Articol Tricorne

7/30/2019 Articol Tricorne

1/17

Edited by

Teodor Frunzeti Marinel-Adi Musta

I

ditions du Tricorne

2012

Towards a New Method of Paradigm ComparisonISBN 978-2940450-11-4

9 7 8 2 9 4 0 4 5 0 1 1 4 >


2/17

357

MATTER STRUCTURE - PROCESUALITATY

Mihai HODOROGEA

In this chapter I propose to integrate the theory of dynamic

electromagnetic structure of matter (DESM) into the processual - organicconception of existence as it is presented by Lucian Culda (Culda 1992) and toexpress that social processuality conceptions have to be extended to the microcosms

of matter structure. Next I present the fundamental ideas of the book The End ofQuantum Theory (Hodorogea 2008) which are the basis of a new scientificconcept regarding the structure of the material world as a result of a long and deep

critical view on quantum mechanics for a new interpretation of this material worldat the lower dimensional limit.

Now we present a critical approach to the quantum theory in antitheseswith the electro-dynamic theory of the structure of the material world.

A Latin proverb saysNatura in minima maxima1

. The profound knowledgeof the microcosms is not just a natural tendency to extend knowledge in a fieldwhich is yet insufficiently explored by inadequate theoretical instruments, but also afield which has a potential of theoretical and technological development with major

implications towards theoretical knowledge as a whole, and has as purpose torebuild the knowledge of the structure of matter on new principles of determinism,

causality and the dynamic of the electromagnetic structure of elemental particles.As a whole, the proposed theory is not an innovation in the process of

knowledge but a return to the tradition of classical physics, of the understanding ofelectromagnetism as a fundament of the profound understanding of the structure of

thee microcosms.I kept in mind the processual approach to the microcosms in a more

rigorous and profound way, fundamental to the complex description of the action ofthe forces which define the atomic structure and their effects in a dynamic spatial-

temporal description of the action of the structure of the microcosms in its entirecomplexity which is completely opposed to the quantum theory.

The popularity of the quantum theory is the fruit of curiosity, ofnonconformist and the frenzy of the era of its debut, of modernism, of thetemptation and growth of sensationalism in knowledge, of a tendency to replace thenatural with the spectacular, of the rational with the emotional.

Many representatives of quantum physics have strongly believed that bydenying spatial-temporal representations, by renouncing determinism and causality,and by making formal knowledge absolute they have made a new physics, capable

of solving the complex problems of the microcosms through methods andapproaches which are radically different, that refer to the understanding of the

physical reality but without the profound implications of what the lack ofdeterminism implies. Many theoreticians have had the faith, and also the delusionalarrogance that they have created a perfect theory.

Is the scientific knowledge on the topic of the microcosms in an actualcrisis? The answer to this question is yes, since the quantum theory has been since

its beginning in conflict with classical physics which it denies and it considers


3/17

358

unusable at the level of the microcosms. Quantum physics has chosen the wrongpath, based on inadequate principles of physical knowledge by denyingdeterminism and causality from the description of the microcosms. The failure of

theoretical knowledge to profoundly understand the causes and processes whichtake place in the structure of the material world represent the essence of the crisiswhich exists in the physics of the microcosms. The choice of the principal ofuncertainty, of the wave-particle duality, of indeterminism, of denying causality

from the principles of quantum physics are the shapes which this crisis takes. Theprofound crisis generated by the quantum theory has jeopardized the normaltheoretical development of the physics of the microcosms gravely affecting physical

knowledge in the 20th century by imposing symbols and clichs as uncertainty,dualism and atemporal behavior in the description of physical phenomena.Now, when we can make a critical analysis from a historical perspective on theimplications of the quantum theory on knowledge and of the values that havebeen promoted, there have been numerous criticisms on the implications that the

quantum physics has on knowledge and of the way in which it relates to physicalreality. As Franco Selleri was saying in his article: In the 20th century, it has

become fashionable to adopt a negative attitude about the comprehensibility ofphysical reality, following the opinions expressed in the late 20s by Bohr,Heisenberg and others.(Selleri 1995, 112).

This attitude was promoted by the supporters of the Copenhageninterpretation, those whose superficial arguments had created last and mostimportant scientific discovery - quantum theory.

Paul Marmet, one of the most radical critics if the quantum theory has saidat the end of his article: It must also be realized that many philosophers, admiring

the apparent success of scientific achievement, have decided to study physics andits interpretation of nature. When some philosophers read about the Copenhageninterpretation, they make the sad discovery about all the absurdities taught in

science. Philosophers discover that the teaching of absurdities is just as common inphysics as in philosophy. Those philosophers rightfully feel that they are back in the

dark ages of humanity.Finally the author has an overly pessimistic attitude: There is not muchhope for new scientists to try writing new papers to rationalize physics unless they

accept to end their career. Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno and imprisonedGalileo. Even in our century, a dissident of the Copenhagen interpretation isrejected and called a crank. Even so, lately philosophers and physicists, some of

them extremely well known, have criticized different aspects of quantum physics,and even the theory as a whole either implicitly or explicitly. Despite this, many aretrying to solve the thorny problems of quantum theory from within, withoutunderstanding the fact that quantum theory is, from a conceptual point of view,erroneous. Basing it on the wave-particle dualism, indeterminism, the discrete

character of energy and the denial of causality has made the quantum theoryinoperable at level of the atomic structure.

