Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
PLAN OF 0.FIRST AND SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
0a outline
FIRST ENLIGHTENMENT
0b galilean relativity and newton
0c descartes
0d aether and dogmatic thinking
SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
0e einstein and extended relativity
0f kant and einstein
Og EPR Paradox
SITE PLAN
The EPR Paradox
NOTE: neologies and ambiguous terms clarified in GLOSSARY
are marked "[G]".
The EPR Paradox is based upon a simple mental experiment
representing the Quantum Entanglement of two photons.
Let LAB be a Referential[G] with central Observer OS(ource)
and 2 Observers OL(eft), OR(ight) aligned and separated from
OS by the distance K=1 LightYear in opposite, left and right
directions.
Let a neutral pion at rest at position OS decay into a pair
of photons described by a two-particle Field wave function,
set off in opposite, left and right directions.
After the separation, the photons rest "entangled", i.e. are
still described by the same wave equation, so that relations
among their aspects stay as they were at the moment of
separation, unaffected by their growing spatial distance.
The neutral pion is a scalar particle having zero angular
momentum. By virtue of momentum preservation the photons set
off in opposite directions with opposite (say up and down)
spins SX,SY along X and Y axes. Let's call the left and right
photons PL,PR and their spins SXL,SYL and SXR,SYR.
Observers OL and OR are reached simultaneously by PL and PR.
Let's suppose that upon arrival of PL, OL observes its X spin
as SXL=up. The Uncertainty Principle says that only one of
noncommuting aspects (here SXL,SYL) may be observed precisely
within one system (here photon), others being necessarily
blurred. OL, respecting it, refrains from observing SYL.
Similarly, OR observes PR's SYR=down, refraining from
observing SXR.
However, due to momentum preservation, PL's SXL=up implies
PR's SXR=down and PR's SYR=down implies alike SYL=up in PL.
Thus, both aspects of both systems are revealed.
This conclusion is known as "EPR Paradox", because it
contradicts QT, which extends the uncertainty principle
over both entangled photons and affirms that observation
of SXL would instantaneously blur SYR and vice versa.
The reciprocal blurring would, of course, postulate the
impossibility of SXL and SYR observations, so, in order to
keep the Paradox open to discussion, we shall reduce it to
"half-EPR", consisting of the single SXL observation and
QT's claim of instantaneous determination of precise SXR
and blurred SYR.
Discussion of the EPR Paradox lasted for the whole 20th
Century and has not yet been concluded. It was too strongly
affected by irrational dogmatism, by personal frustration
and animosity, by well minded, yet misleading friendliness,
to be quoted directly without disambiguation, which we
endeavor to carry out below.
We shall start by briefly reminding two cornerstones of QT,
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Schroedinger's
Equation and follow with implied claims and objections.
Note: The EPR triggered discussions and experiments may
occasionally replace photons with electrons, which does not
affect our issue, as electron, like photon may be deemed
to be a singularity packet of electo-magnetic Field
propagating at C. This apparently contradicts the Special
Relativity which transforms a rest mass moving at C to
infinity. However, electron as any particle has two
P-Equivalent[G] aspects: mass-particle and Field-packet.
It is born and it dies as particle, but it propagates as
Field wave packet carrying energy corresponding to the rest
mass in transverse oscillations. Inertial particles move
at C only as electro-magnetic waves and switch to their
"material" aspect only when stopped or slowed down.
A) Cornerstones of Copenhagen Interpretation (C-I)
AA) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP)
The position of a body can be judged by looking at it, ie,
by observing the photons bounced off the object and arrived
at our eyes. The position of a car is not much altered by
the photons bouncing off it. But if photons are bounced off
an electron to determine its position, its velocity will be
altered and uncertain. Photons with shorter wavelength and
higher energy have less diffraction and determine electron's
position more precisely, but in doing so they alter the
electron's velocity more radically.
Observing an aspect of a particle we necessarily use some
physical detector whose action affects and blurs its other
aspects. It's a drawback of our physical perception which
restricts its certainty, but in no way determines the
intrinsic characteristics of the particle prior to the
measurement. Heisenberg elevated this simple measurement
problem to the metaphysical intrinsic quality of particles,
whose properties don't exist before an Observation creates
them as precise/blurred couples. This implies that particles
being structures of properties don't exist, unless observed.
The logical consequence of this interpretation is that there
is no sound in a forest when a tree falls if there is no one
there to observe it, actually, that unobserved tree and
forest don't exist. (Einstein once asked Niels Bohr if the
moon exists when no one is looking at it.)
