subject to multiple competing constraints, its behavior becomes indeterministic and determinism is weakened. It is further clarified that the “constraint” in this work refers to a physically real underlying dynamical mechanism. Second, based on this hypothesis and temporal ontology, a self-consistent interpretation is provided for quantum phenomena such as wave-function superposition and quantum entanglement. It is argued that the “constraint–uncertainty” hypothesis offers an ontological basis for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, thereby correcting the imprecise characterization in mainstream quantum theory that reduces uncertainty to an intrinsic property of particles. This paper further explores the tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity, suggesting that they correspond to different physical regimes governed by distinct constraint structures. A complete constraint-based model should naturally incorporate gravity, potentially offering a new perspective for the unification of the two theories. This paper further elaborates on the issues concerning temporal ontology. The author holds that variability serves as the meta-setting of physics, and the irreversibility of time is essentially a combination of variability and uncertainty, which also gives rise to the openness of the future. The uniqueness of the subject’s existential position determines the definiteness of history.
The uncertainty principle bounds the uncertainties about incompatible measurements, clearly setting quantum theory apart from the classical world. Its mathematical formulation via uncertainty relations, plays an irreplaceable role in quantum technologies. However, neither the uncertainty principle nor uncertainty relations can fully describe the complementarity between quantum measurements. As an attempt to advance the efforts of complementarity in quantum theories, we formally propose a complementary information principle, significantly extending the one introduced by Heisenberg. First, we build a framework of black box testing consisting of pre- and post-testing with two incompatible measurements, introducing a rigorous mathematical expression of complementarity with definite information causality. Second, we provide majorization lower and upper bounds for the complementary information by utilizing the tool of semidefinite programming. In particular, we prove that our bounds are optimal under majorization due to the completeness of the majorization lattice. Finally, as applications to our framework, we present a general method to outer-approximating all uncertainty regions and also establish fundamental limits for all qualified joint uncertainties.
The so-called preparation uncertainty that occurs in the quantum world can be understood well in purely operational terms, and its existence in any given theory, perhaps differently than in quantum mechanics, can be verified by examining only measurement statistics. Namely, one says that uncertainty occurs in some theory when for some pair of observables, there is no preparation that would exhibit deterministic statistics for both of them. However, the right-hand side of the uncertainty relation is not operational anymore if we do not insist that it is just the minimum of the left-hand side for a given theory. For example, in quantum mechanics, it is some function of two observables that must be computed within the quantum formalism. Also, while joint nonmeasurability of observables is an operational notion, the complementarity in Bohr's sense (i.e., in terms of information needed to describe the system) has not yet been expressed in purely operational terms. Here we propose a general operational framework that provides answers to the above issues. We introduce an operational definition of complementarity and further postulate that complementary observables have to exhibit uncertainty, which means that we propose to put the (operational) complementarity as the right-hand side of the uncertainty relation. In particular, we identify two different notions of uncertainty and complementarity for which the above principle holds in the quantum-mechanical realm. We also introduce postulates for the general measures of uncertainty and complementarity. In order to define quantifiers of complementarity we first turn to the simpler notion of independence that is defined solely in terms of the statistics of two observables. Importantly, for clean and extremal observables---i.e., ones that cannot be simulated irreducibly by other observables---any measure of independence reduces to the proper complementary measure. Finally, as an application of our general framework we define a number of complementarity indicators and show that they can be used to state uncertainty relations. One of them, assuming some natural symmetries, leads to the Tsirelson bound for the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. Lastly, we show that for a single system a variant of information causality called the information content principle, under the above symmetries, can be interpreted as an uncertainty relation in the above sense.
Most of the physicians that I know are chary of Physics, especially the theory of elementary particles. Even if in Isaac Newton's mathematically precise universe, everything follows clear-cut laws and predictions are easy given appropriate starting conditions. Perhaps, however, physicians coping with this uncertainty will perhaps feel more in tune with Heisenberg's uncertainty law. Heisenberg (1901–76) described a theory of quantum mechanics, published in 1925, when he was only 23 years old. The uncertainty principle describes an imprecision in nature resulting in a limit to what we can know about the behaviour of quantum particles and, hence the smallest scales of nature. Heisenberg was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for 1932 for this theory and its application that resulted amongst other things the discovery of allotropic forms of hydrogen. His theory stated that we cannot always give an electron a position in space at a given time, nor follow it in its orbit, so that we cannot assume that the planetary orbits proposed by Niels Bohr exist. Mechanical quantities, such as position and velocity, should be represented, not by ordinary numbers, but by abstract mathematical structures called ‘matrices’ and he formulated his new theory in terms of matrix equations. The principle of uncertainty, says that the determination of the position and momentum of a mobile particle necessarily contains errors the product of which cannot be less than the quantum constant h and that, although these errors are negligible on the human scale, they cannot be ignored in studies. We cannot measure the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately we know one of these values, the less accurately we know the other. There are many ways of looking at this and in medicine we need to take account of uncertainty. Uncertainty in medicine can be resolved in many ways and can include Occam's razor. In medicine, all presenting symptoms in a patient may be explained by a few possible causes. In medicine, all presenting symptoms in a patient may be due to several disease and social processes at the same time. How can this be relevant to a working physician? The whole of medical practice has parallels with the certainties of Newton and Bohr. The object of a clinical consultation is to give a sign or complaint a diagnostic named description to be followed by a treatment regime which resolves the problem. Yet every physician knows and automatically models his understanding of a clinical problem perhaps unknowingly on a model based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A core process, which is complicated by factors understood or not. The same principles are relevant to so many other features of life. There are certain fixed points in the diagnostic and clinical process. Gender, race, age, weight to height ratio, privileged and social life and intelligence. Some people age at different rates to their age cohort? Similarly, obesity does not always matter. The patient′s family history is another variable, complicated occasionally when the putative father with a family health trait may not be the actual father. The social story is a minefield, with the possibility of every phase of a person’s life being of relevance. A further element is how well the physician and the patient and their caring team relate. The clinical examination then gives a further array of data. From all of this comes a diagnosis which gives a pathway to a treatment schedule the ability of the patient to manage their treatment regime becomes important. There is a tendency that as soon as the diagnosis is made then the other elements fade away from the care plan, though of course it persists in the person's life. We are all consciously or unconsciously aware of the complex fabric of clinical care. It is intriguing to appreciate that other disciplines have been presented with the same multifactorial uncertainties. The era in Physics when Heisenberg introduced his view of nuclear physics was one when a precise physical model was being completed and gave certainty to a complex problem. His principle while obviously reintroducing uncertainty gave freedom of thinking and allowed further fruitful progress. We physicians do not enjoy uncertainty, and to have it formalized is uncomfortable. So we instinctively identify the major problem and treat that. By and large this is a useful process. It is however important to see this as a convenience. A convenience that may not always suit the patient. Applying the Heisenberg principles gives a broader view of a patient's concerns and problems and better care.