The general perception at the level of common knowledge is still that the

quantum physics is the last and greatest achievement of science, a concept whichcan only be changed by a new theory that can replace the old one by a profound


4/17

359

description and interpretation of the structure of the microcosms. We are willing totake on the risk of criticizing quantum physics, and developing a new theory toreplace it.

Critical analysis quantum theoryThere are numerous epistemologists which criticize quantum mechanics,

among which we find Arkady Plotnitsky, who denies its descriptive nature: In

short quantum mechanics onlypredictsbut does not describe. Classical physics,by contrast, does both within its proper scope. (Plotnitsky 2003, 1653).

Paul Marmet believes that the predictive nature is a consequence of thedescriptive nature, and that these two are independent or disjoint traits. The bestdescription of Nature is the one that is closest to reality. It is the consequence of thatunderstanding of Nature that should allow scientists to predict new results.

Criticism to the quantum theory must be analyzed on the theoretical basisas well as on the basis of the analysis criteria. If it is analyzed from the perspective

of classic mechanics the theory does not describe or predict the physical phenomenaof the microcosm in that it does not have a spatial-temporal component.

From the point of view of describing the singularity of quantum processes

and phenomena these are probabilistic descriptions which do not refer to, andcannot be applied to singular processes. The limited character of quantumknowledge can be described as an "evaluating knowledge" limited to an estimatefrom the point of view of energy of the atomic structure. The indeterministcharacter of the quantum estimate makes the theory unusable for the purpose of

causal prediction and as a procedural description of singular physical phenomena atthe microcosm level.

Franco Selleri proposed in his article "Fundamental Problems of Quantum

Physics" a return to a rational, spatial-temporal and causal description of physicalphenomena: The most fundamental question of modern physics in my opinionconcerns the possibility of giving a rational description of physical reality, whererational means: developed also according to the ideas of causality, of threedimensional space, and of time. All the great men of classical physics sought such a

description: Galilei, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann are some examples. (Selleri1995, 112)

Another author, Emilio Santos, positions himself firmly from a theoreticalpoint of view in his article "Foundations of Quantum Physics" as against the

Copenhagen interpretation, and in favor of a systematic interpretation of physics

The purpose of physics is to understand the world, not just to be able to predict(calculate) the results of the experiments. For many people the ability to predictprovides a sufficient understanding, but not for me. (Santos 1995, 110)

The complexity of the atomic structure has shown that quantum mechanics,as an analytic solution for the wave function, does not satisfy from theoretical,

methodological and epistemological point of view the necessity of a profoundknowledge in accord with our natural way of perceiving and understanding of the

world by its inadequate, indeterministic and probabilistic formal character of thedescription.


5/17

360

The fundamental restructuring of the knowledge of the microcosm is adifficult problem due to the conservative nature of the scientific communityreferring to the fundaments of quantum theory. As Franco Selleri has noticed: It is

difficult to be globally optimistic about the near future, because the scientificcommunity has become very conservative as far as the foundations of modernphysics are concerned. (Selleri 1995, 112).

1. The conservative nature has its origin in the concept that nothing can be

placed above modern physics, which was caused by the exaggerated optimism andfar too big expectations when it comes to quantum physics.

2. Mistrust in the capacity of classical physics to develop, in the spirit of

determinism and causality new valid and consolidated concepts and theoriesregarding the microcosm.

3. Adopting a fatalist-indeterminist attitude regarding the knowledge of theatomic structure.

Bernard dEspagnat, in his article "Fundamental Problems of Quantum

Physics" contests the descriptive character of quantum theory by showing that: conventional quantum mechanics the only firmly grounded theory we have

cannot be interpreted as describing Reality. (dEspagnat 1995, 101) We arereaffirming here the opinion that quantum theory is an excellent theoretical exerciseapplied to an imaginary reality which has nothing to do with the reality of the

atomic structure. This has imposed the development and identification of the forceswhich act in an analytical way in the spirit of classical physics, defining them in ananalytical way, pointing out the shape and effects of all actions and reactions of the

system, summing and underlining them in a numerical way, in an analysis andevaluating system which is different from quantum theory, by underlining the

trajectories of elementary particles which would clarify the description of theatomic model. We should mention that the analytic description of the acting forces,within the new dynamic approach of the dynamic structure has viewed defining the

forces and their action in a very short interval which implies a straight and uniformmovement, after which the results become the initial data points, and after multiple

iterations we get to describe the whole of the trajectories of the elementaryparticles, in their complexity, as a result of the actions of all the forces which definethe atomic and molecular structure.