Thus, C-I began to deny the very existence of an unobserved
electron. From the positivist idea that it is meaningless
to discuss the existence of something unobservable, came the
idea that the electron is an unreal, causeless "possibility"
which only achieves existence upon observation. Thus
Positivism became twisted into Solipsism and into the idea
that the observer somehow creates "reality" by the act of
observation.
HUP holds for direct observations, but has been falsified by
deferred ones, such as photography. A photographic plate
containing the track of an electron can be used to determine
position and velocity within less than the uncertainty limit.
In a rather strange bit of reasoning Heisenberg denied the
evidence of the photographic plate by asserting that his
Uncertainty Principle is only relevant to predicting the
future, and that "this knowledge of the past is of a purely
speculative character", adding "It is a matter of personal
belief whether such a calculation concerning the past history
of the electron can be ascribed any physical reality or not."
(The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930))
For some reason, most physicists chose this personal belief
which denied physical reality of the past and conformed to
Heisenberg's and C-I's reality of the future, without
noticing the intrinsic contradiction: HUP is supposed to
concern Observation, but Observation, once perceived, slips
into the past, thus quitting the "future reality" and the
supposed relevance of HUP.
And yet, it's obvious to anybody with a slightest notion of
Ontology that whatever "existence" or "reality" may mean,
they may be ascribed only to the past, while future is the
domain of possibility, of expectance and of project. Even
the most "idealist" Philosopher, Hegel, stated it in one
of nicest and never contested assertion of Philosophy:
"Wesen ist, was gewesen ist".
In this light, and in spite of his mathematical brilliance,
Heisenberg appears as a mediocre Physicist and as a fatuous
Philosopher, tainting the whole C-I with amateurish
Solipsism.
AB) Schroedinger's Equation (S-E)
S-E describes the probability of observing a particle in a
particular location, like the airline timetable describes
the probability of the plane from Paris to arrive in London.
Probability refers to future expectation. Conscious
observation "collapses", in terms of QT, the S-E, switching
probability to knowledge. Waiting at the airport we expect
the plane as predicted by the timetable, but we know that it
arrived only after its observed landing. C-I would claim
that the conscious observation of the landing "collapses"
the timetable and switches the flight from a "possibility"
to an existing plane, which did not exist prior to its
landing being observed. However, simple people awaiting
it and ignoring the intricacies of C-I, don't question its
existence, but, when it belates, worry about what may have
happened to it en route, observed or not.
And yet, great mathematicians affirm that the plane is just
an unreal, causeless "possibility" projected by the timetable
and achieving existence only by an observation "collapsing"
the timetable. Or, at least, that's exactly what they assert
with respect to a particle achieving existence only through
a conscious observation collapsing the S-E. With the only
excuse that the expertly handled QT's equations cover from
them the gist of Physics, as so decently admitted Feynman.
Talking about S-E we have to mention how Schroedinger himself
evaluated its epistemological and physical sense. He created
the famous cat in order to reduce ad absurdum the "dogmatic
QT" with its "consciousness created reality" and to keep
probability at its due place.
Yet, amazingly, most of physicists turned it upside down
asserting that the cat does not exist as long as nobody looks
into the box and comes to (alive or dead) existence only by
virtue of somebody peering at it. And such is the power of
Nobel Prizes and of mathematical celebrity, that none got
certified.
To have a full picture of the S-E collapse we have to recall
that quantal experiments use technological detectors, whose
records are subsequently examined by scientists. That raises
the question: will S-E collapse and the observed object start
existing at the moment of recorded detection, or when the
experimenter looks at the record. Supposing that tha cat
in the box has been X-rayed at time T, alive and kicking.
The conscious Observation takes place a year afterwards,
when the experimenter finally looks at the film. Was the
cat brought to existence at T by the X-ray device, or
by the experimenter looking at the film a year afterwards,
but always calling it to existence at T, instantaneously,
via retroactive, backwards bouncing time. C-I favored this
latter case, as the X-ray device is not conscious and it's
consciousness that collapses S-E and creates "reality".
So, a fellow looking at a X ray film calls a cat into
existence a year ago. What, if the cat reveals himself as
big and uncharitable, jumps out of the box and devours the
fellow, always a year ago? Who would then look at the film
and call the cat to existence? And supposing that the fellow
gets amnesia and forgets all about ever having seen the film?
Does the cat, called to ephemeral existence fall back to
nothingness, both instantaneously, a year ago?
The reason wobbles a bit, but perhaps it may be restored to
stability by the Many-Worlds-Interpretation (MWI), a version
of C_I. According to it, Schroedinger's cat is alive in some
"Worlds" and dead in others. The fellow, doubtless as well.
