On grounds of the analysis of algebra there has been found a substantial problem with some internal inconsistency. By effort to avoid contradictions a way of bipolar logical thinking has been forced what leads to unavoidability to accept presence of a complementary physical reality. By this proper analysis of algebra long time before appearance of the quantum mechanics problems it would have been possible to develop the way of bipolar logical thinking, so there would not have arisen any problem with so called wave-particle dualism.
On grounds of the analysis of algebra there has been found a substantial problem with some internal inconsistency. By effort to avoid contradictions a way of bipolar logical thinking has been forced what leads to unavoidability to accept presence of a complementary physical reality. By this proper analysis of algebra long time before appearance of the quantum mechanics problems it would have been possible to develop the way of bipolar logical thinking, so there would not have arisen any problem with so called wave-particle dualism.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
Abstract The logical framework of complementarity was originally formulated in an effort to resolve some ambiguities concerning wave-particle dualism in quantum physics. The essential paradox of wave-particle dualism is easily demonstrated. View the particle as a point-like something, like the period at the end of this sentence, and the wave as continuous and spread-out. The obvious logical problem is how a particular something localized in space and time, the particle, cari also be the spread-out and continuous something, the wave. Quantum physics not only says unequivocally that quanta exhibit both properties but also provides mathematical formalism governing what we can possibly observe, or “see;” when we coordinate our experience with this reality in actual experiments.
The aim of the research is to develop a dialectical relational-event ontology (DREO), that is, a second-order metaphysical framework designed to resolve the fundamental problems of the philosophy of quantum physics: wave-particle dualism and the irreducible pluralism of interpretations. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the following: for the first time, not just another interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, but a meta-framework that dialectically sublates the pluralism of interpretations itself and demonstrates their systemic unity; the category of a "relational event" is introduced as a fundamental unit of being, which marks a transition from substantial metaphysics (debates on the individuality of objects) to a metaphysics of becoming; wave-particle dualism is interpreted not as ontological (two entities) and not as epistemological (N. Bohr's complementarity principle), but as a dialectical contradiction sublated in the concept of "relational potentiality" – a structure of possibilities actualized depending on the perspective; the complementarity of wave and particle for the first time receives ontological status – it is a mode of existence of quantum reality itself as a "pulsation" between modes of actualization; a new model of scientific rationality is substantiated – dialectical pluralism – where truth is not a property of an individual proposition but a property of the entire system of perspectives taken in their dialectical unity, which fundamentally distinguishes DREO from contextual quantum realism (CQR), which remains within the static opposition of "rule – application" and epistemological perspectivism. The key results of the study are the following ideas: a relational event (rather than an object or a relation in itself) is recognized as the fundamental unit of being – a discrete act of transition from the potential to the actual in a specific context of interaction; "particle" and "wave" are interpreted as two extreme, mutually exclusive and simultaneously complementary types of actualization of a single structure of potencies in different perspectives; the multiplicity of incompatible but empirically equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics is shown not as a flaw in the theory, but as a logical consequence of the relational structure of reality, which requires a multitude of complementary perspectives for its adequate expression. Thus, the century-old opposition between objectivism and relativism in the philosophy of science is removed.
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}