If we interpret quantum theory as the last report to the real world which itis supposed to describe, we can say that as a general trait the probabilisticinterpretation, the quantum indeterminism is not found in the precisely defined of

all known substances.Jon Bell said in his book Speakable and unspeakable in quantum

mechanics about the fundamentally obscure character of quantum mechanics: Asfor technical mistakes, our theorists do not make them. And they see at once what isimportant and what is detail. So it is another feature of contemporary progress .

This progress is made in spite of the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics.Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded... sleepwalking?

The progress so made is immensely impressive. If it is made by

sleepwalkers, is it wise to shout 'wake up'? I am not sure that it is. So I speak now ina very low voice. (Bell 1987, 170)


6/17

361

WeshouldshowthatEinstein,evensince1906,hascriticizedtheway in

whichPlankhasdeveloped,fromaformalpointofview,hisconstant,considering

it inconsistent fromaphysicalpointofview.Still,he took theposition that this

inconsistency isnotareasontorejectquantumphysicsasawhole.Ibelievethat

fromasubjectivepointofviewwehavetobeunderstandingofEinstein'sposition

which, being involved in finding a theoretical solution to solving the atomic

structuremighthavebeenguidedby:Senonvero,benetrovato2and,lackinganotheroption,hasacceptedtheonlytheoreticalsolutionofthetime.

In the same theme Max Jammer in his book "The Conceptual development

of Quantum Theory" retakes Einstein position and tells us: For although either partof Plancks derivation of (1.16) was in itself consistent, their combination waslogically incompatible. The reason was this: in the electrodynamical part (1) formula(1.16) is based Maxwells theory and the assumption that the oscillator energy is a

continuously variable quantity, whereas in the statistical part (2) this same energy is

treated as a discrete quantity, capable of assuming only values which are multiples ofhv (Jammer, 26)

Considering these points from a severe criticism we can arrive at ehconclusion that Plank's constant is theoretically incompatible from the point of viewof a formal development through the use in its two theories which are mutuallyexclusive (one on the basis of a continuous character of energy and the other on itsdiscrete character) which shows the existence of an unacceptable internal and

underlined the lack of theoretical coherence in the development of a fundamentalconstant of quantum mechanics. If we look at the central role played by Plank's

constant in the frame of quantum mechanics which gives basis and sense to the

entire theoretical construct from both a formal and a conceptual point of view, thenwe can say that in basis of the epistemic analysis shown above, the quantum theory

at a whole is erroneous.This is why we consider valid the criticism brought by Paul Marmet

regarding modern physics as a whole The contradictions found in modern scienceare so absurd that most physicists assume that somebody must certainly havesolved them long ago. The degree of indifference of most physicists about these

contradictions is phenomenal. Great efforts have been made to sustain and presentquantum physics as the only irreplaceable theory of the atomic structure and it isvery difficult, and maybe impossible for those in the education system to not only

admit that their scientific convictions regarding quantum theory are absurd and needto be replaced. I don't agree with the experimentalist view of Franco Selleri whosaid that: a rational description of physical reality will become fully possibleonly once the existing quantum theory is shown to be incorrect in some of itsempirical predictions. (Selleri 1995, 113) Quantum theory is in principle an ample

theoretical construction which is supposed to explain the structure of themicrocosm, and doesn't refer to the punctual and marginal aspects of the reality of

the microcosm. It can't be exclusively validated or invalidated in basis of one ormore experiments. An ample theoretical construction such as that of the quantumtheory can be compared with a puzzle with many pieces. Just because we managed

to fit more pieces it doesn't mean that we have solved the whole puzzle. From this


7/17

362

point of view I consider that a critical analysis of the quantum theory as a whole,starting from the hypothesis, passing through its conceptual development andanalyzing the theoretical consequences is the way to show its lack of basis.

In my opinion a theory based on obscure principles as indeterminism andatamporalism cannot represent a parting point for a valid and credible theoreticalsystem. It maintains in its entire development this indeterminist character anddespite the apparent progress quantum mechanics must be replaced with a

deterministic theory, in the spirit of classic mechanics, compatible with thewaveform description of light. The progress of quantum theory must be seen as oneof circumstance and of short lifespan compared to the older existing theories on the

representation of microcosm. In the ensemble of scientific knowledge it is anobscure theory based on in deterministic principles and at the same time a theorywhich has run its course as it came back to the particle representation of light asopposed to a waveform one.

The electromagnetic theory based on the work of Faraday and Maxwell

shows us that charged particles emit energy if they are deviated from their lineartrajectory. In the atomic structure, if we assume that the nucleus is in a fixed

position, the electron is moving on a circular trajectory around it would inevitablyenter a spiral trajectory and it would crush into the nucleus. As a figurativelyintuitive representation, the quantum theory represents the complex atomic structure

with more electrons an being composed from a fixed nucleus with the electronsmoving around it on undefined trajectories.