BTW, the "mystery" of electron's doppelganger of the Double
Slit experiment simply explicable by electron's interaction
with slits' physical matrix, is explained by C-I's MWI as
apparition from another "World".
For readers who might not believe their eyes, we recall that
MWI has been embraced by such prominences as Hawking and
Weinberg.
B) Instantaneous transfer of information
BA) Transfer among observers OL, OS, OR.
C-I's claims that OL's observation of SXL=up collapses S_E
and creates both photons PL and PR. Besides his own
observation OL instantly knows that PR exists, that it has
the X spin SXR=down and that its Y spin SYR is blurred.
Shelving for the moment the demiurgical, creational nature
of observation, let's examine the claim of OL's immediate
knowledge of PR and its aspects.
At the instant of observation OL certainly knows that the
photon PL exists and has the X spin SXL=up, but what about
other elements of the EPR structure?
Let's suppose that OL is au courant of:
A)EPR structure as described above.
B)the principle of momentum conservation,
C)the Heisenberg Principle.
Then he infers from his observation that
IF A) and B) and C) hold
THEN D)there exists the photon PR with X spin SXR=down
and Y spin SYR blurred.
However, inference is not knowledge. As long as it is not
confirmed or falsified by factual information it stays a
surmise. OL may expect D) to hold, but he does not know if
his observed photon PL really originated in pion's decay at
S and will know it only after receiving information from
OS, which will not be immediate, but will take a year (the
distance OL-OS defined as K=1 LightYear).
Still, even this information will not inform OL about PR.
True, he knows now that a photon PR entangled with his
observed PL had been emitted at S as designed by EPR. Yet,
he is not certain that it arrived at its supposed destination
OR, as it could be for instance absorbed en route by some
unknown agent. OL has to be informed by OR about the arrival
of PR, which takes 2 years. And even then OL will only expect
PR's Y spin SYR to be blurred, unless OR observes and
confirms it.
So, there is no instantaneous transfer of knowledge among
Observers OL, OS, OR. Consequently, this fundamental claim
of the C-I may be supported within the EPR structure, if at
all, then only by transfer between the photons PL and PR.
BB) Transfer between photons
Instantaneous transfer of Information and the involved
collapse of the S-E imply, as we have seen, a conscious
Observer associated, by definition, with some Referential[G].
May a photon be considered as a Referential and what would
that imply? An Observer may be a human being or a technical
detector, both physical bodies having some rest mass. Now,
this mass moving at C would become infinite and require
infinite energy to be propulsed.
So photon may only be considered as an event in the
Referential LAB, but not itself as a Referential and the
last support of instantaneous transfer of Information
vanishes.
Unless we assume that it carries "immaterial" consciousness,
i.e. that we postulate a conscious photon, as did several
advocates of C-I. Not always in so many words. After all one
has some sense of prudishness and shirks the eventuality of
making an ass of oneself in public. Yet, the assertions of
Neumann, Wigner, London and Bauer boil down to "conscious
particles" and thus to Panpsychism, to which we shall return
below.
Shelving it for the moment, let's consider the implications
of photon supposed to be a Referential.
With respect to PL, PR moves at C, so that, by virtue of
Lorentz Transformation, its time stops. Whatever their
spatial distance, PR stays for PL for eternity at the moment
of their separation. Timewise they appear as identical. On
the other hand, the distance measuring rods contract to
zero for the distance expanding at C, so that at the moment
of separation the PL/PR distance instantly becomes infinity.
(GLOSSARY , Einstein's Covering Principle)
The timewise identical couple of photons embraces instantly
the infinite Cosmos. One reads the words, but not getting
their gist, one wonders what thay may possibly mean.
Well, nothing at all, else than Lorentz Transformations
being valid for relative speed V of Referentials smaller
than C, become for V=C meaningless fiddling with infinity.
In other terms, no Referential can move at C, thus a photon
cannot be a Referential ie. carry and communicate knowledge.
Thus, the last hypothetical support of instantaneous transfer
of information vanishes, taking with it the phantasmagoric
claim of the C-I.
Causality versus Acausality
Causality
Causal arguments supported by Planck, Schroedinger,
de Broglie, Bohm, Lande, Popper and Russell, were mainly
formulated by Einstein. However, his published arguments
hardly represent his real opinions.
The original EPR paper, edited for linguistic reasons by
Podolsky had the main point so to speak, buried under the
erudition [die Hauptsache ist sozusagen durch Gelehrsamkeit
verschuettet].
Other publications were overmuch influenced by Einstein's
friendly desire to spare oponents' feelings and by care not
to crash them under the weight of his established authority.