Scientific knowledge has the thankless fate to be overwhelmed with

questions that it cannot avoid and cannot give an answer to, being unable tointegrate and solve the theory of all the problems that arise. It starts from the

principles, theories they consider valid or that they intend to invalidate, existingexperimental results or experiments that it proposes to attempt and tries, throughtheoretical development to incorporate new knowledge into existing theoretical

systems and propose new theories which often conflict with the old theories that itreplaces or generates new theories to incorporate new knowledge into more

elaborate and complex theories with greater generalization and coverage.The dynamic electromagnetic theory of the structure of matter that wepropose has in its view a description of particles in which the movement on a

circular trajectory gives some of its energy to the nucleus which in turn from itsmovement, gives some of its energy back to the electron.

The proton-electron dipole presented in the book The end of Quantum

Theory shows that this structure, from an electromagnetic point of view tendstowards a stable structure.

There are moments in the dynamic of knowledge in which the scientificworld needs to assume the role and responsibility of reevaluating existing theories,correcting them or elaborating new and more complex theories which would lack

internal contradictions.I consider that the hypothesis, principles, methods, models used in the

development of a theory are the elements of theory construction, and they

themselves don't have the value of truth. They get validated or invalidated postfactum completely finalizing a theory structure, after empirical testing.


8/17

363

The ensemble of principles which define a theory represent thefundamental theoretical set of a theory and it needs to be constructed inconcordance with the object of study in bases of theories and discoveries of the

time. I consider that there is a singular theoretical solution which defines thefundamental theoretical set, and is the precursor to the theoretical construction.

These principles cannot be randomly selected or as the result of an ideal

game. They are a puzzle with all the pieces, complete and with a preview of thetheoretical solution. They must be in agreement with the reality they describe andmust have a coherent internal structure. Based on these principles and in support ofthe fundamental theoretical set that it will add to as well as the adjacent scientifictheories, the theoretical development is performed.

Further theoretical development of the fundamental theoretical set inmathematical formulas, modeling, experiments, explanation and interpretation mustalways be performed in close connection to the fundamental theoretical set.

Quantum theory, through its creators, has assumed from the point of view

of its development a much to high degree of freedom in operating with the

fundamental principles which define the structure of matter. It put pressure on theinitial theoretical frame and tried to put in agreement theoretical development byremodeling theoretical principles to fit the formal development, creating a theoryapplicable to a virtual reality that has nothing to do with the reality of the physical

atomic structure.For many people the ability to predict provides a sufficient understanding, but

not for me This is the reason why I cannot accept the purely pragmatic (Copenhagen)interpretation of quantum mechanics. In my view, understanding the world means to be

able to know causal relations between events, with influences propagating within lightcones in agreement with relativity theory. (Santos 1995, 110).

Theoretical knowledge has always tried to describe and explain reality byaligning the principles that are the foundation of the explanatory process after

which science, with its specific methods to decipher and elaborate theories inagreement with the fundamental theoretical principles, describe the phenomena anddiscover the laws that rule over a specific part of science.

Without denying the theoretical value o the work "The Ultimate of Reality:Reversible Causality" I have to say that I don't agree with the existence of an

ultimate principle to the description of reality as Azamat Sh. Abdoullaev makes usbelieve in his book Metaphysics is the search for an ultimate principle by which allreal things and relations are ordered. It formulates fundamental statements about

existence and change. Aside from causality and determinism, processuality can beconsidered to be one of the ultimate principles for the description of reality. Theprinciples which form the fundamental set of a theoretical description are importantas a whole as well as by the connections between them.

The critical approach to quantum theory can have as a start quantum type

causality. In order to understand the contradiction between classic causality and thatpromoted by quantum theory we need to look at where it started. As I've shown inmy book "The End of Quantum Theory": The dualism annihilates any form of

determinism through the fact that two contradictory theories describing a singlereality theoretically induce two disjoint and irreconcilable conclusions. From the


9/17

364

point of view of scientific rigor it is certain that the introduction of two different,mutually excluding concepts within the same theoretical system represented adissolution of the scientific knowledge, which brings the quantum theory near the

science fictions literature. (Hodorogea 2008, 8) The somewhat desperate attempt toovercome the insurmountable theoretical difficulties to construct a fundamentalphysical theory on principles which elude referential reality has led to thedevelopment of a hypothetical theory, excessively formalized, that can only be

applied to a virtual reality broken from reality.By trying to prove its superiority over the classic way of thinking in which

causality has a primordial place, those who support it have adopted the unfortunate

strategy of defaming the classical way of thinking and flaunting its superiority overeverything that science had created up to that point using are an argument its"modernity" and overtaking the stated rigor of scientific knowledge up to that point,which is now considered pass.

Just as the ancient thinkers were saying Rerum cognoscere causas3. Paul

Marmet gives causality a central spot in knowledge showing that: Scientists are soused to looking for the cause of an observed specific result that most are not even

conscious of looking for it. It is a natural intelligent reaction to look for causes.Although that discussion seems evident to most of us, since there cannot be anyeffect without cause, this is not obvious to all physicists as we will show.

In a chapter of the book Open Questions in Quantum Physics EftichiosBitsakis is rhetorically asking if causality can be saved in quantum mechanics. Ishould say that any attempt to solve causality, in the spirit of classical thinking ofany kind, in any kind of indeterminist system it will fail and can they be called

impossibility proofs.Many physicists and philosophers have tried to come back to the

deterministic description of the microcosm, or have tried to find a substitute of itthat would fit with quantum theory, in the theoretical system developed by the

quantum theory has created great explanative difficulties just as Franco Selleri hasshown: Formidable obstacles (the so-called impossibility proofs) had been

erected against the desire of many to bring physics back to causality in space andtime: (Selleri 1995, 112) The obstacles are truly impossible to overcome in theframe of the theoretical system based on quantum theory. If we fundamentally

change the working hypothesis, just as I've done in the frame of the dynamicelectromagnetic structure of matter theory (DESM) the return to classic values ofphysics of causality and spatial-temporal representation. The Copenhagen

interpretation leads to the most astonishing set of contradictions that ever existed inscience. Those contradictions are usually presented under the name ofparadoxesbecause that expression seems less absurd. In simple terms, the Copenhageninterpretation leads to observations that clearly imply three insurmountabledifficulties, a) negation of causality b) negation of realism and c) involvement of

infinite and imaginary velocities or masses. Paul Marmet underlines thesecontradictions, on top of the ones that I've previously presented, and by this hedemonstrates the frailty of the theoretical construction of quantum mechanics. It

should be said that a theoretic construction which views itself as scientific.


10/17

365

Cyclic reversible processualityAzamat Sh. Abdoullaev has said in his work "The Ultimate of Reality:

Reversible Causality", that: A reversible process is a cyclical process, and all

cyclical processes are reversible. The world is becoming active because it producesreversible processes; reversible processes organize the world. The world is thetotality of interrelated cyclic processes occurring with all kinds of agents (objects,substances, and things). He advances the idea of a cyclic reversible processuality

which, from my point of view, characterizes and can be applied to the structure ofmatter just as it is described in the theory of electrodynamics presented in this work.

The cyclic component of the fundamental processes that take place in the

intimate structure of matter is given by the waveform character of theelectromagnetic energy resulting from the continuous exchange between the electric

and magnetic field, between particles and the cyclic interaction between theparticles which form the structure of matter.

A point which has generated contradictions in the interpretation ofquantum theory is represented by the problem of spatial-temporal localization of

particles and implicitly accepting the movement of elementary particles thatcompose the structure of atoms on precisely defined trajectories.

From this point of view I don't agree with Jon Bell's statement that: letme argue against a myth... that quantum theory had undone somehow the

Copernican revolution.. (Bell 1987, 170) Giving up the determinist planetarymodel proposed for the first time by Nicolaus Copernicus as a defined systemcompared to the concept and indeterministic representation promoted by quantumtheory is a step backwards on the road to knowledge. The success and acceptance of

the quantum theory has not led to the loss of the spatial-temporal representation andlocalization of the planetary system.

Many physicists as well as scientific philosophers have tried to give aclassic interpretation to the structure of the microcosm by giving a spatial-temporal

description that contradicts the uncertainty principle. Among them a special place istaken by Karl Popper whom in his early works proposed new interpretations of the

concept of probability and in his last works comes back to the necessity of a spatialdescription in quantum physics. I propose that the thesis which EPR tried toestablish was this: a particle possesses sharp position and momentum, and thus a

trajectory; and ourknowledge of a particle's position cannot, qua knowledge, disturbits momentum: the particle's momentum remains undisturbed. It remains a particle,having position andmomentum and a trajectory, a path. (Tarozzi 1985, 5) All of

these tries to make quantum theory compatible with the deterministic way ofthinking will fail since the fundamental theoretical set of it is indeterministic and areturn to the deterministic spatial-temporal description doesn't do anything else

except to add a to the confusion regarding its construction and descriptive valence.Thus, quantum mechanics as complementarily may indeed be seen as

containing an essential mystery. This mystery is defined by the fact that

complementarily places beyond the limits of quantum mechanics somethingessentially responsible for all observable phenomena in question in it. In particular,it places beyond these limits quantum objects and processes or what we infer or, asI shall explain presently, theorize or idealize as such on the basis of the data in


11/17

366

question. In other words, complementarily leaves the ultimate objects it considersbeyond any explanation, specifically in terms of an underlying space-time physicaldescription of the kind we use in classical physics (Plotnitsky 2003, 1651)

When we accept that there are phenomena and physical processes beyondthe theoretical limits of quantum knowledge that is situated outside of thefundamental quantum hypothesis we accept the failure of the quantum theory or atleast the limited cognitive character of quantum knowledge.

Some physicists have considered complementarities as a way to replace theclassical framework nonlocality becomes a very strange property: it is notaction at a distance; it is not persistence of pre-existing correlations; it does not

involve energy propagation in space, etc. So what, if anything, is nonlocality? Ithink that nobody knows. (Barut 1995, 97)

Quantum agnosticism represents the philosophical concept developed by

quantum theory to express the impossibility of knowing the position, speed,impulse and trajectory of an electron moving around the nucleus. At its origin it hasthe principle of uncertainly as an initial condition of the theoretical system

developed by quantum theory by describing the discrete energy of the structure ofthe material world. The assumption that energy is discrete was made purely basedon formal theoretical reasons.