For this reason he refused to follow Schroedinger's
encouragement to choke the "dogmatic quantum mechanics".
He spared particularly Bohr, who went from frustration to
frustration, seeing his Aether wrecked by Relativity, his
Orbit Theory wrecked by QT and finally his adopted C-I view
of QT in danger of being wrecked by Causality, all these
mishaps making him dogmatic and aggressive.
Lorentz whose dear Aether has been wrecked by the Theory of
his student, was embittered to the extent of refusing to call
Relativity by its name, referring to it as to "Einstein's
theory". Rather than ridiculizing his sticking to Aether's
phantasm, Einstein, surprisingly, wrote to him an eulogy of
"the new Aether", which was nothing else than an alias of
GR's #Space[G]. Doing it he killed two birds with one stone,
gratifying Bose, his partner in "Bose-Einstein Condensation"
who, also, rather naively, kept on sticking to Aether.
We would be ill advised to conclude from this expressions of
friendly respect that Einstein confessed some fundamental
error and was returning to Aether. Equally ill advised would
be considering his published arguments as expressions of his
real opinions. Those, conveyed to his collaborators in
private contacts deal largely with Locality and Separability.
However, trying to quote them directly we come up against
another difficulty: as we have noted defining Referential,
(GLOSSARY )
Einstein did not care overmuch about metalanguage, writing
for peers capable to read between lines and impatient to
return to the rigorous language of mathematics.
Taking his following two assertions one feels a bit lost:
1.field theories like general relativity assume separability
in the most extreme possible form, since, in effect, they
regard each point of the space-lighttime manifold as a
separable physical system, endowed with its own, independent
physical state in the form of, say, the value of the metric
tensor at that point.
2. The Principle of Local Action, ... is used consistently
only in field theory.
One would say that Field Theory does not admit any action at
all, as (1) two neighboring points are already independent
systems. How to reconcile it with (2) associating Field with
Local Action? And the Local Action with Gravity Field clearly
supporting action of Sun on Earth, notwithstanding their
large spatial distance, implying some sort of "Locality
acting at Distance"?.
Rather than trying to correct Einstein's ambiguous texts, we
shall attempt to present Causality argumentation in our own
terms based upon such knowledge of his opinions as we could
gather from his correspondence.
Extended Relativity reduced the Model of Cosmos to its two
P-Equivalent aspects, viz. Field and #Space, each of them
given in turn by one of P-Equivalent aspects: Continuum and
Singularity Areas thereof. (Physical "Singularity Area"
denotes the neighborhood of mathematical Singularity, where
Field/#Space equations cease to hold.) "Material" particles
may be considered as "Singularity Packets" of Field located
within Singularity Areas, their exact location therein
staying undetermined due to lacking mathematical tools
pertinent to Singularity Areas.
In order to disambiguate the apparent contradictions of
"Locality acting at Distance" we have defined "Extended
Locality" (E-Locality) in CAUSALITY
as follows: "Two Phenomenon #Space[G] Events are said to be
E-locally related (in a Model) when their Model's Abstract
#Space[G] representations are continuously Transportable via
a geodesic of Field/#Space Continuum to the same "location"
or point of this Continuum."
"Locality" will denote below "E-Locality", unless specified
otherwise.
Based upon this E-Locality we defined the most ambiguous
concept of "Causality" (in the above link) as follows:
"Given E-locally related Events A,B we shall say that they
appear respectively as "Cause" and "Effect" if B has never
been observed without A, while A might have been observed
without B."
Further we say that:
Causality Relation transforms into Implication Relation of
Model's Abstract #Space. Thus, we consider Causality as
P-Equivalent with Implication: to say "A is cause of B" is
for us equivalent with "A implies B".
Weak verifiability and strong falsifiability of Implication
embodies the uncertainty of Causality which is hypothetical,
never verified, but at best not (yet) falsified by eventual
observation of Effect lacking its apparent Cause. Taking
into account the fundamental fuzzyness of Observations
( INTRODUCTION TO RELATIVISTIC PHENOMENOLOGY )
we can conclude:
CAUSALITY IS HYPOTHETICAL, FALSIFIABLE AND FUZZY.
This properties of Causality refute the Bell's Inequality
postulate, derived upon the assumption of Causality being
necessary and exact.
Bell's inegalities being the unique attempt to factually
falsify the causal interpretation of quantal phenomena,
their refutation makes QT entirely compatible with Causality.
Questions arise, what was the need of Acausality, how come
and upon which foundations has been conceived the acausal
Theory and if it can be considered as a Physical Model.
We shall examine them in the next paragraph.