At that time the theoretical means did not offer physicists the options that

we have now, and I'm talking specifically about numeric modeling that can solvedynamic problems of structures that could not have been efficiently solved by othermeans. Mario Bunge underlined that the choice of an authentic problem, even an

essential one is insufficient for producing adequate results.We have to remark the argument that some epistemologists bring, among

whom Karl Popper stands out by his tracing position in respect to the interpretation ofquantum theory, being a strong opposition of the excessively formalized theoreticalconstruct as well as its agnostic interpretation, but he is still in line with those who

support quantum theory. I am a realist, and I believe in the reality of matter, of energy,of particles, of fields of forces, of wavelike disturbances of these fields, and of

propensity fields (de Broglie fields). (These remarks are conjectural, of course.) And Isuggest that quantum mechanics is misinterpreted when it is not interpreted realistically.I also suggest that quantum mechanics says nothing whatever about epistemology,

about our knowledge and its limits. (Tarozzi 1985, 4)In the attempt to solve the problem of the structure of matter theoreticians

have adopted the restrictive and simplistic solution of a discrete energy structure inthe frame of the internal structure of matter. To solve the problem of the field-

matter interaction first we need to solve the problem of the theoretical compatibilityof the two systems - the discrete structure of the internal energy and the continuousstructure of electromagnetic radiation. In complete contradiction with the

electromagnetic theory of light and its waveform structure, confirmed byexperimental results regarding the interference and diffraction of light, quantum

theory simplifies things and presents the wave-particle interaction as being discretebetween substance and a hypothetical particle associated with the electromagneticwave called photon - a measure of the energy exchange.


12/17

367

Systemic analysisIn the attempt to formulate a theory for the atomic structure, the

creators of quantum theory have created a set of principles and initial conditions

in basis of which they could build the theory of the atomic structure.The fundamental hypothesis of quantum theory regarding the discrete

character of the energy has represented a major approximation that has as purposesimplifying the solution of the system but consequently also gives a drasticreduction of the possibilities to completely describe the interaction between all the

elements of the system. The distant interaction of the elements comprised within thesystem cannot be analyzed in a system where energy and energy exchanges anddiscrete and in a fixed quantity. Quantum theory is a hypothetical solution to animaginary reality which has gone so far from reality that it seems like it lost allconnection to it.

The vague character of the quantum description, underlined by various

authors gives us the reason to consider quantum theory as an approximatedknowledge with a vague definition of concepts, based on the uncertainty principleand on the discrete quality of the structure of the microcosm in opposition to the

deterministic knowledge - causal and with a continuous description of thetrajectories of movement of the elementary particles.

This vague character of the quantum theory can be proven by theimprecision of the terms that it uses. In the article Quantum Objects are Vague

Objects the authors show that: the defender of ontic vagueness to accept thatvague objects must be strongly indistinguishable in the sense that any identity-freeproperty determinately possessed by either must be determinately possessed by

both, but that is precisely what quantum mechanics tells us is the case!.(French

and Kraus 1996. 21-33) In the rest of the article the authors identify a series of

aspects which demonstrate the vague character of quantum theory:

- Quantum particles representation (understood in non-trivial sense).- Indistinguishability of non-individuality for quantum particles- In classical statistical mechanics a particle permutation is counted as

observable, whereas in the quantum theory it is not

- Precisely is a failure of (self-)identity that is attributed to quantumparticles

- The electrons are absolutely indistinguishable in the `strong' sense.The analysis of the components of the atomic structure separated in nucleus

and electron shell that appear as two distinct and unconnected entities divided intwo separate branches of physics: quantum and nuclear, gives us reason to underlinethe necessity of a systemic analysis where the theoretical approach analyzes theatomic structure as a unified complex structure without arbitrary borders ortheoretical solutions based on circumstance.

The existing scientific theories - based on quantum theory - have the wrongapproach as a theoretical interpretation of the structure of the material world, havinga unilateral view and a conventional and limited description of the components, astatic view regarding them. The lack of clarity and scientific clarity in the

description of the structure of matter at the level of the microcosm, from both the

point of view of physics as well as chemistry can be pointed out by the fact that


13/17

368

these two sciences don't explicitly describe the nature of the bonds that existbetween the elements of the material world as I'm trying to define it in the frame ofthe DESM theory as a complex of forces of electromagnetic and gravitational

nature what interact and determine the movement of the elements.Quantum approach doesn't tell us anything about the stability or instability

of the proposed pattern. Also it can't explain the relationship between the entitieswhich define the system, and don't explain the procesuallity of the phenomena of

the microcosm.Another problem hasn't been approached or elucidated by the quantum

theory is that of the aggregation states. The transition between one state and another

is done by energy inputs and outputs. It should be mentioned that the same inputsand outputs can take place in the case of atomic structures without modifying thestate of aggregation. This is the problem: what is the essential difference betweenthe atomic and molecular structures when the latter changes the state ofaggregation? Quantum theory remains a completely obscure theory on this point.

We define the notion of state of space as a characteristic of the atomic andmolecular structures in which the dynamics of the trajectories remains in the same

class as th events determined by the ratio between the forces that define theunchanged atomic structure.

If we analyze quantum theory from the point of view of the method by

which we can appreciate that it did not take into consideration the processualanalysis of the atomic structure, based on valid scientific theories (waveform theoryof light) but was set on isolated components of reality such as the absorption andemission of light that it tried to solve with a theory which has run its course

(particle theory of light) and which the physics world had given up on.In the development of quantum theory initially they have tried to use

solutions that have been already used for the development of the planetary model ofthe atom (Bhor's model) in which the nucleus is in the middle of the system and the

electrons are moving around it. The quantum part of this model came into play toexplain the emission and absorption of an energy quanta. This model is a

descriptive model and it explains the interaction between the electron and thenucleus in a classic fashion.Newtonian mechanics has fascinated and influenced the appearance of

quantum mechanics by the fact that using a relatively simple equation such as:

it explains the entire planetary and universal cosmology.

It is an account of the Copernican revolution, with Copernicus, Kepler,

and Galilei as heroes. Koestler was of course impressed by the magnitude of thestep made by these men. He was also fascinated by the manner in which they made

it. He saw them as motivated by irrational prejudice, obstinately adhered to, makingmistakes which they did not discover, which somehow cancelled at the importantpoints, and unable to recognize what was important in their results, among the massof details. He concluded that they were not really aware of what they weredoing...sleepwalkers. I thought it would be interesting to keep Koestler's thesis in


14/17

369

mind as we hear at this meeting about contemporary theories from contemporarytheorists. (Bell 1989, 169)

The multitude of forces and the complexity of the field have made

necessary a complex approach that didn't represent a simple analytical solution,similar to that of the planetary model. In this way major adjustments andmodifications have been made in the system of initial hypothesis in hopes of

finding a solution for the atomic model that have places the new theory inopposition to the classic norms and concepts. After crystallizing the theoretical setof the fundamental theories, quantum theory seems to be a rather doubtful ad hochypothesis.

A fundamental physical concept that calls to the quantum theory in its

conceptual development is black-body radiation. It should be noted that thisconcept is a hypothetical one, a theoretical convention, a statistical approximationthat refers to the emission or absorption of electromagnetic radiation that reflects anundeniable truth. The quantity of energy of the electromagnetic wave increases with

the increase in frequency and gives the continuous distribution of radiation as a

thermal effect. I've analyzed in detail this concept to show that Plank's constantthat is the master key to the quantum theory underlined that it's theoretical nature isa statistical one.

Quantum theory has taken for itself, without any relevant cognitive reason,

the title of the last and most profound form of knowledge, becoming a fashionabletheory. The lack of a singular vision regarding the interpretation of quantum realitythat has created for many researchers the illusion that they can clarify if andtherefore gain easy popularity by adhering to this fashionable theory.

Atomic physics must be reconstructed on the basis of new elements oftheory by returning to the spirit and values of classical physics. I have chosen this

complicated and slow road to describe the structure in a coherent way from thepoint of view of the fundamental theoretical principles and of the theoretical

mechanisms that have been validated for centuries in classical mechanics.Physics is the fundamental science that aims to understand all

fundamental things of Nature. The role of physics is to improve our understandingof things surrounding us, at the macroscopic as well as at the microscopic scale.

Classical physics, which we are trying to expand to the microcosm and

implicitly to demonstrate its solidity and viability in operating with chargedparticles without the need for quantum concepts. If we accept that these particlesare moving, this implies a modification in the tridimensional space and a time in

which this movement takes place.

Quantum indeterminism and probabilistic determinationThe majority of those who wrote about quantum theory have seen it as the

supreme creation of scientific knowledge and have approached it in a superficialand uncritical way. The main characteristic of quantum theory in the explicit

indeterminism assumes by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.Quantum indeterminism as a philosophical basis is in opposition to the

determinism of the procession nature of the material world.


15/17

370

In the end quantum theory appears as a self named, encased part oftheoretical knowledge, in which the principles on which the entire classicalknowledge are based , our common way of interpreting and understanding the

world (determinist, spatial-temporal and causal) loses all sense. The problem is thefact that quantum theory couldn't reinterpret the whole of the knowledge of classicalphysics, and couldn't transpose it to its own code of principles and theoreticalstandards.

Let's analyze such an approach that has solidified in the particle concept ofthe light. It is an example of quantum reinterpretation of the structure ofelectromagnetic radiation to make it compatible with the quantum structure of the

atomic shell and the photon with which it interacts.With this representation in the quantum system the electromagnetic wave

(characterized by the electrical and magnetic intensity, precise spatial-temporalrepresentation, spatial-temporal processuality of the transformation of the electricand magnetic fields, oscillation frequency, polarization, faze, speed and direction of

movement) is transformed into a photon that is only characterizes by energy,direction and speed. Analyzing the two representations we can see that the

electromagnetic representation is better defined, richer in physical informationcompared to the particle view of quantum physics.