Acausality
In CAUSALITY
we asserted and justified that Phenomenal sense of physical
Models stems from the interplay of Continuum and Discreteness,
Continuity being the founding, "localizing" context of
discrete Singularities. Newton Model, SR and GR clearly
comply with this assertion, representing Universe with
Continuum of Field (implicit for Newton) and Discreteness
of its Singularities.
In the previous paragraph we saw that quantal Phenomena
comply with this view, which is clearly confirmed by the
Quantum Field Theory (QFT), in spite of its superficial
difficulties due to lacking mathematical tools pertinent
to Singularities.
Why then did C-I abandon the continuous Field/#Space aspect
and endeavored to represent Universe one-sidedly in terms
of unfounded, arbitrary Discreteness?
Heisenberg answered it rather clearly with his "It is a
matter of personal belief". C-I is based on personal whim of
a few scientists leaving occasionally their enclosure for
unbridled ramble in the labyrinth of pure speculations. What
motivations could they follow? One can only guess, but the
odds seem to point towards frustration, erbittered jealousy
of Relativity, conceit of creating entirely New Physics,
seducing science-fiction of Many Worlds and panpsychistic
religious revelations.
Those seem to fall within the province of lunatic asylums and
one may ask why we give them so much attention, our essay
dealing with rational foundations of Science. Unfortunately,
Science is easily led astray by established phantasmagorias,
as it happened with Aether and as it is currently the case
of C-I which became the officially established foundation of
Physics.
We shall consider the implications of this fact for Science,
for Epistemology and for Ontology in Conclusions.
Before leaving the present paragraph we shall mention the
strange paradox underlying Acausality:
It argues for its case with help of inference based on
Implications, which are the abstract representation of
Causality. ( CAUSALITY )
Thus Acausality is based upon Causality.
Conclusions
We saw in the preceding paragraph that, C-I falls within the
province of lunatic asylums. Yet, it became the officially
established foundation of Physics and to a large extent of
the ruling, mainly amateurish Weltanschauung. Together with
the inane Predicate Logic
( CA2.INTRODUCTION TO PREDICATE LOGIC )
it degrades contemporary views to insane divagations.
It's enough to have a look a Google to find thousands of
kitchen almanac wisecracks about "indeterminism", Heisenberg
based and backed up by perhaps the most fatuous assertion in
the history of Science, known as Goedel's Theorem
( LIAR'S PARADOX )
Unfortunately, Science relies strongly on established
Ontology. Whether admitted or not, Physical Models are
founded in ontological axioms, postulating time, #Space,
(A)Causality, subjectivity, objectivity, continuity,
discreteness, etc. Progress of Thought consists in successive
approximations, deriving rational Ontology from the state of
the Art of Science and tentatively modifying it in order to
adjust ontological axiomatization to new factual discoveries.
Taking the progression Newton-SR-GR we note that successors
extended forerunners' scope for a minor part and were
reducible to it for the major. Thus SR extended Newton's
scope for the restricted area of subluminal speeds, but
reduces to - and, indeed gets superfluous, for most of
practical speeds including space travel and navigation.
The same applies to GR, reducible to SR for Phenomena
approximable with Inertial Referentials and extending it for
the restricted area of non-inertial Cosmology.
There was no rupture, each successor was "standing on the
shoulders" of the forerunner.
C-I disregards all forerunners and substitutes for rational
Foundations of Physics its own fatuous divagations. And,
unfortunately, we cannot say with Brutus -that they pass by
us as the idle wind, which we respect not- because scientific
establishment, afflicted by collective insanity elevated
them to its first principles.
Consequently, the progress of Physics is hampered, until
somebody has the insight and the courage to discard the
rubbish like Einstein discarded the Aether and to make, as
Dirac said: "some fundamental change in our ideas, probably
a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's
orbit theory to quantum mechanics."
Letting the imagination wander, one can imagine the new,
partially or totally unified Model as a Field Theory
representing particles as singular vortexes of the 4D
LigttimeSpace bent within its immerging 10D #Space.
The Newton or Einstein of this "fundamental change" will
have to create new mathematical tools pertinent to non-linear
phenomena of Singularities, in order to avoid the current
problem of the QFT, discribed by Dirac as:
"When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought
to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong
with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good
theory just by doctoring up that number."
In 1835 the story "The Emperor's New Clothes" was published
in Copenhagen. Hundred years later in the same Copenhagen
the Queen of Physics - Quantum Mechanics - also became new
clothes, of the same sort, called "Copenhagen Interpretation".
How long shall we wait for some child who'll dare to say that
the Queen is naked?