From the point of view of classical physics the photon representation of

light corresponds to a preexisting electromagnetic representation that is generallyconsidered as left behind.

To analyze and interpret the complex physical phenomena that studycharged particles in motion outside of the theory of electromagnetism is completely

without sense.I don't agree with sustaining quantum theory with authorities arguments by

those that have created the theory as opposed to those who contest its merits such asJon Bell: So I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious

mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that 'information' is the real stuffof physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of

contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... byintrospection. (Bell 1987, 170)A quanta of energy is a fundamental unit of measure of the atomic structure

in the quantum representation which differentiates the energy levels, explains theinteraction of the atomic structure with light (emission and absorption) as a particleand its effect of these interactions on the atomic structure, and represents an

indeterministic measure from the point of view of localization and separation in thedescription of the microcosm. It is not indeterministic in a quantum sense. Peoplehave interpreted the insufficient theoretical descriptions and problems as virtues ofa new way of theoretical knowledge.

Karl Popper does not consider quantum uncertainty as a principle of the

theory but as a subjective doctrine, an interpretation referring to the precision ofmeasurement.

There should be a clear distinction between waves and particles, betweentheir properties and specific ways to manifest themselves. They are complementary

in the sense that they represent the two forms that matter can take. To replace in the


16/17

371

quantum theory the term duality with the term complementarily does not solve thebackground problem of interpretation.

Excessive formalizationThe formal description needs to be constructed and developed in harmonywith the purposes of the theory and in its integrity. In the whole process of

theoretical development we have to keep in mind to adapt the formalism to theneeds and purposes of the theory. To fulfill its purpose, the formalism of a physicstheory is a mathematic instrument with a profound content physically adapted to thepurposes of knowledge.

Formalism in itself lacks the value of truth, cannot be extracted anddeveloped outside of the theory that generated it. It does not get theoretical

autonomy and it cannot formally substitute the theory. The theoretical evaluation isapplied to the theory as a whole.

Just as a scientific theory cannot be reduced to its formal development and

cannot be its substitute, the formalism of the theoretical development cannot existindependently and cannot be a substitute for the theory as a whole. Formalism canbe, under certain conditions, the quintessence of a theory when the theoreticaldevelopment imposes this, but it still cannot be a substitute for the theory, and it

cannot determine its factual interpretation.Blind faith in formalism and strictly formal interpretation that contradicts

the theory as a whole, or turns the theory away from the purpose of describing the

physical world with its real concrete facts is not the right path to follow. Manytheories have as a stage, from the point of view of their theoretical development, the

formal description, however that does not explain the tendency of many physiciststo focus excessively on the mathematic apparatus. There are fields, such as the onethat we are discussing (figuring out the atomic structure) where the formaldevelopment is not sufficient and does not represent the end of the theoreticalprocess.

In the theory presented in the book The end of Quantum Theory, the

formal development shows only the behavior of a dipole composed of two chargedelementary particles in a very short time that we are approximating as being linear

on its trajectory. We need a new step in the theoretical development and that is thenumeric modeling which will show the behavior of physical particles and the

atomic structure as a whole, in its entire procesuality.

REFERENCES:1. Abdoullaev, Azamat Sh. The Ultimate of Reality: Reversible Causality,

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meta/MetaAbdo.htm

2. Barut, Asim O., On the Status of Hidden Variable Theories in QuantumMechanics,APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1995), p. 97.

3. Bell, J. S. 1989. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,Cambridge University Press.


17/17

372

4. Bell, Jon. 1987. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, CambridgeUniversity Press.5. Culda, Lucian. 1992.Procesualitatea social. Bucureti: Licorna.6. dEspagnat, Bernard, Fundamental Problems of Quantum Physics,

APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1995), p. 101.7. French, Steven, and Dcio Kraus. 1996. Quantum Objects are Vague Objects,

SORITESIssue #06.

8. Hodorogea,Mihai.2008.TheEndofQuantumTheory,Bucureti:AxiomaPrint.9. Jammer, Max, The Conceptul Developement of Quantum Mechanics, Mc

Graw-Hill.

10. Marmet, Paul. Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution,http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca11. Plotnitsky, Arkady, Mysteries without Mysticism and Correlations without

Correlata: On Quantum Knowledge and Knowledge in General, Foundations of

Physics, Vol. 33, No. 11, (November, 2003) pp. 1651, 1653.12. Santos, Emilio, Foundations of Quantum Physics: Present and Future,

APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4, (October, 1995), p. 110.13. Selleri, Franco, Fundamental Problems of Quantum Physics,APEIRON, Vol.

2, No. 4 (October, 1995), p. 112.14. Tarozzi, A. van der Merwe G. (eds). 1985. Open Questions in Quantum

Physics, Kluwer Academic Publisher, by Karl R. Popper.

ENDNOTES:___________________________________________________

1Natureisthegreatestinthesmallestthings.2An Italianadagiumwhichtranslates intosomething like: If it'snottrue,at leastit'swellinvented.3

To know the causes of things.

Articol Tricorne

Documents

Transcript of Articol Tricorne